GM John Idzik Will Win Dee Milliner Contract “Stand Off”

[JetNation]

[Maxman]

I am still shocked that he held out.  This isn't supposed to happen in the new NFL.

[Greenseed4]

Of all our rookies, I'm least worried about Milliner's transition into the league.  He'll be playing the same position he played in college, and Nick Saban has a reputation for preparing players for the NFL.  The fact that Rex likes to put his CBs on islands, means Milliner won't necessarily get caught up in a lot of new terminology; he can use his physical gifts to press and run with the WR2s of the league.  If anything, he might need to adjust his technique if he's not accustomed to playing on both sides of the field (left and right).

 

Anybody know when his absence starts affecting his pocketbook?  It's my understanding that any mini-camp absence starts racking up at $30K per day.

That's a lot of dough.  

[SenorGato]

He's only a CB.  

[New York Mick]

Isn't he hurt anyway?

[BurnleyJet]

His shoulder is still recovering, so he would not practice any way, he's trying it on.

[nycdan]

Sounds like another example of an agent trying to 'score a PR win' while putting his client in a bad situation.  As I read it, all this offset does is stop 'double-dipping', so in the unlikely even the Jets cut Milliner, he can still get another contract, he just can't collect whatever he's paid by the next team from the Jets as well.  Is that really worth holding out for, missing valuable TC time and racking up fines?  Well it doesn't hurt the agent at all since he/they will eventually get paid when they do sign, but it definitely is not good for the player, let alone the team.  And in reality, if the team cuts a first round pick in his first contract term, how much is he even going to get from another team as a busted first-rounder? 

 

Problem is, the agent now has nothing to gain and lots to lose by caving, so this could drag out for weeks.  Did any other first-round picks get the offset waived?  If not, Milliner needs to take a look around, see the writing on the wall, and either get his agent back on track or find himself a new one.

[Patriot Killa]

Starting not to like Dee now... Damn over bite if you don't want to get compared to revis dont do the same exact thing he did his rookie year .. Idiot .. And for what its worth his shoulder better be 100%

[eboozer]

Of all our rookies, I'm least worried about Milliner's transition into the league.  He'll be playing the same position he played in college, and Nick Saban has a reputation for preparing players for the NFL.  The fact that Rex likes to put his CBs on islands, means Milliner won't necessarily get caught up in a lot of new terminology; he can use his physical gifts to press and run with the WR2s of the league.  If anything, he might need to adjust his technique if he's not accustomed to playing on both sides of the field (left and right).

 

Anybody know when his absence starts affecting his pocketbook?  It's my understanding that any mini-camp absence starts racking up at $30K per day.

That's a lot of dough.  

 

Agreed. He's healing and probably looking to come to camp 100% before all the media starts crapping on you and the daily Revis comparisons. 

He's got to be close to 100%.... I'm looking for an August 1 arrival. I'm OK with that

[denden29]

Sounds like another example of an agent trying to 'score a PR win' while putting his client in a bad situation.  As I read it, all this offset does is stop 'double-dipping', so in the unlikely even the Jets cut Milliner, he can still get another contract, he just can't collect whatever he's paid by the next team from the Jets as well.  Is that really worth holding out for, missing valuable TC time and racking up fines?  Well it doesn't hurt the agent at all since he/they will eventually get paid when they do sign, but it definitely is not good for the player, let alone the team.  And in reality, if the team cuts a first round pick in his first contract term, how much is he even going to get from another team as a busted first-rounder? 

 

Problem is, the agent now has nothing to gain and lots to lose by caving, so this could drag out for weeks.  Did any other first-round picks get the offset waived?  If not, Milliner needs to take a look around, see the writing on the wall, and either get his agent back on track or find himself a new one.

 

Very good points but there are no fines involved here.  This isn’t technically a holdout since Milliner is not under contract.

[BurnleyJet]

Very good points but there are no fines involved here. This isn’t technically a holdout since Milliner is not under contract.

