Hassan Reddick Holding Out, Requests Trade

[Claymation]

1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

An average dermatologist makes over $300,000 per year.  That works out to over $15M over 50 years.  And its a lot easier to become a dermatologist than it is to become an NFL athlete.  The dermatologist also doesn't sacrifice 20 years of his lifespan from doing the job.

Meanwhile, you seem to think only of the star players.  What about the average NFL player, whose median salary is $860,000 and only lasts about 3 years in the league?  That's only $2.6M in earnings.  And much like a dermatologist, he had to put in a bunch of years of prep in order to get into the league.

You seem to think that life should be fair.  Bless your heart.

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, Bobby816 said:

To play the other side of this though... regular jobs next to never exist the way NFL players do in the way raises go.

 

I'm sure there is a couple here or there... but in general I can't think of any job that let's say you're a mid rounder and are making 1million a year. Furthermore to this. If this mid rounder sucks. he still gets his full deal. If you suck at "most" jobs... you get fired. You don't get paid for 3 more years. yes there are some. But in general no.

 

But let's say that 4th rounder making 1mill per year for 4 years is a star. He can go all the way to making 30million per year.

 

Name me a job that you just do your job and do it well and you get a raise 30x over?

If anyone is doing that thats in general with investments. Stuff any profession could do. So for me that doesnt play into this.

 

I'm talking about that your actual job. Same company. You can make 30X what you were before and that fast.

 

For example I work for the GOV. We have a GS scale for most our jobs. You aren't going from a GS7 to a GS15 in a matter of a couple years. I've never seen it and I've been working for the GOV for 20+ years.

My wife works for a huge financial company and you can only apply for a new role after you've been in a role for 1 whole year and can only try and get a job 1 level higher.

"Regular" jobs don't involve such a small number of people generating billions in revenue either. Your government job brings in the same $ (roughly) whether you're doing it or even someone who let's say isn't as good at it as you are in your place. You don't work on commission for the difference in disparity either. If you want that, you get a private sector job like your wife, but then you pick your tradeoff of job security vs. pay ceiling: in an economic downturn, she's more likely to get laid off than you are. 

As you're learning on the job, you're not as productive and aren't given as much responsibility (the cold word would be "useful") as you are after gaining more experience. It's not a you-thing; that applies to pretty much all of us.

Lamb has been full-time all-star level productive for the entirety of his rookie contract. I wouldn't expect the team to reimburse Lamb for having played for below-level going rates in comparison to the production they enjoyed from him either (let alone if Lamb has a career-ending injury before reaching free agency). That's to the team's advantage; the ability to hold out is to the player's advantage. Neither is ideal, but both sides have tools at their disposal and both sides use them.

Here's another difference between you & your wife vs. Lamb: the ability to earn major amounts doesn't have nearly the same time window in terms of opportunistic timing. Not only can you work for far longer (vs. Lamb who will be unemployable as a WR well before he reaches 40, and forever thereafter), but the timing of your pay raises aren't nearly as uniquely production-based as an NFL player (or some other entertainer, like a box office draw; they're never in their primes forever: despite their one-time prowess, eventually no one gave a crap about Tom Hanks & Harrison Ford movies, too). If you did a good job this year, there's little chance of you suddenly dropping your production by 50%, and becoming permanently unemployable thereafter. The expectation is you will keep getting better & better over time. Lamb will hopefully stay at this level before his eventual but inevitable decline, which isn't really that far off.

For example, say Lamb gets a devastating Dustin Keller type of knee injury in two weeks -- then what for him? Say tough t*tty and give him a hearty handshake for not holding out, in lieu of the unique opportunity to make $100MM in income he'll never be able to replace? In retrospect, Keller would've been better off if he'd staged a holdout after his 800+ yard 4th season instead of playing out the 5th year of his rookie deal here. What ended up happening instead is he had multiple hammy & ankle injuries in that 5th/contract year, with his QB imploding/regressing himself. He then had to accept a cheaper 1 year prove-it deal to show he could recover from that down 5th season. Except before he got the chance he then suffered a career-ending knee injury the ensuing preseason and never played again. Keller personally lost at least $10MM by playing out his deal like the good employee. 

It's not the same to seek a raise after a down-season after passing up the opportunity after an up-season. He's coming off an up-season, the team needs him badly, and their super bowl hopes will evaporate if he holds out. He's exerting his leverage, just like the team (like any other team would) exerted its own leverage by paying him on the rookie contract scale, and then possibly franchise-tag him the year after that if he has another similarly great season.

