Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka
Thanks for the advice Thurgood, I can see you’ve got an amazing grasp of “contracts, options, and how the NFL salary cap works”.
Dude, like many you don’t even seem to recognize what you don’t know. The term “roster bonus” indeed implies that it is contingent upon being on a roster, which is precisely why I said (from the outset) it was confusing that Holder called it guaranteed. However, the truth is that you and I have no idea what that contract says or how the guarantees work, but you somehow feel supremely qualified to speak, condescendingly no less, about the terms anyway. I pointed this out in an earlier post to help you out, but you ignored it for some reason. Regardless, I’ll work with the info Holder (who might actually know something) has provided, until I learn otherwise.
As far as your “option” argument – whatever. An option gives the holder the option to buy or sell something at a pre-arranged price/time. A buyout clause allows someone to extinguish an obligation at a preset price/time. One creates an obligation, the other extinguishes it. They are different concepts – look it up.
Lastly, as for Houston himself, I’ve got nothing against the guy and never said it was a bad signing. I’ve merely expressed a bit of concern over spending a lot of money on a guy on the downside of his career, and who has been injured a lot over the last few years and will be changing teams and positions. I think if the Raiders entered into the same contract with him, nobody here would be raving about what a great signing the Raiders had made. Regardless, I’m still excited to have him – it’s just not the type of signing that I’d envisioned the Colts making. That’s all I’ve said. All my other comments were directed to those who sought to justify the signing based not upon Houston’s skills or other football qualifications, but rather on the simple fact that we have a lot of cap space. That is nonsense.
|
You can have a rudimentary understanding of these things without being a supreme court justice or an expert in contract law.
Unless you're holding out your copy of the contract on us, all any of us are doing here is speculating. That said, you can observe prior contracts with similar clauses in them and generally predict what to expect from this contract. Data is a wonderful thing in that regard. My explanation is based on how I've seen the roster bonus clause operate in every other NFL contract, and how I've seen those contracts reported in terms of total salary and guarantees. It's possible that Ballard wrote an entirely new contract clause that operates completely differently than any other roster bonus I've seen, but unlikely, especially since that would disadvantage the team.
You're referring to "option" in the security sense. Even then, it's a similar concept. Apply a sunk cost in exchange for an opportunity to purchase or sell a security at a previously agreed upon price at a given point in time. In the case of a team option (which is typically what these clauses are called in baseball where contracts are fully guaranteed unless otherwise specified), the buyout is the sunk cost (guaranteed money in the second year of the contract in this case) with the option for the team to purchase his services for the second season.
The issue I've taken this whole time is you calling this contract "a lot of money". For the caliber of player the Colts are getting, I just can't see that argument as valid. As an example, the Texans will play Clowney $17.128 million next season if they don't work out a long term deal for him, and when you include the postseason, Houston has more sacks than Clowney over the last two years. You don't seem to be taking into account the value NFL teams place on pass rushers in your argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Racehorse
True. Further, I can't believe it is Dam who is the logical one. When does this ever happen?
|
It happens all the time. Glad you're finally recognizing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka
Haha - Fair enough. I've got no beef with you and I've said my peace on the subject. His facts are wrong, but his opinions are what they are and you can judge for yourself what you agree with. No issue there. There's no need to beat this particular dead horse any further.
|
You keep saying my facts are wrong but don't seem to give an example of that. What fact do I have wrong?