Correct we just hold his rights for 12 months.

[faba]

He has Revis fever

[Sperm Edwards]

It's a pretty dicky thing to hold out over.  Basically if the Jets cut him it's going to be because of not-good reasons (either he sucks or is a criminal or has severe personality disorders that have become a distraction in general).  In all of those cases it's the player doing something not-good.  But his pay is still guaranteed anyway so he's covered as long as he isn't suspended.  What he's essentially telling the Jets here, is that if he screws up he's not content with collecting his guaranteed money; he's saying he wants a pay raise for screwing up.  As in, make more money for screwing up than for not screwing up.

 

Pretty tough moral ground to stand on if you ask me.

[Bugg]

This agent is telling the Jets and any prospective team should Millner get to free agency Dee Millner and his agent are a couple of stupid a-holes.

[Iceman88]

It's a pretty dicky thing to hold out over.  Basically if the Jets cut him it's going to be because of not-good reasons (either he sucks or is a criminal or has severe personality disorders that have become a distraction in general).  In all of those cases it's the player doing something not-good.  But his pay is still guaranteed anyway so he's covered as long as he isn't suspended.  What he's essentially telling the Jets here, is that if he screws up he's not content with collecting his guaranteed money; he's saying he wants a pay raise for screwing up.  As in, make more money for screwing up than for not screwing up.

 

Pretty tough moral ground to stand on if you ask me.

 

Except it's not uncommon in NFL contracts, he has every right to go for the most money he possibly can.  He owes the Jets nothing and has only so many years to make his money.

[Sperm Edwards]

Except it's not uncommon in NFL contracts, he has every right to go for the most money he possibly can.  He owes the Jets nothing and has only so many years to make his money.

 

Of course it's his right to do hold out for the best deal he can get for himself, but I'm saying it's not a lot of moral ground to stand on when the Jets are already guaranteeing his entire contract.  Except for rookie deals, no one gets their entire contract guaranteed & this is therefore significantly different than other "not uncommon" contract language.

 

I get that it's supposed to be a disincentive for the team to release him before his contract is up, even if he gets paid either way.  My issue with it is this:  he's effectively saying he wants more money if he sucks or misbehaves horribly than if he's good & stays out of trouble. 

[Iceman88]

Of course it's his right to do it, but I'm saying it's not a lot of moral ground to stand on.  But except for rookie deals, no one gets their entire contract guaranteed & is therefore significantly different than other "not uncommon" contracts.

 

He's effectively saying he wants more money if he sucks than if he's good. 

 

Morals have no place in the argument, NFL teams have never thought about things morally before cutting players, why should players do that now?

 

You sum it up in an extremely pro management argument, you could also just argue he wants the Jets to fully pay the amount they agreed to regardless of circumstances.  It's not like he's the only rookie who has ever fought against offset language or if he wins had a contract that does not include it.  It's not uncommon in rookie contracts.

[neckdemon]

i really don't see how he has any leverage here at all. worst case scenario is he never signs and has to sit out for a year. no one is gonna want to draft him nest year after sitting out an entire year as a rookie who has never played in the nfl and has just sat out a year with the reason being he held out because he wantd to double dip. he will effectively end his career

[neckdemon]

Morals have no place in the argument, NFL teams have never thought about things morally before cutting players, why should players do that now?

 

You sum it up in an extremely pro management argument, you could also just argue he wants the Jets to fully pay the amount they agreed to regardless of circumstances.  It's not like he's the only rookie who has ever fought against offset language or if he wins had a contract that does not include it.  It's not uncommon in rookie contracts.