I will say, though, that the owners vs. players (billionaires vs. millionaires) part to me is a little eyeroll-ish in this scenario, though. It's not simply as though Jerry personally pockets every dollar $ he doesn't instead pay to Lamb; rather, that money would get spent on other players instead. It's more team interests vs. individual player interests than owner vs. player. The team's salary cap doesn't go up if Lamb gets paid more; the team (over time) just has that much less to pay others. If it was otherwise then Tyron Smith would still be on their team, and they're lucky Parsons isn't also holding out at the same time.

The team doesn't have to pay him. He also doesn't have to play for them. 

[slats]

23 minutes ago, ARodJetsFan said:

Yep, I get it, probably because they're not performing, no different than getting fired from a 9 to 5 for poor performance.

So firing an underachiever is fine with you. Okay. Who holds out? Probably someone outperforming their agreed-to contract, no? You think it’s fine to fire players for not holding up their end, but also players outperforming their contracts should just have to live with them? You think that’s fair? The system is already skewed in favor of the owners. These guys holding out usually have a pretty good case to get paid. 

[Waka Flocka Flacco]

5 hours ago, RutgersJetFan said:

Just checking in: You braniacs solve this one yet?

I thought they solved it in 1865.

[batman10023]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

"Regular" jobs don't involve such a small number of people generating billions in revenue either. Your government job brings in the same $ (roughly) whether you're doing it or even someone who let's say isn't as good at it as you are in your place. You don't work on commission for the difference in disparity either. If you want that, you get a private sector job like your wife, but then you pick your tradeoff of job security vs. pay ceiling: in an economic downturn, she's more likely to get laid off than you are. 

As you're learning on the job, you're not as productive and aren't given as much responsibility (the cold word would be "useful") as you are after gaining more experience. It's not a you-thing; that applies to pretty much all of us.

Lamb has been full-time all-star level productive for the entirety of his rookie contract. I wouldn't expect the team to reimburse Lamb for having played for below-level going rates in comparison to the production they enjoyed from him either (let alone if Lamb has a career-ending injury before reaching free agency). That's to the team's advantage; the ability to hold out is to the player's advantage. Neither is ideal, but both sides have tools at their disposal and both sides use them.

Here's another difference between you & your wife vs. Lamb: the ability to earn major amounts doesn't have nearly the same time window in terms of opportunistic timing. Not only can you work for far longer (vs. Lamb who will be unemployable as a WR well before he reaches 40, and forever thereafter), but the timing of your pay raises aren't nearly as uniquely production-based as an NFL player (or some other entertainer, like a box office draw; they're never in their primes forever: despite their one-time prowess, eventually no one gave a crap about Tom Hanks & Harrison Ford movies, too). If you did a good job this year, there's little chance of you suddenly dropping your production by 50%, and becoming permanently unemployable thereafter. The expectation is you will keep getting better & better over time. Lamb will hopefully stay at this level before his eventual but inevitable decline, which isn't really that far off.

For example, say Lamb gets a devastating Dustin Keller type of knee injury in two weeks -- then what for him? Say tough t*tty and give him a hearty handshake for not holding out, in lieu of the unique opportunity to make $100MM in income he'll never be able to replace? In retrospect, Keller would've been better off if he'd staged a holdout after his 800+ yard 4th season instead of playing out the 5th year of his rookie deal here. What ended up happening instead is he had multiple hammy & ankle injuries in that 5th/contract year, with his QB imploding/regressing himself. He then had to accept a cheaper 1 year prove-it deal to show he could recover from that down 5th season. Except before he got the chance he then suffered a career-ending knee injury the ensuing preseason and never played again. Keller personally lost at least $10MM by playing out his deal like the good employee. 

It's not the same to seek a raise after a down-season after passing up the opportunity after an up-season. He's coming off an up-season, the team needs him badly, and their super bowl hopes will evaporate if he holds out. He's exerting his leverage, just like the team (like any other team would) exerted its own leverage by paying him on the rookie contract scale, and then possibly franchise-tag him the year after that if he has another similarly great season.

I will say, though, that the owners vs. players (billionaires vs. millionaires) part to me is a little eyeroll-ish in this scenario, though. It's not simply as though Jerry personally pockets every dollar $ he doesn't instead pay to Lamb; rather, that money would get spent on other players instead. It's more team interests vs. individual player interests than owner vs. player. The team's salary cap doesn't go up if Lamb gets paid more; the team (over time) just has that much less to pay others. If it was otherwise then Tyron Smith would still be on their team, and they're lucky Parsons isn't also holding out at the same time.

