Priest is a punk

[Blazer]

Priest Holmes wants more money and has said he will sit out a portion of the season to get it. Here we go again another Barry Sanders case on our hands. How does this happen? I can understand asking for a raise or asking to restructure your contract, but wasn't this guy hurt for the last 2 games of the season?

Holmes makes around 1.7 Million dollars a year (8.45 for 5 years).

Head Coach Dickie V. said: "He has a contract, anything the Kansas City Chiefs would do beyond that is out of respect for what he has done. We can only do what we can do within the structure of our salary cap." Fighting back the tears. "You just can't automatically start upgrading contracts. Everybody thinks they played better this year than last year." Then he bawled uncontrollably for no reason.

"I'm prepared to do what I have to do," Holmes told the Kansas City Star, in reference to a holdout or even sitting out. "I'm very comfortable in saying that. I hope we don't have to go through all that. But, I have to say, I'm very unsatisfied with my contract. I have made my commitment to this organization. I feel like they should make the same commitment to me."

Yea, Holmes is underpaid. Emmitt makes over 10 million a year (plus whatever he gets paid by 1-800-Collect). Faulk will make 24 Million over the next 4 years. But so what, Holmes you signed the line. You took the contract because you wetre getting your ass handed to you by J. Lewis in practice with the Ravens. Check out this blast from the past:
April 17, 2001 0:29:30 ET The Kansas City Star reports an agent representing free agent RB Priest Holmes said he expects the running back to sign somewhere this week. One team on his list, the Kansas City Chiefs have yet to offer Holmes a contract. The two sides have reportedly discussed a five-year contract averaging about $1.7 million, including a $2 million signing bonus. James Bowie, one of Holmes' agents said that's not close to what Holmes is seeking. Bowie said for a five-year deal they want a bigger signing bonus and a higher average salary. Bowie said he was using the five-year contract worth slightly more than $10 million, including a signing bonus of $2.4 million the Chiefs gave to RB Tony Richardson last year, as a model for a Holmes' deal. If Holmes was so unhappy why didn't he go somewhere else? ANSWER: This was the best deal he could get. Read on:

Chiefs | Holmes Happy - from KFFL
April 21, 2001 1:34:34 ET The Kansas City Star reports new Kansas City Chiefs RB Priest Holmes is happy to be a member of the team after he signed a five-year, $8 million contract on Friday evening. "I'm very excited," Holmes said. "After checking a few different places, I knew that Kansas City was where I really wanted to be." Once the team acquired QB Trent Green, Holmes became the Chiefs top priority - and they handled that priority quickly. Paired with RB Tony Richardson, Holmes will provide offensive coordinator Al Saunders with plenty of backfield options. Coach Dick Vermeil liked what he heard when he discussed Holmes with his former Baltimore teammates. How come he went to unhappy with the money to pleased with the outcome? ANSWER: He couldn't get any more money anywhere else.

The Chiefs paid top dollar for Holmes when he didn't have a job and now he could be the start of a great 2004 team but now he is bringing out the knife to stab them in the back. No good deed goes unpunished. In my world Holmes would play or sit. Period.

I miss Barry Sanders ,but I relish the fact that the Lions took a stand. I can't say I think the Chiefs will do the same but I hope so. Holmes is complaining about his "Market Value". What is the "Market Value" for a college dropout who works out everyday and runs fast. I dunno let me ask Joe Millionaire maybe he has a spot for moving dirt.

 

[dawgball]

I think that he has a right to ask/demand more money, but I would like to see teams start standing up to this kind of crap. The owners have to realize that they OWN the team and they make the decision.

 

[Kel]

Edit: Whoops, totally misread and misunderstood the article. I'm an idiot

 

[dr. freeze]

a contract is a contract.....it is an agreement signed in good faith between two parties.....you sign the dotted line knowing that you may get better or you may blow out your knee.....shouldda thought ahead if he is unhappy now......have absolutely no sympathy for him and he should be thankful for his 8+ million

 

[acehistr8]

These cry baby athletes make me want to fvcking puke. You signed the damn contract for fvcks sake. If someone in the real world walked into their bosses office and said "Hey I know I am in Year 1 of a 4 year deal and am only supposed to make $100,000 this year, instead you should give me $500,000 or I will sit out." You would be on the damn street.

You know, Holmes isnt that far removed from his Ravens days when he sucked a big fat ass. Who does he think he is after one stellar season? Thats what its come down to these days, you have one good season suddenly you are the second comin.

Freaking crybaby athletes dont realize how good they have it.

