Whats Cribb Worth?
-
Did he sign the contract? Did he take the money up front for his security and protection against injury? What's the trade off?
Hey, I agree the guy is a damn good special teams players. And, when he has played through at least half his contract, it should be addressed. Not after 2 years when he took a third of the money up front. If you count the signing bonus and his salary for the two years, he got compensated well for his work.
We also fail to mention that the owner gave him a bonus for making the pro bowl after the 2007 season and it wasn't a part of his contract. Lerner and Savage said it was just something extra for the job he did for the Browns.
Last year they sucked and Cribb's productivity dropped off. You don't come in and ask for a raise after a 4-12 season. Point is, what's his bargaining power? Teams win and players get new contracts.
He is Josh Cribbs that's his barganing chip, he will get a new contract, even if its not crazy money.
He is Josh Cribbs that's his barganing chip, he will get a new contract, even if its not crazy money.
He's already under contract, that's the Browns's bargaining chip. Come back next year when you have played half way through your signed contract or give me the bonus money back and we'll talk new contract.
As long as he took the money up front he doesn't have a complaint. My god, when you sign for 6 years, playing at least half of it, three years, would be a minimum.
Open up the flood gates. Every player will be signing long term contracts, taking most of the money in a singing bonus and then in a few years complain that they are playing for the league minimum.
-
Cribbs signed a 6 year contract because he said he had outplayed his rookie contract. He took over $2 million up front in a bonus. He has finished two years of the contract with the bonuses added to his two years of salary he has made between 3.5 and 4 million dollars on that contract as a kick returner so far. He's sucked all the gravy out of the contract and know wants another one. He was sure happy when he got that 2+ mil up front.
If he deserves a new contract, then Jackson deserves a new contract because he is in the last year of his rookie contract and has certainly outplayed it. McDonald and Wright have certainly outplayed their contracts. Pool has outplayed his contract. If Harrison and Hall get their opportunties this year they certainly will be in line for new contracts because they are playing for barely the minimum. If Rucker ends up starting then he certainly would need a contract adjustment.
And if Cribbs warrants a new contract then certainly Phil Dawson deserves one.
So, why in the hell do we have players sign contracts if the teams need to address them if they perform well?
Maybe then Cory Williams, Shaun Smith, Steinbach, Anderson, Edwards, Wimbley and some others should have their contracts redone because they underperformed according to what they are being paid. Tuff shit there for the team.
If teams are stuck with contracts with underperforming players then players who feel they outperformed their contracts should have to play them out also. If players don't want to honor a contract they signed then they should sign only one year contracts to protect themselves from playing under a contract that doesn't equate to their performance.
For those of you who think Cribbs should have a new contract answer this; how much of it do you think he would have given back if he got injured and couldn't perform. Isn't that the chance the team took and reason Cribbs got his money up front.....................Protection, Security
You can't have it both ways
Cribbs signed a 6 year contract because he said he had outplayed his rookie contract. He took over $2 million up front in a bonus. He has finished two years of the contract with the bonuses added to his two years of salary he has made between 3.5 and 4 million dollars on that contract as a kick returner so far. He's sucked all the gravy out of the contract and know wants another one. He was sure happy when he got that 2+ mil up front.
If he deserves a new contract, then Jackson deserves a new contract because he is in the last year of his rookie contract and has certainly outplayed it. McDonald and Wright have certainly outplayed their contracts. Pool has outplayed his contract. If Harrison and Hall get their opportunties this year they certainly will be in line for new contracts because they are playing for barely the minimum. If Rucker ends up starting then he certainly would need a contract adjustment.
And if Cribbs warrants a new contract then certainly Phil Dawson deserves one.
So, why in the hell do we have players sign contracts if the teams need to address them if they perform well?
Maybe then Cory Williams, Shaun Smith, Steinbach, Anderson, Edwards, Wimbley and some others should have their contracts redone because they underperformed according to what they are being paid. Tuff shit there for the team.
If teams are stuck with contracts with underperforming players then players who feel they outperformed their contracts should have to play them out also. If players don't want to honor a contract they signed then they should sign only one year contracts to protect themselves from playing under a contract that doesn't equate to their performance.