The team doesn't have to pay him. He also doesn't have to play for them. 

for each dustin keller there is the wr/tight end - blanking on the name for the jets who was injury prone right after he got a contract.

but yah, keller got 8mm in those last two years.   my guess is he would have gotten at least 15mm guaranteed if the jets resigned him.

[batman10023]

3 hours ago, SAM SAM HE'S OUR MAN said:

It's time to give Hassan an ultimative . Report or hit the road .

this is dumb.  why would we cut him.  keep fining him.  he will show up pretty soon.

[RutgersJetFan]

2 hours ago, Waka Flocka Flacco said:

I thought they solved it in 1865.

STILL TOO SOON

[ARodJetsFan]

4 hours ago, slats said:

So firing an underachiever is fine with you. Okay. Who holds out? Probably someone outperforming their agreed-to contract, no? You think it’s fine to fire players for not holding up their end, but also players outperforming their contracts should just have to live with them? You think that’s fair? The system is already skewed in favor of the owners. These guys holding out usually have a pretty good case to get paid. 

This trade with Reddick was grossly mishandled, on a couple of different levels, based on what's been reported.

In the end, the Jets are sitting here with egg on their face and it's probably well deserved.

It is what it is.

[Rich Thornburgh]

On 7/31/2024 at 11:01 AM, batman10023 said:

most people realize he didn't want to resign with us because he wanted to be an every down player.

so your comment isn't really relevant in my opinion

Rationalizing the jet franchise ineptitude — this is how we have been fans of this team last 15 years

[Bobby816]

13 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

"Regular" jobs don't involve such a small number of people generating billions in revenue either. Your government job brings in the same $ (roughly) whether you're doing it or even someone who let's say isn't as good at it as you are in your place. You don't work on commission for the difference in disparity either. If you want that, you get a private sector job like your wife, but then you pick your tradeoff of job security vs. pay ceiling: in an economic downturn, she's more likely to get laid off than you are. 

As you're learning on the job, you're not as productive and aren't given as much responsibility (the cold word would be "useful") as you are after gaining more experience. It's not a you-thing; that applies to pretty much all of us.

Lamb has been full-time all-star level productive for the entirety of his rookie contract. I wouldn't expect the team to reimburse Lamb for having played for below-level going rates in comparison to the production they enjoyed from him either (let alone if Lamb has a career-ending injury before reaching free agency). That's to the team's advantage; the ability to hold out is to the player's advantage. Neither is ideal, but both sides have tools at their disposal and both sides use them.

Here's another difference between you & your wife vs. Lamb: the ability to earn major amounts doesn't have nearly the same time window in terms of opportunistic timing. Not only can you work for far longer (vs. Lamb who will be unemployable as a WR well before he reaches 40, and forever thereafter), but the timing of your pay raises aren't nearly as uniquely production-based as an NFL player (or some other entertainer, like a box office draw; they're never in their primes forever: despite their one-time prowess, eventually no one gave a crap about Tom Hanks & Harrison Ford movies, too). If you did a good job this year, there's little chance of you suddenly dropping your production by 50%, and becoming permanently unemployable thereafter. The expectation is you will keep getting better & better over time. Lamb will hopefully stay at this level before his eventual but inevitable decline, which isn't really that far off.

For example, say Lamb gets a devastating Dustin Keller type of knee injury in two weeks -- then what for him? Say tough t*tty and give him a hearty handshake for not holding out, in lieu of the unique opportunity to make $100MM in income he'll never be able to replace? In retrospect, Keller would've been better off if he'd staged a holdout after his 800+ yard 4th season instead of playing out the 5th year of his rookie deal here. What ended up happening instead is he had multiple hammy & ankle injuries in that 5th/contract year, with his QB imploding/regressing himself. He then had to accept a cheaper 1 year prove-it deal to show he could recover from that down 5th season. Except before he got the chance he then suffered a career-ending knee injury the ensuing preseason and never played again. Keller personally lost at least $10MM by playing out his deal like the good employee. 

It's not the same to seek a raise after a down-season after passing up the opportunity after an up-season. He's coming off an up-season, the team needs him badly, and their super bowl hopes will evaporate if he holds out. He's exerting his leverage, just like the team (like any other team would) exerted its own leverage by paying him on the rookie contract scale, and then possibly franchise-tag him the year after that if he has another similarly great season.

