Ty Law wants out of NE

Cush · 03-13-2004, 06:21 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/s...rtnersite=espn

Quote:

The "bridge is burned." All-Pro cornerback Ty Law does not want to play another game for the Patriots.

Citing "irreconcilable differences," Law said he has told Patriots coach Bill Belichick and vice president of player personnel Scott Pioli his desire to play somewhere else after being "lied to" about their intentions, according to the Boston Globe.

"Right now, it's not about money," Law told the Globe this week. "That bridge is burned. I no longer want to be a Patriot. I can't even see myself putting on that uniform again, that's how bad I feel about playing here."

saden1 · 03-13-2004, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cush

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/s...rtnersite=espn

That is probably how Champ felt but he never said it publicly! One thing you don't do is short change your best employees. When people don't feel appreciated and are given the runaround about their status/future you are bound to have situations like this. I just wish we hadn't spend that money on Springs.

I say more power to you Ty!

offiss · 03-13-2004, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saden1

That is probably how Champ felt but he never said it publicly! One thing you don't do is short change your best employees. When people don't feel appreciated and are given the runaround about their status/future you are bound to have situations like this. I just wish we hadn't spend that money on Springs.

I say more power to you Ty!

If the guy is under contract he should shut his mouth and honor it, I would like to know how much money law would give back if he was getting burned all year? As for champ he was offered 2 very lucrative contract's we didn't short change him, he wanted to go so good luck and don't let the door hit ya in the A** champ.

saden1 · 03-13-2004, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by offiss

If the guy is under contract he should shut his mouth and honor it, I would like to know how much money law would give back if he was getting burned all year? As for champ he was offered 2 very lucrative contract's we didn't short change him, he wanted to go so good luck and don't let the door hit ya in the A** champ.

Screw that...even if you are under contract teams can release you at any given time. Honor nothing...get yours I say. It is all about being happy and he is clearly not happy.

I suppose marriage is kind of a contract but if you get to a certain point in a relationship where you both can't stand eachoter you think it is wise to stay together to honor that contract? I'm not advocating divorce here but people should have the option of getting divorced.

EEich · 03-13-2004, 08:22 PM

I agree... teams are screwing players all the time by telling them to renegotiate or they're gone. Players should have the same right... "renegotiate or I'll sit"... but then again they have to put up or shut up.

Like Boomer says... the NFL is the league where they play... for pay.

JWsleep · 03-13-2004, 08:29 PM

This is a continuation of the old-time struggle between players and owners. In the bad old days in baseball, the owners had all the power. Now the pendulum has swung back towards the players. It's a big, big business, and there is no loyalty. Money talks, or the players walk. Why should Ty Law be loyal to Bob Kraft?

(I'm NOT saying I like this, but I'm not sure of a better way to do it than the free market. Owner monopoly wasn't great either, and wasn't legal, apparently.)

manicd · 03-13-2004, 09:53 PM

Oh, this is the best part though.

"It's not a reason to hold out. I get $1 million just to show up. Who wouldn't show up for $1 million? The money ain't the thing, because I have that. Then again, I'm not going to sit here and say I don't want $7 million, either. That's stupid. Hell, we all gotta eat."

Yeah, I need 7 million to put food on the table.

sportscurmudgeon · 03-13-2004, 10:34 PM

There is really a fundamental difference between the Champ Bailey situation here in Washington and the Ty Law situation in Boston. Champ's contract was up; he had to get a new contract in order to be eligible to play for anyone in the league - including the Redskins even if they hung a franchise tag on him. Ty Law has a contract with two more years on it. While both players are excellent cornerbacks and both want to do some negoitating this off-season, the differences in the two situations are greater than the similarities.

However, there is a lesson here for fans to see. Ty Law signed a classic NFL contract with layered signing/roster bonuses and a large backloading so that the first few years were "cap friendly". His is not the only contract like that; virtually every huge contract for a top flight player in the NFL is the same kind of thing. And now, he is in a situation where he stands to make a lot of money on his contract (but it will be a cap burden for the team) or to make a lot of money renogiating his contract with his team to make it more cap friendly or to make a lot of money negotiating a new deal with some other team.