 

[The Big Tease]

Yea I tell ya what...I have been a Chefs fan for about 15 years. But this is really testing me. They have tested me before....but this one is just ridiculous. Priest Holmes was a nobody when he came to Kansas City. Their offensive scheme made him a Pro Bowler. He owes his career to Kansas City.....he will make his money, but it shouldnt be until he serves out this current contract. If he blew his knee out, should the Chefs get a refund? Or better yet, would they get a refund? :nono: The Chefs need to tell this joker to get his walking papers if he doesnt want to honor his contract. Trust me....when I say that running back is one of the least valuable players on the football field, unless you are something special (Sanders, Smith, Faulk) I think any average running back can go into a great situation and become an MVP. That is what happened to Holmes. he makes me want to puke

 

[fatdaddycool]

You know what you guys should listen or read what you print. One of you said that if Priest Holmes doesn't honor the contract the "company" should just shitcan him thereby breaking the contract that you hold so dear and are saying that the "worker" Priest is bound to. Tell me this, if the "worker" is to do his job without question for the next few years and continues to produce at this level and comes into negotiation will the "company" automatically come into talks with an "industry leading" contract????? Guaranteed????? What if they win the Super Bowl on the back of Priest Holmes? Will they open the contract for him and offer him more money???? Out of the kindness of their hearts??? Or will they hold him at his currently lower tiered salary? Now what if the Chiefs or "company" start to feel a salary cap pinch due to the war or whatever, reduction in attendance due to losing seasons. The company continues to lose and of course we all know that it can't be due to one player alone. Do you think the company will ask the worker to take a pay cut? Of course they will and they will summarily dismiss this so-called contract that you people, that obviously have never suffered through collective bargaining, think is so binding. But you go on and believe that big brother will hook you up for doing a good job. Priest Holmes owes the Cheifs nothing except his best effort, and the Cheifs owe him the same. But the Cheifs are the only ones that really have the power to terminate a contract without recourse, and you think that is a good idea??? Unbelievable.
FDC

 

[fatdaddycool]

you know what.......one more thing.........for some reason todays society, in other words you and I "us", seem to think that Union workers are all these high paid uneducated stiffs that take two and three hour lunch breaks and get paid millions of dollars, not including the money we are scamming from whoever, to do nothing!!!!! Yet you don't bat an eye when the papers are flooded and the news is overrun about a company or companies that are in financial trouble, and they are asking for concessions from a contracted player or work group, so they don't have to change their bottom line. When is the last time you heard of a general manager or coach or C.E.O. take a pay cut when the company is in trouble. What about the team spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year on propaganda or media coverage in return for favorable press? And still cry poor house. Give me a break on this he is bound by contract crap because you have no idea what you are talking about. Middle class America makes up the brunt of the union workers and they are your neighbors and your friends. How many of you live next door to a C.E.O. of a large corporation? How many of you wave to Art Modell every morning. Society better get its collective head out of its butt pretty damn quick and figure out what todays workforce, union or non union, was built on. The struggles that men and women went through to get basic workplace improvements, just because the rich robber barons of the time wanted more and more and more. Nothing was ever enough to sate their greed, but hey you are right......people have changed. Corporate greed and theft is a thing of the past right! The top level execs will make sure the little guy is taken care of. Geez.

 

[Nolan Dalla]

I too despise these athletes who refuse to honor writtten contracts. Alexi Yashin and Joey Gallaway are two lowlife fuhks who I will neer respect (both held out in the final year of contracts. Just once I would love to see a team throw it back on the athlete -- go up to PLAYER X and say:

MANAGEMENT: We know we signed you for 4 years and $3 million a year, but you are hitting .234 and are dead last in the league in slugging percentage.
PLAYER: ButI have a contract
MANAGEMENT: Yeah, but see it's about "Market Value. " A player hitting .234 with just 6 HRs and 23 RBIs at the All-Star break should be making about $750,000 a year. So how about taking a pay cut?
PLAYER: I HAVE A CONTRACT.

Fine when it suits the player to renegotiate, but management can NEVER do the same. And we all wonder why sports salaries have gotten so ridiculous. I realize owners of sports teams are no exactly the brightest stars in the universe, but I almost always see things their way in ALL of these disputes.

Screw you Holmes!

ND

 

[acehistr8]

Welcome back Nolan, great article by the way on Pokerpages.

Good to have you back.

 

[Stuman]

When is the last time you heard of a general manager or coach or C.E.O. take a pay cut when the company is in trouble

Steve Jobs - Apple computer. Got paid $1 one year to turn Apple around.

