Small market teams compete by being competent organisations. Same way big market teams can be awful despite the market size (New York!).

The Jacksonville Jaguars are not a competent organisation which is why their biggest star is leaving.

That is a complete matter of opinion, and not mine by any stretch.

---

Small market teams compete by being competent organisations. Same way big market teams can be awful despite the market size (New York!).

The Jacksonville Jaguars are not a competent organisation which is why their biggest star is leaving.

That is a complete matter of opinion, and not mine by any stretch.

Wait, which part? That the Jaguars aren't competent organisation? Or that Ramsey is leaving because of the lack of success, lack of a new deal and not liking the coaches/front office?

---

It'd good to see players using their leverage to do what they want.

The NFL plucks rookies from college and locks them down for 4/5 years on cost controlled wages in places they may not want to go. I'm 100% for any player using his leverage to where he wants to go, it's up to the team to provide enough value and worth for the player to stay.  

Everyone likes to compare the NFL to a real job when it suits them but if you look at the reverse of that, ordinary people wouldn't stay in a bad situation with bad pay if they had the power to pursue the alternative.

This is how you royally screw the pooch on league parity. 

Allowing players to control personnel movement will put parity into total dysfunction over a few seasons' time.

---

It'd good to see players using their leverage to do what they want.

The NFL plucks rookies from college and locks them down for 4/5 years on cost controlled wages in places they may not want to go. I'm 100% for any player using his leverage to where he wants to go, it's up to the team to provide enough value and worth for the player to stay.  

Everyone likes to compare the NFL to a real job when it suits them but if you look at the reverse of that, ordinary people wouldn't stay in a bad situation with bad pay if they had the power to pursue the alternative.

This is how you royally screw the pooch on league parity. 

Allowing players to control personnel movement will put parity into total dysfunction over a few seasons' time.

League parity will remain as the competent organisations will remain the competent organisations. The organisations who are competent will keep their players, the ones who aren't will lose them. 

Anyway, there's no rule that can be put in place to stop star players leaving bad teams, the only solution for teams is to make good decisions

---

This is how you royally screw the pooch on league parity. 

Allowing players to control personnel movement will put parity into total dysfunction over a few seasons' time.

League parity will remain as the competent organisations will remain the competent organisations. The organisations who are competent will keep their players, the ones who aren't will lose them. 

Anyway, there's no rule that can be put in place to stop star players leaving bad teams, the only solution for teams is to make good decisions

You're looking at this through rose colored glasses if you believe that. 

If you've got 4 or 5 players league wide that make these types of moves annually it's not such a big deal.

If the top 2 or 3 players from several teams are doing it, it's going to destroy parity. Not every team will have cap to make these players happy and star players will collude to play together in the markets they prefer. 
Competent or not, EVERY team gets into cap trouble eventually, and kowtowing to star players' demands is one of the ways they do it.

---

Small market teams compete by being competent organisations. Same way big market teams can be awful despite the market size (New York!).

The Jacksonville Jaguars are not a competent organisation which is why their biggest star is leaving.

That is a complete matter of opinion, and not mine by any stretch.

Wait.... The Jags are competent? If so, please explain with examples.

---

That is a complete matter of opinion, and not mine by any stretch.

Wait.... The Jags are competent? If so, please explain with examples.

There are two parts to that sentence.  I have nothing to explain.

---

League parity will remain as the competent organisations will remain the competent organisations. The organisations who are competent will keep their players, the ones who aren't will lose them. 

Anyway, there's no rule that can be put in place to stop star players leaving bad teams, the only solution for teams is to make good decisions

You're looking at this through rose colored glasses if you believe that. 

If you've got 4 or 5 players league wide that make these types of moves annually it's not such a big deal.

If the top 2 or 3 players from several teams are doing it, it's going to destroy parity. Not every team will have cap to make these players happy and star players will collude to play together in the markets they prefer. 
Competent or not, EVERY team gets into cap trouble eventually, and kowtowing to star players' demands is one of the ways they do it.

I don't think we'll ever see a culture of players teaming up on other squads by leaving their respective teams in the way the NBA has it. 

What we will see is players leaving teams when they don't fulfil their role, the same way teams drop players if they don't fulfil theirs.  

Cap trouble doesn't really happen much as anymore with how everything is structured. 

Even if all of this is true , what's the solution to preventing players from wanting out of bad situations? That seems like a completely natural and fair way to do business to me

---

Yet they always insist on long-term term contracts.  Who's fault is that if it turns into a bad situation?

