Sunday, January 10, 2010

Put the baby back in his crib

All right, I don't really think Josh Cribbs is being a baby; I was going for a cheap pun. But still, I think he's acting like a bit of a spoiled brat.

Cribbs is under contract for the next three years -- a six-year, $6.77 million contract he signed before he set an NFL record for kick return TDs, and before he reached two Pro Bowls. That's the risk you take signing a long-term contract, and the Browns are under no obligation to restructure it. Still, they've offered him a raise to $1.4 million per season. Cribbs calls that offer insulting.

Listen, it's his right to ask for a better contract, and given that he's been the Browns' best player the last few years, maybe he deserves it. But he signed that contract. I wasn't there when he signed it, but I'm pretty confident that there wasn't a gun pointed at his head when he did it. And for him to call $1.4 million an insult is itself an insult to the fans who buy season tickets with their $50,000 salaries (or whatever). OK, he wants more money. Who doesn't. OK, the Browns would be a lesser team without him, and maybe he's worth more than $1.4 million to them. I would imagine that once Mike Holmgren gets his bearings, he'll make a better offer, just to keep Cribbs happy. But he doesn't have to.

I just read that Cribbs uses Twitter, and tweeted the following, in two tweets: "Thanks for all the support everyone and your words of encouragement...wise man once told me..." "If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything."

What a load of garbage. Asking for more money is not standing for something. It's just wanting more money. I love Josh Cribbs as a player, and I hope he stays here, but on this issue, I think he's full of something other than himself. (Though he's obviously full of that too.)

1 comment:

Jeff Brown said...

Steve, I agree about the contract situation -- Cribbs CHOSE to sign that contract.

I would like to see him at least ACKNOWLEDGE responsibility for his choices and the agreement he made, and the commitment that the team made to him.

If he didn't want to be tied up for 6 years, then he shouldn't have signed the contract. Period.

He could have advocated for a 3 or 4-year deal, not 6. He went for long-term security, and the Browns took a chance by giving it to him.

If you turn the tables, what would happen if a team said that it wanted to renegotiate a player's contract for underperforming -- in other words, "yes, we signed a legal contract to pay you $10 million, but we aren't satisfied with your performance so we would like to renegotiate and pay you $3 million instead.

How do you think the players association would respond to that? They would probably say, "sorry, you signed a contract and we expect you to honor your commitment!"