ND,
Nicely put. My thoughts exactly. If he wants out of his contract, then he or his future team should have to pay a cancelation penalty.

 

[marine]

Detroit Red Wings,
The blue chip players all took paycuts for the next two years of their salary so that the team could sign The "Dominator" and Daddy's boy Bret Hull.
Granted, the money just got pushed back to later years of their contract, but they were all willing to deal with the management so that they could put together a championship team. Something that everyone benefited from. How often do you see that in sports???

And to make it all the better, they did win the cup. If only more players had the "team concept" vice the "gimmie my money" attitude.

I do recall Dennis Rodman doing something like that as well. Said he would take a contract based on his performance. a million for the year, and if he did not meet the negotiated performance levels he would give it all back. Now, its Dennis Rodman of course, but still, the attitude was there. Great player, but off court antics hindered him. Bummer.

Gawd how I would love to run a big league team for a few years. Lombardi was a great great man back in the 60's with the Pack. He took no lip or sh*t from the players. If they got out of line he sh*tcanned them. He went on to win championships without them. Amazing what can happen when you have a team of people that will actually work hard and be grateful for what they are getting. Kind of ironic how the majority of these players who whine about not getting enuff dont have the championship rings to back up their greed.

As much as I liked Jagr with the Penguins, I am glad to seem him suffering thru the seasons now in a dismal crapitals jersey because he got greedy and left the pens.

 

[fatdaddycool]

Fine Nolan you are absolutely correct, above you have mentioned three players that wanted out of their contracts. Maybe they were thinking the market would bear them more. That is three out of the close to 1500 contracted players in the NFL. Its a windfall. Yet you fail to mention or say anything about when the Browns left Ceveland despite contracts civil and public alike, or when the Colts snuck out to Indy breaking civil contracts as well. Or the musical cities that the Raiders, Rams and Cardinals have played. How about the McCaskey's and countless other owners threatening movement unless the public pays up to increase their bottom line. How about sport franchise owners being exempt from anti-trust laws which allows them unfettered collusion against the union players that, regardless of any denials by others, you and I both know goes on. I agree that players should not be in the office every other game asking for a raise, I do feel, however, that owners and player also have the right to negotiate performance clauses into players contracts but the owners refuse to pro-rate performance based on "on field playing time". Rather base it on overall end of year performance, giving themselves a hand in the till of possible earnings. For instance limiting a players carries to avoid paying a bonus is a power only management possesses. By design a collective bargaining agreement is binding to both sides. But think about one thing, when ticket prices go up do you feel the players bear the brunt of that increase? Due to high salary demands Jerry Jones has to raise ticket prices? That is exactly what the owners would have the public conscience, such as yourself, believe. Or could it be that the bottom line is closer to the truth? Revenue sharing? Salary cap? All to limit what the market will bear salary wise, only to have the owners themselves be the ones to stretch it every year. Owners signed the damn thing also! Reinsdorf signed A. Belle to that contract directly after taking the hard line against the union for salary demands and escalating levels of pay.

I would love to see the financial report of any owner in any league with all monies accounted for and then I think I will make my decision on whether Priest Holmes is a punk for wanting "market value".

 

[gardenweasel]

i`m really shocked

i`m really shocked

holmes was one of the classiest guys in baltimore....would never have guessed he`d go this route.... or do it in this manner....we knew in baltimore that the farther away he got from his knee injury in college,the better he`d get...make no mistake,the k.c .offensive scheme is not the reason for holmes` success...he was a horse at texas before the knee...and now that he`s completely healthy again(guys can take years to fully recover from knee injuries),he`s becoming a force......it`s very sad that this couldn`t have been done behind closed doors...tarnishes my high opinion of holmes...and i agree...a contract is a contract...incentives should have been built in....if he has a terrible year,i doubt that k.c. will be able to renegotiate...

 

[Nolan Dalla]

Fine Nolan you are absolutely correct, above you have mentioned three players that wanted out of their contracts. Maybe they were thinking the market would bear them more.