Well what do teams do when players no longer serve their purpose? They cut them or trade them, even if there's years left on the deal. 

So when a team no longer serves a player I don't have a problem with them seeking something else. And remember, only valuable players can pursue this method. Nobody will give a damn if a 3rd string guard demands a trade. It only matters if you've performed at a high level.

What do teams do with the signing bonus they paid to a player who doesn't(or cannot, in cases of injury) perform up to past performance? Do the players give a portion back? It's a two-way street.

The contract terms are known by all parties. The team pays a big portion early, as a bonus, that it can spread over the duration of the player's time with the team. The player gets a hefty check right away, and should be able to tell by the structure of the salary, how likely it is they see the end of that deal. Malik was very candid about this, last year. He saw the writing on the wall, and I promise that the money he got at signing softened the blow of that reality.

If you're a third-string guard and demand a trade, I'm sure the team will entertain offers. I don't know how many GMs have ham sandwiches they can spare, though, so that guy is likely just getting released. He's getting what he wants, out of current place, but he is facing an uphill battle of finding another team to sign him, and cut someone in whom they've already invested time and money.

---

You're looking at this through rose colored glasses if you believe that. 

If you've got 4 or 5 players league wide that make these types of moves annually it's not such a big deal.

If the top 2 or 3 players from several teams are doing it, it's going to destroy parity. Not every team will have cap to make these players happy and star players will collude to play together in the markets they prefer. 
Competent or not, EVERY team gets into cap trouble eventually, and kowtowing to star players' demands is one of the ways they do it.

I don't think we'll ever see a culture of players teaming up on other squads by leaving their respective teams in the way the NBA has it. 

What we will see is players leaving teams when they don't fulfil their role, the same way teams drop players if they don't fulfil theirs.  

Cap trouble doesn't really happen much as anymore with how everything is structured. 

Even if all of this is true , what's the solution to preventing players from wanting out of bad situations? That seems like a completely natural and fair way to do business to me

Players can want out of bad situations all they want.
 Making it easy for them to extricate themselves is simply going to create a landslide redistribution of talent away from small markets and struggling teams. How in the heck does that make the league better?

---

Well what do teams do when players no longer serve their purpose? They cut them or trade them, even if there's years left on the deal. 

So when a team no longer serves a player I don't have a problem with them seeking something else. And remember, only valuable players can pursue this method. Nobody will give a damn if a 3rd string guard demands a trade. It only matters if you've performed at a high level.

What do teams do with the signing bonus they paid to a player who doesn't(or cannot, in cases of injury) perform up to past performance? Do the players give a portion back? It's a two-way street.

The contract terms are known by all parties. The team pays a big portion early, as a bonus, that it can spread over the duration of the player's time with the team. The player gets a hefty check right away, and should be able to tell by the structure of the salary, how likely it is they see the end of that deal. Malik was very candid about this, last year. He saw the writing on the wall, and I promise that the money he got at signing softened the blow of that reality.

If you're a third-string guard and demand a trade, I'm sure the team will entertain offers. I don't know how many GMs have ham sandwiches they can spare, though, so that guy is likely just getting released. He's getting what he wants, out of current place, but he is facing an uphill battle of finding another team to sign him, and cut someone in whom they've already invested time and money.

The entire point of this all is that it's a two s wag  You can't stop players seeking a better situation if they have the leverage to do it Teams do it all the time, players appear now to be doing the same..

---

I don't think we'll ever see a culture of players teaming up on other squads by leaving their respective teams in the way the NBA has it. 

What we will see is players leaving teams when they don't fulfil their role, the same way teams drop players if they don't fulfil theirs.  

Cap trouble doesn't really happen much as anymore with how everything is structured. 

Even if all of this is true , what's the solution to preventing players from wanting out of bad situations? That seems like a completely natural and fair way to do business to me

Players can want out of bad situations all they want.
 Making it easy for them to extricate themselves is simply going to create a landslide redistribution of talent away from small markets and struggling teams. How in the heck does that make the league better?

The more empowered players are in a brutal sport like the NFL the better for them. We've seen two HOF caliber talents retire due to how tough the sport is on their body and mind. 

If the billionaires want to prevent their team from suffering from a superstar leaving they should make a competent team. 

Parity in the NFL is forced via the draft and salary cap. Stars leaving awful teams I'd a direct reflection of bad organisations making bad decisions

---

A lot of good discussion here, to be sure.

