Any time an NFL player holds out I say more power to them. Greed? They're taking years off of their life playing for an owner who will cut them the minute it's convenient. Goes both ways.
It's possible he could want more money, but he's already one of the highest paid tackles in football so that would be a bit odd. Either way, giving up nearly 700k in money that would already be in his bank if he showed up in a futile effort to get more guaranteed money next season seems REALLY stupid.
The owners give guys a chance to make more money in a year than many could make in a lifetime. They could play one year and set themselves up for life. Greed is when you don't play for a team once the guarantee is over, even though that same team paid you while you were on rehab and injured. You call it business, and I call it greed. We will never agree on this subject.
He better hope that the left tackle just does a terrible job since he's lighting 440k on fire by refusing to show up to work. If not, he might have to light another 440k on fire next week.
It's just business. And it goes both ways. The owners don't give anyone a "chance". Duane provides a service that maybe 10-15 men on the planet can provide. There are less Duanes than Uncle Bobs in the world. This is why fans are pissy at him...because without him the Texans Oline is hot garbage. He's betting on himself and I say more power to him. He doesn't owe me or Uncle Bob a damn thing, he played well for them and it worked well for both parties.
I hope we do fine without him, and he goes somewhere else next year. I don't even want him on our team anymore. Maybe the money they save off of him holding out can go towards another player next year.
So it is not greed for the owners who are in this only to make money and will cut veterans just to replace them with cheap rookies? Even if the veterans are much better? Isn't greed cutting a player just because the guarantee is over and it won't cost you to do so even though you signed him to a contract for a longer period of time? I don't understand how you only see this one way.
Actually he's not betting on himself, if he was betting on himself then he'd play out the deal and get paid like one of the top tackles in the game for those 2 years. He's actually betting against himself. He thinks that there's no way he'll be worth his current deal next season and there's no chance anyone will offer him a big contract when he gets cut. That's why he's holding out. He thinks it's now or never with a new deal. The fact that he's betting against himself IMO is a great reason to let him keep lighting game checks on fire. Even he doesn't think he will be worth it next season.
I never said he was greedy. I don't know what he is. There are words that describe people who give up millions of dollars to make a point in a contract dispute.
I don't care if we call it greedy or business...but Duane can get lost. If he doesn't come back by week 2, I'd hope that the next time he puts on a uniform, it's for the Colts.
The virtue of the top 0.01% in their struggle against the top 0.0001% in a quest to become the top 0.001%. Truly a noble cause that everyday people can relate to.
It's a shame that you need to have professional sports explained to you. Yes, players and owners are in it to make money. Owners don't make money by screwing players, they make money by putting a good product on the field. When you pay one player, you can't pay another, that's how it works. You act like "owners" are pulling something shady by offering non-guaranteed contracts. No, cutting a player "because the guarantee is over" is not greed, it is an option than enables teams to field a better roster. Without non-guaranteed contracts the NFL would be filled with Osweilers so to avoid that, contracts would be shorter and for far less money. Owners AND players have agreed to the current approach; non-guaranteed contracts are not a conspiracy, they serve the mutual interests of teams and players both. Brown would have not gotten his great contract if these kinds of terms were not allowed. He knew he could be cut at this point when he signed years ago. He accepted the terms when it suited him. Of course, all this has been pointed out to you before, you just aren't interested in listening. While you say "I don't understand how you only see this one way.", I can certainly see how you are only willing to see it yours. Brown is on NO way a victim here, he is extraordinarily privileged and in violation of his contract, "right or wrong" is not a matter of opinion here. Players should be prevented from entering new contracts in the league when they are in violation of existing ones. The team is the victim here, they have to tolerate the cap hold and roster spot or lose talent they have under contract without compensation. This damages the product for the fans. No one in their right mind should take the side of a player in this position and it reflects poorly on those that do. It's a shame fans are so foolish on these issues.
ok Duane, your turn FWIW, I have no problem with Duane exercising his right to hold out or the Texans not paying him. Both parties knew the contract that was signed and what the consequences were. If either party is unsatisfied, next time don't agree to the contract. Seems unwise for Brown to hold out though. It's not as if his position is high risk for chronic injury where he would have some health concern with playing. He gets treated like a god to play football for lots of money. I guess he thinks he has leverage to get more, but he doesn't. He might not be 100% replaceable, but he's 80% replaceable, and that's enough not to give in to his demands.
Seeing some speculation on twitter that Texans are listening to trade offers for Duane...that it's not really all about money and DB just wants to be somewhere else. We'll see I guess.
