Remember, kids: There's no TEAM in BRAND.

he should have signed a 1 year contract five years ago. No risk no reward

 

Why? The owners don't have a problem letting a player go before his contract is up.

 

Man's got to feed his family. Just ask Latrell.

 

49ers are going to be making about $100 million more per season than they were when he signed the contract in 2010.

Things change.

 

As much as I'm a Niner fan, Davis' explanation is hypocritical. He says he signed the contract; then he says he does not pay attention to anyone else's, its all about his; well if you acknowledge you signed it, you need to live up to it. He was made the highest paid TE when he signed it, he does not "deserve" anything else other than what he agreed to, that's the reason they gave him the contract originally. There's risk on both sides. He did not "outperform" it now, that's irrelevant.

 

Fanboy BS. Players are cut all the time, why are players the only ones who have to live up to a signed contract?

 

The 49ers cut Carlos Rogers because they didn't want to pay him the amount his contract said he was supposed to make. I guess qtlaw figures that's cool.

The only way a player makes it to the end of a contract these days is by outperforming the contract. Fuck NFL front offices.

 

It's fanboys worried about how it's going to screw up heir team.

He will sign a new deal and probably be cut before he can get to the end of it and I'm sure the same people bitching about the holdout will be criticizing the team for not living up to a signed contract.

 

The only guaranteed money in the contract in the bonus. After that, it's just numbers to figure out how to amortize that bonus for cap purposes.

 

they need a lot of money but they spend a lot of money. Just ask Ewing

 

"Can not play with them, can not win with them, can not coach with them, can’t do it."

 

This is not fanboi enthusiasm, this is reality.

You say the contract is one-sided? Players have to live up to them but the owners don't? Wrong. The contract provides expressly that the team can cut the player whatever it provides, one year, year to year, etc. This is expressly spelled out. If it wasn't, the player could file a grievance and collect the damages from a breach of contract. Well there are no such grievances usually (excepting for things like Aaron Hernandez) because the contract gave a termination clause in the owner's favor.

Is this wrong? I believe so, but the players bargained away that power and while there have been some inroads, not likely to get to baseball or basketball levels anytime soon.

So what's distasteful is that a holdout is because the player is attempting to rewrite the contract by asking for renegotiation. When the team cuts the player, that's not a renegotiation.