Anyway, there's no rule that can be put in place to stop star players leaving bad teams, the only solution for teams is to make good decisions

I agree with the sentiment behind this 99.99%. I will say this, however. The contract is the rule that has been put in place. That always has to be starting point.

Just like in a personal relationship, both sides have to want to work it out in order for the arrangement to continue to be successful. There has to be a certain level of commitment from both sides for it to work. There is a lot at play here, and the only acceptable solution is for the parties involved to make good decisions. Both parties are responsible for this. The best resolutions usually occur when both sides can keep a level head and mutually agree to a solution. Sometimes, the two of them can come to an agreement that the relationship is worth saving, worth working out. Sometimes this simply isn't possible. Sometimes, the relationship is irretrievably broken.

The only acceptable solution is for the parties involved to make good decisions.

What do teams do with the signing bonus they paid to a player who doesn't(or cannot, in cases of injury) perform up to past performance? Do the players give a portion back? It's a two-way street.

What makes sense to one team may not work for another. The example that comes to my mind, is the one between the Colts and Andrew Luck. I am not so sure that as GM, I would have allowed Andrew Luck to keep his signing bonus. The Colts weighed their options, and decided to take the course of action that they did. It is not up to me to decide whether it was the right thing for them to do. But I will say this:

The only acceptable solution is for the parties involved to make good decisions.

The OP said the following in his post:

And big deal that the Dolphins got the Pittsburgh Steelers’ first-round pick next spring in the trade. Let’s play this out. Maybe they get lucky with that pick. Maybe Pittsburgh (0-2) keeps losing without starting quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, who is out for the season after suffering an elbow injury. Maybe that becomes a top-10 draft pick.

Maybe they can turn that into a player like, you know, Minkah Fitzpatrick, who the Dolphins drafted 11th in 2018.

I’m dizzy already from this revolving-door rebuild......"

The only acceptable solution here was for the Dolphins, and Minkah Fitzpatrick, and the Steelers, to make the best decisions for them. Did they do that? Time will tell.
 
The same is true for Antonio Brown and the Patriots. Did the Patriots do what was best for them? Did AB decide correctly to decline a quiet settlement with his accuser? Hindsight is always 20-20. Time will tell.

I do share the concern of americus 2.0 that AB may have set a dangerous precedent, and that is a valid concern. There seems to be a run on this, from the outside looking in.

So what is the best solution for Jalen Ramsey and the Jaguars?
You guessed it. To make the best decisions for them. Hopefully they can cross that threshold together.

Great thread, guys. Sorry to have been so long winded.

---

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."        --Plato

It'd good to see players using their leverage to do what they want.

The NFL plucks rookies from college and locks them down for 4/5 years on cost controlled wages in places they may not want to go. I'm 100% for any player using his leverage to where he wants to go, it's up to the team to provide enough value and worth for the player to stay.  

Everyone likes to compare the NFL to a real job when it suits them but if you look at the reverse of that, ordinary people wouldn't stay in a bad situation with bad pay if they had the power to pursue the alternative.

The NFL does not "pluck rookies from college".  You do realize that the draft is optional for players... right?

If a player is drafted by a team from a "place they may not want to go" they do have the option to not sign a contract.  Nobody is forcing them to go to a team/city.

I would hardly call a rookie salary "bad pay", even if the player is drafted in the lower rounds.

Yet they always insist on long-term term contracts.  Who's fault is that if it turns into a bad situation?

Well what do teams do when players no longer serve their purpose? They cut them or trade them, even if there's years left on the deal. 

So when a team no longer serves a player I don't have a problem with them seeking something else. And remember, only valuable players can pursue this method. Nobody will give a damn if a 3rd string guard demands a trade. It only matters if you've performed at a high level.

An employer is supposed to "serve" an employee?  I think it's the other way around.  The employer (the team) is paying the employee (the player) for his services, not the other way around.  The player is always free to "seek something else" once they have fulfilled their contract obligation.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Maybe this isn't new but it sure seems to be front and center this season. First AB and his special brand of crazy (who, IMHO with Oakland releasing him, set a dangerous precedent for players to behave like total nutjobs just to get their way); Jalen Ramsey's agent is shopping him around because everyone knows Ramsey is apoplectic; now this dude is unhappy. I get wanting to be competitive and be on a winning team but honor your commitment to the team that gave you a job. 

 Miami player says he's unhappy and wants out and he's traded to the Steelers.