I will say, though, that the owners vs. players (billionaires vs. millionaires) part to me is a little eyeroll-ish in this scenario, though. It's not simply as though Jerry personally pockets every dollar $ he doesn't instead pay to Lamb; rather, that money would get spent on other players instead. It's more team interests vs. individual player interests than owner vs. player. The team's salary cap doesn't go up if Lamb gets paid more; the team (over time) just has that much less to pay others. If it was otherwise then Tyron Smith would still be on their team, and they're lucky Parsons isn't also holding out at the same time.

The team doesn't have to pay him. He also doesn't have to play for them. 

I agree with close to all of this.

My main point really is that, the reason a NFL player should be getting paid vastly more than most jobs. Shouldn't be because they risk there bodies. That's a crap line of thinking. Because there's countless other jobs that risk there bodies as well and quite frankly for a lot longer than 5-10 years. Some risking there bodies for 40+.

I'll listen to the side that it's what they're worth because of revenue and all that. That makes complete sense to me.

But the body thing doesn't sit well with me when you have people dying for our country making 40k, Brick layers and roofers in the south making less than 6 figures, 1st responders like firefighters and police officers making less than 6 figures. These are just a few examples of people making WAY less and risking more.

[Jethead]

Players make a Faustian bargain.

They should get what they can when they can. No sympathy for either side.

[TuscanyTile2]

14 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

"Regular" jobs don't involve such a small number of people generating billions in revenue either. Your government job brings in the same $ (roughly) whether you're doing it or even someone who let's say isn't as good at it as you are in your place. You don't work on commission for the difference in disparity either. If you want that, you get a private sector job like your wife, but then you pick your tradeoff of job security vs. pay ceiling: in an economic downturn, she's more likely to get laid off than you are. 

As you're learning on the job, you're not as productive and aren't given as much responsibility (the cold word would be "useful") as you are after gaining more experience. It's not a you-thing; that applies to pretty much all of us.

Lamb has been full-time all-star level productive for the entirety of his rookie contract. I wouldn't expect the team to reimburse Lamb for having played for below-level going rates in comparison to the production they enjoyed from him either (let alone if Lamb has a career-ending injury before reaching free agency). That's to the team's advantage; the ability to hold out is to the player's advantage. Neither is ideal, but both sides have tools at their disposal and both sides use them.

Here's another difference between you & your wife vs. Lamb: the ability to earn major amounts doesn't have nearly the same time window in terms of opportunistic timing. Not only can you work for far longer (vs. Lamb who will be unemployable as a WR well before he reaches 40, and forever thereafter), but the timing of your pay raises aren't nearly as uniquely production-based as an NFL player (or some other entertainer, like a box office draw; they're never in their primes forever: despite their one-time prowess, eventually no one gave a crap about Tom Hanks & Harrison Ford movies, too). If you did a good job this year, there's little chance of you suddenly dropping your production by 50%, and becoming permanently unemployable thereafter. The expectation is you will keep getting better & better over time. Lamb will hopefully stay at this level before his eventual but inevitable decline, which isn't really that far off.

For example, say Lamb gets a devastating Dustin Keller type of knee injury in two weeks -- then what for him? Say tough t*tty and give him a hearty handshake for not holding out, in lieu of the unique opportunity to make $100MM in income he'll never be able to replace? In retrospect, Keller would've been better off if he'd staged a holdout after his 800+ yard 4th season instead of playing out the 5th year of his rookie deal here. What ended up happening instead is he had multiple hammy & ankle injuries in that 5th/contract year, with his QB imploding/regressing himself. He then had to accept a cheaper 1 year prove-it deal to show he could recover from that down 5th season. Except before he got the chance he then suffered a career-ending knee injury the ensuing preseason and never played again. Keller personally lost at least $10MM by playing out his deal like the good employee. 

It's not the same to seek a raise after a down-season after passing up the opportunity after an up-season. He's coming off an up-season, the team needs him badly, and their super bowl hopes will evaporate if he holds out. He's exerting his leverage, just like the team (like any other team would) exerted its own leverage by paying him on the rookie contract scale, and then possibly franchise-tag him the year after that if he has another similarly great season.

I will say, though, that the owners vs. players (billionaires vs. millionaires) part to me is a little eyeroll-ish in this scenario, though. It's not simply as though Jerry personally pockets every dollar $ he doesn't instead pay to Lamb; rather, that money would get spent on other players instead. It's more team interests vs. individual player interests than owner vs. player. The team's salary cap doesn't go up if Lamb gets paid more; the team (over time) just has that much less to pay others. If it was otherwise then Tyron Smith would still be on their team, and they're lucky Parsons isn't also holding out at the same time.

