Maurice Jones-Drew won't be getting new contract, Jaguars GM says

[polamalubeast]

Jaguars running back Maurice Jones-Drew wants a new contract, but the team doesn’t sound particularly interested in giving it to him.

Jaguars General Manager Gene Smith told Tania Ganguli of the Florida Times-Union that the Jaguars have no plans to give Jones-Drew a new deal.

“He has expressed that he would like to renegotiate and we have expressed, again, that we feel he has a contract with two years left and we expect him to fulfill those obligations,” Smith said.

The five-year, $31 million contract that Jones-Drew signed before the 2009 season pays him $4.45 million this year and $4.95 million last year. That’s relatively low for a guy who just led the league in rushing last year and who is by far the best offensive player on the team, but the reality in the NFL these days is that teams just aren’t eager to give big money to running backs, especially running backs who still have two years left on their current contracts.


This situation could get even more interesting if Jones-Drew fails to show up for the team’s mandatory minicamp, which begins on Tuesday. If Jones-Drew skips the full three-day minicamp, the Jaguars can fine him $60,000. Smith said Jaguars coach Mike Mularkey would be the one to decide if the Jaguars do, in fact, dock Jones-Drew’s pay.

“That’s a decision that certainly is the head coach’s decision,” Smith said of fining Jones-Drew. “And I would support that.”

Which means that Jones-Drew, who is unhappy to be making $4.45 million this year, may see his 2012 pay reduced to $4.39 million by the end of this week.


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/06/11/jaguars-say-they-expect-maurice-jones-drew-to-honor-his-contract/

[Bluecoat96]

What a friggin' cry baby. Good for the Jags. Stand your ground.

[ShutDown24]

I'm one who rarely criticizes a player for going after money. In this league the owners have all the power. And while several million dollars is a lot of money, only a small percentage of players are able to earn that significant a salary for more than a couple of seasons. And while football players only produce entertainment which adds little tangible value to society, they do work extremely hard at their craft. So in general, especially now considering what we know about the potential of reduced lifespans, I tend to be pretty forgiving of players who want new contracts when they have indeed outperformed the deal they are under. Which, I believe Jones-Drew has.

But all that said, looking at it from both sides, if I'm the Jaguars I make him play out the two years then watch him walk. Runningbacks aren't worth it.

[Count Steeler]

I'm one who rarely criticizes a player for going after money. In this league the owners have all the power. And while several million dollars is a lot of money, only a small percentage of players are able to earn that significant a salary for more than a couple of seasons. And while football players only produce entertainment which adds little tangible value to society, they do work extremely hard at their craft. So in general, especially now considering what we know about the potential of reduced lifespans, I tend to be pretty forgiving of players who want new contracts when they have indeed outperformed the deal they are under. Which, I believe Jones-Drew has.

But all that said, looking at it from both sides, if I'm the Jaguars I make him play out the two years then watch him walk. Runningbacks aren't worth it.


Good post! :applaudit:

[BnG_Hevn]

I'm one who rarely criticizes a player for going after money. In this league the owners have all the power. And while several million dollars is a lot of money, only a small percentage of players are able to earn that significant a salary for more than a couple of seasons. And while football players only produce entertainment which adds little tangible value to society, they do work extremely hard at their craft. So in general, especially now considering what we know about the potential of reduced lifespans, I tend to be pretty forgiving of players who want new contracts when they have indeed outperformed the deal they are under. Which, I believe Jones-Drew has.

But all that said, looking at it from both sides, if I'm the Jaguars I make him play out the two years then watch him walk. Runningbacks aren't worth it.

Entertainment only huh?

What would happen if the players just all quit and the NFL went away? How many people bitched and moaned about the possible cancellation of games etc last year, and how much all the jobs meant for putting on football games.

There is a TON of residual affect to the "entertainment" of the NFL.

With that said, I say play out your contract. If you don't like it then it's your decision to not show up. If I were the coach, he'd be docked if he doesn't dhow up.

As for owners having "all the power", how about all the dud contracts that they are on the hook for when players bust?

I don't know the stats, but I'd say the owners pay out MUCH more on busts than they make back by players "out playing their contract".

[ShutDown24]

Entertainment only huh?

What would happen if the players just all quit and the NFL went away? How many people bitched and moaned about the possible cancellation of games etc last year, and how much all the jobs meant for putting on football games.

There is a TON of residual affect to the "entertainment" of the NFL.

With that said, I say play out your contract. If you don't like it then it's your decision to not show up. If I were the coach, he'd be docked if he doesn't dhow up.