For those of you who think Cribbs should have a new contract answer this; how much of it do you think he would have given back if he got injured and couldn't perform. Isn't that the chance the team took and reason Cribbs got his money up front.....................Protection, Security
You can't have it both ways
Here is a snippet from ESPN's James Walker....and he makes the same point I made previously in another thread:
Jim Goodrich from Zanesville, Ohio wants to know of Joshua Cribbs underperformed his contract, would he have given money back.
James Walker: Now it's soapbox time in the AFC North. I don't have many pet peeves, but Jim is bringing up one of my biggest ones. Fans who scream out "players should honor their contracts" have a very narrow-minded view of the NFL. To put it bluntly, this is a shrewd business where contracts are not guaranteed. Every year dozens of teams do not "honor its contracts" by cutting underperforming players. Yet fans never seem upset when their team gets rid of a bust before the end of his deal. No one screamed "travesty" this offseason when the Browns stopped honoring Kevin Shaffer's $36 million contract. No one was upset when the Ravens saved $8 million by releasing Chris McAlister. The same goes for the Bengals, who didn't feel Levi Jones was worth his $3 million salary. So they didn't honor it and released him. The point is the business side of the NFL is brutal on both ends. It's a performance-based league. So next time a player wants a new deal, always consider the alternative and be wary of taking sides of the player or the team.
The fact is, if these contracts were "guaranteed", then go ahead and bitch. But they aren't. The 'team' can blow off the contract any time they want...whereas the player is held to it. Not exactly an even exchange.
And as I stated before...plans are for Cribbs role on the team to expand...and if you or I were about to have extra duties placed on us..we would be in line for a raise as well. He is doing nothing more than bargaining for his future...because in all likelihood he has all of about 5-6yrs to make a lifetime of income before his career ends...and that is if he doesn't get injured the first game of the year (in which case he gets cut...and gets NOTHING).
-
Cribbs signed a 6 year contract because he said he had outplayed his rookie contract. He took over $2 million up front in a bonus. He has finished two years of the contract with the bonuses added to his two years of salary he has made between 3.5 and 4 million dollars on that contract as a kick returner so far. He's sucked all the gravy out of the contract and know wants another one. He was sure happy when he got that 2+ mil up front.
If he deserves a new contract, then Jackson deserves a new contract because he is in the last year of his rookie contract and has certainly outplayed it. McDonald and Wright have certainly outplayed their contracts. Pool has outplayed his contract. If Harrison and Hall get their opportunties this year they certainly will be in line for new contracts because they are playing for barely the minimum. If Rucker ends up starting then he certainly would need a contract adjustment.
And if Cribbs warrants a new contract then certainly Phil Dawson deserves one.
So, why in the hell do we have players sign contracts if the teams need to address them if they perform well?
Maybe then Cory Williams, Shaun Smith, Steinbach, Anderson, Edwards, Wimbley and some others should have their contracts redone because they underperformed according to what they are being paid. Tuff shit there for the team.
If teams are stuck with contracts with underperforming players then players who feel they outperformed their contracts should have to play them out also. If players don't want to honor a contract they signed then they should sign only one year contracts to protect themselves from playing under a contract that doesn't equate to their performance.
For those of you who think Cribbs should have a new contract answer this; how much of it do you think he would have given back if he got injured and couldn't perform. Isn't that the chance the team took and reason Cribbs got his money up front.....................Protection, Security
You can't have it both ways
Here is a snippet from ESPN's James Walker....and he makes the same point I made previously in another thread:
Jim Goodrich from Zanesville, Ohio wants to know of Joshua Cribbs underperformed his contract, would he have given money back.
James Walker: Now it's soapbox time in the AFC North. I don't have many pet peeves, but Jim is bringing up one of my biggest ones. Fans who scream out "players should honor their contracts" have a very narrow-minded view of the NFL. To put it bluntly, this is a shrewd business where contracts are not guaranteed. Every year dozens of teams do not "honor its contracts" by cutting underperforming players. Yet fans never seem upset when their team gets rid of a bust before the end of his deal. No one screamed "travesty" this offseason when the Browns stopped honoring Kevin Shaffer's $36 million contract. No one was upset when the Ravens saved $8 million by releasing Chris McAlister. The same goes for the Bengals, who didn't feel Levi Jones was worth his $3 million salary. So they didn't honor it and released him. The point is the business side of the NFL is brutal on both ends. It's a performance-based league. So next time a player wants a new deal, always consider the alternative and be wary of taking sides of the player or the team.