The team doesn't have to pay him. He also doesn't have to play for them. 

"SpermEdwards Instant Classic"

[NYs Stepchild]

11 hours ago, ARodJetsFan said:

This trade with Reddick was grossly mishandled, on a couple of different levels, based on what's been reported.

In the end, the Jets are sitting here with egg on their face and it's probably well deserved.

It is what it is.

The Jets risked a 3rd round pick for a good chance at a pro bowl edge rusher for 14.5m. None of it guaranteed. Then when he leaves next year we will get a 3rd round compensatory pick in return.

That sounds like a pretty good deal to me. It's only mishandled if you think we wanted more than a year from him.

I understand that Reddick wants a long term contract but he's not getting it from the Jets. We have what we need for the future in Johnson and MacDonald.

Chances are he's here before the season starts and he's highly motivated to earn a big FA contract next year. If not we still lose nearly nothing. 

We do agree that it is what it is. 

[ARodJetsFan]

1 hour ago, NYs Stepchild said:

The Jets risked a 3rd round pick for a good chance at a pro bowl edge rusher for 14.5m. None of it guaranteed. Then when he leaves next year we will get a 3rd round compensatory pick in return.

That sounds like a pretty good deal to me. It's only mishandled if you think we wanted more than a year from him.

 

This trade should have never been made, without an agreed upon contract already in place, even if it was something as simple as bumping up his salary in the last year of his deal & guaranteeing it, in case of injury.

To trade for a player who "reportedly" rejected a contract offer from the Jets, that was made to him prior to the trade taking place, without resolving their differences first & coming to a contract agreement, is nothing but shear ignorance & stupidity.

I'm not complaining about what the Jets gave up for him in the trade & the potential reward from Reddick's assumed production, but the contract fumble that has obviously occurred, is inexcusable.

[SomebodytoAnybody47]

Is he here yet?

[NYs Stepchild]

18 minutes ago, ARodJetsFan said:

This trade should have never been made, without an agreed upon contract already in place, even if it was something as simple as bumping up his salary in the last year of his deal & guaranteeing it, in case of injury.

To trade for a player who "reportedly" rejected a contract offer from the Jets, that was made to him prior to the trade taking place, without resolving their differences first & coming to a contract agreement, is nothing but shear ignorance & stupidity.

I'm not complaining about what the Jets gave up for him in the trade & the potential reward from Reddick's assumed production, but the contract fumble that has obviously occurred, is inexcusable.

Sounds like your emotions may be influencing your judgment here. If you're not upset over the cost or the return then what exactly are you upset about? 

He either shows up to play or he doesn't.

If he plays it costs us 14.5 plus a trade of our 3rd for the late 3rd comp pick.

If he holds out it cost us only the swap of picks. 

Holding out is not going to make Reddick any money and will surely cost him dearly on his negotiating leverage next year. He'll show up angry and motivated to prove his worth.

If we didn't trade for him then we have anything anyway so I don't see the downside to it.

 

 

[kmnj]

11 minutes ago, SomebodytoAnybody47 said:

Is he here yet?

u have to be patient just like we had to be for becton wilson and mims to get on the field and show us they were future stars for the jets despite Joe being under 500 by like 30 games he knows what he is doing .....just be patient and dont you dare question Joe if you were so smart you would be the gm not him

 

 

 

 

[FidelioJet]

1 hour ago, ARodJetsFan said:

To trade for a player who "reportedly" rejected a contract offer from the Jets, that was made to him prior to the trade taking place, without resolving their differences first & coming to a contract agreement, is nothing but shear ignorance & stupidity.

Is this true?  I haven't heard this.  I was under the impression he had agreed to play out the contract and seemingly either wasn't sincere or changed his mind.

If he really rejected the Jets offer and they traded for him anyway - all while they could have simply signed a younger version of him already on the roster makes absolutely ZERO sense.  NONE.

This would be one of JD's biggest errors, in a tenure chock full of them.

[ARodJetsFan]

46 minutes ago, NYs Stepchild said:

Sounds like your emotions may be influencing your judgment here. If you're not upset over the cost or the return then what exactly are you upset about? 

 

I thought I stated that pretty clearly in my last post.

If you can't read (or just choose not to) I see no need to repeat it.

I bolded it for you in my previous post, maybe that will help you.

