Contractually Speaking: Renegotiation and Rookie Contracts

It seems every off-brings more drama when it comes to contract negotiations. Every year there are high-profile holdouts who want to renegotiate their contracts.

Brian Urlacher is the latest in the long line, and he is a player who I have officially lost all respect for.

As someone so good at what he does, I have always liked watching him play. Not anymore, not after his contract garbage.

He signed a nine-year 56.65 million dollar deal in 2003, but caused a big stink this off-season, saying he had "outperformed" his contract.

He was "rewarded" with a new contract, which raises his yearly take from $6.29 million to $7.29 million for next season.

So let's get this straight. You outperformed your contract, and you got a 15% raise. So logically, if he doesn't meet a 15% raise in his statistics, he would have "underperformed" his contract, and would give the money back, right?

Wrong. And that's the problem with all these re-negotiations. It's complete garbage. As an adult, you gave your word to play for a team for so many years, for so much money.

Sure, they can be traded, but their contract is still guaranteed by someone. Sure, they can be cut, but any athlete who has inked a long-term deal isn't likely to be cut.

I usually side with talent over business, but not in this case.

Another case: Plaxico Burress. Sure, he played great last year. Sure, he won the Super Bowl, and was HUGE in the NFC championship game.

So now he wants a new contract, on par with T.O. and Randy Moss.

What happens if he gets a new one, and then doesn't play up to their level, will he donate some of his money back?

Now, you might be saying, "But Plax was big for the Giants last year, he was a playmaker."

To that, I respond, did he expect to not be a playmaker when he signed the deal? Did he think he was going to sign his deal and catch 20 balls a year?

No, he expected to be a contributor, he expected to get the Giants some wins, and in his wildest dreams he expected to win them a Super Bowl.

So why does he deserve for for doing exactly what he was hired for?

Now let's move to rookie contracts. Matt Ryan, who has yet to play a single down in the NFL, gets paid more than Tom Brady.

Is that the most ridiculous thing you have ever heard? Tom Brady, with three rings, and MVP, a 16-0 season, doesn't get paid as much as Matt Ryan.

What is wrong with the system where things like that can happen?

What is wrong when JaMarcus Russell can miss his whole rookie season because he couldn't agree to contract terms?

What happened to rookies that are just happy to be playing football for a living? Rookies who sign a contract that allows them to get paid, then when they do well on the field, they are rewarded for it.

Is it the agents? The players? Or a combination of both.

I tend to think people like Russell and Ryan have agents who tell them all these fancy things they could buy, all these giant numbers that they could make, and they brainwash these 21 to 22 year-olds into thinking that they deserve a huge payday before they set foot on a field.

It's only going to get worse. More and more players dominate offseason headlines with holdouts, while players like Peyton Manning and Tom Brady restructure or leave money on the table in order to help their team.

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?