Walker seems to be taking a reasonable approach. I'm sure the Packers can still get good value for him and I don't see why they wouldn't attempt to honor his wishes. It is interesting how the media has become the place for players to make a case to the public (to be traded, for a new contract, etc.). Does anyone think the Packers would be more likely to trade Walker if this had been kept quiet?

There is no I in team.

"There is no I in team"

But there is a me

yeah but it's backwards!

Salary cap, schmalary cap... looks to me like what is needed is an agent cap.

There's no "team" in "Javon Walker," either.

Hypothetical situation: You work for a company at which you are significantly underpaid given your level of skill and the market for your services. You go to management and ask for a raise, letting it be known that if you don't get the raise, you may not continue to perform the tasks that you are underpaid to perform. Management has a recent history of refusing to pay employees their market value and seems to believe that employees should feel honored simply to work for the organization, despite the fact that the company is performing poorly in a competitive market. There's one big exception to that rule: There is one employee who is not very good at his job but to whom management kowtows for political reasons. That guy has the nerve to side with management, which has been kissing his butt for years, and let everyone in the company know that he disagrees with your negotiating tactics. So now you are underpaid and disrespected in a poorly run company that values inferior employees more than you. Do you continue to want to work for that company, or do you make an effort to seek employment elsewhere where you are better appreciated?

Here's another way to look at it: There's also no G in Team.

I agree wholeheartedly with #6.

Many football fans prefer the NFL's system to MLB's, but there's a reason why situations like this literally NEVER arise with baseball players.

Whats different about baseball? Why doesn't this happen in the MLB? I don't know anything about baseball contracts.

8. Manny wasn't begging to be traded for 1.5 years?

The Eagles could use a WR of Walker's talent, but isn't he still represented by Rosenhaus?

Missing from the hypothetical situation put forth in #6: You have a contractual obligation to the company.
I'm in the "He signed the freakin' contract, didn't he?" camp, but that said, who wants a divisive malcontent in the locker room?

Just cause I'm bored and feel like being argumentative:

Re 6

To say that Walker is "significantly underpaid" may be a bit of an exaggeration. He's had one Pro-Bowl season and three that were mostly forgettable. Now, I'll grant that in the current WR market, he'd be a top name; probably the top name. But it could be argued that he's not even the best receiver on his own team.

Also, I'm pretty sure he agreed to work under the conditions of any prevailing CBA when he joined the league. I'm assuming he's a member of the NFLPA. I'm also assuming that he signed his name on his now-unfair contract at some point in the past.

Honestly, I have to agree with post 4 on this. I smell an agent at work. I doubt that Walker is that big of a turd. He had enough judgment to dump Drew Rosenhaus, which bumps him up a notch in my book. But a new agent needs a new contract to get paid. I'd be shocked if that's not a factor here.

Re: 6

It's about the money. It is always about the money. There is no contrived moral stance here about the power structure in Green Bay. Walker would be the first to kiss Favre's ring if he were getting the millions he wants. Would Walker turn down a record-breaking payout from, say, the Raiders, simply because they don't figure to be competitive soon? Do you honestly believe that?

You resent Favre's influence, and that's okay. But spare us the sermon--this is strictly about cash dollar bills.

Re: #8- what I meant was that baseball never sees holdouts, nor do we even see players threatening to hold out. Of course players will sometimes request to be traded, but if the request isn't met it ends there.

The way MLB works is that the player makes the minimum for his first four years in the majors, has arbitration rights for years five and six, and becomes a free agent with no restrictions after six years. The culture and mentality is that if the player puts his time in, he'll eventually be taken care of. Thus, you never see holdouts.

Plus, in baseball a deal truly is a deal. A football player often justifies not living up to his contract by saying that the team isn't obliged to fulfill the contract...so why should he?

It’s about the money. It is always about the money.

Well, yeah. Playing football is what Javon Walker does for a living.

It's about the money for the Packers, too.