[ARodJetsFan]

3 hours ago, FidelioJet said:

Is this true?  I haven't heard this.  I was under the impression he had agreed to play out the contract and seemingly either wasn't sincere or changed his mind.

If he really rejected the Jets offer and they traded for him anyway - all while they could have simply signed a younger version of him already on the roster makes absolutely ZERO sense.  NONE.

This would be one of JD's biggest errors, in a tenure chock full of them.

There are multiple reports out there stating this @FidelioJet

Here's one for you below:

Report: Jets offered Haason Reddick a new deal before trade, but he declined - NBC Sports

[RutgersJetFan]

9 minutes ago, ARodJetsFan said:

There are multiple reports out there stating this @FidelioJet

Here one for you below:

Report: Jets offered Haason Reddick a new deal before trade, but he declined - NBC Sports

" In the meantime, the Jets would adjust his current deal (convert non-GTD to GTD, incentives). Reddick told the Jets he was on board with this. He would show up for the offseason program, minicamp, & training camp. He’d perform well early [in the] season, leading [to] an in-season extension (similar to John Franklin-Myers in 2021)."

[Biggs]

2 hours ago, Bobby816 said:

I agree with close to all of this.

My main point really is that, the reason a NFL player should be getting paid vastly more than most jobs. Shouldn't be because they risk there bodies. That's a crap line of thinking. Because there's countless other jobs that risk there bodies as well and quite frankly for a lot longer than 5-10 years. Some risking there bodies for 40+.

I'll listen to the side that it's what they're worth because of revenue and all that. That makes complete sense to me.

But the body thing doesn't sit well with me when you have people dying for our country making 40k, Brick layers and roofers in the south making less than 6 figures, 1st responders like firefighters and police officers making less than 6 figures. These are just a few examples of people making WAY less and risking more.

You should read the book worth about the 9/11 settlements.   The investment bankers who died based on how we pay out would have gotten 100 fold what a fireman or policeman running up the stairs to save them were worth in terms of payout and insurability.

I think you make a great point.  NFL players aren't getting paid on their sacrifice of body or mind for future payments.  They are being paid for their ability to create revenue.   There are blue collar workers in meat packing companies who's health risks are way higher than NFL players and are getting payed minimum wage.   

Sure the NFL is a high risk of injury business.  It's also well compensated work because it generates crazy revenue streams for ownership.  

[ARodJetsFan]

12 minutes ago, RutgersJetFan said:

" In the meantime, the Jets would adjust his current deal (convert non-GTD to GTD, incentives). Reddick told the Jets he was on board with this. He would show up for the offseason program, minicamp, & training camp. He’d perform well early [in the] season, leading [to] an in-season extension (similar to John Franklin-Myers in 2021)."

And yet he's not here @RutgersJetFan which is exactly why his contract should have been agreed upon, BEFORE the trade took place.

Assuming this is true (and we really have no way of knowing) the Jets are sitting here with egg on their face, because Reddick went back on his word.

Whether it was solely Reddick's decision, or he made the decision with his agent whispering in his ear - again, who knows, but it really doesn't matter because the end result is the same.

If the Jets are vigilant & hammer out the contract with the player & his agents before the trade, there is no opportunity for this to happen.

That's my point.

[batman10023]

20 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

Is this true?  I haven't heard this.  I was under the impression he had agreed to play out the contract and seemingly either wasn't sincere or changed his mind.

If he really rejected the Jets offer and they traded for him anyway - all while they could have simply signed a younger version of him already on the roster makes absolutely ZERO sense.  NONE.

This would be one of JD's biggest errors, in a tenure chock full of them.

remind me who they could have signed again - a younger version of him?

the guy who had 10 career sacks prior to his breakout year?  

would you be okay if JD held a gun to his head and forced him to sign?  because he wasn't signing him.

give us a real option.

[Biggs]

16 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

 

Here's another difference between you & your wife vs. Lamb: the ability to earn major amounts doesn't have nearly the same time window in terms of opportunistic timing. Not only can you work for far longer (vs. Lamb who will be unemployable as a WR well before he reaches 40, and forever thereafter), but the timing of your pay raises aren't nearly as uniquely production-based as an NFL player (or some other entertainer, like a box office draw; they're never in their primes forever: despite their one-time prowess, eventually no one gave a crap about Tom Hanks & Harrison Ford movies, too). If you did a good job this year, there's little chance of you suddenly dropping your production by 50%, and becoming permanently unemployable thereafter. The expectation is you will keep getting better & better over time. Lamb will hopefully stay at this level before his eventual but inevitable decline, which isn't really that far off.

