Good point in return. It seems what we have is basically a broken contract system all around. You know, you'd think the NFL Player's Association would sit down with the team owners and maybe hammer something out that would eliminate both problems, but I guess these gambles (the ability to get out of a shitty contract for both sides, in exchange for uncertainty and holdouts) are calculated risks that the players and league would like to take. If only we, the regular humans, could dishonor contracts so easily. I'm sitting out for more money today. We'll see what happens.
Actually, I think they still do, even in the NFL. I think some of us are confusing contract performance with other things. We have a contract with Chad, for example. The contract says he plays QB for us and in return we pay him $XXX. The contract also says if he refuses to play, we don't have to pay him (this only makes perfect sense). The contract also says that if we bench him or he gets injured, we still have to pay him (this still makes perfect sense and is fair to all parties). Now, when we benched Chad, we still had to pay him. If we had traded Chad, we would have had to make up the difference in some other team's contract that they gave Chad, correct? (Please correct me along the way if I'm not understanding this correctly). Otherwise, if Chad stayed here (which he's doing), and doesn't play, the team will continue paying him what they agreed to pay him even though he's a backup (I'm assuming there is nothing in his contract that states that his pay will be diminished should he not be a starter). Okay.... so far so good. Both parties are adhering to the contract. BUT... if Chad suddenly says, "Hey, I want more money... I want to renegotiate or I won't play QB," we're free to say , "Stick it, you'll play or you won't get paid." Chad is threatening to break the terms of the contract now. Conversely, if the Jets say to Chad, "Hey, we don't like the number of INTs you threw last year and we're starting Clemens, therefore we're going to diminish your paycheck," Chad can say, "Hold it... that's not what we agreed to... you're breaking the contract." So, NFL contracts are still basically good working, effective instruments as I see it that fairly clearly state what each party will or won't do. They're not perfect, but they're still pretty good. Along comes Kendall and says, "Even though you gave me more money last year ('06), I can see you need me pretty bad this year ('07), so I want even more money now." At that point Kendall is threatening to break the terms and conditions of his contract. Flipping it, it would be no different than if the Jets had come to Kendall and said, "We're starting someone else this year, so we've decided to not pay you." The reason Kendall showed up at TC last year and walked through the paces was that his contract said that we didn't have to pay him if he didn't show up for TC. That's the only reason he was there. He knew if he broke his contract, he gets no money (and rightfully so). But nowhere in his contract did it state that he can't talk to reporters at every break to bitch and whine about his contract (the one he signed and agreed to months earlier). Baker is trying to push the Jets into signing a new contract and releasing him from his old one. It doesn't change the fact that he has a current contract and is expected to perform under the terms of it. But what he is doing is not in keeping with the spirit of the contract that he signed and that's the part that's so objectional. It's unfair to appraoch it this way, but understandable given his agent is also Kendall's, and he's getting the same advice. But he also has to know he's on real thin ice with this. If he pushes it as far as Coles did (insinuating the Jets are "liars" and that he was "misled"), he's liable to find himself either on the bench or playing Special Teams for the Winnepeg Wompums.