Having been through a scenario similar to that described in #6, I certainly sympathize with Walker. However, I was in an employment-at-will situation, because I never signed a contract to work for the company for a specified length of time. Therefore, I was within my rights to eventually find greener pastures.

Meanwhile, Walker knowingly and willingly signed a contract, for which he was paid far more than I could hope to earn in my career, to play for the Packers. The other 31 teams in the league have a "do not compete" clause (something I became familiar with, much to my frustration) that is in effect as long as Walker is an employee of the Packers. The terms of his employment have certainly changed (i.e., suddenly, the Packers stink), but that does not change the fact that it's his signature on a contract with the Packers.

Yes, it stinks, but the Packers paid him a truckload of money (signing bonus) for Walker's anticipated future performance with them.

Random hindsight thought . . . perhaps the NFLPA should have included a clause in the CBA that players could buy out their own contracts by paying back a prorated portion of their signing bonus for situations just like Walker's.
But it appears they were focusing too much on percentage points. The NFLPA got a huge concession in getting Total Gross Revenues as the basis of their salary cap, but it's too bad they didn't appear to spend a lot of time thinking about scenarios like Walker's. Or maybe they did, and we just haven't heard about it.

At any rate, I hope Walker gets his wish, but if he doesn't then he should suck it up and play out the terms of his contract. No holding out, no whining on the sidelines.

Life isn't always fair. Wear a cup.

Re: 16

So...what's your point? We both agree: He is trying to get money from an organization which is also trying to get money. This doesn't have anything to do with Favre, or hurt feelings, or with hypothetical situations. If Favre had said, "hey, Green Bay, give this young fella his due," Walker would hold out. If Favre had taken a vow of silence, Walker would probably still hold out.

Walker is not a martyr. He is doing business, albeit in a kind of odd manner.

The biggest difference between MLB and the NFL is that the contracts are binding on both sides in MLB. NFL teams can cut players at any time. This means that it is in the best interests of the players to get the money as soon as they can since they might not play out their contract. This of course leads to hold outs and demands for contract renegotiations.

As for the MLB free agency, I think players get arbitration after 3 full years (except for super-2s that can get it after 2+). Arbitration goes for 3 years. And the players don't play for the minimum those first few years. They play for whatever the club offers. That is usually the minimum though.

Re; 15&19

This is proabably just a sematic nuance, but NFL contrtacts are 'binding on both sides' and a 'deal is a deal'. The contracts signed by most players specifically allow the teams to end the relationship. It's part of the contract. To say teams aren't honoring the contract isn't accurate. They're just exercising their options under it.

To expand on #20, it is also within a player's rights to negotiate a 100% guaranteed contract. Adam Vinatieri did it. But for most players this would lead to a contract with lower potential value. Most of the players, it seems, would rather have an un-guaranteed $40M contract than a guaranteed $10M contract. I'm not sure which choice I'd make in their place, but the point is, the choice does exist.

Re: #20 I understand what you're saying, and you are correct.

The problem comes when a player decides that getting market value is more important than living up to an unfair, one-sided contract.

Perhaps the world would in fact be a better place if everyone put their head down and said "I'll live by the unfair contract I signed", but as we've seen, that's just not how it works. It's just realily that if one's choices are to accept being underpaid or misbehave, some players will opt for the latter.

Boston Red Sox pitcher David Wells wanted to be traded, and I had ZERO sypathy for his plight. Wells had infitite options, and he chose the one the Red Sox offered. Contrast that to Walker- his options were to take when Green Bay was offering or sit out a season, and even after the contract expired the Packers could prevent him from leaving.

Re #21: I was unaware that Vinitieri's deal was guaranteed. I thought the Patriots franchised him last year. I do know that Reggie White's first deal with Green Bay was guaranteed, as was Brian Bosworth's deal with Seattle.

I wonder what would happen if a team tried to get an edge in the free agent market by offering guaranteed deals.