We'll see how this one plays out in New England. But, do not be surprised when this happens to some of the Redskins' players such as:

Chris Samuels
LaVar Arrington
Clinton Portis
Fred Smoot (after he signs his second contract here)
Lavernaeus Coles
John Jansen (maybe?)

Ghost · 03-13-2004, 11:02 PM

It's happening right now with Samuels ... he's eating up something like 10% of the team's cap space, so far refusing to renegotiate. LaVar's bump is a number of years down the road, same with Portis. We'll renegoiate some of these contracts and pay out the difference in signing bonuses, while letting other players go (like Steven Davis), making trades if possible -- like Champ, who''ll use up so much of Denver's cap space that they convinced the Skins to throw in a second rounder ... I believe the deal we gave Portis is a lot more cap-friendly. That's life in the NFL these days. I hope Gibbs is getting acclimated.

johnnyredskin63 · 03-15-2004, 05:44 AM

when you sign your contract you are giving your word legally you will honor it.if you are any type of man you honor that respectfully.i'm sorry your word is your bond i do not care if you are wealthy or homeless.if he had any sense at all or any honor,he would protest in a respectful way not like a spoiled child.

SkinsRock · 03-15-2004, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyredskin63

when you sign your contract you are giving your word legally you will honor it.if you are any type of man you honor that respectfully.i'm sorry your word is your bond i do not care if you are wealthy or homeless.if he had any sense at all or any honor,he would protest in a respectful way not like a spoiled child.

If you look at it that way, the owner or someone from the team also agreed to it and signed it, so they should also honor it and not ask him to restucture.

cpayne5 · 03-15-2004, 02:16 PM

If Ty Law has been treated poorly by NE, I don't see any problem with him sitting out. If he is greedy and is only after more money, then I have no patience for that. As for you guys who are saying that its ok for a player to sit out because the teams can cut you at anytime, you should read a contract. I'm sure that there are stipulations in it that explicitly say when and why a player can be cut. There are NO stipulations in it that say a player can sit (without forfeiting a pay check).

johnnyredskin63 · 03-15-2004, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinsRock

If you look at it that way, the owner or someone from the team also agreed to it and signed it, so they should also honor it and not ask him to restucture.

that's true,but i am sure they told him they may have to do that on down the road.i agree that both sides should agree to carry out the complete terms of the contract,regardless.lets face it,if the owners could not get the players to restructure their deals,the league would be extremely boring.

offiss · 03-15-2004, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinsRock

If you look at it that way, the owner or someone from the team also agreed to it and signed it, so they should also honor it and not ask him to restucture.

The contract is not guarenteed by the team that is part of the deal, and because of this player's may recieve a bigger contract with the team knowing they can opt out, but the player does not have that option he is bound by that contract, as well as when they sign the contract they do so knowing that those are the tearm's if he didn't like it he didn't have to sign it at the time, but he did like it, and as it turned out thing's went pretty well for him on the field and now he want's more, but if thing's didn't go so well he wouldn't be parading for a pay cut now would he.

johnnyredskin63 · 03-15-2004, 06:36 PM

these guys are making millions playing the game you can't help but love.most of them say they would play for a pat on the fanny.how about a pat and the fanny and millions
of dollars?play the game already fellows.

03-13-2004, 08:22 PM	#5
EEich The Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Bristol, CT Age: 60 Posts: 1,001	I agree... teams are screwing players all the time by telling them to renegotiate or they're gone. Players should have the same right... "renegotiate or I'll sit"... but then again they have to put up or shut up. Like Boomer says... the NFL is the league where they play... for pay. Last edited by EEich; 03-13-2004 at 08:56 PM.

03-13-2004, 08:29 PM	#6
JWsleep Propane and propane accessories Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Houston, TX Age: 55 Posts: 4,714	This is a continuation of the old-time struggle between players and owners. In the bad old days in baseball, the owners had all the power. Now the pendulum has swung back towards the players. It's a big, big business, and there is no loyalty. Money talks, or the players walk. Why should Ty Law be loyal to Bob Kraft? (I'm NOT saying I like this, but I'm not sure of a better way to do it than the free market. Owner monopoly wasn't great either, and wasn't legal, apparently.) __________________ Hail from Houston!