 

Most NFL players have gotten a college education without loans.  Most of them who do anything at the professional level have an opportunity in the market they play in to make contacts with business people that you and your wife will almost never have.  Lamb will likely earn more money, have more opportunities to invest and represent companies and be partners in profitable companies than you and your wife will ever have simply because they played in the NFL.  People actual admire former athletes and that admiration actually has value.

Of course that's dependent on the players intelligence and desire to be productive after their playing careers.  

Pro-athletes are often done by their mid 30's.  Most of them with any drive and ability start a second career and they are rarely starting at the bottom rung.  Of course their are many examples of athletes who wash out after their playing days.  There are many average Joe's who wash out of their jobs in there 30's.

 

[Biggs]

8 minutes ago, ARodJetsFan said:

And yet he's not here - which is exactly why his contract should have been agreed upon BEFORE the trade took place.

Assuming this is true (and we really have no way of knowing) the Jets are sitting here with egg on their face, because Reddick went back on his word.

Whether it was solely Reddick's decision, or he made the decision with his agent whispering in his ear to do so - again, who knows, but it really doesn't matter because the end result is the same.

If the Jets are vigilant & hammer out the contract with the player & his agents before the trade, there is no opportunity for this to happen.

That's my point.

Meaningless unless he's not here before the games start or he is and isn't in game shape.  NFL training camp and pre-season is becoming a joke.  

[ARodJetsFan]

2 hours ago, Biggs said:

Meaningless unless he's not here before the games start or he is and isn't in game shape. 

And unfortunately @Biggs both of these outcomes are distinct possibilities.

There is no way of knowing, people are content to just sit back & assume Reddick will show up before the games start and that he'll be in game shape, ready to rush the QB.

I assume/expect the worst, until proven otherwise.

Think back to the Darelle Revis holdout......did the same friggin' thing and what happened?

He showed up before the games started, but he clearly wasn't in shape at all, because he missed virtually the entire off-season program and hadn't taken part in any real football activties, just like Reddick is doing and it had a marked, negative impact on his season & he had a couple of different hamstring injuries, as a result.

The difference is, at least Revis was with the team for years prior and knew the defense.

Reddick will be a first year player with us & he does not know the intricacies of our defense, as he hasn't played a down, or had a single practice in our system.

Yes he's a pass-rusher, with limited communication/coverage resposibilities, but that doesn't change the fact he's been involved in ZERO football activities with the team, for the entirety of the off-season.

We're not talking about April, May or even June here, it's now August folks & we're going to blink and the regular season will be here.

I would not expect him to show up in "game-shape" ready to roll.

Hopefully Reddick show's up soon enough, where he can get into "some kind" of shape, but the longer he holds out, the less likely it becomes, that will happen.

[FidelioJet]

37 minutes ago, batman10023 said:

remind me who they could have signed again - a younger version of him?

Obviously Huff

 

38 minutes ago, batman10023 said:

the guy who had 10 career sacks prior to his breakout year?  

Sometimes I wonder if some of you actually watch the games or look at stats.  Huff was one of the most disruptive players in the game.   His sack totals weren't high earlier in his career because of poor decision making on the Jets by only having him on the field 20% of the plays.  Once they increased his reps he got more sacks.  Not brain surgery, basic math.

40 minutes ago, batman10023 said:

would you be okay if JD held a gun to his head and forced him to sign?  because he wasn't signing him.

give us a real option.

Silly.  He didn't want to sign here because the Jets didn't offer him enough money.  If the Jets gave him the exact package as the Eagles (which was quite fair for someone with his talent) they could have kept him.

 

Lastly, you seem to think this is an absolute no brainer what the Jets did...as if my position is absurd.  But I'll ask you this...Based on history who is more likely to have made the right choice here - the Eagles or Jets?

[Sperm Edwards]

5 hours ago, Bobby816 said:

I agree with close to all of this.

My main point really is that, the reason a NFL player should be getting paid vastly more than most jobs. Shouldn't be because they risk there bodies. That's a crap line of thinking. Because there's countless other jobs that risk there bodies as well and quite frankly for a lot longer than 5-10 years. Some risking there bodies for 40+.

I'll listen to the side that it's what they're worth because of revenue and all that. That makes complete sense to me.

But the body thing doesn't sit well with me when you have people dying for our country making 40k, Brick layers and roofers in the south making less than 6 figures, 1st responders like firefighters and police officers making less than 6 figures. These are just a few examples of people making WAY less and risking more.

