Mailbag: No sympathy for holdouts

As usual, the domination of the offseason by contract-related issues has caused a large number of you to write in with a range of thoughts and reactions. Not surprisingly, a large number of those thoughts and reactions were criticism of athletes who want more money.

Here's a sampling:

Haynesworth questions

I have a question. … You wrote, "But the better question is why [Mike] Shanahan, who has never coached a team with a 3-4 defense, is having defensive coordinator Jim Haslett, who hasn't coached a 3-4 scheme in more than a decade, install a 3-4 on a team that doesn't have the personnel to do it? Throw in the fact that other defensive linemen on the Redskins are privately complaining about the switch and you can understand why [Albert] Haynesworth wants out." I am a 'Skins fan but not the type the drinks the kool-aid so I'm just trying to get my facts straight. This is the first I've heard about complaints from other defensive linemen about the change in scheme. Most seemed happy to be playing a scheme that would be more aggressive compared to what (Greg) Blache ran in the past. Also, what has Haslett been running in the last decade, then? And what is it we have lacked in personnel besides the nose tackle position? It seems like our issues with (LaRon) Landry and (Carlos) Rogers would remain regardless of scheme so that couldn't be considered a personnel concern. I would love a response. Thanks.

Nnenna
Harlem-by-way-of-D.C.

The problem that most defensive linemen have with playing in a 3-4 is that it suppresses opportunity for sacks and even a lot of tackles. Ultimately, that hurts defensive linemen when they get to the bargaining table – not to mention the fact that it's really just not as much fun. This problem becomes more acute when a team is in the middle of switching from a 4-3 to a 3-4 and you still have a lot of guys left over from the previous system. As for the rest of the personnel, I don't see a lot of outside linebackers on the Redskins roster who are suited for a 3-4 system. For instance, as good an athlete as Andre Carter(notes) is, I don't think he can be a good outside linebacker in a 3-4. I thought the same thing last year about Aaron Kampman(notes) when Green Bay made the switch to a 3-4. He was a terrific 4-3 defensive end. He was lost in a 3-4. Maybe I'm wrong. As for Haslett, he worked with the 3-4 as an assistant with Pittsburgh from 1997-'99, but ran more of a 4-3 while with the Saints as head coach and coordinator/interim coach in St. Louis.

"Throw in the fact that other defensive linemen on the Redskins are privately complaining about the switch." That's not a surprise: 3-4 DL don't get any face time and/or credit. No sacks, limited tackles, they just eat up blockers to let the LB roam free. And the perception is that those guys don't get paid. Maybe so, maybe not. It'd be nice to compare recent DT contracts to players in 4-3 schemes, to DE contracts to players in 3-4 schemes. Can't really compare NT because those guys are so hard to find teams will use franchise tag to keep them.

Zack
Meriden, Conn.

Yep, that's my point, and you make a great suggestion about comparing salaries. I'll have to do some research on that.

"But the better question is why Shanahan, who has never coached a team with a 3-4 defense, is having defensive coordinator Jim Haslett, who hasn't coached a 3-4 scheme in more than a decade, install a 3-4 on a team that doesn't have the personnel to do it?" I loved your article and particularly the verbiage up above. I have a much different perspective now on the holdouts. I appreciate the insight. Just wanted you to know.

Thomas Troccoli
Tampa, Fla.

Thanks. Personally, I'd have a hard time doing what Albert Haynesworth(notes) is doing if I were in his shoes. That said, this is not what he signed up for. For me, if I went to a media outlet to cover the NFL and they asked me to cover the NBA, I probably wouldn't like it (even though I love basketball).

Just read ur article on player holdouts and in particular Albert Haynesworth. You mention that he's not the prototypical "squat-bodied type" but maybe Shanahan's looking to incorporate a Cowboys-esque system. Dallas employs Jay Ratliff(notes) at the point and he's not a typical NT either, with great lateral movement and upper-body strength. My point is maybe Shanahan's looking to use more defensive traps and shunts this year? Just a thought.

Terry M.

That's a really good point, and maybe that's the case. However, the way Shanahan sold this to Haynesworth (according to Haynesworth's side) was that Haynesworth was going to be a guy who held up the point of attack like the squat-bodied guys. His job was not going to be as a penetrating nose tackle, like Ratliff. Right or wrong, that's not what Haynesworth wants to do.

