Thread: Chris Borland retires

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

Every player that has ever had a contract cut short and not honored. I didn't think it was that hard of a concept.

Its not about whether its a hard concept Mo. Its about the type of circumstances that go into those said contracts, etc. Its easy just to throw out a generalization without anything to back it up. You had no specific example of a NFL team not honoring a contract in this scenario, i found it odd you would make that comment in this thread. I guess you were just trolling for the sake of trolling. Carry on.

It's not a generalization. It's an argument for guaranteed contracts. NFL teams are continuously going after players when they don't fulfill contracts. The anti-trust exemptions allow the teams not to honor their own contracts. Sure, he voluntarily gave it up, but the 49ers would have gone after him legally if he didn't.

Had the 49ers given Borland a roster bonus instead of a signing bonus I could see BW/MO's point, a roster bonus that would of been for the 2014 season, that is.

There's also circumstances where I have no problem with a player keeping all of his signing bonus, most circumstances even, but the dude only played one season of a rookie deal.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

It's not a generalization. It's an argument for guaranteed contracts. NFL teams are continuously going after players when they don't fulfill contracts. The anti-trust exemptions allow the teams not to honor their own contracts. Sure, he voluntarily gave it up, but the 49ers would have gone after him legally if he didn't.

Of course they would have, he hadn't fulfilled his contractual agreement. The agreement Borland made was to play a certain length of time in that contract. No NFL team wants to give away money for free.

Yep - I'm confused by MO's comment. BW is a liberal, so I understand his stance.

The point that they are making is that teams often times don't have to honor a contract that they give a player. In fact, they often craft a contract in such a way that when they have to pay out the most money that the player can just be cut. That's a truth. The other truth is that teams will often go after a player in cases like this if they don't agree to give it back. Why should the Niners get their cash back from Borland when they, like other teams, cut players all the time and don't really honor their contract?

Originally Posted by King87

The point that they are making is that teams often times don't have to honor a contract that they give a player. In fact, they often craft a contract in such a way that when they have to pay out the most money that the player can just be cut. That's a truth. The other truth is that teams will often go after a player in cases like this if they don't agree to give it back. Why should the Niners get their cash back from Borland when they, like other teams, cut players all the time and don't really honor their contract?

I think there's a strong case that Borland didn't have to give it back. As a signing bonus, he's suppose to get that money with his signature - nothing more. Having watched Borland on Sunday, that kid has politics or sales written all over him. It was a smart move to give it back. But hell, I don't know the kid. He may just think it's the right thing to do.

I get where you're coming from. Guaranteed contracts will eventually come to the NFL.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

I wonder if teams are going to start honoring contracts and give the money owed to the player?

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

Yep - I'm confused by MO's comment. BW is a liberal, so I understand his stance.

LOL, not sure what this has to do with my political leanings. My understanding of a signing bonus is that it's money you get for simply signing the contract. There is no requirement that you play out the contract to get that guaranteed money. So I guess I'm just confused as to why he would have to give any of that money back.

When a team cuts a guy, they still have to pay out his guaranteed money. So why would it not work the same the other way around?

Originally Posted by King87

The point that they are making is that teams often times don't have to honor a contract that they give a player. In fact, they often craft a contract in such a way that when they have to pay out the most money that the player can just be cut. That's a truth. The other truth is that teams will often go after a player in cases like this if they don't agree to give it back. Why should the Niners get their cash back from Borland when they, like other teams, cut players all the time and don't really honor their contract?

Probably because said players dont live up to their contracts. Just a guess.

Originally Posted by Northman

Probably because said players dont live up to their contracts. Just a guess.

A contract is a contract, though.

Originally Posted by King87

A contract is a contract, though.

Exactly. You earn that contract and then the team doesn't have to abide by it.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

Exactly. You earn that contract and then the team doesn't have to abide by it.

But in the contracts they get the right to put whatever stipulation they want in it. That's the nature of the beast. It's fine, but I wish people were as critical of franchises and front offices for that type of behavior as they are of players.

Originally Posted by King87

A contract is a contract, though.

A contract is a contract if you fullfill that contract. You dont fullfill what you signed pay you no get.

Originally Posted by Northman

A contract is a contract if you fullfill that contract. You dont fullfill what you signed pay you no get.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, the only stipulation of a signing bonus is to sign the contract. It doesn't require you to play out the deal.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

Unless I'm misunderstanding, the only stipulation of a signing bonus is to sign the contract. It doesn't require you to play out the deal.

When a player looks at a contract they negotiate the signing bonus in order to SIGN that contract. The signing bonus is part of the contract being offered and usually is the selling point to get the player to sign it in the first place. They go hand in hand.