Has Kenny Moore Played His Last Game as a Colt?

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by rm1369

Teams ask to renegotiate contracts as well. Do you complain that they aren’t living up to their contracts? Asking to renegotiate is not abnormal when it is unbalanced - in either direction. It is also not the same as “not honoring your contract.”

I don't really agree with this in a purely technical sense. I assume you're referring to instances where the team wants a player to take a paycut, rather than a renegotiation as a pure salary cap move, right?

I'll say at the outset that none of us have seen the actual contracts, so it's not possible to say with certainty what each side is allowed to do. However, in most cases, a team can ask a player to take a pay cut because the contract has given the team that leverage. If the player is entering into a non-guaranteed year, the team is free to ask for a reduction, and the player is free to decline. However, the player knows that he risks getting cut and receiving nothing, so he'll probably work with the team.

Conversely, the shoe is on the other foot in some contracts, most notably the recent Deshaun Watson contract. That one, I understand, is a fully guaranteed, $230M contract. The team has no leverage whatsoever, so long as Watson lives up to whatever additional terms (morality clauses, etc.) might exist in the contract. Now, the Browns could always ASK him to take less at some point, sure, but he'll just give them the finger. The Browns could not realistically cut him and would save nothing by doing so.

So it comes down to the contract. While lots of people say "I prefer millionaires to billionaires" and thus reflexively side with the players, the truth is that both sides are exceedingly well represented in their contractual negotiations, so it's not like the owners can usually "put one over" on the player (unless the player goes without representation, which some decide to do for unknown reasons).

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chaka

I don't really agree with this in a purely technical sense. I assume you're referring to instances where the team wants a player to take a paycut, rather than a renegotiation as a pure salary cap move, right?

I'll say at the outset that none of us have seen the actual contracts, so it's not possible to say with certainty what each side is allowed to do. However, in most cases, a team can ask a player to take a pay cut because the contract has given the team that leverage. If the player is entering into a non-guaranteed year, the team is free to ask for a reduction, and the player is free to decline. However, the player knows that he risks getting cut and receiving nothing, so he'll probably work with the team.

Conversely, the shoe is on the other foot in some contracts, most notably the recent Deshaun Watson contract. That one, I understand, is a fully guaranteed, $230M contract. The team has no leverage whatsoever, so long as Watson lives up to whatever additional terms (morality clauses, etc.) might exist in the contract. Now, the Browns could always ASK him to take less at some point, sure, but he'll just give them the finger. The Browns could not realistically cut him and would save nothing by doing so.

So it comes down to the contract. While lots of people say "I prefer millionaires to billionaires" and thus reflexively side with the players, the truth is that both sides are exceedingly well represented in their contractual negotiations, so it's not like the owners can usually "put one over" on the player (unless the player goes without representation, which some decide to do for unknown reasons).

Players and teams are (almost) always free to ask the other side to make a change. Yes, who has the leverage varies by scenario, but asking is not a violation of any contract I have ever heard of in the NFL. And that was part of my point to those criticizing Moore for not “honoring his contract”. Nothing Moore has done to date has violated his contract. He is skipping voluntary workouts and letting the team know he is unhappy. That is not a violation of his contract.

As far as players taking less to stay with a team it isn’t uncommon. Off the top of my head I can name two players who did it last off-season- Funchess in GB and the Bills center. Did the Bills or GB not honor their contracts by asking those players to renegotiate? Of course not. That’s my point - guys here complaining don’t complain when a team uses their leverage (the threat of a cut) to push players to take less, yet they are quick to criticize a player outplaying his contract for using his leverage (threat of a holdout, which Moore has not even done yet to my knowledge) to push a team to pay more.

[Mr. Session]

Interesting strategy considering how he ended last year. Renfro took his fucking lunch money.

I guess he figures his leverage is likely strongest now. I like Moore, but I’m not really sure how much.

[Hoopsdoc]

I used to get irritated but I don’t fault guys like Moore for trying to maximize his earnings. Not anymore.