"If I ran the Miami Dolphins, I wouldn’t have traded Minkah Fitzpatrick. He represents the exact kind of 22-year-old player the Dolphins need. You don’t just give up on that because he says, “I’m unhappy.”

So Fitzpatrick wanted to be traded?

So what?

And big deal that the Dolphins got the Pittsburgh Steelers’ first-round pick next spring in the trade. Let’s play this out. Maybe they get lucky with that pick. Maybe Pittsburgh (0-2) keeps losing without starting quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, who is out for the season after suffering an elbow injury. Maybe that becomes a top-10 draft pick.

Maybe they can turn that into a player like, you know, Minkah Fitzpatrick, who the Dolphins drafted 11th in 2018.

I’m dizzy already from this revolving-door rebuild......"

AB cost himself millions by getting released by the Raiders.  So that's not really a good example.  No one in their right mind would want to do that.  

And the Dolphins may have some grand plan in place to trade a bunch of picks to move up in the draft and get a QB.  So the Fitzpatrick trade might actually make some sense if it works out that way.

I think we already know AB is bat crap crazy. And Fitzpatrick was whining about how unhappy he is. It just works in his favor the team has their plan but he still looks like a petulant child.

My point in sharing the article and observations was this seems to be more of an issue than in the past during the season. When done in the off-season it's not so noticeable nor so disruptive, but to act out and throw your team/employer/coaches under the bus during the season is not cool.

---

Anyway, there's no rule that can be put in place to stop star players leaving bad teams, the only solution for teams is to make good decisions

Yes there is.  It's called a "contract".

I realize Mr. Ramsey wants a new one, and if he had one, maybe he wouldn't be acting like this.  Cash is a great deodorant.

---

Anyway, there's no rule that can be put in place to stop star players leaving bad teams, the only solution for teams is to make good decisions

Yes there is.  It's called a "contract".

I realize Mr. Ramsey wants a new one, and if he had one, maybe he wouldn't be acting like this.  Cash is a great deodorant.

Ok. What good did Ramsey's contact do to this situation.

---

Yeah, if the NFL turns into an NBA-like situation where there are only a small handful of competitive teams, and those teams are determined by player-dictated personnel movement ...

... I'm out.

League think, as it was phrased, has been decaying for quite some time. While a lot of its components are still in place, parity is more a myth than reality. 

So, to JackCity's point, put together a competent organization. People always point to the "failures" of MLB as their example of why the NFL should continue to strive for parity. But those failures are a myth, as well. Look no further than the Tampa Bay Rays. They exist in a division with the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox, yet they somehow manage to compete every year despite having a fraction of the revenue of the other two.

I'd honestly like to see the salary cap in the NFL bite the dust. We (the Jaguars) are at a point where we can't fit the talented players we drafted under the cap. No team should be penalized for drafting well.

---

Yeah, if the NFL turns into an NBA-like situation where there are only a small handful of competitive teams, and those teams are determined by player-dictated personnel movement ...

... I'm out.

League think, as it was phrased, has been decaying for quite some time. While a lot of its components are still in place, parity is more a myth than reality. 

So, to JackCity's point, put together a competent organization. People always point to the "failures" of MLB as their example of why the NFL should continue to strive for parity. But those failures are a myth, as well. Look no further than the Tampa Bay Rays. They exist in a division with the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox, yet they somehow manage to compete every year despite having a fraction of the revenue of the other two.

I'd honestly like to see the salary cap in the NFL bite the dust. We (the Jaguars) are at a point where we can't fit the talented players we drafted under the cap. No team should be penalized for drafting well.

And the jags have one of the richest owners in the league. It hasn't been been a lack of money hurting them, rather, lack.of ability

---

Yes there is.  It's called a "contract".

I realize Mr. Ramsey wants a new one, and if he had one, maybe he wouldn't be acting like this.  Cash is a great deodorant.

Ok. What good did Ramsey's contact do to this situation.

 The good it did Ramsey? Nothing but millions of dollars and a chance to play in the NFL. The good it did the team? Gave them his rights for the amount of time dictated. He has no options but to play where and for who dictated or sit and not be paid or accrue time.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

Ok. What good did Ramsey's contact do to this situation.

 The good it did Ramsey? Nothing but millions of dollars and a chance to play in the NFL. The good it did the team? Gave them his rights for the amount of time dictated. He has no options but to play where and for who dictated or sit and not be paid or accrue time.

Lol, the fact that a team is forced to survey options for him is a pretty good example of how his options can effect a team

---