He was given a rediculous contract and thought he was worth it. Last year was the only season that he played all 16 games and was a very average player. He refused to take a pay cut knowing he didn’t play that well. He owed this team a pay cut for both being injured and not playing well.
Look at Iupati, he knew that he got a free paycheck the last two years and he took a pay cut. The badger knew as well as every Cardinal fan that he didn’t earn the money he was given but refused to take a pay cut to help out the team that has spoiled him rotten. That tells me loud and clear that he is acting like a spoiled little child.
I said months ago that he was going to have to take a pay cut because his play didn’t warrant such a huge contract. I laughed and thought it was funny when he got his just desserts. The Cardinals being nice still offered him more than he was worth. The Badger balked at the offer thinking that teams would line up to give him another giant contract but guess what they didn’t. I would say he got what he deserved for stabbing his team in the back but he still got paid more than he deserved.
Long-term contracts can swing either way. Sometimes the player exceeds expectations, sometimes he doesn't. Teams don't tear up contracts when the player over-performs but they expect to do so when he under-performs.
HB was a middle-of-the-pack player stat-wise last year. But he lived up to the contract by his rehab and getting on the field for both D and ST snaps.
SK and MB gave him the contract. If they were concerned about his performance they should have included performance-based goals within the contract and then HB would have a clear idea of the pay for performance. In this case, it is the FO acting like the 'spoiled child' by wanting to back-track on the contract that both parties signed in good faith.
https://overthecap.com/nfl-contracts-the-incentive-vs-the-escalator/
You still haven't explained how you know the inner workings of HB's thinking. It is a business---Cards were not being 'nice' they were simply evaluating where HB fits in the salary cap going forward. So was HB and his agent---they are not 'back-stabbing' the Cards by trying to maximize HB's earnings especially since it was the Cards who wanted to tear up the original contract. Cards were willing to give X amount to not cut HB and HB wanted X amount to stay. Like I said in other posts on this thread, HB and his agent are betting that he returns to form and outplays that one-year deal and gets rewarded on future contracts. Cards are betting that he doesn't and were willing to pay him for what they thought they were going to get going forward. Nothing to do with 'nice' or 'backstabbing'----it the business model of the NFL.
Have you ever gone into your employer and told them you would like to take less money for the week/month/year because of your under-performance and because you want to 'help out the team?' Were you ever seriously injured on the job and told your employer to cut your salary and workmans comp because you want to be nice and didn't live up to expectations? Gimmeabreak.
Because of the injury issues facing the NFL player, they rightfully should be paid for the time they are not on the field when they get seriously injured when on the field. Iupati didn't get a 'free paycheck.' He got the money coming to him as a result of the injury he suffered. Where do you come up with the notion that Iupati was helping out the team by taking a pay cut?? It was a business decision by both him and the Cards on the contract restructure.
You are expressing way more hostility toward HB than is deserved. Check the source of your anger and why you want to degrade HB even as he is no longer on the roster.
