All Business

Thank you Maurice Jones-Drew.  You too, Darrelle Revis, if you hold out during Jets training camp as has been speculated.  Even your refusal to commit to attending camp is appreciated.  Why am I thanking them?  They are both turning the tables on their owners and utilizing every ounce of leverage they have.  For a guy that never had that type of clout (or any?),  it is refreshing to see them giving their owners a dose of their own medicine.

I've never been a huge advocate of holdouts.  That's especially true in the case of veterans who have already negotiated and signed a second contract with their respective clubs, as Jones-Drew and Revis both have.  Truth is, I have no sympathy for either player and in fact if I were running their teams I would not give in to their demands for a new deal.

It's not like Jones-Drew and Revis are rookies that have clearly outperformed their slotted rookie deals.  I understand when those guys hold out. 

Both of them signed extensions with their respective clubs fairly recently, knowing full well at the time that they were foregoing their shot at potentially unfettered free agency at some point for financial security now.  They don't have very compelling arguments to be holding out as a result and the fact that they each have two years remaining on those deals gives them little leverage contractually.

Yet therein lies the beauty of them holding out.  There are different reasons why each one of them are trying to get another big bite of the apple. In Jones-Drew's case, he is trying to cash in now knowing the likelihood that he would make it two more years to another contract is highly unlikely if the Jaguars keep giving him close to 400 touches a season.  Revis' contract was set up so that he received over $30 million, including all of his guaranteed money, the previous two seasons.  He is scheduled to make less than $7 million a year over the next two.

Do either one of them have great arguments for why they deserve more money?  No.  Is there a chance that their teams might cave and give them more if they hold out?  Absolutely, because they are clearly the best football players on their respective teams.  Those teams need to ask themselves if they really want to play games without their marquee player, should it get to that point.  They are, in effect, holding their team's fortunes, and the hearts of their beloved fans, hostage.

Hostage.  That's the word that triggered my idea that these players were simply acting pretty much exactly how their respective owners or front office executives would if they were in their shoes.

Think about it.  Pretty much every time the NFL in general or the thirty-two teams in particular have the opportunity to make more money, no matter what the occasion, they seize upon it.  They have a tremendous product and amazingly loyal fans and they milk it for all it's worth.

TV deals?  The NFL negotiates them with years left on the existing ones and can pretty much name their price with the networks

Stadium leases or quests for new stadiums?  How often does the NFL or a given team hold the threat of moving to Los Angeles over the communities in which they reside for either a more favorable lease arrangement or a new stadium?  The answer is constantly, with Minnesota and St. Louis being the most recent examples.

Or what about prices for the fans?  Ever heard of PSL's?  Talk about taking advantage of your customer's emotional attachment.

And none of those even come close to the ruthless nature in which they handle both CBA negotiations with the NFLPA and individual situations with players.  The NFL opted out of the previous CBA early in order to lock out the players with the threat of missing precious game checks in ridiculously short careers in order to get a much more favorable deal for them financially in exchange for less strenuous working conditions, which they couldn't care less about anyway.

As for individual players, most fans have no clue how common it is for teams to either force a pay cut or simply release players coming off of injury, even if they have multiple years left on their contract or have performed well.  Heck, the Bills cut me in 2005 one year into a three year extension they had given me in 2004 because I had a major back surgery.  And that was coming off my best season ever.

I don't fault the NFL or the teams for any of this, not even cutting me.  It is a cold, serious business and a lot of money is available.  They are going after every dime.

But that's also why I sort of enjoy what Jones-Drew is doing and what Revis might end up doing.  They are the best player on their team.  On some level, they have the hammer.  I like that they are going to use it and can't wait to see what happens. 

After all, they are only doing what their owner or the NFL would do if they were in their position. 

MAILBAG QUESTIONS: Send your questions either via email to ross@sportsusamedia.com or via Twitter to both @rosstuckernfl and @sports_usa.

Throughout the offseason you hear of players organizing workouts outside of OTAs (i.e. Jets West). Not everyone on the team participates in these workouts so what does the rest of the team do to stay in shape and prepare for the upcoming season? You have spoken about taking on internships to prepare you for life after football, but do you think that hindered you in any way when preparing for the next season because you weren't spending as much time working out as some of your teammates?

Jeff Miller via email

Player organized workouts like that are usually only for two or three days and almost always exclusively for skill players so it typically didn't have any impact on me.  In terms of my internships, they always took place in the NFL city in which I was playing and only during the afternoons in which there was no football commitment and we had already finished our obligations during the mornings.  Some guys went home and played video games.  I preferred to find out what I might want to do after football and putting on a suit and tie and sitting at a desk was unbelievable motivation to play football as long as I could.

@RossTuckerNFL  @Sports_USA Why the lack of market for Mike Wallace?

@corrinalawson via twitter

Wallace is a restricted free agent, which means he was only available to be signed to an offer sheet up to one week before the draft back in April.  That means at this point there really is no market for him.  The reasons why nobody gave him an offer sheet during that time when he was actually available is twofold.  For one, in addition to the 1st round pick that the team would have given up for Wallace, he was also believed to be looking for a contract in the $11M a year range, like Vincent Jackson got from the Bucs.  That is significantly more than any 1st round pick would receive so it is cost prohibitive.  Not only that, teams also felt that even if they did sign him to an offer sheet, the Steelers would likely just match it, as is their right.

@RossTuckerNFL  @Sports_USA Ross, what's your take on the Pats claiming Ballard off waivers? Fair game, poorly done by Giants? Thanks

@mgruenwalder via twitter

The Giants messed up and they know it.  They made a calculated risk to waive/injured Ballard at this point to try to put him on Injured Reserve now as opposed to just keeping him on the 90 man roster and placing him directly on IR during training camp.  They didn't expect anyone to claim a player and pay him for the 2012 season even though he isn't going to play.  They were wrong.