How to deal with holdouts

Hi Jason, quick question. Do the teams have to let the guys back in after they hold out? Meaning wouldn't the Chargers be able to "lock out" those players who don't show up until after Week 10 for the whole year thereby keeping the rights to them one more year? Since they would not get any time wouldn't that mean they have even less leverage? Not sure if that is right, but sounds like a plan to me. … Thanks Jason.

Jake
Madison, Wis.

No, a team couldn't bar someone from returning just because they held out. There are ways to suspend players, such as for conduct detrimental to the team, but a holdout or not signing doesn't qualify for that. The only thing a team could do is cut the player, which is basically what the player wants because it would potentially make him a free agent (depending on when they get cut).

Will they (players like Albert Haynesworth, et al) agree to a contract that pays back some of the guaranteed money if they play like crap? They signed contracts that were good deals when signed, gave them a certain amount of guaranteed money and therefore security. They traded the security of a long-term deal with guaranteed money for the big pay in the latter stages of the contract. Fair is fair.

Mike
Westwood, Mass.

In a sense, they already do. Most NFL contracts feature a substantial portion of money that isn't guaranteed and won't get paid if a player is cut. Thus, if the player really does stink, he's probably never going to see that money. Moreover, that's the risk of any business. You pay somebody to do a job. In the vast majority of situations, if they don't do it well, they don't have to return the money.

Money matters

Regarding your Money Matters comment: "That said, part of what you're saying is almost socialist. As much as you may not think athletes deserve this kind of money, they simply get what the market can bear. … The players deserve their share of what the fans pay." Technically, they get more than the market can bear: every new stadium in every major sport built comes with taxpayer-funded construction and land, as well as tax breaks and tax incentives. When the state takes private land and wealth to pay for a "public good" that is a form of socialism.

Jeremy Calton
Columbia, Mo.

Fair point, but NFL teams and stadiums are hardly the only businesses that get tax breaks. Plenty of corporations have been given tax breaks by local, state and federal governments, particularly when relocating. That's part of the way that communities spur growth. By that logic, do the workers at those companies get more than their fair share? No, not really. They get what the market demands because the community (and what it will do for business) is part of what forms the market. For instance, many large cities believe that sports are necessary to provide adequate entertainment for the people who live there. Thus, you give incentives to get those teams. Finally, there's more private investment in new stadiums than ever before.

Jason, This is an inaccurate statement: "The players deserve their share of what the fans pay." The bulk of the money in the NFL comes from television contracts not what the fans pay. What you should be writing about is whether an industry that uses public airwaves (i.e. Network TV) should be allowed to pay any business (i.e. the NFL) billions of dollars for multi-year contracts to televise their activities. After all, the television industry passes on their costs to advertiser who in turn pass the costs on to all individuals who purchase goods, services at retail (regardless of whether they are fans of football or not). The bottom-line result is that everything costs more while players and owners enrich themselves from the system. If network television did not use property owned by the public to transmit their signal, then this would be a moot issue. But the fact is they do. This is why Congress should get involved and mandate a monetary ceiling amount that the TV networks can pay the NFL. It would hurt neither the owners nor players to any great extent, but would surely reduce the cost of goods and services that every citizen pays. This is not socialism but just plain fairness for an industry that uses public property to present (i.e. transmit) its product to the citizens of this country.

Herman Mann.

First of all, it can't be an inaccurate statement if it's my opinion. It can be a misguided thought, but not inaccurate. As for the rest, your point is interesting but reminds me of the soliloquy from "Good Will Hunting" when Will follows a long logic trail to convince himself not to take a government job. The NFL isn't the only business entity that essentially causes costs to be passed along to consumers. The same could be said of any highly rated television show (or any show at all, really). Did the actors on "Seinfeld" and "Friends" cause (and still cause through syndication) costs to be passed on to consumers? Sure. Should government get involved mandating any monetary ceiling on what networks can pay someone? I would vehemently say no. If government did that, it would likely justify the NFL shifting all of its programming to cable entities, thus driving up the costs of watching a sport that is intrinsically part of American culture. In other words, be careful what you wish for. Also, I think calling airwaves "property" is a bit of a misnomer. Airwaves don't exist in the same way as tangible property. To me, they exist to be managed so that we maintain some control over what people are allowed to broadcast. The bottom line is this: If you don't want to pay the costs of what goes to NFL players, simply buy from companies that don't advertise on NFL games. That is entirely possible. That said, those companies are probably advertising with somebody, which means you're just paying somebody else in the long run.