Football is an absolutely brutal sport and the teams will very rarely show any loyalty at all to a non quarterback.

Get as much as you can, I say. Not a single person posting here would do any differently.

[Lov2fish]

Originally Posted by Hoopsdoc

I used to get irritated but I don’t fault guys like Moore for trying to maximize his earnings. Not anymore.

Football is an absolutely brutal sport and the teams will very rarely show any loyalty at all to a non quarterback.

Get as much as you can, I say. Not a single person posting here would do any differently.

I would do it differently. Call me old fashion, but my word means more to me than money. I get the, make all you can, but integrity is a real thing.

[apballin]

We all know this is because Gilmore walked in the door making more money, but he’s a vet super champ and defensive player of the year. That’s what I’d be telling Kenny if I’m Ballard right now

[omahacolt]

Originally Posted by Lov2fish

I would do it differently. Call me old fashion, but my word means more to me than money. I get the, make all you can, but integrity is a real thing.

this is a fucking absurd take. and i don't believe you or anyone that says that either.


the teams don't honor the contract if it doesn't favor them.

[Lov2fish]

Originally Posted by omahacolt

this is a fucking absurd take. and i don't believe you or anyone that says that either.


the teams don't honor the contract if it doesn't favor them.

You don't have to believe me for it to be true dipshit.

[CanuckColt]

Originally Posted by Mr. Session

Interesting strategy considering how he ended last year. Renfro took his fucking lunch money.

I guess he figures his leverage is likely strongest now. I like Moore, but I’m not really sure how much.

Yeah, he is good but not elite.
Time to train the next slot CB.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by rm1369

Players and teams are (almost) always free to ask the other side to make a change. Yes, who has the leverage varies by scenario, but asking is not a violation of any contract I have ever heard of in the NFL. And that was part of my point to those criticizing Moore for not “honoring his contract”. Nothing Moore has done to date has violated his contract. He is skipping voluntary workouts and letting the team know he is unhappy. That is not a violation of his contract.

As far as players taking less to stay with a team it isn’t uncommon. Off the top of my head I can name two players who did it last off-season- Funchess in GB and the Bills center. Did the Bills or GB not honor their contracts by asking those players to renegotiate? Of course not. That’s my point - guys here complaining don’t complain when a team uses their leverage (the threat of a cut) to push players to take less, yet they are quick to criticize a player outplaying his contract for using his leverage (threat of a holdout, which Moore has not even done yet to my knowledge) to push a team to pay more.

I guess the distinction is that Moore’s threat in your scenario is to breach his contract, which he has no legal right to do. The team’s threat is exercise a contractual right which isn’t favorable to the player. If the team tried to bully the player into modifying his contract by threatening to withhold money legally guaranteed under the contract, that would be comparable.

I tend to believe that these days, each side goes into these contracts with both eyes open. While I certainly understand and sympathize with Moore’s disappointment over the increases in CB salaries since he signed his agreement, I find it hard to support or endorse any threat to hold out. He is threatening to deny the Colts the benefit of their bargain with him. They rolled the dice and had a favorable outcome. When they signed Funchess a few years ago, that gamble didn’t work out as well, but as far as I know the Colts paid him anyway. Absent some evidence Moore was tricked or unfairly taken advantage of, it’s just bad faith in my view. Yes, it’s leverage because he’s a popular player and the Colts don’t want to lose him, but its unfair leverage in my opinion, and from a strict contractual perspective it’s plainly wrong.

That said, you are correct that he’s done nothing so far other than ask for an increase, and it’s possible that the Colts could elect to grant him his wish (likely with other contractual terms attached, such as an extension, options, etc.) or that he backs down. However, he is signaling a potential future hold out, and the Colts apparently weren’t willing to do anything when he approached them privately, so the fact that this has escalated into the public domain is not a very good sign. It also puts the Colts in a difficult position now that this is public, since if they give in to his demands then it might be seen to encourage other players to do the same. Sometimes the solution is to trade him to someone who is willing to rework the deal.