Tyrann Mathieu: "No way I'm taking a pay cut."

[Stout]

He isn't going anywhere & there's no need to ''cut his sorry ass'.

If he refuses to budge on his current contract, he certainly will be going. If he does budge, then he might stay.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

I'm curious if you, or any of the other posters demanding he take a pay cut because he's underperforming his current contract are okay with players demanding a better contract when they overperform their current deal. Or is that when the "he signed a contract, he needs to honor it" mantra comes in?

I am not demanding anyone take a pay cut. Just saying - he either takes a pay cut or he is cut. It's his choice.

As for over-performing, I don't buy into that at all. You sign it, you play it out. If you put in the time and work and seriously feel you got the best contract available to you - then play it out. Don't get tied into a lengthy low-ball contract and you should be fine. If you think you'll be all-world then have incentives in your deal so you get paid if you hit all your goals, etc. It's usually all about ego. One guy gets paid and is happy until another player signs a bigger deal. Then, suddenly, the original player feels slighted and underpaid. It can get ridiculous rather quickly. Be careful what you sign.

 

[Chopper0080]

I am not demanding anyone take a pay cut. Just saying - he either takes a pay cut or he is cut. It's his choice.

As for over-performing, I don't buy into that at all. You sign it, you play it out. If you put in the time and work and seriously feel you got the best contract available to you - then play it out. Don't get tied into a lengthy low-ball contract and you should be fine. If you think you'll be all-world then have incentives in your deal so you get paid if you hit all your goals, etc. It's usually all about ego. One guy gets paid and is happy until another player signs a bigger deal. Then, suddenly, the original player feels slighted and underpaid. It can get ridiculous rather quickly. Be careful what you sign.

and be careful what contracts you sign players to...right? Because they just may expect you to honor them as well.

 

[iRobot]

I dunno about y'all but if my employer gives me a fat contract and then asked me to take a pay cut I would just laugh. Especially knowing I can go to just about anywhere and get paid the same and at worst, close to the same.

 

[SO91]

I am not demanding anyone take a pay cut. Just saying - he either takes a pay cut or he is cut. It's his choice.

As for over-performing, I don't buy into that at all. You sign it, you play it out. If you put in the time and work and seriously feel you got the best contract available to you - then play it out. Don't get tied into a lengthy low-ball contract and you should be fine. If you think you'll be all-world then have incentives in your deal so you get paid if you hit all your goals, etc. It's usually all about ego. One guy gets paid and is happy until another player signs a bigger deal. Then, suddenly, the original player feels slighted and underpaid. It can get ridiculous rather quickly. Be careful what you sign.

You don't buy it, as in you don't believe a guy can over-perform their current deal? The market is the market, and if you think a player ought to restructure and take a pay cut because he's no longer performing to the level of that contract, then shouldn't that same logic apply when the opposite happens?

 

[WildBB]

there is a well known phenomenon in the NFL:

1. Existing team offers reduced contract to player that is still market or better
2. Player's ego doesnt want to accept such reduction
3. Player gets cut
4. Player accepts market deal from another team that is no better or even worse than No. 1 above

for some reason, its easier for guys to take lower deals when its a new team offering

not every player reacts this way -- but plenty do.

its where a good agent can be a team and player's best friend: providing an accurate take on market, and, constructing a ego saving way to get it done

All parties, gitRdone.

 

[TRW]

It's a bad situation but it's best to cut him than pour any more $$$$ down that sinkhole. HB just has lost a step and maybe 2 and just can't consistently make the play. Love the kid, great story, don't have a problem with him saying he won't take a pay cut and don't have a problem with the team saying "Thank you and good bye." if he doesn't.

 

[Chopper0080]

It's a bad situation but it's best to cut him than pour any more $$$$ down that sinkhole. HB just has lost a step and maybe 2 and just can't consistently make the play. Love the kid, great story, don't have a problem with him saying he won't take a pay cut and don't have a problem with the team saying "Thank you and good bye." if he doesn't.

On a roster that looks like it is going to have to be elite defensively to be competitive, and with no QB locked in, how is it better for the team's chances to win by cutting Mathieu? What are you going to do with the 4.8 mil that we save against the cap that will impact our team as much as having Mathieu playing will?