They don't get paid more because of a risk to their bodies. I'm not saying that.

He is right to exercise his leverage now in case he gets injured.

He gets paid more because this labor generates more profit/revenue than an individual risking his life, laying brick, etc. His labor can be resold all over the country/world; a bricklayer can only lay brick in one location at a time, for only so many hours per year. There's no multiplier by transmitting his labor electronically or through tv air waves.

It's not that athletes (like movie stars & the like) have labor that is more societally important; it's that this labor generates more revenue/profit.

[Bobby816]

2 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

They don't get paid more because of a risk to their bodies. I'm not saying that.

He is right to exercise his leverage now in case he gets injured.

He gets paid more because this labor generates more profit/revenue than an individual risking his life, laying brick, etc. His labor can be resold all over the country/world; a bricklayer can only lay brick in one location at a time, for only so many hours per year. There's no multiplier by transmitting his labor electronically or through tv air waves.

It's not that athletes (like movie stars & the like) have labor that is individually more important; it's that this labor generates more revenue/profit.

But my original debate on this was exactly that though.

That the statement that an NFL players risks there body is why they get paid so much. I don't agree with.

Everything else you or anyone is saying I can agree with or see that side.

 

[Scott Dierking]

How will the Jets ever win the coveted Snoopy Bowl, at this rate?

[Fantasy Island]

He will probably play the I retire card, so he can work on his samurai cos play.

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, Bobby816 said:

But my original debate on this was exactly that though.

That the statement that an NFL players risks there body is why they get paid so much. I don't agree with.

Everything else you or anyone is saying I can agree with or see that side.

Yeah the amount of compensation has nothing to do with risk to their bodies. If it was otherwise then RBs would be the highest paid players, maybe followed by interior linemen, and further every starting RB would make more than the highest-paid basketball player. 

Movie stars also get paid tens of millions, insufferable as they are as a group. Seems the biggest risk to their bodies is if a Baldwin is on the set (ok poor taste, admittedly). 

It's entertainment where the same labor can - in effect - get resold many times. For the players themselves, ultimately it's about their costs vs. replacements costs. That's whether it's deciding one WR over another, for example, or fans watching & spending their entertainment time & money on this league vs. something else.

Case in point, other countries they benightedly watch soccer instead. Given the sport's low popularity around the world, if Americans weren't interested in NFL/NCAA football, these QBs, WRs, etc. might only make as much as the average professional lacrosse player. 

[Mr. Rogers]

2 hours ago, ARodJetsFan said:

And yet he's not here @RutgersJetFan which is exactly why his contract should have been agreed upon, BEFORE the trade took place.

Assuming this is true (and we really have no way of knowing) the Jets are sitting here with egg on their face, because Reddick went back on his word.

Whether it was solely Reddick's decision, or he made the decision with his agent whispering in his ear - again, who knows, but it really doesn't matter because the end result is the same.

If the Jets are vigilant & hammer out the contract with the player & his agents before the trade, there is no opportunity for this to happen.

That's my point.

I agree with you in principle, but to play devil's advocate, he could just as easily have agreed to a new contract (say, one that fully guarantees his base pay and offers a few million more incentives)... Only to decide to hold out anyway. Having a new contract doesn't GUARANTEE a player shows up. Either way we're depending on their word. 

On a semi related note, I've never really understood holdouts as NFL players do them. It feels like holdout players SO often end up having a negative year, either due to a lack of fitness, game sharpness, or what have you. Revis was a great example. Can't players come to camp and simply refuse to play games while making their feelings known? I feel like this would actually put MORE pressure on the team, as it makes the player look less selfish and would probably get their teammates behind them too. 

The Jets would sorely miss Reddick if he holds out all year, but not as much as Reddicks wallet would miss $14.5m+ probable negative impacts to his future contracts. Look what happened to Leveon Bell. I would be very surprised if Reddick holds out all year, but sadly unsurprised if he gets hurt early on after missing much of the preseason...

[ARodJetsFan]

14 minutes ago, Mr. Rogers said:

I agree with you in principle, but to play devil's advocate, he could just as easily have agreed to a new contract (say, one that fully guarantees his base pay and offers a few million more incentives)... Only to decide to hold out anyway. Having a new contract doesn't GUARANTEE a player shows up. Either way we're depending on their word. 

It certainly makes it extremely unlikely @Mr. Rogers

In fact, I can't recall ever hearing about a player agreeing to a new, or reworked deal in the off-season and not showing up to camp following the signing/restructuring.