The fact is, if these contracts were "guaranteed", then go ahead and bitch. But they aren't. The 'team' can blow off the contract any time they want...whereas the player is held to it. Not exactly an even exchange.
And as I stated before...plans are for Cribbs role on the team to expand...and if you or I were about to have extra duties placed on us..we would be in line for a raise as well. He is doing nothing more than bargaining for his future...because in all likelihood he has all of about 5-6yrs to make a lifetime of income before his career ends...and that is if he doesn't get injured the first game of the year (in which case he gets cut...and gets NOTHING).
Here is a snippet from ESPN's James Walker....and he makes the same point I made previously in another thread:
The fact is, if these contracts were "guaranteed", then go ahead and bitch. But they aren't. The 'team' can blow off the contract any time they want...whereas the player is held to it. Not exactly an even exchange.
And as I stated before...plans are for Cribbs role on the team to expand...and if you or I were about to have extra duties placed on us..we would be in line for a raise as well. He is doing nothing more than bargaining for his future...because in all likelihood he has all of about 5-6yrs to make a lifetime of income before his career ends...and that is if he doesn't get injured the first game of the year (in which case he gets cut...and gets NOTHING).
Key words in it all are "It's a performance-based league" and "plans are for Cribbs role on the team to expand". What happens if you give him the raise and his roles DON'T expand because he just isn't as good in them or there is someone better? What then? That's why you either make ANY new money be incentive/performance escalators, or you promise him, in writing if necessary, that if he does good in his new roles then the contract will be revisited in the offseason. I disagree with giving any more guaranteed monies for "expected" new roles.
-
Here is a snippet from ESPN's James Walker....and he makes the same point I made previously in another thread:
The fact is, if these contracts were "guaranteed", then go ahead and bitch. But they aren't. The 'team' can blow off the contract any time they want...whereas the player is held to it. Not exactly an even exchange.
And as I stated before...plans are for Cribbs role on the team to expand...and if you or I were about to have extra duties placed on us..we would be in line for a raise as well. He is doing nothing more than bargaining for his future...because in all likelihood he has all of about 5-6yrs to make a lifetime of income before his career ends...and that is if he doesn't get injured the first game of the year (in which case he gets cut...and gets NOTHING).
Key words in it all are "It's a performance-based league" and "plans are for Cribbs role on the team to expand". What happens if you give him the raise and his roles DON'T expand because he just isn't as good in them or there is someone better? What then? That's why you either make ANY new money be incentive/performance escalators, or you promise him, in writing if necessary, that if he does good in his new roles then the contract will be revisited in the offseason. I disagree with giving any more guaranteed monies for "expected" new roles.
Key words in it all are "It's a performance-based league" and "plans are for Cribbs role on the team to expand". What happens if you give him the raise and his roles DON'T expand because he just isn't as good in them or there is someone better? What then? That's why you either make ANY new money be incentive/performance escalators, or you promise him, in writing if necessary, that if he does good in his new roles then the contract will be revisited in the offseason. I disagree with giving any more guaranteed monies for "expected" new roles.
If you are put into a new role...do YOU have to wait for your performance before getting the raise? Say you move from 'lead' to 'supervisor'. Do you take it without getting the raise first? I highly doubt it....especially if you know you can be let go at any point for ANY reason. I know I wouldn't take on the extra work until I got the new contract.
With that said...Cribbs is in camp and working hard. If he proves to be an asset...expect him to get the new contract. If not...the team will tell him he is just a ST and go from there.
-
Key words in it all are "It's a performance-based league" and "plans are for Cribbs role on the team to expand". What happens if you give him the raise and his roles DON'T expand because he just isn't as good in them or there is someone better? What then? That's why you either make ANY new money be incentive/performance escalators, or you promise him, in writing if necessary, that if he does good in his new roles then the contract will be revisited in the offseason. I disagree with giving any more guaranteed monies for "expected" new roles.
