Ruud skipping workouts in May is no big deal

A favorite old story:

Back in the early "80s, Dennis "Dirt'' Winston was a moderately talented linebacker who played on some Super Bowl teams with the Steelers before moving on to New Orleans. In one of his first seasons with the Saints, Winston was a training camp holdout. Head coach Bum Phillips was asked if the holdout was about money.

"I hope so,'' Phillips said, "because we don't provide women.''

Which is how I feel this morning about Barrett Ruud.

No one is saying Ruud skipped offseason workouts this week because he wants a new contract, but I would certainly assume that's the case. And I would feel a lot better about it too because that's a legitimate concern.

Before anyone bashes Ruud about not fulfilling the original contract he signed, there are a few issues that should be considered:

No. 1: Technically, he is still in compliance with his contract. These off-season workouts are voluntary. He is under no contractual obligation to show up.

No. 2: Unlike baseball, basketball and hockey, contracts in the NFL are not guaranteed. So a player needs to exercise leverage when he has it. And, right now, Ruud has leverage. It doesn't make sense to risk off-season injury when a contract extension is desired.

No. 3: If this off-season has taught us anything, it is that the NFL is a business. Ruud has outperformed his current contract, so I wouldn't blame him if he wanted a raise. Just as I did not blame the Bucs when they decided Derrick Brooks' contract was no longer in their best interest. It has to work both ways.

Would it be better for Ruud and the Bucs if he was at these off-season workouts? Sure, in a perfect world. A new defense is being installed, and Ruud is one of the defensive leaders. But until Ruud's future is secured, I would probably advise him to stay away.

[Brendan Fitterer | Times]

Comments

[pENroD]

Good luck getting paid Barrett. The Glazerhouses continue to be the cheapest owners the NFL has seen since our own Hugh Culverhouse owned the Bucs. Hey Culverglazers...SELL THE TEAM NOW!

[Itch]

I agree it has to go both ways. He should get a long term contract to keep him, he is great. I just hope it doesn't turn ugly.

[longhaircowboy]

The only thing that counts is he shows for the games and continues his excellent play. These are voluntary and he wasn't the only one missing. Winslow is absent too and look at the money they gave him.

[Pudge Hefflefinger]

For all of you who are upset at Ruud or Winslow...

When do they play the Super Bowl for May? Is it the 30th? Or the 31st?

[Henry]

As long as he doesn't hold out on activities required by his contract, no problem. However, breaches of contract are common in professional sports, and horrible precedent has been set by owners who cave in. If your like most of us who aren't pro-athletes, breach of contract will land your butt in court in a hurry staring down the barrel of a lawsuit.

I say cut the players no slack in that regard. Society and the courts sure as heck aren't going to cut you any.

[Greg285]

I like Barrett Ruud and I think he is one of the bright up and coming linebackers in the NFL, but to hold out because you want a new contract is ridiculous! How many Pro Bowls has he been too? Last time I checked, it was Derrick Brooks who was voted to the Pro Bowl last year as a linebacker and not Ruud! He’s talented, but he no Hardy Nickerson or Shelton Quarles, yet..Make a Pro Bowl before you start demanding a new contract…

[gmimay]

Greg285 your an idiot! You think Brooks actually deserved to go to the Pro Bowl over Ruud last year?! You think the Pro Bowl is anything more than a popularity contest? Ruud should of made the Pro Bowl hands down. I love Brooks to death but he was starting to fade.

[Vincent]

Rudd better get his money while he can, and if he doesn't demand it, they won't give it to him. According to reports he only made $523,840. If this quote is true, and based on his on the field performance, the only shame lies on behalf of the Bucs organization. Yet, it is not their responsibility to suggest renegotiations, so this is just "the game".

[mike]

just pay him so we can get the season started. hes our best defensive player and the last thing we need is him holding out

[Brandon]

gmimay:

Before you go calling anybody an idiot, at least learn to spell the contracted word "you're", it isn't "your".

Ruud doesn't have as much leverage as one thinks,

#1 he is still under contract and has to play this season under that contract,

#2 He has only 5 years of service, absent a new collective bargaining agreement, Ruud won't even be eligible for free agency until after his 6th season, this season will be his 5th, so even though his contract is up at the end of the season, technically he still won't be a free agent.

He has no leverage. Even without a long-term contract extension, Ruud is pretty much guaranteed to be with the Bucs for the next 2 seasons.

[Big Pat]

Pay the man.

[USFBullsBabe]

The Bucs better tighten up -- Ruud is their best tackler and I'd like to mention best-looking. :) If he's not back next year I will be out for blood!!

[Dspkable]

I'm sure this is exactly what everyone wants (Ruud and the Owners).
Fans posting their desire to see Ruud get paid for doing a good job. The owners see a public opinion about the type of players they want on their team.

I got news for your fans out there. These owners do listen. They read as many posts about Brooks losing a step last year as I did. They could see the number of 'Garcia' shirts they were NOT selling. They smelled a lot of disgruntled sentiment for Grudens' play calling and the No-Fun and No-gun offense that Gruden ran.

Like it or not, this is what we asked for in a Bucs team, and we sure are going to get it now. You'll be fired up by Pre-season Bucs fans, so get ready.

[ref813]

If there is any player on the team who should be a top priority for extension, it's Ruud. Bryant would be second. Ruud has played great as a starter. He's the only one returning from last year. He was 4th in the league in tackles. I could go on and on. Just pay the guy. I don't want us to become the team that has to franchise players every year because we can't get deals done. That doesn't help attract free agents and it doesn't make our current players happier.
This isn't a question of leverage. It's a matter of treating the players who work hard and contribute a lot the way they should be treated. From a business perspective, you could probably safely take advantage of the new restricted FA policy because Ruud will likely play hard no matter what. It's better business to keep your players happy, though.
gmimay, I agree with most of what you wrote. The problem is that Beason and Willis are both very good MLBs in the NFC. They should just alternate them. All 3 deserved to go.

[Jimmie]

Pay the man! He deserves it!