JRM-
Why do you say "unfair, one-sided" contract? If the player thought that it was unfair and one-sided, he wouldn't have signed it. If he changes his mind about it's fairness, then he needs to deal with that, but recognize that the contract was fair and the player just changed his mind.

The players want the best of both worlds: to be guaranteed the $$ that they get on their unguaranteed contracts. Maybe it's an education thing, maybe there needs to be the phrase: "WARNING: This contract is not guaranteed. You probably won't get all of this money. You may be better off negotiating a smaller guaranteed contract." in bright red letters right above the dotted line on all NFL contracts.

What #6 doesn't take into account is that the "history of not paying market value" is with different management. Sherman is the one who caved on McKenzie, thereby setting this horrible precedent of the lunatics running the asylum. TT has been more than fair in his dealing so far. He didn't want to break the bak for certain players (Sharper, Whale) so that he could get himself out of the mess Sherman put him in.

Walker is an ass. He can sit for the year and come back and he'd STILL owe the Packers a year of his services. I hope he has fun trying to catch on woth another minor league baseball team... loser.

Why do you say “unfair, one-sided� contract? If the player thought that it was unfair and one-sided, he wouldn’t have signed it.

His options were to sign it or sit out for a year.

Sometimes one has to choose between the lesser of two bad options.

For those who keep saying "HE SIGNED A CONTRACT!!"- was there anything in the deal that said he had to be happy with it? Is there anything that says he can't request a trade?

Has Walker done anything in violation of the contract?

#25. Aaron N, what you're saying underscores the comments above regarding the true motivation for this demand. Walker should have no beef with the current Green Bay Packers management, his quarrel with Favre is irrelevant, and this looks more and more like his agent's clumsy ploy to get a cut of something, anything. Rosenhaus got zip for his short-lived representation of Walker (and his "work" for T Owens). By all accounts Walker was the proverbial good soldier when he chose not to hold out after thtreatening to last year and came to camp ready to play. Is this just similar posturing, at the behest of his new agent? Would we even be talking about this if Walker hadn't torn up his knee?

There's no "Favre" in team.

Re: 22 & 26

One could similarly say that the teams' options were to accept Walker's salary demands or lose his rights and that the team was the one that had to choose between the lesser of two bad options.

When players 'underperform' their contract we don't say the contract was unfair to the team, we say they screwed up. I'm willing to hold the players to the same standard. :-)

What religion is it that preaches the sanctity of contracts? I just don't get it. Where does this blind and irrational adherence to this phrase "he signed the damn contract dint he?" come from?

I was born and raised in the United States and I'm just trying to figure out where the "he signed the damn contract dint he" value comes from...

There seems to be a very weird and irrational strain of thinking that a signature on a piece of paper by a citizen is the overriding factor in any legal wrangling. It's greater than the free market, it's greater than most measures of fairness, and the huge power discrepancy between citizens and large organizations is completely ignored. At what point in US history did a signature on a contract become tantamount to selling one's soul?

It's absolute balderdash, of course. Contracts are created every day with the full intention of being broken. For example, health insurance companies routinely break contracts and do not grant covered procedures as simple and elegant way of making money. In contract law (which few here seem to have any passing familiarity with), the remedy is merely to enforce the contract. So for most insured people, the cost of pursuing the enforcement is far greater than would be practical to take.

This is business as usual, folks. It just galls me that when an employee wants out of a contract, everyone wants to take management's side. I guess the "he signed the contract dint he" people just find faceless corporations a lot more warm and fuzzy than pro athletes.

Yuck.

One could similarly say that the teams’ options were to accept Walker’s salary demands or lose his rights and that the team was the one that had to choose between the lesser of two bad options.

At which point the Packers could simply hire another WR. Walker wouldn't have the option to seek another employer in his chosen field.

people just find faceless corporations a lot more warm and fuzzy than pro athletes.

I think a lot of fans are simply jealous of the players and act spitefully as a result.