 

 

rookie contracts are fully guaranteed so your argument makes no sense. he gets the fully guaranteed money either way. he actually gets more if he is cut for playing badly or having some other issue

[Iceman88]

rookie contracts are fully guaranteed so your argument makes no sense. he gets the fully guaranteed money either way. he actually gets more if he is cut for playing badly or having some other issue

 

Yeah he gets more so what?  This is a pretty standard aspect to most rookie contracts which are the cost of doing business.  A good amount of rookie contracts do not include any offset language.  He wants to protect his future by insuring he gets the best deal possible, I have no issues with anybody doing that.

 

By the way he has a ton of leverage, the Jets desperately need him this season.

[Sperm Edwards]

Morals have no place in the argument, NFL teams have never thought about things morally before cutting players, why should players do that now?

 

You sum it up in an extremely pro management argument, you could also just argue he wants the Jets to fully pay the amount they agreed to regardless of circumstances.  It's not like he's the only rookie who has ever fought against offset language or if he wins had a contract that does not include it.  It's not uncommon in rookie contracts.

 

Except he's making it about morals if he takes this as his argument.  If his contract is fully guaranteed, what difference does it make to him if someone else pays a portion of it? Especially if it's a team he chose himself upon getting released.  

 

If that is his argument then he's saying it's the moral reason that the Jets should pay this amount no matter who else pays him more on top of it.  And that's pretty weak.

 

I can see it if it's a veteran, because (Sanchez/Tannenbaum debacle notwithstanding) that player has earned that language.  If you don't like it, then sign someone else instead.  In this case the draft pick has already been made and it is against the rules for the Jets to talk contract with him until they've drafted him.  So it's just different than when a veteran gets this language inserted.

 

Common or uncommon, it's stupid when the money is fully guaranteed.  Purely from a money standpoint, I don't see how it's justified.  

[SayNoToDMC]

I'd like to get him in to adjust to NFL level talent, but who am I kidding? He won't see that till he plays somebody else's offense anyway. I'm in no rush while he heals up. Stupid holdout though given how contracts fir rookies are now structured.

[Iceman88]

Except he's making it about morals if he takes this as his argument.  If his contract is fully guaranteed, what difference does it make to him if someone else pays a portion of it? Especially if it's a team he chose himself upon getting released.  

 

If that is his argument then he's saying it's the moral reason that the Jets should pay this amount no matter who else pays him more on top of it.  And that's pretty weak.

 

I can see it if it's a veteran, because (Sanchez/Tannenbaum debacle notwithstanding) that player has earned that language.  If you don't like it, then sign someone else instead.  In this case the draft pick has already been made and it is against the rules for the Jets to talk contract with him until they've drafted him.  So it's just different than when a veteran gets this language inserted.

 

Common or uncommon, it's stupid when the money is fully guaranteed.  Purely from a money standpoint, I don't see how it's justified.  

 

But it is justified, and the teams allow it under the CBA so they have nobody to blame but themselves.  I don't think my argument is moral at all, it's solely a business decision.  This is the amount of money they said they would pay, that is the amount Dee expects to receive.  No other contracts or earnings should matter.

 

Do you think teams should be able to say "well you're earning *insert amount here* from endorsement deals since you play for us so we should be able to just take that out of our agreed upon fee"?

[Sperm Edwards]

But it is justified, and the teams allow it under the CBA so they have nobody to blame but themselves.  I don't think my argument is moral at all, it's solely a business decision.  This is the amount of money they said they would pay, that is the amount Dee expects to receive.  No other contracts or earnings should matter.

 

Do you think teams should be able to say "well you're earning *insert amount here* from endorsement deals since you play for us so we should be able to just take that out of our agreed upon fee"?

 

The point is he WILL receive that amount.  The team can't do anything to weasel Dee out of that money.  It is guaranteed.  He makes that whether the team cuts him or not.  The only sticking point is if Dee is so awful (on the field or off) that he gets cut, that he will not get MORE than that amount.

 

It is a "principle of the matter" issue if you're saying that it matters WHO pays him that amount.   