03-13-2004, 10:34 PM	#8
sportscurmudgeon Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,159	There is really a fundamental difference between the Champ Bailey situation here in Washington and the Ty Law situation in Boston. Champ's contract was up; he had to get a new contract in order to be eligible to play for anyone in the league - including the Redskins even if they hung a franchise tag on him. Ty Law has a contract with two more years on it. While both players are excellent cornerbacks and both want to do some negoitating this off-season, the differences in the two situations are greater than the similarities. However, there is a lesson here for fans to see. Ty Law signed a classic NFL contract with layered signing/roster bonuses and a large backloading so that the first few years were "cap friendly". His is not the only contract like that; virtually every huge contract for a top flight player in the NFL is the same kind of thing. And now, he is in a situation where he stands to make a lot of money on his contract (but it will be a cap burden for the team) or to make a lot of money renogiating his contract with his team to make it more cap friendly or to make a lot of money negotiating a new deal with some other team. We'll see how this one plays out in New England. But, do not be surprised when this happens to some of the Redskins' players such as: Chris Samuels LaVar Arrington Clinton Portis Fred Smoot (after he signs his second contract here) Lavernaeus Coles John Jansen (maybe?) __________________ The Sports Curmudgeon www.sportscurmudgeon.com But don't get me wrong, I love sports...

03-15-2004, 05:44 AM	#10
johnnyredskin63 Special Teams Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 203	when you sign your contract you are giving your word legally you will honor it.if you are any type of man you honor that respectfully.i'm sorry your word is your bond i do not care if you are wealthy or homeless.if he had any sense at all or any honor,he would protest in a respectful way not like a spoiled child. __________________ it's me,bigredskinfan63 bigledzepfan63 "the sea was red and the sky was grey,wondered how tommorow could ever follow today HAIL TO THE REDSKINS always remember ladies and germs-THE COWBOYS SUCK

03-15-2004, 06:36 PM	#15
johnnyredskin63 Special Teams Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 203	these guys are making millions playing the game you can't help but love.most of them say they would play for a pat on the fanny.how about a pat and the fanny and millions of dollars?play the game already fellows. __________________ it's me,bigredskinfan63 bigledzepfan63 "the sea was red and the sky was grey,wondered how tommorow could ever follow today HAIL TO THE REDSKINS always remember ladies and germs-THE COWBOYS SUCK

03-13-2004, 09:53 PM	#7
manicd Special Teams Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 155	Oh, this is the best part though. "It's not a reason to hold out. I get $1 million just to show up. Who wouldn't show up for $1 million? The money ain't the thing, because I have that. Then again, I'm not going to sit here and say I don't want $7 million, either. That's stupid. Hell, we all gotta eat." Yeah, I need 7 million to put food on the table.

03-13-2004, 11:02 PM	#9
Ghost Special Teams Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 298	It's happening right now with Samuels ... he's eating up something like 10% of the team's cap space, so far refusing to renegotiate. LaVar's bump is a number of years down the road, same with Portis. We'll renegoiate some of these contracts and pay out the difference in signing bonuses, while letting other players go (like Steven Davis), making trades if possible -- like Champ, who''ll use up so much of Denver's cap space that they convinced the Skins to throw in a second rounder ... I believe the deal we gave Portis is a lot more cap-friendly. That's life in the NFL these days. I hope Gibbs is getting acclimated.

03-15-2004, 02:16 PM	#12
cpayne5 Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,807	If Ty Law has been treated poorly by NE, I don't see any problem with him sitting out. If he is greedy and is only after more money, then I have no patience for that. As for you guys who are saying that its ok for a player to sit out because the teams can cut you at anytime, you should read a contract. I'm sure that there are stipulations in it that explicitly say when and why a player can be cut. There are NO stipulations in it that say a player can sit (without forfeiting a pay check).

Ty Law wants out of NE

Locker Room Main Forum