I agree that the Colts haven't asked players to take pay cuts as often as Belicheat has used that maneuver in New England.

However, the Colts have made that type of request a few times over the years.

For instance, the Colts asked Marvin Harrison to take a pay cut after he put up two unproductive seasons (one of them injury-shortened) at the end of his career.

Polian didn't want a huge cap hit for an unproductive WR and wanted to renegotiate the deal.

Marvin wasn't interested in a pay cut, however.

So, in the end, the Colts released Harrison instead.

I’m not sure where he hasn’t. Participation in voluntary workouts isn’t violating his contract. I’d say he’s doing what the team is doing - the minimum he agreed to, except him even being there is above the minimum. We’ll see if he actually holds out - then you have something to complain about. But even then it being a business is a two way street. Teams cut players when they under perform their contract, why shouldn’t players be able to use what little leverage they have to maximize their pay when they out perform it?

Its not about OTAs - voluntary or not. the point in "honoring your contract" is that you agreed to terms and now you want to change those terms because you want more. with the teams having the ability to "get out" of their part by cutting a player at any time, players and agents need to get guaranteed money set in the contract.

Teams ask to renegotiate contracts as well. Do you complain that they aren’t living up to their contracts? Asking to renegotiate is not abnormal when it is unbalanced - in either direction. It is also not the same as “not honoring your contract.”

Players like the longer contracts, more security. A short term would pay more per year, but with less security.

I have a problem when they get the long term and then learn the price of security.

The NFL is a competitive capitalist world that pits billionaires against millionaires. I can see both sides but really just root for the Colts. So from that I hope things work out so there are not repercussions down the line. Not worried about losing Moore, everybody gets replaced eventually. Moore is an important cog, but not an irreplaceable one. Don’t want this to fester.

usually that's just moving money around for cap purposes.

Yes, when teams restructure contracts, it usually involves "cap math" where they are converting base salary into a bonus and prorating that bonus over future (sometimes voidable) years. In many cases, the player gets the money faster because they will usually get the bonus money upon agreeing to the restructure.

However, teams can also ask players to take a pay cut. Marvin Harrison was one example for the Colts, there are others as well.

This is exactly correct.

It's the kind of stuff that leads many people to conclude, wrongly, that the salary cap is "funny money" or meaningless. But the reality is that when you look closely at what's being done in these transactions, the piper must always be paid and there will be repercussions for the teams in later years.

I don't really agree with this in a purely technical sense. I assume you're referring to instances where the team wants a player to take a paycut, rather than a renegotiation as a pure salary cap move, right?

I'll say at the outset that none of us have seen the actual contracts, so it's not possible to say with certainty what each side is allowed to do. However, in most cases, a team can ask a player to take a pay cut because the contract has given the team that leverage. If the player is entering into a non-guaranteed year, the team is free to ask for a reduction, and the player is free to decline. However, the player knows that he risks getting cut and receiving nothing, so he'll probably work with the team.

Conversely, the shoe is on the other foot in some contracts, most notably the recent Deshaun Watson contract. That one, I understand, is a fully guaranteed, $230M contract. The team has no leverage whatsoever, so long as Watson lives up to whatever additional terms (morality clauses, etc.) might exist in the contract. Now, the Browns could always ASK him to take less at some point, sure, but he'll just give them the finger. The Browns could not realistically cut him and would save nothing by doing so.

So it comes down to the contract. While lots of people say "I prefer millionaires to billionaires" and thus reflexively side with the players, the truth is that both sides are exceedingly well represented in their contractual negotiations, so it's not like the owners can usually "put one over" on the player (unless the player goes without representation, which some decide to do for unknown reasons).