NFL contracts are not indentured servitude contracts. Walker is saying that if the team doesn't trade him, he will retire and fulfill the obligations of his contract by paying back a portion of his signing bonus if necessary:

"If I had to go back there, I'd retire," he said. "I don't have to play."

The rift is so deep and his animosity toward Favre so great that, Walker said, he is even willing if necessary to repay the Packers the prorated portion of his signing bonus, which amounts to around $850,000.

Therefore, Walker is not in breach of contract, nor is he threatening to be in breach of contract. He is merely utilizing what little leverage he has to put himself into a better financial and professional situation. He is doing nothing unethical or illegal, nor anything that many of his critics wouldn't do under similar circumstances.

Would Walker really retire if the Packers don't trade him? I don't know. But I see nothing to which to object about his complaints or tactics.

It just galls me that when an employee wants out of a contract, everyone wants to take management’s side.

I don't think it's that people automatically want to side with corporations over individuals. It's that people tend to side against whoever is trying to break the contract. This is especially so in the case of millionaires demanding to be made bigger millionaires.

Personally, I see breaking a contract as equivalent to breaking a promise. Sure, it happens all the time, but that doesn't mean one should aspire to do it. And if you make a promise with the intention of breaking it, you'll get no sympathy from me if someone calls you on it. I also was born and raised in the United States, and I don't get where the belief that contracts don't mean anything comes from.

Now, in the case of NFL players, I'll admit that the teams have done a good job of selling the fans on the idea that cutting a player is not a breach of the contract. But I don't see the leap from that to everyone loving corporations.

As a few people have said, Javon Walker signed a contract with a fixed term, and a signing bonus. The implication here is that if he does not honour the contract the Packers may be within their rights to ask for the signing bonus to be returned - or at least the remaining pro-rated part of the Bonus, for the part of the contract he is not honouring.

That said, I still side with Walker's decision because:

a) I think he is significantly underpaid.

He counted for $1.3m against the cap last year, and is slated to count for $1.9m this year.

Walker finished 2nd, 7th and 8th in Yards, TD's & Receptions in 2004. And 8th in DVOA.

By all accounts, an elite year after showing promise in his limited playing time in 2003.

b) After requesting a contract more in line with his ability last offseason (note the term "requested" - as far as I am aware he never suggested he would not play for the Pack) he was not only rejected, but was derided for suggesting as much by a teammate - one who is representative of the franchise as a whole.

One of Walker's argument would likely have been: "Yes, I could see out my contract and get a big fat new one once it finishes, but what if I get injured? I'd be screwed"

Then he got injured.

At the end of the day, the Packers should just trade the guy. Why cut off your nose to spite your face, by holding on to a guy who is taking up cap space instead of trading him for a draft pick. They may even be able to recoup some of that signing bonus, since Walker doesn't want to honour his contract.

(Click on my name for a link to a very helpful salary cap info website)

Umm...what if both the team and player were right in this situation. They both signed a contract in good faith and now the player wants out - that's his decision. The team gets more by not letting him renegotiate - that's just being a competent general manager. They play a game of chicken until some decision is made and then he's either with the team or not. Neither team nor player is being either unfair or fair - they're just both being smart business-wise. That's how the system is supposed to work in these situations, isn't it?

Many football fans prefer the NFL’s system to MLB’s, but there’s a reason why situations like this literally NEVER arise with baseball players.

Didn't Rickey Henderson used to demand a new contract every year, even after signing a multi-year deal?

Everyone talks about how underpaid he will be this year. You can't just look at one year. I don't have the numbers on his signing bonus, but based on Liam's numbers it was about $4 million. So he signed a 5 year deal, worth about $7 million. That's $5.6 million in the 4 years he's played. In those 4 years, he has 18 starts. He has 157 catches in 4 years, which averages to 39 a year, which averages out to $45K per catch. Why should a team pay him big money after one good year? Does he owe them money for not being good enough to crack the starting lineup until his 3rd season?