If you are put into a new role...do YOU have to wait for your performance before getting the raise? Say you move from 'lead' to 'supervisor'. Do you take it without getting the raise first? I highly doubt it....especially if you know you can be let go at any point for ANY reason. I know I wouldn't take on the extra work until I got the new contract.
With that said...Cribbs is in camp and working hard. If he proves to be an asset...expect him to get the new contract. If not...the team will tell him he is just a ST and go from there.
If you are put into a new role...do YOU have to wait for your performance before getting the raise? Say you move from 'lead' to 'supervisor'. Do you take it without getting the raise first? I highly doubt it....especially if you know you can be let go at any point for ANY reason. I know I wouldn't take on the extra work until I got the new contract.
With that said...Cribbs is in camp and working hard. If he proves to be an asset...expect him to get the new contract. If not...the team will tell him he is just a ST and go from there.
Except that what I do and what he does can't even be compared. If I'm given more roles/responsibility then I am paid to move into that role. If I don't perform, I get fired, not moved back to my old role. Cribbs got paid TWO years ago and took guaranteed money. IF he doesn't do well in the expected roles then they don't use him there and he remains a STer. He doesn't get fired because he still has performed in the role we all know he is good in. You just can't compare it to the average person moving up in their jobs.
-
If you are put into a new role...do YOU have to wait for your performance before getting the raise? Say you move from 'lead' to 'supervisor'. Do you take it without getting the raise first? I highly doubt it....especially if you know you can be let go at any point for ANY reason. I know I wouldn't take on the extra work until I got the new contract.
With that said...Cribbs is in camp and working hard. If he proves to be an asset...expect him to get the new contract. If not...the team will tell him he is just a ST and go from there.
Except that what I do and what he does can't even be compared. If I'm given more roles/responsibility then I am paid to move into that role. If I don't perform, I get fired, not moved back to my old role. Cribbs got paid TWO years ago and took guaranteed money. IF he doesn't do well in the expected roles then they don't use him there and he remains a STer. He doesn't get fired because he still has performed in the role we all know he is good in. You just can't compare it to the average person moving up in their jobs.
Except that what I do and what he does can't even be compared. If I'm given more roles/responsibility then I am paid to move into that role. If I don't perform, I get fired, not moved back to my old role. Cribbs got paid TWO years ago and took guaranteed money. IF he doesn't do well in the expected roles then they don't use him there and he remains a STer. He doesn't get fired because he still has performed in the role we all know he is good in. You just can't compare it to the average person moving up in their jobs.
ahhh.....but you are forgetting one more thing...if he gets the new contract...then doesn't perform to fulfill it...the team can just cut him and void the entire contract.
see, it is the same.
-
Cribbs signed a 6 year contract because he said he had outplayed his rookie contract. He took over $2 million up front in a bonus. He has finished two years of the contract with the bonuses added to his two years of salary he has made between 3.5 and 4 million dollars on that contract as a kick returner so far. He's sucked all the gravy out of the contract and know wants another one. He was sure happy when he got that 2+ mil up front.
If he deserves a new contract, then Jackson deserves a new contract because he is in the last year of his rookie contract and has certainly outplayed it. McDonald and Wright have certainly outplayed their contracts. Pool has outplayed his contract. If Harrison and Hall get their opportunties this year they certainly will be in line for new contracts because they are playing for barely the minimum. If Rucker ends up starting then he certainly would need a contract adjustment.
And if Cribbs warrants a new contract then certainly Phil Dawson deserves one.
So, why in the hell do we have players sign contracts if the teams need to address them if they perform well?
Maybe then Cory Williams, Shaun Smith, Steinbach, Anderson, Edwards, Wimbley and some others should have their contracts redone because they underperformed according to what they are being paid. Tuff shit there for the team.
If teams are stuck with contracts with underperforming players then players who feel they outperformed their contracts should have to play them out also. If players don't want to honor a contract they signed then they should sign only one year contracts to protect themselves from playing under a contract that doesn't equate to their performance.
For those of you who think Cribbs should have a new contract answer this; how much of it do you think he would have given back if he got injured and couldn't perform. Isn't that the chance the team took and reason Cribbs got his money up front.....................Protection, Security
You can't have it both ways
Here is a snippet from ESPN's James Walker....and he makes the same point I made previously in another thread:
Jim Goodrich from Zanesville, Ohio wants to know of Joshua Cribbs underperformed his contract, would he have given money back.
