money for mountain men

we may term it the 'offseason' but a cynic casting a jaundiced eye to this (relatively) quiet stretch of the football calendar might call it 'holdout season'. alongside run-ins with the law, holdouts are the only issue that stirs up controversy every year without fail in this pause of the season. nearly all may/june team activities - ota's and minicamps - are voluntary. players don't have a lot of leverage when it comes to contract negotiation, especially guys playing on their rookie contracts. absence, silence, speaks volumes. and, given the behind closed door nature of pro football, every little move or non-move is imbued with weighty implications by us, the outsiders.

this year's list of holdouts is interesting. anquan boldin and darnell dockett in arizona, brian urlacher and lance briggs in chicago, kellen winslow in cleveland (oddly holding out from activities he can't attend due to injury anyway), will smith in new orleans, jason peters in buffalo, and, of course, chad johnson and tj houshmandzadeh in cincinnati.

obviously chad johnson makes for absurdist theater. i've been meaning to tackle chad versus the bengals over the last several months. yet i always put it off. in all honesty, i won't discuss his situation in detail today either. i just want to note with a kind of impressed awe just how relevant chad's made himself through his antics. in this bounded endgame, we must remember the more controversy, the better the player drives his point home. i don't put much stock in opponents likening his intelligence to that of inanimate objects. look at what chad has forced his team to do. marvin lewis is harassed by the local press. carson palmer is reposing into black comedy. cincinnati drafted three (3!!!) wideouts a month ago, this team that was supposed to field one of the best wideout corps in the league, this team that desperately needs defensive players at just about every position. the bengals should have drafted defensive tackle and linebacker with every selection instead redoubled valuable resources into redundancy.

chad is embracing the villain because he understands it is the only yellow brick road through the treacherously narrow world of pro football. every player that crosses that line understands they risk the instant reproach of the muckraking writers and the fickle public. but like everything else in this american life, it's all about the bottom line.

the re-negotiation of contracts is a cat-and-mouse game, and a delicate one at that. the cynic welling up again might take issue with players angling for a new deal when they have a multi-million dollar contract already in hand. but part of the question turns on just what are these contracts paying? it's tough to gage whether nfl contracts pay based on performance past or projected. every situation is different so the question defies easy answer. and outside of rookie contracts, a contract will always be about both past and future. striking that balance requires delicacy. shaun alexander's gigantic contract signed after his mvp year was purely a reward for past performance. today alexander is without a team, without a contract, the seahawks have a considerable cap hit to absorb over the next two seasons. alexander's body finally broke down after being the workhorse for five seasons at the age of 29.

alexander may be a cautionary tale, but what about the players unhappy with their contracts that have a legitimate gripe? jason peters is holding out of voluntary activity in buffalo (he plans on attending all mandatory activities). peters is buffalo's left tackle, manning one of the three or four hardest positions on the field. he came to the team an undrafted free agent playing tight end. the team converted him to tackle and he's turned into one of the best, a nasty run blocker, a quick-footed pass protector. peters made the pro bowl last year but also made about $3 million, the third highest total on the line behind guard derrick dockery and right tackle langston walker.

given the situation, you'd be hard pressed to find someone that doesn't think peters deserves a raise. left tackles, good ones, come at a premium. they're hard to find and crucial at the same time. but again, peters has no real leverage, only perception. if peters is content to let the negotiations play out throughout the season he won't have to rush the unhappy camper routine. if however, he wants his payday before the season starts, he'll have to step up his game. somehow, i don't see peters playing the locker room diva, it's just not his style. and yet, if he doesn't, his new contract which i assume he'll get eventually, might not be as big as it could be.

i feel like i've spent considerable time this offseason saluting evil genius. the great lions linebacker joe schmidt once said you've got to be a son-of-a-bitch to play this game. that's a fact that never changes. and while i'm all for the team concept, there's little else to attack in these negotiations. so jason and chad, go on get your paydays, anyway you can... until the nfl contract system is reworked - if it ever is - to something resembling sanity, the nuclear option or rather the threat of it is the only one on the table.