Quote
zn
Quote
dzrams
Quote
zn
Quote
TonyHunter87
Report! Show you are about the team. All holdouts are a problem. U signed a deal, so show up and the rest will work itself out imo.
Except he's basically NOT under contract because both the Rams and Donald agree he has earned a NEW contract. Demoff said it: he's a special player who deserves a special contract.
The Rams wiped out your argument because by THEIR choice, this is a mutual situation where both sides agree to an extension.
And if he got injured like Easley before a contract was finished, it really would be him and not the team, all by himself, no contract.
Cause the team would not make a huge contract extension for an injured player.
So it's easy for us to lecture him about "team" when he knows full well he would not be getting that extension if injured.
...
I mostly agree with your perspective here. The injury issue is huge and the reason why AD is being advised to sit out right now. That makes tons of sense to me.
However, when there is a contract, you are under the contract until you're not. Someone verbally agreeing that it needs to be modified is not a modification itself. So he's under contract.
But IMO that doesn't mean much when you're talking about whether or not he can sit out. The contract already anticipates that being a possibility and has built in consequences. At that point, it's up to him to make a business decision and determine if suffering those consequences are worth it.
It's a business decision. All this crap about "team first" is just that, crap. Teams are looking out for their bottom line when it comes to contractual issues too. Why wouldn't players?
I agree with most of that.
But the team has in effect torn up the old contract. They openly agree to an extension. The TEAM is not taking the stance that he is to play out his old deal. They are openly saying that old deal is outdated.
Yeah sure he will pay the fines, unless the Rams waive them.
But this situation is very different from one in which the team says, the player is under contract, he will be paid what we agreed to pay him, end of story.
They are saying yes the old deal was inadequate, yes he has outplayed his contract, yes he deserves a huge extension, yes we are going to give it to him.
So while some FANS are saying "he's under contract he has to stick to it," the TEAM is not saying that (and in several cases in the past, they HAVE said that).
Actually it's not even all the fans. The fan who went to a camp practice holding a sign that said "pay the man" got a lot of net support.
...
But to say he is NOT under contract is just false. Yes they've verbally agreed that an extension is warranted. That does not mean his current contract is void. What if they can't agree on an extension, even though they wanted to? Is he NOT under contract then?
I realize that this isn't that big of a deal but you're always pointing out to other posters the difference between opinion and fact. The fact is that AD is still under contract. The opinion is that he is not.