 

Your other example is not relevant because endorsements are endorsements and football contracts are football contracts.  This is a contract to play football and nothing more than that.  If he gets kicked off the team then he still gets his money.  I don't see what the problem is for him except for a desire to double-dip after getting kicked off the team.  In a strange way, it can incentivize the player to get cut because he can make more that way, at least in the short term.

 

He cannot get short-changed in any way if he gets cut.  He loses nothing if he gets cut.  What this prevents is the player basically daring the team to cut him because he'll clean up double that way.  It takes power and ability to motivate away from the coach (whether on the Jets or any other team).

 

Now a player who has been in the league, and who has earned this through showing what he's made of on the field and off? Hey, if the team doesn't want that in the contract then don't sign him.  But the team has no idea, prior to drafting a player, if this is going to be a sticking point (it isn't for everyone, or even most) and it's against league rules to discuss it with the player before drafting him.

 

I see it as a player wants a license to get paid double by getting kicked off the team as opposed to playing & behaving well enough to remain on it.  So how is a coach supposed to threaten an overtly lazy player into changing his ways if this "you get paid more if you get cut" language is in there?

[Iceman88]

The point is he WILL receive that amount.  The team can't do anything to weasel Dee out of that money.  It is guaranteed.  He makes that whether the team cuts him or not.  The only sticking point is if Dee is so awful (on the field or off) that he gets cut, that he will not get MORE than that amount.

 

It is a "principle of the matter" issue if you're saying that it matters WHO pays him that amount.   

 

Your other example is not relevant because endorsements are endorsements and football contracts are football contracts.  This is a contract to play football and nothing more than that.  If he gets kicked off the team then he still gets his money.  I don't see what the problem is for him except for a desire to double-dip after getting kicked off the team.  In a strange way, it can incentivize the player to get cut because he can make more that way, at least in the short term.

 

He cannot get short-changed in any way if he gets cut.  He loses nothing if he gets cut.  What this prevents is the player basically daring the team to cut him because he'll clean up double that way.  It takes power and ability to motivate away from the coach (whether on the Jets or any other team).

 

Now a player who has been in the league, and who has earned this through showing what he's made of on the field and off? Hey, if the team doesn't want that in the contract then don't sign him.  But the team has no idea, prior to drafting a player, if this is going to be a sticking point (it isn't for everyone, or even most) and it's against league rules to discuss it with the player before drafting him.

 

I see it as a player wants a license to get paid double by getting kicked off the team as opposed to playing & behaving well enough to remain on it.  So how is a coach supposed to threaten an overtly lazy player into changing his ways if this "you get paid more if you get cut" language is in there?

 

All your arguments are basically saying it's dumb this is allowed in the first place, but the teams allowed it in the CBA, it's every players right to try and take advantage.

 

And whats the difference between endorsements and a separate contract with a new team, they are both completely separate from the original contract and neither should have any impact on the original. 

 

Also he does lose something if he gets cut and signed to a new team because he essentially works for free then for whichever team signed him,

 

Also why even start the "overtly lazy" player argument?  There is absolutely zero reason to believe that is true for Milliner and as an organization they shouldn't be signing those players to begin with.  There are lots of ways to get responses out of people without the threat of being fired.  Especially when you have a coach who is supposed to be great at motivating his players.

[pointman]

Trade him to the Bucs. 

[Lizard King]

This is ****in depressing. What is it about this position?

[nycdan]

It sounds like some teams have agreed on a reasonable compromise.  The offset is limited to the amount of veteran's minimum in the 4th year only.  So if the team cuts the player in year 4 and he signs for the vet minimum, the team is protected.  I believe that the amount of dollars in play outside of that amount are so little and so unlikely to be realized that it's a great compromise until this gets hashed out after a 4-week lockout during the net CBA negotiations.  It's so little money on the table either way that it's utterly ridiculous for this to be causing an impasse.