James Walker: Now it's soapbox time in the AFC North. I don't have many pet peeves, but Jim is bringing up one of my biggest ones. Fans who scream out "players should honor their contracts" have a very narrow-minded view of the NFL. To put it bluntly, this is a shrewd business where contracts are not guaranteed. Every year dozens of teams do not "honor its contracts" by cutting underperforming players. Yet fans never seem upset when their team gets rid of a bust before the end of his deal. No one screamed "travesty" this offseason when the Browns stopped honoring Kevin Shaffer's $36 million contract. No one was upset when the Ravens saved $8 million by releasing Chris McAlister. The same goes for the Bengals, who didn't feel Levi Jones was worth his $3 million salary. So they didn't honor it and released him. The point is the business side of the NFL is brutal on both ends. It's a performance-based league. So next time a player wants a new deal, always consider the alternative and be wary of taking sides of the player or the team.
The fact is, if these contracts were "guaranteed", then go ahead and bitch. But they aren't. The 'team' can blow off the contract any time they want...whereas the player is held to it. Not exactly an even exchange.
And as I stated before...plans are for Cribbs role on the team to expand...and if you or I were about to have extra duties placed on us..we would be in line for a raise as well. He is doing nothing more than bargaining for his future...because in all likelihood he has all of about 5-6yrs to make a lifetime of income before his career ends...and that is if he doesn't get injured the first game of the year (in which case he gets cut...and gets NOTHING).
Here is a snippet from ESPN's James Walker....and he makes the same point I made previously in another thread:
The fact is, if these contracts were "guaranteed", then go ahead and bitch. But they aren't. The 'team' can blow off the contract any time they want...whereas the player is held to it. Not exactly an even exchange.
That's part of the contract rules: That the teams CAN drop the contract, and it's why players want guaranteed money and big bonuses upfront.
Yeah, it's totally fair, because the player can also bargain when negotiating the contract and part of the bargaining considers that they and the teams know they can be cut at any time.
It seems if your contract allows for it to be terminated early (by either side), then doing so is not failing to 'honor your contract'. Apparently the courts agree, because I'm not seeing too many contract lawsuits from NFL players against their teams for failing to 'honor contracts' when they are cut.
-
Here is a snippet from ESPN's James Walker....and he makes the same point I made previously in another thread:
The fact is, if these contracts were "guaranteed", then go ahead and bitch. But they aren't. The 'team' can blow off the contract any time they want...whereas the player is held to it. Not exactly an even exchange.
That's part of the contract rules: That the teams CAN drop the contract, and it's why players want guaranteed money and big bonuses upfront.
Yeah, it's totally fair, because the player can also bargain when negotiating the contract and part of the bargaining considers that they and the teams know they can be cut at any time.
It seems if your contract allows for it to be terminated early (by either side), then doing so is not failing to 'honor your contract'. Apparently the courts agree, because I'm not seeing too many contract lawsuits from NFL players against their teams for failing to 'honor contracts' when they are cut.
That's part of the contract rules: That the teams CAN drop the contract, and it's why players want guaranteed money and big bonuses upfront.
Yeah, it's totally fair, because the player can also bargain when negotiating the contract and part of the bargaining considers that they and the teams know they can be cut at any time.
It seems if your contract allows for it to be terminated early (by either side), then doing so is not failing to 'honor your contract'. Apparently the courts agree, because I'm not seeing too many contract lawsuits from NFL players against their teams for failing to 'honor contracts' when they are cut.
OK, maybe the word fair was not the right one to use...but...if the TEAM can void the contract at any time....then the player should have the right to TRY and renegotiate at any time. That is all I am saying.
Now, do I agree with holding out? No more than I like strikes in the real world. It sucks and usually nobody wins. But for us fans....when a player makes a stink all we see is how it hurts the team. When the team voids a player...we just say 'good thing we cut the bum'.
A little one sided on the old opinions there. I say Cribbs should do whatever it takes (short of holding out) to get as much as he can. I won't begrudge him one penny. If he can get it...it's all good. But if he holds out...well...he DID sign the freakin contract and DID get the bonus...so I won't support that.
