Perusing Mo's blog, I saw this excerpt:
I hate giving into guys who haven't played a snap, but aren't the Bengals kinda in a position where they have to come closer to his demands than hoping to meet him in the middle? The team has zero leverage, and they've seen firsthand how holdouts can just destroy a rookie year.
Rookie hold outs bother me, of course, because it prevents our new, vital talent from getting up to NFL speed. With Mike Brown as our owner, it's already as if the Bengals are (to paraphrase Warren Buffett) "a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest." We're handicapped enough with that clown running the show. We don't need to add rookie holdouts to our current problems.
However, I think the apparent irrationality of rookie holdouts bothers me more. I'd love to solely blame Mike Brown because that is always satisfying (and typically true) but on this one all parties seem to share the guilt.
From the player's point of view
A player may not know if he will ever become a good pro so exploiting the ability to get as much money as possible now by holding out does appear rational. However, it comes at the risk that missing his first pro training camp leads to a false start for his rookie season and maybe entire pro career (via not learning the playbook, never adjusting to the NFL game, or lack of physical conditioning making them more injury prone, whatever).
The risk that a career false starts is not small monetarily. Most rookies contracts for top picks contain huge amounts of incentive based pay. For Mark Sanchez, only $28.5 of $60 million comes guaranteed. Now, many of those incentives might be easy to reach but they typically require at least being on the field. Even if a top pick doesn't live up to his billing he still could earn much of his incentives (think Justin Smith). Holding out may put that money at risk. And this does not even take into the account the value that may be lost from future contracts/endorsements.
So at some point, it must not be reasonable for a pick to hold out for a few million bucks given the consequences of not getting your career off to the best start possible. I am skeptical that players think this through properly (ask Cedric Benson) and perhaps unscrupulous agents may manipulate them. I would blame both player and agent equally here.
From the owner's point of view
The owner would prefer not to pay millions of dollars to unproven talent. On the flip side, you also directly harm your own draft pick and the team by not getting him in training camp. Again, all for a few million dollars.
It's sort of like buying a huge stock position in Wendy's and then planting a severed finger in the chili so you can file a lawsuit against them. You're sabotaging your own investment all for a risky stunt that is a fraction of your original investment. It doesn't make sense. But I understand it must infuriate owners to have to pay top picks like pro bowlers. Still, it's the system. Deal with it, Mike Brown.
Of course, I only covered the general incentives on both sides. Clearly this ignores the specific circumstances surrounding each case. As Mo points out, leverage matters. Mo thinks Bait-and-Smith has it and the Bengals don't. This may result in one side pushing harder in negotiations, making a holdout more likely.
Well, the success of the Bengals rests entirely on protecting Carson. The Bengals need to start over at both tackle positions this year, making Andre crucial this year and beyond. I'd call that leverage for Smith. So while I'm disappointed that Smith/his agent might angle aggressively for more money at the risk of missing camp and sabotaging his rookie season (and more), it's hard to fault them for exploiting a perceived advantage.
I'd argue Smith gained this leverage due to poor front office decisions in the past that made our offensive line vulnerable today (though I understand if some prefer to chalk it up to bad luck with Levi injuries and Willie aging). Thus, to a large extent, when Mike sits across from Smith/agent and they play hardball he has no one to blame but himself.
Conclusion
Basically I am blaming everybody and I find the whole hold out phenomenon a foolish side track with nasty costs to all parties. However, in this specific case, I will reserve most of my anger for Mike Brown, who put himself in a position with little leverage today. But don't expect Mike to own up quickly to this and just pay Andre more to get him in camp. That would actually be good for the team and fans at his personal expense, an unlikely outcome (gotta leave room for that GM bonus!).
Update - Baghdad Hob provides some more details on how far apart the teams might be. Looks like Andre will ask for somewhat less than Sanchez while the Bengals will ask for something like what Vernon Ghoulston got last year. The guaranteed money difference comes it around $7.5 million ($28.5 - $21) with the incentive money being a very large unknown.
Negotiating easy to reach incentives may dwarf haggling over guaranteed money but since I do not know what those incentives might be for now I will just point out that the gap in guaranteed money amounts only to a few million dollars over 5-6 years (not a good reason to risk ruining the rookie season and beyond in my opinion). If anyone can point me in the direction of some knowledgeable writing about this topic that would be swell.
I wonder if Eugene Monroe would be giving us the same headache right now...
Posted by: Mockenrue | July 06, 2009 at 12:13 PM
I give full blame to Mikey. I don't begrudge a rookie(or any player, for that matter) holding out for the big payday, given the way our country is headed(see: hyperinflation) and the fact that he's gonna get soaked for taxes. They gots to get while the gittin's good!
Now before you eat my ass for that comment, let me just say that the reason I blame MB solely, is because he seems to be too rigid to be considered reasonable. If he was to negotiate from a value standpoint, I'd wager that a balance could be drawn quicker. If I was a Bengals' player's agent, I'd be going into it knowing what a cheapskate Brown is, and I'd have my heels dug in from the git-go! I think history has proven that Brown does not go to the table in good faith.
Posted by: Eddie | July 06, 2009 at 02:51 PM
Yes, or BJ Raji, or Jason Smith, or any other #6 pick save for a wide receiver, which, thank god we did not draft. Bienemy is correct, it's leverage and an agent attempting to capitalize on talent.
Posted by: CurseofBoJackson | July 06, 2009 at 02:58 PM
I would love to see the NFL go to a rookie salary, based on draft position, similar to the NBA. This would end the holdouts and force players to prove themselves before getting the big paydays a few years down the road.
Posted by: Robinsgr | July 07, 2009 at 08:40 AM