Very fascinating article from Fox Business about Kristen Kuliga, a female sports agent. More appropriately the female sports agent, as it is not an industry merely favored by men but rather almost entirely dominated by them. If not for Kristen Kuliga. Her credentials:
"It's tough," Agone says. "Not a lot of women make it. You have to be really hard-headed to make it in this industry, plus she would make a lot more money as a [veterinarian]."
Anyways, what does this have to do with the Redskins? Not much, admittedly, though I do think it's an interesting read. However, some wisely unnamed Washington Redskins rep came out with this utterly self-defeating bit:
Maybe I'm barking up an uninhabited tree, but good agents are bad for teams (great for players) and we needn't encourage them. Drew Rosenhaus has the Redskins by the short and curlies enough as is without encouraging cheerleader quotes for his industry from people associated with the team.
While we're here, there's a somewhat controversial issue relating to player salaries that might as well get discussed now. I'm of the opinion that contracts are legal instruments that the signing parties have an obligation to honor. That also happens to be the opinion of the people adjudicating disputes that arise out of these contracts. Drew Rosenhaus is not necessarily of that opinion. Quoting:
It is, even considering the volatile source, a fairly reasonable business argument.
"A team can call me and say, 'Hey, Drew, we know that we have your client under contract for another four or five years, but he's hurt and we're going to cut him,' " Rosenhaus said. "But it's sacrilegious, it's outrageous for me to ask for more if a player outperforms his deal. That's a joke. That stinks."
With these last two sentences, Rosenhaus' voice rises to something approaching a scream...
"If contracts can be cut, why can't they be raised? Explain that to me."
So, to answer Drew's now 3 year old question as to why contracts can be cut but not raised, it's because contracts explicitly permit for the cutting but not for the raising. As a practical matter, contracts can be raised and that is precisely what happens with incentive bonuses and roster bonuses, which are fees contingent on some event happening that is determined either largely or exclusively by what the player does for the team. I think hold outs are chicken-shit, just my opinion, though. If a player signs a contract for 4 years at X money, they have an obligation to play for 4 years at an amount no more than X moneys. If a team signs a contract to player for 4 years for an amount no more than X money with the stipulation that the player can be cut, their obligation is somewhat less than the one in the preceding example, yea?
Or not. I've opened that Pandora's box and encourage you all to let me have it.