What are some memorable hold outs and the cause behind them.

[Evan]

Also, the 1981 holdouts of Fred Dean and John Jefferson in San Diego, and the 1978 holdout of Lydell Mitchell in Baltimore that might have been the ugliest ever, with charges of racism countered with a lawsuit for defamation.

And Larry Csonka holding out for about an extra $20,000 in 1980, before eventually retiring.

Whew, it was bothering me all day that I forgot those in my previous post. Ah, I feel better now having typed this.

Sort of peculiar how during the heyday of holdouts in the 1970s that I don't recall any holdouts in Pittsburgh, considering they were the most successful and star-studded team of the era. Anyone know if any Steelers contemplated holding out back then, and if not, was it because they were all paid very well, or had allegiance to Art Rooney, or both?

[rhickok1109]

I'm not at all clear on what Bell's status is now.

Obviously, he never signed a contract with the Steelers this year. Does that mean that he will have "played out his option," as we used to say, which would make him a free agent at the end of the season?

[conace21]

There were reports Bell needed to play 6 games this year to accrue another season and be able to become an unrestricted free agent. Those reports were false. Bell was an unrestricted free agent this past off-season, and Pittsburgh used the franchise tag on him for the second straight year. He will be an unrestricted free agent again this off-season and it is extremely unlikely Pittsburgh will use the franchise tag for the third year in a row, as it would be cost prohibitive (especially since it's unlikely he would sign if a long term deal wasn't reached.) I forget the exact rules, but I recall the Redskins were almost certainly not going to use the franchise tag on Cousins for a third year because they would have had to pay him $30 million or so in 2018.

[JuggernautJ]

I do not know the letter of the law (NFL rules) but it seems that if one is "tagged" for a third (consecutive?) year they must be paid not the average of the 5 highest paid players at their position but the average of the five highest paid players period.
i.e.: quarterbacks.

From what I've heard it would take something upwards of $25 million to tag Le'veon Bell for the next season.

[conace21]

I do not know the letter of the law (NFL rules) but it seems that if one is "tagged" for a third (consecutive?) year they must be paid not the average of the 5 highest paid players at their position but the average of the five highest paid players period.
i.e.: quarterbacks.

From what I've heard it would take something upwards of $25 million to tag Le'veon Bell for the next season.

Relevant Source: 2011 CBA - Article 10, Section 2 (b):
ARTICLE 10 - FRANCHISE AND TRANSITION PLAYERS
Section 2. Required Tender for Franchise Players:

(b) Any Club that designates a player as a Franchise Player for the third time shall, on the date the third such designation is made, be deemed to have tendered the player a one-year NFL Player Contract for the greater of:

(A) the average of the five largest Prior Year Salaries for players at the position (within the categories set forth in Section 7(a) below) with the highest such average;
(B) 120% of the average of the five largest Prior Year Salaries for players at the position (within the categories set forth in Section 7(a) below) at which the player participated in the most plays during the prior League Year; or
(C) 144% of his Prior Year Salary.

It appears you are mostly correct. It's not technically the 5 highest paid players period. It's the 5 highest paid players at the position that has the highest average. I'm almost positive though that the 5 highest paid players are quarterbacks, so it works out the same.

I didn't know that actually; I had read about Washington's options with Kirk Cousins being tagged for the third time. Since Cousins is a quarterback, there was no talk of option A. Since he had such a large 2017 salary on the tag, the 144% option would have applied for 2018.

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

It's the quarterback tender.

The section reads: "the average of the five largest Prior Year Salaries for players at the position... with the highest such average;"

As Conace21 says, not his position, the position with the highest average.

It continues with a helpful example:

"By way of example, a kicker designated as a Franchise Player for the third time in the 2014 League Year would have a Required Tender equal to the greater of: (i) the average of the five largest 2013 Salaries for quarterbacks; (ii) 120% of the average of the five largest 2013 Salaries for kickers; or (iii) 144% of the player’s own 2013 Salary."

[slats7]

Can't remember if John Dutton was playing or a holdout when the Colts traded him in '79.

[BD Sullivan]

Slusher was also behind then-rookie punter Tom Skladany not signing with the Browns after they picked him in the 2nd in 1977. He held out the entire year and the Browns eventually traded him to the Lions--for a third (RB Larry Collins) in 78 and a seventh (Jack Matia) in 79. Once again, that was the era when Art Modell sanctimoniously promoted the idea of contractual ethics...

[Gary Najman]

I remember in 2007 Chiefs RB Larry Johnson held out half a season and when he returned he was never the same.

In 1983 Future Hall of Fame CB Mike Haynes held out half a season for the Patriots, then he was traded to the Raiders and was their last missing piece in route to the Super Bowl.

[vikingsfan1963]

I guess Joe Kapp wasn't actually a hold out as it was a case of him and the Vikings not being able to come to an agreement on a new contract but I am absolutely positive that the Vikings would have won SB 5 and possibly 6 if he would have remained in purple.

By the time Sir Francis came back in '72, the team was beginning to age and the AFC became dominant. The 1975 team had the best shot at winning a rematch with Pittsburgh but the Hail Mary ruined that possibility.

I'm in total agreement with everything you wrote!