***The point is not about whether the market justifies them making more money, or not. A contract means you exchange services for a negotiated payment. In Yashin's case (Ottawa) he held out the final year of the contract because he thought he wasn't getting paid enough money. The trouble is -- TICKET HOLDERS buy season tickets largely based on expectations of a team and its performance (which is why the Cleveland Cavaliers do not have as many season ticket holders as the Los Angeles Lakers). Ticket holders in Ottawa knew of the Yashin contract, a big name player, and certainly the levelof fan interest increased in that market. When Yashin held out (broke his contract) he VIOLATED an agreement with the team, and by association, that team's agreement with its fans (season ticket holders). Hence, Yashin was clearly at fault and should be held liable. He was actually sued in Canadian Court, but the suit was unsuccessful. There are similarities with Gallaway, the former star wide receiver with Seattle and now, Priest Holmes with Kansas City. Although I doubt these two players necessarily increase the season ticket base (unlike the NHL), they are still accountable to the same legal binding CONTRACT.


That is three out of the close to 1500 contracted players in the NFL.

***There are other players who have done this -- Rolle with the Titans, and others. Rolle actually QUIT on his team in the middle of pre-season, two weeks before the start of the regualr season in 2001 (talk about a TEAM player). If I was the Titans, I would have sued his ass for jeopradizing the team's chemistry and performance with the holdout. Players should also be held accountable to the teams, as when they hold out, the team suffers financially.

Its a windfall. Yet you fail to mention or say anything about when the Browns left Ceveland despite contracts civil and public alike, or when the Colts snuck out to Indy breaking civil contracts as well. Or the musical cities that the Raiders, Rams and Cardinals have played.

***I agree with you here. This is a differnet topic however. It's much like saying a criminal is not guilty because there are other criminals out there who have commited worse crimes. I agree that the owners who broke contracts with cities/stadiums should feel the same wrath, if not worse.


How about the McCaskey's and countless other owners threatening movement unless the public pays up to increase their bottom line. How about sport franchise owners being exempt from anti-trust laws which allows them unfettered collusion against the union players that, regardless of any denials by others, you and I both know goes on.

***What's really scary is that we know collusion goes on. But can you imagine the numbers we would be seeing on these contracts IF THERE WASN'T COLLUSION? I realize it's not legal, but I for one have no problem with the owners doing EVERYTHING in their power to cease the exploding level of players salaries. When MLB players are making 65 percent of the total gross of baseball, something is terribly wrong.

I agree that players should not be in the office every other game asking for a raise, I do feel, however, that owners and player also have the right to negotiate performance clauses into players contracts but the owners refuse to pro-rate performance based on "on field playing time". Rather base it on overall end of year performance, giving themselves a hand in the till of possible earnings.

***But why is is NEVER okay for management to try and cut a player's salary if he gets injured or does not perform to a certain level? It has to be a two-way street. Sure, if a player performs far beyond expectations, he shuld be able to renogiate in good faith. By the same token, management should have the right to renegotiate after a "star" hitter hits .234 for a season. The players do not want a two way street. They want a one-sided system that benefits only themselves.

For instance limiting a players carries to avoid paying a bonus is a power only management possesses.

***This is very rare, if not extinct. Okay, so Comisky did this back in 1919. But management is not on the phone with coaches telling them to take players out of games so contract bonsues wil not be paid. Give me an example of where this has happened in the past twenty years. Bottom line -- it hasn't (to the bet of my knowledge).

By design a collective bargaining agreement is binding to both sides. But think about one thing, when ticket prices go up do you feel the players bear the brunt of that increase? Due to high salary demands Jerry Jones has to raise ticket prices?

***Higher salaries, higer operating costs, higher insurance permiums -- it all leads to higher ticket prices.

That is exactly what the owners would have the public conscience, such as yourself, believe. Or could it be that the bottom line is closer to the truth? Revenue sharing? Salary cap? All to limit what the market will bear salary wise,

***Last time I checked the players in all major sports seemed to be doing pretty well, thank you. If there are "limitations" on what the market will bear salary wise, as you say, it FRIGHTENS me to think what the ssalary ystem would look like in sports IF THERE WERE NO LIMITATIONS. Can you say: "$250 for Cleveland Cavalaiers seats?"

only to have the owners themselves be the ones to stretch it every year. Owners signed the damn thing also! Reinsdorf signed A. Belle to that contract directly after taking the hard line against the union for salary demands and escalating levels of pay.

***I'm not familiar with this situation. I'll take a pass and assume you are corect.


I would love to see the financial report of any owner in any league with all monies accounted for and then I think I will make my decision on whether Priest Holmes is a punk for wanting "market value".

***Hopefully, the finances on teams like the Buffalo Sabres, Ottawa Senators, Montreal Expos, Pittsburgh Pirates, Florida Marlins, and a host of other teams teetering on the edge of solvency WILL BE MADE PUBLIC. Then and only then will we see this is a BIG problem and some caps have to be put in place that will limit these greedy players from abusing the system.