So forgive me if I don't fell sorry that he may be underpaid in '06. If he can stay healthy (why should a team give him a long term deal if he can't?), he'll be a free agent in '07, where he'll make all the money he deserves to.

I'm not sure if there exists such a thing as an "unfair" contract that involves millions of dollars going into my bank account.

Didn’t Rickey Henderson used to demand a new contract every year, even after signing a multi-year deal?

No, but what actually happened brings back fond memories.

For a long time, baseball salaries maxed out at $2 M. Then the collusion era ended, and baseball got a new TV deal. Rickey Henderson signed a $3 M annual deal.

Well, not long afterward Darryl Strawberry and Jose Canseco signed $5 M annual deals, and Henderson went NUTS. We went on ESPN and did an interview where he was literally crying. The universal response (which I agreed with) was Rickey, too bad. You misread the market, you live with the consequences.

Bear in mind that this happened sixteen years ago, and Henderson quickly came to his senses. He never held out and fulfilled his end of the deal.

I’m not sure if there exists such a thing as an “unfair� contract that involves millions of dollars going into my bank account.

Of course there is.

Let's say you and I equally chipped in and bought a lottery ticket that won $50 M. Would it be fair for me to offer you $2 M?

The old standby is "I say he's making enough money". But the reality is that relatively speaking- as in, comparing him to other NFL wideouts- Javon Walker is underpaid.

He signed a contract. At what point is his signature and word worth anything... After all, they didnt cut him.

(HE CAN ALWAYS WALK AWAY.)

(Happiness or (one's concept of "deserve") aint got nothing to do with it. There are a lot of guys out there who would like to be in Mr. Walker's recently underused cleats.)

Is it any coinkydink that the majority of the guys who always want to renege... I mean, renegotiate... are WRs and are represented by Rosenhaus?

Potential? The only thing Walker is guaranteed to have NFL level potential for at this point is to threaten to holdout annually. Man, that's a top seller!

Of course owners are in it for the money. The discussion really is centering on whether one overplayed his hand!

Players are in it for the money too, a fact that is lost on too many folks. And some want to constantly renege... I mean... renegotiate.

Gee, what was Javon's wonderlic score?

///////////////

Liam makes a good point. And... does anyone realize how many WRs have a good 2nd or 3rd year and then fade into obscurity? And never do jack again...

/////////////////////

I am a fan and a bettor. How many AGENTS frequent this board?

I have a question...

Did Javon Walker sign a contract? :P

I think part of Walker's wanting to leave is the negative community that's there. Notice he didn't say anything during the season; only afterwards.

As to the contract breaking, I'm fully in favor of a player doing what he can to get money within the bounds of the game. He signed a contract when no one knew how good he'd be or if he was good. Now that he's shown to be a talent, why shouldn't he be paid for that talent?

The problem is, these guys are just too smart. While there's no 'I' in team, there IS a You.

Drew,
"I also was born and raised in the United States, and I don’t get where the belief that contracts don’t mean anything comes from."

I think I have an idea...maybe when we signed those treaties with the Natives...now those agreements sure weren't worth the tanned buffaloskin they were written on...

I’m not sure if there exists such a thing as an “unfair� contract that involves millions of dollars going into my bank account.

Of course there is.

Sorry. My comment was meant to be a little tongue in cheek. Although, it's still hard for me to imagine ever being unhappy making $1 Million+ per season. But I suppose my spending habits and tastes in life would change at that point.

Well, beware just whom you sign a contract with...

Perhaps the Green Bay PAckers rue the day they signed a contract with Javon... But now, time to make lemonade....

////////////////

Some players have an infinite # of fans, or Michael Irvin, who will always justify their actions. Some pundits however, are selling themselves.

Clubs are right to beware young receivers. They dont always keep "panning out". More than a few are prima donnas, well into their "pro-football middle age". And later, apparently. There are myriad examples; some are known by their initials and even become verbs. And some are helped along to develop by their QBS. It can be hard to develop if one isnt in camp.