-
That's part of the contract rules: That the teams CAN drop the contract, and it's why players want guaranteed money and big bonuses upfront.
Yeah, it's totally fair, because the player can also bargain when negotiating the contract and part of the bargaining considers that they and the teams know they can be cut at any time.
It seems if your contract allows for it to be terminated early (by either side), then doing so is not failing to 'honor your contract'. Apparently the courts agree, because I'm not seeing too many contract lawsuits from NFL players against their teams for failing to 'honor contracts' when they are cut.
OK, maybe the word fair was not the right one to use...but...if the TEAM can void the contract at any time....then the player should have the right to TRY and renegotiate at any time. That is all I am saying.
Now, do I agree with holding out? No more than I like strikes in the real world. It sucks and usually nobody wins. But for us fans....when a player makes a stink all we see is how it hurts the team. When the team voids a player...we just say 'good thing we cut the bum'.
A little one sided on the old opinions there. I say Cribbs should do whatever it takes (short of holding out) to get as much as he can. I won't begrudge him one penny. If he can get it...it's all good. But if he holds out...well...he DID sign the freakin contract and DID get the bonus...so I won't support that.
OK, maybe the word fair was not the right one to use...but...if the TEAM can void the contract at any time....then the player should have the right to TRY and renegotiate at any time. That is all I am saying.
Now, do I agree with holding out? No more than I like strikes in the real world. It sucks and usually nobody wins. But for us fans....when a player makes a stink all we see is how it hurts the team. When the team voids a player...we just say 'good thing we cut the bum'.
A little one sided on the old opinions there. I say Cribbs should do whatever it takes (short of holding out) to get as much as he can. I won't begrudge him one penny. If he can get it...it's all good. But if he holds out...well...he DID sign the freakin contract and DID get the bonus...so I won't support that.
I agree that Cribbs should get bonuses should he perform well, and I absolutely understand why he wants it in writing, although Lerner has not given him any reason to believe he won't do right by him. However, what Lerner may view as 'right' and Cribbs may view as 'right' is probably not the same, so best to get the details hammered out if possible.
He does have the right to try and renegotiate and he is; it may or may not be effective. It's much more effective when you are reaching the end of your contract (and have produced) than 2 years into it with 4 remaining. You gave up you leverage when you signed the long contract.
Sure, your boss has asked you to take on more work; usually what happens is you prove yourself capable of handling it, then the bonuses and raises happen.
-
You know Ive been saying for SOOOOOOOOO long that we have had Cribbs at the WRONG position for years. I personally beleive he is a natural RB. I said that before and people were telling me hell no, that he had the body of a reciever...6'1 215lbs? Sounds like a good size for a RB to me.... after all, AP is 6'1 220...
Instead of being thrown out there with the wideouts I think he should be our 3rd down back and get between 7-10 carries a game, he's a tough fellow to bring down, plus he can always be an option to throw to out of the backfield, also, every time he ran last year wasnt he getting like 5.6 ypc?
If he was added to the RB group and stayed at returner and gunner he would be worth easily 3mil per year for 3 years with a 1.5 million signing bonus
-
Except that what I do and what he does can't even be compared. If I'm given more roles/responsibility then I am paid to move into that role. If I don't perform, I get fired, not moved back to my old role. Cribbs got paid TWO years ago and took guaranteed money. IF he doesn't do well in the expected roles then they don't use him there and he remains a STer. He doesn't get fired because he still has performed in the role we all know he is good in. You just can't compare it to the average person moving up in their jobs.
ahhh.....but you are forgetting one more thing...if he gets the new contract...then doesn't perform to fulfill it...the team can just cut him and void the entire contract.
see, it is the same.
ahhh.....but you are forgetting one more thing...if he gets the new contract...then doesn't perform to fulfill it...the team can just cut him and void the entire contract.
see, it is the same.
Except that new contracts usually entail new guaranteed monies, and he just got guaranteed money 2 years ago as part of his 6 year deal. They CAN'T recover that if he doesn't perform and they cut him. He needs to prove he can perform in those new roles and prove he's more than a STer.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login