 

[football karma]

On a roster that looks like it is going to have to be elite defensively to be competitive, and with no QB locked in, how is it better for the team's chances to win by cutting Mathieu? What are you going to do with the 4.8 mil that we save against the cap that will impact our team as much as having Mathieu playing will?

its more than just the $4.8mm this year -- its the $14mm in 2019 and $14mm 2020 as well

for that cap hit over time -- you likely sign a replacement level DB and an average starting WR or OL

so: do you want HB on the books for $14mm per, or, do you want, lets say:

a Josh Sitton, OG for $7mm per + a DJ Swearinger at $4.5mm per

 

[TRW]

On a roster that looks like it is going to have to be elite defensively to be competitive, and with no QB locked in, how is it better for the team's chances to win by cutting Mathieu? What are you going to do with the 4.8 mil that we save against the cap that will impact our team as much as having Mathieu playing will?

I don't think having HB gives the Cards a better chance to win at all. He is a shell of his former self.

 

[Jetstream Green]

I'm curious if you, or any of the other posters demanding he take a pay cut because he's underperforming his current contract are okay with players demanding a better contract when they overperform their current deal. Or is that when the "he signed a contract, he needs to honor it" mantra comes in?

That is freaking easy, professional athletes get paid too damn much to begin with, but most especially the 'superstars'... no, I have never seen one player in the modern age outperform the value of their contract

 

[ARZCardinals]

That is freaking easy, professional athletes get paid too damn much to begin with, but most especially the 'superstars'... no, I have never seen one player in the modern age outperform the value of their contract

David Johnson - rookie year

Patrick Peterson his first 3 years

Badger his first 2 seasons.....he's getting it all back now.

That's just the Cards....

it does happen

 

[Wellthatsjustfine]

Bethea got brought back. Baker is the other starter. Matthieu is gone. Sad but true. JMHO

 

[cardncubfan]

David Johnson - rookie year

Patrick Peterson his first 3 years

Badger his first 2 seasons.....he's getting it all back now.

That's just the Cards....

it does happen

Now this is something I agree with.

 

[cardncubfan]

If he refuses to budge on his current contract, he certainly will be going. If he does budge, then he might stay.

Avatar bet that if he doesn't restructure & he stays I choose yours & if he doesn't restructure & is cut you choose mine? For a month. I just don't see the Cards cutting him under any circumstance. His instincts are still off the charts.

If he agrees to a restructure then all bets are off.

 

[oaken1]

You don't buy it, as in you don't believe a guy can over-perform their current deal? The market is the market, and if you think a player ought to restructure and take a pay cut because he's no longer performing to the level of that contract, then shouldn't that same logic apply when the opposite happens?

No...and here is why.

I am a Cardinal fan. My hopes, dreams, and wishes are all tied in to how well the Cardinals do... not bob safety or danny DE.
Those guys are people, and as such there is a certain amount of self preservation, and also greed in their motivations. Thats fine... but I as a fan am not invested in their happiness..just their play...I love them just so long as they help the Cardinals win...as soon as they dont they need to go.
There isnt a player in the league that would be okay with getting paid strictly based on their performance...some might say they are..right up until they get hurt and cant play.
Player contracts are based partly on what a guy has already done and partly based on the speculation that they will continue to develop and perform. If that development and performance stop then the player is being over paid.

rookie contracts are actually paying a guy for what he did in college without ever knowing if he will perform in the nfl. Prior to the rookie scale it was ridiculous what some of those kids were getting paid. Matt Leinart got $50mil for a good rookie season and a great college career.
Players are assets. Just like you or I may go into a mutual fund and move money away from stocks that are under performing so we can invest more in better performing stocks, a team has to take money from an under performing asset and move it where it can do more good.

as a fan, my investment is in the teams success. I dont care if the players go broke when their career is over... Thats why they get signing bonuses, thats why they get guaranteed money.
Ever notice that?? They player gets guaranteed money but the team doesnt get guaranteed performance?


I notice nobody is jumping up and down trying to defend Josh Mauro... that guy way out performed his contract... got a modest raise...and after one down year everybody is cool cutting him to save $2mil on the cap

 

[BW52]

No...and here is why.