As for owners having "all the power", how about all the dud contracts that they are on the hook for when players bust?

I don't know the stats, but I'd say the owners pay out MUCH more on busts than they make back by players "out playing their contract".

Of course the jobs are relevant. But outside of that and charity work, what tangible positives does football have on society? I'm a huge supporter of sports at all levels. They add a great deal of positives to many lives. But outside of the glaringly obvious singular variable that is jobs, there isn't much else in the way of tangible benefits. My original statement remains accurate.

And what dud contracts? NFL contracts aren't guaranteed. Only a small portion of players salaries come in guaranteed bonuses. Owners can cut most contracts whenever they want with little to no ill effects. I hate when people are misinformed on this matter.

[GodfatherofSoul]

"Tangible positives" doesn't mean jack shit to be honest. Football is a business that generates billions in revenue. Players have a talent that helps generate that revenue. It's that simple. If 100 million people were willing to watch me juggle dildos for 3 hours every Sunday, I'd be screaming for a $10 million/year salary too!

[ALLD]

I haven't heard from Josh Cribbs since he got his contract and James Harrison gonged him.

[ShutDown24]

"Tangible positives" doesn't mean jack shit to be honest. Football is a business that generates billions in revenue. Players have a talent that helps generate that revenue. It's that simple. If 100 million people were willing to watch me juggle dildos for 3 hours every Sunday, I'd be screaming for a $10 million/year salary too!

I'm missing the point you are trying to contribute. Could you clarify?

EDIT: I get what you're saying now. Originally I took it as you being pro-owner, but realized by the end you are supporting the players. Which I agree with.

My reason for mentioning "tangible" benefits is because the classic argument from Joe Schmoe is that "it must be nice to get paid millions of dollars just to play a game". Those aren't my sentiments, but I was providing an answer for that inevitable belief in my original statement. Which has, of course, caused some confusion it appears.

[GodfatherofSoul]

I'm missing the point you are trying to contribute. Could you clarify?

EDIT: I get what you're saying now. Originally I took it as you being pro-owner, but realized by the end you are supporting the players. Which I agree with.

My reason for mentioning "tangible" benefits is because the classic argument from Joe Schmoe is that "it must be nice to get paid millions of dollars just to play a game". Those aren't my sentiments, but I was providing an answer for that inevitable belief in my original statement. Which has, of course, caused some confusion it appears.

I followed you, I was agreeing and attacking that Joe Schmoe argument as well. Additionally, something I hear a lot from casual fans is "they get played to play a 3 hour game" not understanding all of the behind-the-scenes work that goes into those 3 hours as well as the 8 year internship in high school and college to get good enough to play at that level.

[steelreserve]

"Tangible positives" doesn't mean jack shit to be honest. Football is a business that generates billions in revenue. Players have a talent that helps generate that revenue. It's that simple. If 100 million people were willing to watch me juggle dildos for 3 hours every Sunday, I'd be screaming for a $10 million/year salary too!

Maybe you won't get 100 million people, but I'd be willing to watch that.

[BnG_Hevn]

I'm missing the point you are trying to contribute. Could you clarify?

EDIT: I get what you're saying now. Originally I took it as you being pro-owner, but realized by the end you are supporting the players. Which I agree with.

My reason for mentioning "tangible" benefits is because the classic argument from Joe Schmoe is that "it must be nice to get paid millions of dollars just to play a game". Those aren't my sentiments, but I was providing an answer for that inevitable belief in my original statement. Which has, of course, caused some confusion it appears.

The argument of "being paid millions to play a game" really gets on my nerves.

They "play a game" sure, but they are being paid to stay in shape TO play that game. It's not like they are couch potatoes and get up and play on Sunday. There is a TON of work that goes into being a player. At least for the ones worth their salt.

What dud contracts? How about Ryan Leaf and every other bust that were paid X and delivered squat.

I'm sure there are quite a few big contacts signed by players who didn't deliver.

My point is that (I'm willing to bet) owners take more of a hit for players not delivering on contracts where they couldn't simply cut them compared to making money on players who "over delivered".

[steelreserve]

"Tangible positives" doesn't mean jack shit to be honest. Football is a business that generates billions in revenue. Players have a talent that helps generate that revenue. It's that simple. If 100 million people were willing to watch me juggle dildos for 3 hours every Sunday, I'd be screaming for a $10 million/year salary too!

By the way, is this you? If so, you need to practice.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErIwTw7sNvQ