////////////////////

Reggie White and Willie Davis seemed to like Green Bay just fine.

'Re #5
-There's no 'team' in 'Javon Walker', either.'

But there is a w*nker

Re 45

Are you saying that because America's 19th-century leaders defrauded the Native Americans, it's OK not to honor a contract? I'm pretty sure that that whole situation is considered one of the most shameful episodes of our nation's history. Perhaps it's not a good source of ethical guidance.

Reggie White and Willie Davis and Walker seemed (past tense)to like Green Bay just fine. Mike Sherman took a lot of flak for trading up in the draft to take him. You see, Walker had this low Wonderlic score, and couldn't possibly learn the intricacies of the West Coast offense. But Sherman and his coaches and scouts did their due diligence, discovered Walker simply had an undiscovered learninmg disability, and drafted him with the belief that he would, with the right help, learn how to be an NFL reciever. At which time Mr. Walker professed his appreciation and gratitude to the organization for believing in him, and he would do them proud. Which he did, in his third season.

We all know what came next. Either agents, or posse, or both, or other got in his ear and told him, "You're one of the best in the League, you should be paid like it!" So he turned on those who had believed in him, even though he had only put up the numbers once, which, proves nothing. Oh, I know, he might get hurt and never realize his full earning potential if doesn't go mercenary right now. But where's the loyalty? Where's the gratitude now? He's pissed at Favre, because "He got his", but Favre earned his by being one of the best at his position for season after season after season. And he voluntarily restructured his contracts when Ron Wolf was learning how to operate with a salary cap.

Too, let's not forget that there are "good guys" in the league, too. Gilbert Brown signed lesser contracts to stay in Green Bay. Ahman Green has quietly accepted a one-year "come-back" contract after his injury. I'm sure there are many more that we don't hear about because they are not the squeaky wheels.

On this thread, and the Culpepper tread, it seems you're either a mercenary, or an altruist. Of course the mecenaries resent the altruists for slowing down the money train, and the altruists detest the mercenaries for sending the League to Hell in a handbasket. Can't we all just get along?

Well, Duane, to ask is (usually) to answer...

//////////////////

Javon may also stating his position on a referendum on the topic of whether GB will be better next year or whether Lord Favre will return. I surmise maybe not much, and no.

////////////////////

The T.O. debacle hit home when Keyshawn, not renowned for thinking before talking, publicly said that T.O. should ditch his agent.

//////////////

Despite Sherman's good points, the arrival of a new GM sure didnt bode well for him. All the injuries didnt help. But, pending any personnel moves, I would probly pick GB to win that division next year. They can only do better in close games next year; that stuff is cyclical. None of the rest impress me that much. CHI has actually had good defensive talent for most of my life. But they are bound to have more injuries next year, just not to Rex (?). Daytwa is Daytwa and I remain an honorary Missourian where they are concerned. The Vikes are working on another install of Team Turmoil.

Quick law school lesson - Walker has every right in the world to breach his contract. The argument that contracts are sacred was rejected a long time ago.

However, Walker would be liable to the Packers for damages. There's an interesting question of what those damages would be, because they would have a legal responsibility to mitigate damages. So, they would have to sign another wide receiver who was equal or better, if they could. (this is my best guess based on precedent from a 60s case involving a guy named James Harris who tried to break a no-compete clause to switch from the NFL to the AFL. The Court found that the team cannot enforce the no compete if there was an equal or better player available).

The damages then would be the difference between Walker's current contract and the new contract for the guy they signed to replace him.

If Walker thinks he's worth big money, and his reasonable replacement value is high, he'd likely be screwed if he tried to breach the contract.

He can try whatever he likes.

When people get away with breach of contract, that is because the judge is (or breacher party is) worried about politics or is bribed.

whoops, breacher should read "breached"