 

But at the end of the day, Milliner has to deal with the fact that he's almost certainly a lower draft pick next year if he never signs, and with slotting he is almost certain to leave a lot of money (hundred of thousands) on the table and an extra year getting to his 2nd contract over something he's unlikely to ever need if he believes he is even just competent.  

 

BTW, Richardson's deal has the full offset I believe so there is really no way Idzik can give in on this.  Unique situation where the team has two 1st rounders so close together but it is what it is and DM's agent needs to wake up to that and win another day.  In fact, that's his face-saving out in this if he only had the brains to see it.

[Sperm Edwards]

All your arguments are basically saying it's dumb this is allowed in the first place, but the teams allowed it in the CBA, it's every players right to try and take advantage.

 

And whats the difference between endorsements and a separate contract with a new team, they are both completely separate from the original contract and neither should have any impact on the original. 

 

Also he does lose something if he gets cut and signed to a new team because he essentially works for free then for whichever team signed him,

 

Also why even start the "overtly lazy" player argument?  There is absolutely zero reason to believe that is true for Milliner and as an organization they shouldn't be signing those players to begin with.  There are lots of ways to get responses out of people without the threat of being fired.  Especially when you have a coach who is supposed to be great at motivating his players.

 

I agree with none of this.  He is getting paid the amount he has stated he will play football for, for the first 4 years of his contract.  He can quit if he wants before then.  He is no more playing for free with a new team than he is receiving a check from his old team for doing nothing.  He is playing football for a sum of money.  Endorsement deals have nothing to do with anything.  

 

If it is separate then why does he need a guarantee from the first team? He doesn't, unless he wants to get paid for doing 1 job, but have 2 teams each paying him to do it.  Moreover, the way to get this sweetheart situation is by being a terrible football player or by being a terrible person.  Those are the only ways he gets cut from the team, on a (cheaper) rookie contract, within his first 4 seasons.  IMO he is holding out for the right to flip off his coaches &/or teammates, and dare the team to cut him, since he'll get a pay raise immediately if it happens.

 

We just aren't going to agree on this.

[Gastineau Lives]

I agree with none of this.  He is getting paid the amount he has stated he will play football for, for the first 4 years of his contract.  He can quit if he wants before then.  He is no more playing for free with a new team than he is receiving a check from his old team for doing nothing.  He is playing football for a sum of money.  Endorsement deals have nothing to do with anything.  

 

If it is separate then why does he need a guarantee from the first team? He doesn't, unless he wants to get paid for doing 1 job, but have 2 teams each paying him to do it.  Moreover, the way to get this sweetheart situation is by being a terrible football player or by being a terrible person.  Those are the only ways he gets cut from the team, on a (cheaper) rookie contract, within his first 4 seasons.  IMO he is holding out for the right to flip off his coaches &/or teammates, and dare the team to cut him, since he'll get a pay raise immediately if it happens.

 

We just aren't going to agree on this.

This is all right.

 

By the way, it's a total mind**** to have every thing you say come out of Herm Edwards head.

[Sperm Edwards]

This is all right.

 

By the way, it's a total mind**** to have every thing you say come out of Herm Edwards head.

 

Did I neglect to offer you Fig Newtons when you were in my office yesterday?

[Gastineau Lives]

Did I neglect to offer you Fig Newtons when you were in my office yesterday?

I don't get the reference. But maybe you misunderstood what I meant?

[JoeKlecko]

Eff Milliner and his agent.  Both are either stupid or greedy.  It wouldn't surprise me if Revis didn't put in a call to one or both of them and coach them up just to stick it to the Jets.

[Sperm Edwards]

I don't get the reference. But maybe you misunderstood what I meant?

 

Herm used to babble on & on about how he always used to keep Fig Newtons in his office fridge.  Something about not having them (or not having them often enough) when he was a kid and his family didn't have a ton of money to waste.  He really went into detail about it, I think when the Chiefs were on Hard Knocks.

[Larz]

he is getting crappy advice from his agent

 

sign the ******* deral