 

[Stewy]

Carl Peterson is the hardest negotiator in the NFL, agents hate dealing with him. To say Holmes is a product of the system is riducluous. The two games he miss we rushed for a grand total of about 45 yards. The guy truly is a stud. Lamar Hunt, the Chiefs owner even acknowledge that Holmes should get a raise. Peterson has alot of other priorities right now, trying to restructure Greens contract and bringing in some defensive help. Holmes will get a better deal once Peterson knows how much cap space he has to work with.

 

[fatdaddycool]

Nolan,
I have read much of your stuff, posts and the like, and feel that you are an intelligent guy. You are, however, as extremely opinionated as I am. Therefore, I will politely decline to argue with you because I believe your stance is the exact opposite of mine and, though extremely intriguing, not correct. You seem to take the ownership side no matter what the case sans the Colts, Browns issues. Owners take in huge amounts of money from other resources like bobble head dolls that are not available to the players. When you added a few more names of players to the list of those that sat out don't forget Todd Bell and Al Harris in 1984. The number is insignificant because the ratio of player to number of players in the NFL as compared to owner to number of owners in NFL was the number I was trying to get across to you. Owners sign the contract also. They agreed to it yet you feel they should be able to do what? Cut the players salary because of a sophomore slump, perhaps? And the players should just eat that? You know what Nolan, owners pay guys like Emmitt Smith $10,000,000 to embarass himself for the record and you feel the player that had the best season in the NFL should keep his mouth shut. Also the market is determined by the fan base. Higher ticket prices and poor performance lead to a declining fan base which leads to less income which leads to lower salaries able to be paid because the FIRST thing to go when any company suffers from mis-management is the labor wage. The owners or C.E.O.'s never feel that pinch. Take whatever side you want, but there are a lot more players making $300,000 to $400,00 a year that are trying to make a living also. Think about the union as a whole and not selfishly.

 

[Captain Crunch]

Peterson will probably do the same thing he did with Tony Gonzales contract last year. He will let him sit out the entire training camp, wait and see how much room he has under the cap, and then give Priest everything he can w/o going over the cap. I think TG is making about 9 million per year and as much as I agree with the fact that he should honor his contract, he is worth atleast half of what TG makes, if not more. Peterson is a prick when it comes to dealing with contracts though, so this will only get more interesting.

 

[Pujo21]

That douchebag Edgerin James pulled the same thing before last season.... Whatta a punk pissass crybaby making millions.

Okay so yes maybe they are entitled to make a few bucks and all they can get in this great country of ours, but at least be a man and honor the agreement!!!!

I think most people would want to get what they can. See what he gets when he sits out. The team should tell him "HEY DUDE DO WHAT YA GOTTA DO"

 

[Blazer]

Friends, Romans.....Basketball Players

Friends, Romans.....Basketball Players

Therefore, I will politely decline to argue with you because I believe your stance is the exact opposite of mine and, though extremely intriguing, not correct. You seem to take the ownership side no matter what the case sans the Colts, Browns issues. Owners take in huge amounts of money from other resources like bobble head dolls that are not available to the players.

FatDaddy, let me retort?


Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears!
I come to bury the owners, not to praise them.
The evil that men do gets spread in the press,
The good is oft forgotten;
So let it be with the owners. The noble Players
Hath told you the owners are ambitious;
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And in the press grievously hath the Owners answer'd it.
Here, looking at a potential strike in the NHL, Major problems in the MLB, and a NBA that is always getting younger to avoid salary issues the Players now have control over the destiny of the leagues-
For The Players are honorable;
So are they all, are honorable men-
Come I to speak at the Pro-League's funeral.
I liked professional sports, I was faithful and they entertained me;
But The Players say the Owners were ambitious,
And The Players are honorable men.
The Owners hath contributed many dollars to charity, and expanded the leagues to increase the fan base,
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill.
Did this in The Owners seem ambitious?
When Jessy Jackson cried, The Owners hath wept and granted interviews for minorities;
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Players say they were ambitious,
And The Players are honorable men.
You all did see that during the Last Labor agreements The Owners were pounded by Lawyers and propaganda. They could of moved on a locked out all baseball and hockey creating a low wage for all to come in the future,
Which they did refuse. Was this ambition?
Yet The Players say they are ambitious,
And sure they are honorable men.
I speak not to disprove what The Players speak,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love Professional Sports once, not without cause;
What cause withholds you then to mourn for them?
O judgement, thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Sports,
And I must pause till it come back to me.