Holdouts - Trick?..or Treat?

For some Halloween night is almost ending, and for others it may be just beginning. For me it's the former; I had quite an interesting night, one I could have never even imagined. But Halloween night still has some time left (well when I started writing it did) and so why not close it out with an intriguing sports topic - holdouts. They happen in basically every sport but are most publicized in the sports of football and the NFL. There were five prominent holdouts in the NFL this season, and they by: New York Jets Darrelle Revis and Nick Mangold, San Diego Chargers Marcus McNeill and Vincent Jackson, and New England Patriot Logan Mankins. A few of these players were successful while the other two were not. So the question is: are holdouts a smart thing to do?

The two players that essentially failed holding out were Vincent Jackson and Logan Mankins. Both of Pro Bowl caliber players on their respective teams and both thought their teams would succumb to not having them and give them what they wanted. What did they want? They wanted a lot of many over a lot years. The Chargers and Patriots refused to give this to them and basically said, 'Fine, sit out. We'll play without you.' Jackson and Mankins both play on the offensive side of the ball with Jackson being a receiver and Mankins a lineman. Both offensives have done quite well without them which means both teams have looked wise in allowing them to holdout. The NFL Players Association have recommended both players sign their 1 year tenders with their respective teams in order to accrue enough games to count as playing a full season, and so Jackson has already done so and Mankins will sign his soon. The difference between signing now and during the summer is that Jackson will be getting paid a fraction of what he could have been paid and it might be the same for Mankins. So basically both players are took less money to play in less games and showed they'd be more apt to sit out they be a team player all for a chance that their teams would have paid them the big bucks when their first started holding out. That last sentence basically means that Jackson and Mankins holding out was virtually pointless, and they gained absolutely nothing by doing so. Looking at Jackson and Mankins' holdouts, holdouts look like a stupid, selfish idea that won't lead to anything. But there are two sides to every coin.

Revis, Mangold, and McNeill all held out successfully. Why were these three successful? Their teams gave them close to what they wanted in terms of a contract. Mangold and Revis of the Jets got their new contracts towards the end of training camp and did not sit out any games. McNeill of the Chargers sat out the first 5 games before he signed his tender and was given an extension a few days later. Things have worked out great for Mangold and McNeill, playing in every game they could and suffering no effects from sitting out. Revis, however, was a different story. Revis injured his hamstring after missing all of training camp and I think the preseason. He forced out of two games, which the Jets won anyways. What happened with these players is why holdouts will continue to be done, players gambling on their worthiness and teams succumbing and giving them what they want or close to it. This is the other side of the coin I was referring to earlier. Some teams will give in to their players because they think they cannot win without them.

To finish up, I think holdouts are pointless even if you do get what you want. Players who holdout will get the greedy tag slapped on them and they may lose players, teammates, and coaches respect because of it. Respect goes along way especially when you become a free agent. Some coaches do not want the drama of a player who may holdout on their team. Not to mention if you fail and your team plays fine without you, then that team will probably not re-sign you anyways. It doesn't even work if you fail and your team plays bad because then people start to say if so and so wasn't so selfish we may be winning right now. Holding out will always have some type of loss afterwards, and that's why I say it's just a trick, no treat.