I agree that NFL players, like all other pro athletes, are paid "market value," and that value keeps going up because more and more fans are spending more money at the games. But I do have to say that the idea of putting a "lifetime cap" on their earnings, forcing anything beyond that to "charity" is not necessarily "socialist" or even "almost socialist." It would only be "socialist" if such changes were wrought by legislation. If the NFL – which is a private corporation and can generally, to a very large extent, set the compensation rules under which its franchises operate – chose to enact such a policy, it would fit perfectly in keeping with their ability as a private corporation. As for football itself, I'm not going to slam you for ranking the 49ers O-line as you did, but I will say that by next season they'll be getting a lot more love from sports writers. I think Ant Davis and Mike Iupati(notes) are going to be premier Ground Hawgs by midseason, at best, so long as Frank Gore(notes) stays healthy, he's looking at 1,500 yards at least 10 TDs. I also think that this year Alex Smith is going to show everyone why the 49ers drafted him No. 1 to begin with. He'll never be Peyton Manning(notes), but I think he's going to be just fine for the 49ers this year. I am feeling vindicated though, because I lobbied hard for them to take Aaron Rodgers(notes) that season.

Bruce Norbeck
San Jose, Calif.

I think the NFL, as a private corporation, would have an awful lot of trouble getting players to agree to a policy that puts a cap on earnings. It's theoretically possible, but realistically unworkable.

McNeill is going into his fifth year with the Chargers.
(Stephen Dunn/Getty Images)

Jason, Your column regarding the dilemmas that restricted free agents Logan Mankins(notes), Vincent Jackson(notes) and Marcus McNeill(notes) are facing brings up some interesting points regarding their negotiating stances. However, you are ignoring the "middle ground" position where negotiations are almost certainly positioned at the present time. It's been reported that Mankins has been offered a five-year deal at about $7 million per year with $20ish million guaranteed. Is it unrestricted free agent money? No, but he isn't an unrestricted free agent due to the CBA that his union negotiated back in 2006. I have little doubt that Jackson and McNeill have been offered similar kinds of deals. Come August and the prospect of zero dollars coming into their bank account for the balance of 2010, – and perhaps 2011 should there be a lockout that the owners have been planning for years (allegedly) staring them in the face – wouldn't signing $7 million per year deals with $20-plus million become a lot more palatable than missing the whole 2010 season and not garnering a vested season or playing for $200K over the last six games of the season, especially with McNeill who still faces the prospect of being a restricted free agent again in 2011 even if he plays the last six games should a new CBA not be adopted before the NFL draft? I enjoy your column and keep up the good work!

Joe McGlinchey
Los Alamitos, Calif.

Interesting point. Let's say Mankins gets a five-year, $35-million deal (that's $7 million a year) with $20 million guaranteed, starting this year. That's obviously great money for most people, even if it's slightly below market for him at his position. Either way, no one is going to feel bad for Mankins. Now, if he were to sit out the first five or six games and play the remainder of the season for roughly $1 million (the prorated share of his $1.5 million tender), he's avoiding some risk of getting hurt, but not all of it. At the end of this season, he would have his accrued season. Even under the worst scenario of a new collective bargaining agreement, he would be an unrestricted free agent. He could get franchised by the Patriots, but that would likely cost the team in the area of $8 million for one season – something they don't like to do. Or he would simply become an unrestricted free agent and hit the open market (assuming there is an open market after this season). It would give Mankins more leverage to get the long-term deal he really wants, which would be along the lines of six years, $48 million with roughly $25 million guaranteed. Under the second scenario, adding this year and a potential new contract together, Mankins would make roughly $49 million in a seven-year period, getting $26 million in full. Under the first scenario, he gets $35 million over five years with $20 million guaranteed. The average salary is about the same, but there's a pretty big difference in the overall total and the guarantee. Frankly, I think it's a hard decision when you factor in the injury potential and other risks. At the moment, Mankins seems willing to accept the risk.

Jason, $3-plus million is life-changing money for just about most people on this planet, including yourself. Terrible argument, and yet again, missing on key points. Most people couldn't afford not to work for a year, and certainly would not get a better deal because of it. These guys were offered great money. They are walking out on their teammates, their team owners, and their fans in an attempt to make more money for themselves! Ninety-nine percent of the people in the world would jump through fire to make $3 million in what amounts to 6-8 months. Stop defended these spoiled babies. By the way, I have been a Chargers fan for 30 years, unwavering. Have the Chargers won a Super Bowl with McNeill or Jackson? No need to answer there Jason. This article is atrocious.

