Why the hell are teams (Patriots, Jets, and other stubborn front offices) so hell bent on not setting precendent? For example, the Jets are resistant to re-working Kendall's deal because they don't want to set precedent so that other players will come running in to have their deals re-done. What the hell is with this stupid logic? Precedent applies to Supreme Court Law not NFL salaries and personell managment!!! For crying out loud. If you re-work Derek Jeters contract and Andy Phillips comes running in to re-work his deal you just slam the door on his head. Red Auerbach used to always be asked why he treated Bill Russell differently from the rest of the team. He would simply let him skip practice if he didn't feel like practicing. He would casually explain to his team that there are rules for the rest of you and their are rules for Bill Russell. It's that simple. Their are no laws that state that if you re-work Player A, than you must re-work Player B. HOWEVER, if the Jets just simply don't think Kendall's worth the raise than just say "sorry, it's not happening Pete. We don't think your level of play warrent it." Enough with this precedent crap. It's a ridiculous notion.
Yeah, nobody ever bases a course of action on previous similar situations. Everything that happens is a completely new and different experience and should be treated as such. Ohm.
It's not really ridiculous. Precedent DOES matter. If they submit to Pete Kendall, an average to slightly above average offensive lineman, what happens when Coles walks into Tanny's office and demands a raise? Then Thomas Jones follows. Then Kerry Rhodes. You give in to an average player's demands, you may as well shut the doors and sell the store. Comparing Bill Russell to Pete Kendall is like comparing the threat to national security by North Korea to the threat posed by Indonesia.
Do you really beleive I was comparing Pete Kendall to Bill Russell? My point is that you treat each player on a case by case basis. If Laverneus Coles is more important to your team than Pete Kendall than you re-work his deal and not Kendall's. Here's a better example. Two summers ago Richard Seymour was holding out of camp. The Patriots decided to re-work his deal and satisfy his request. End of story. He was back at camp before the pre-season games started. This year Asante Samuel is holding his breathe and stomping his feet and the Patriots are moving on. In this example precedent doesn't mean Jack S***. Bottom line, they determined Richard was more important than Asante. Done and done. I'm sure Asante's agent is pointing to Seymour's situation and saying what about when you re-did Richard's deal and to that I would respond..."you're not richard Seymour!"
Has the idea that they don't want to set precedent come from someone within the Jets offices, or just media speculation? It could well be that they just don't think Kendall is worth it as you stated.
I think the point is that if they cave to Kendall's requests then it proves that bitching and moaning to get your way works. So the next guy who wants a raise will bitch, moan, holdout, talk sh*t, etc. At first I was all for giving Kendall the money he deserved. He's a good player. But now after him acting like a bitch I say get him the hell out of New York and good riddance.
Precedent is just any act, decision, etc that can be used as an example in the future-- usually formed over time and repitition of consistency. By being hard-nosed, the jets ARE setting a precedent that they expect players to honor their contracts. Use of precedent in law is not exclusive.
I'm still trying to figure out how Boston is Titletown. Wouldn't you have to had won something last year or the year before? I guess every place that won a few titles, no matter how long ago they won them, is titletown. Hey, Anaheim....TITLETOWN!!!!!!!!! Welcome to Miami..........you're in TITLETOWN, BABY!!!!!
Precedent is used daily in the normal work place especially with unions. If something is not in the contract, but management allows it to happen several times without any action it becomes precedent and will hold up in a court of law.
The flaw with that logic is Kendall is nothing more than average. He's no Richard Seymour or Asante Samuel.
I'm not sure if precedent is mentioned in the CBA, I'm sure someone more familiar with the CBA can speak more intelligently on that than I can... but I think precedent began to matter when agents and FO's began to cite it in contract talks.
I think the point with Kendall is more that he took more money in '06 in order to restructure, and now he wants to get back to a salary level in '07 that reflects market value. Well, you can't have it both ways Pete. The Jets gave new contracts early to B Thomas and Cotch to lock them up, so they do renegotiate. Again, Pete is a serviceable player, but he got kicked out of Arizona (probably for cause), so while he spins a nice quote, he's more of a lockerroom lawyer than we know. And that's probably also an underlying issue here.
If you restructure a player like B.Thomas's contract in the middle of a season where he is playing above expectations, you are telling the other players on the team that if they exceed expectations as well, they could get more money. If you restructure a player like Kendall's contract in the off-season after a lackluster season, you are telling the other players on the team that any player can get a raise regardless of what they produce on the field. That's what precedent means.
I see one major flaw in your premise. you seem to be taking the Jets at their word, that's a big mistake. I'll give you credit that you hit on it a bit that the Jets may be full of it with the qualifier you put there at the end of your original post The truth of the matter is precedent seems to only be taken into small consideration in not just the Jets organization, but all across the league. In other words, this idea that one above average, to mediocre player demanding a pay raise will only lead to other above average, to mediocre players wanting the same, which will inevitably lead to the destruction of the entire organization is a farce to a degree. To illustrate this point, notice how superstars have always, and will always obtain preferential treatment. I can't help but think it this was Kerry Rhodes we were talking about the situation would be vastly different. The fact is teams have always, and we always give this treatment to players they deem indispensable. In this regard Kendall does not fit this criteria, thus he is subject to the limits of his worth to the organization, which just so happens to be his current contract. In summation, this idea that the Jets are unwilling to set a bad precedent by giving into Kendall is bunk, Kendall's value to the organization has diminished greatly, not just in regards to his play on the field but from off field issues as well, everything else is window dressing.
The Jets aren't renegotiating Kendall because it would set a precedent that any average player who feels momentarily underpaid can come in and raise a ruckus until the Jets do something about it. If it was Kerry Rhodes complaining he'd get renegotiated so fast it would make all of our heads spin.
If it were Rhodes, we wouldn't know about it until it was done. Sort of like Bryan Thomas last year. And perhaps a better word to use in this situation than "precedent" is "principle." The principle of renegotiating an average player who feels he's underpaid is an issue with the Jets. The fact is, he's done nothing to deserve a raise, but he wants to stomp his feet till he gets it. Nope, sorry Pete. Happy Trails.
Maybe the word should be philosophy. The jets have an approach to how they want to handle business. (It appears to basically copy how the Patriots do busniess) seeing as the Patriots have had recent success, this may not be a bad thing. But I think the word should be philosphy. The Jets approach is wholistic it goes to the draft, player negotiations, defensive alignment etc...