I am a Cardinal fan. My hopes, dreams, and wishes are all tied in to how well the Cardinals do... not bob safety or danny DE.
Those guys are people, and as such there is a certain amount of self preservation, and also greed in their motivations. Thats fine... but I as a fan am not invested in their happiness..just their play...I love them just so long as they help the Cardinals win...as soon as they dont they need to go.
There isnt a player in the league that would be okay with getting paid strictly based on their performance...some might say they are..right up until they get hurt and cant play.
Player contracts are based partly on what a guy has already done and partly based on the speculation that they will continue to develop and perform. If that development and performance stop then the player is being over paid.

rookie contracts are actually paying a guy for what he did in college without ever knowing if he will perform in the nfl. Prior to the rookie scale it was ridiculous what some of those kids were getting paid. Matt Leinart got $50mil for a good rookie season and a great college career.
Players are assets. Just like you or I may go into a mutual fund and move money away from stocks that are under performing so we can invest more in better performing stocks, a team has to take money from an under performing asset and move it where it can do more good.

as a fan, my investment is in the teams success. I dont care if the players go broke when their career is over... Thats why they get signing bonuses, thats why they get guaranteed money.
Ever notice that?? They player gets guaranteed money but the team doesnt get guaranteed performance?


I notice nobody is jumping up and down trying to defend Josh Mauro... that guy way out performed his contract... got a modest raise...and after one down year everybody is cool cutting him to save $2mil on the cap[/QUOTE


I hope they keep Mauro.He is okay for his role in the DL rotation.His salary is not a blackhole sucking down 14 million either.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

David Johnson - rookie year

Patrick Peterson his first 3 years

Badger his first 2 seasons.....he's getting it all back now.

That's just the Cards....

it does happen

Rookie contracts are based off of your draft position. They are for a set amount. You sign and play. It's what you are paid whether you ride the bench or go to the Pro Bowl.

Those drafted earlier make more than those who did drugs, were kicked off their college team, and fell to the 3rd round in the draft...or those who were not drafted.

It is what it is.

You get drafted, you sign, you play, and you get a bigger payday on your next deal based on your performance.

 

[AZ Native]

I dunno about y'all but if my employer gives me a fat contract and then asked me to take a pay cut I would just laugh. Especially knowing I can go to just about anywhere and get paid the same and at worst, close to the same.

But couldn't cutting him save the Cards a lot of bucks? Per the contract.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

That is freaking easy, professional athletes get paid too damn much to begin with, but most especially the 'superstars'... no, I have never seen one player in the modern age outperform the value of their contract

Paul Goldschmidt

 

[Cardiac]

HB is still a quality starting safety in the NFL. Currently he is over paid based on last seasons performance which was solid but not 14 million worth. He had played the most snaps of any player so he does have value and I think his locker room presence is a positive one.

The reason I want him to rework his deal and take a pay cut is the Cards need the cap space. Nothing against or for him, it's about the team getting better. BA loved HB and it's my impression that SK does as well. Will that help or hinder the situation?

Go Cards.

 

[Chopper0080]

its more than just the $4.8mm this year -- its the $14mm in 2019 and $14mm 2020 as well

for that cap hit over time -- you likely sign a replacement level DB and an average starting WR or OL

so: do you want HB on the books for $14mm per, or, do you want, lets say:

a Josh Sitton, OG for $7mm per + a DJ Swearinger at $4.5mm per

Please. We save 4.8 mil vs the cap this year keeping him. Cutting him next year would be similar. The only thing I care about in 2020 is keeping a roster good enough to not have to fire my head coach. I don't give a damn about the cap dollars then.

 

[Chopper0080]

I don't think having HB gives the Cards a better chance to win at all. He is a shell of his former self.

You have to sign a slot CB and a S to replace what he does every week. That is not cheap or easy.

 

[BigRedRage]

You have to sign a slot CB and a S to replace what he does every week. That is not cheap or easy.

We have a safety who plays like him

slot CBs who are behind their receiver every down are a dime a dozen.

I LOVE HB pre injury but he was bad last year.

 

[Ronin]

Gregg Rosenthal‏Verified account@greggrosenthal
Cardinals GM Keim said they are in evaluation process with Honey Badger’s contract. Very noncommittal about picking up option