Brian Kennedy
Carmel, N.Y.

OK, I hear the emotional side of the "most people couldn't afford not to work for a year" argument. While true for "most people," it's not true in this case and that shouldn't be taken away from that person. Those players have worked hard to get where they are and to have the leverage that they have. They have a right to use it. And while $3 million for one year is great money, it's not for them. I think it's unfair of people to project their own value system in terms of wage on people who have a chance to make more. To me, that thinking is a form of jealousy, and it's unhealthy for all involved. Just because 99 percent of the world would jump through fire for that money doesn't mean they should. As for the Super Bowl point, there are lots of players who made lots of money without winning a title. That doesn't mean they weren't worth the money.

Defending the Titans

Oh Jason, you strange you little man you. I assume the only reason you constantly rank the Titans so low (in every category possible I might add) is to get even with me for all the Adrian Peterson man-crush ribbing I've given you over the years, but I just wanna say keep up the good work. I truly do enjoy reading your columns. I look forward to my second-best running back (your rank) running behind my 17th best O-line (again your rank) being at the top of the league yet again. I still cant believe you ranked Chris Johnson behind AP because of Toby Gerhart(notes). Just so you're not so confused about who the real best is, here's a breakdown of stats for the 2 : Games: both played 16; Rush Yards: CJ – 2,006, AP – 1,383; Yards a Game: CJ – 125.4, AP – 86.4; Rush AVG: CJ – 5.6, AP – 4.4; TD: CJ – 14, AP – 18 (maybe this is what you looked at when making your decision); Rec: CJ – 50, AP – 43; Rec Yards: CJ – 503, AP – 436; Rec AVG: both players averaged 10.1; Rec TD: CJ – 2 AP – 0; Fumb: CJ – 3, AP – 7. So obviously Chris is better and our line is probably better too but I think you've had enough schooling for the day. Rest easy young padawan.

Kevin
Davis, Calif.

Well, I certainly didn't think that rating the Titans running back core at No. 2 overall was "low," but it's all in the eye of the beholder. As for the offensive line, 17th is middle of the pack, which isn't bad. Now, I can't wait to read what you write me after you see the defensive line rankings.

Freeney thoughts

Freeney celebrates after sacking Drew Brees(notes) in the Super Bowl.
(Jeff Hanisch/US Presswire)

I normally don't comment to authors, but thank you for the amazing Dwight Freeney(notes) interview article. It's nice that attention and praise is given to positive role models who at least seem to have a good head on their shoulders rather than the often hyped dysfunctional NFL players. I think the interview was conducted in a very smart manner in that you did get an NFL player's insight on behavior issues while not forcing him to water in talking about something like Big Ben (Roethlisberger) specifically. I hope you can continue to conduct smartly written interviews like this in the future in a day and age where quality isn't always appreciated over quantity.

Denton
California

Thanks. Fortunately, since I don't have to do a lot of the writing, these interviews come out sounding smart.

Now this was a really good article. More players in the NBA/NFL/MLB need to take a page from this guy. There are way too many gold diggers and groupies that prey upon the athletes with hidden intentions that don't include love. If you ever watch the show "Basketball Wives" you know what I mean. I wish the leagues would do more to protect the players from the women who prey on them. Good for Dwight he sees the light.

Clyde Reid
St. Louis

Thanks for the note, but I'm reminded of a line from a good friend: "If we all tried to pick who our friends married, there would be more divorces than there are now." He's probably right.

Okay just read ur interview with Dwight Freeney. Seriously is "does that sort of suck?" the elite journalistic prowess that u "get paid" for? I mean u don't think it's slightly condescending for you to talk like that to a mature, intelligent man? Maybe you mistook him for Spongebob Square-pants? In my top 10 interviews with athletes 2010, you come last. Thanks for playing.

Terry M.

You're going to judge an entire interview or career on one question? Frankly, we were talking about dating, a really casual subject. I tried to ask the question in a casual fashion to make him feel at ease. Strategically, I think it was the right way to ask the question. Now, if I were asking him about the enduring impact of Bob Marley on Jamaican politics, I would ask in a different way.

(Postscript: Terry M. wrote a funny reply to my direct email about this. It featured the word "touché" and his promise to drink a Red Stripe in my honor. Fair enough.)