Got_Wood

The only thing the NBA has right is the rookie salary slotting process. Other than that, it's a MESS. You have idiots like Alan Houston formerly of the Knicks completely holding a team hostage with a HUGE contract guaranteed for 5 years, and the jerkoff didn't play the last 4 years. Or Tracy McGrady who is the classic player to perform big in a contract year and get a huge contract once again holding his team hostage for 3 years. Ask the Houston rockets what they think of guaranteed contracts. Or the Knicks, Pacers, Bucks, Jazz, Wizards, or Hornets. Look at Jermaine Oneil, Michael Redd, Andrei Kirilenko, Gilbert Arenas, and Peja Stojacovic. People hate the NBA because the guys already have their money in hand, and aren't motivated to play their best basketball for 82 games. The regular season is a joke. I would think twice before envying the NBA.

I think you should re-read your post. My god, will players have to actually "compete" to make their money? That is what incentive is all about... to force a player to maximize his play on the field in order to earn more money. Take a look at the definition of Incentive: "Something, such as the fear of punishment or the expectation of reward, that induces action or motivates effort." I like the sound of that. SO, you give a player a guaranteed sum of money and a bonus to satisfy the guaranteed piece of the contract. AND, place incentives in the contract to allow players to earn more money. Win - Win.

There are always going to be loopholes. I would argue, why would a team pull a player out of a game that gives them the best chance to win?? The Titans aren't going to pull Chris Johnson out of a game because of incentive clauses if he's going to score a touchdown that gives them the lead in a game. At the same time, players DON'T want guaranteed contracts. Why do I say this? Because they'll STILL hold out for more money if they feel they're underpaid halfway through their contracts. There is no perfect situation, but this is getting ridiculous.

Thank you! You're right on the money

Thank you for further reinforcing my theory that contracts should be incentive based. If a player wants more money during the course of their contract, then they need to sign something that gives them more money if they perform at a certain level (ie: probowl, +1,000 yards rushing, 10+ TDs, etc etc). But once again, players don't want to sign these contracts because they're afraid they won't perform or might get injured. And my argument is, well it's a dangerous league and you're getting paid the big bucks to take these risks.

You and pretty much every other poster in this thread must not have read my entire post. What part about "guaranteed signing bonus" do you not understand? Players are getting GIANT signing bonuses to offset the risk of getting cut during their contract. If player X gets $30 million UP FRONT when they sign their contract, they never had to play a down to get this money. It was GUARANTEED money. Don't come back to the owner crying that life isn't fair when you already had your cake. These guys get big money because they take big risks on the field. If they're not willing to take the risk of getting injured or not performing, then go sign up for tennis or curling.

So, recently there has been a trend of players holding out for more money while still under contract with their team (Jason Peters is a prime example of this). And now I see Andre Johnson is unhappy with his $60 million deal and still has 5 years left on his contract. It's becoming an epidemic in the NFL full of players that "need to feed their families." While I believe certain players deserve to be paid top dollar, there is a problem with their negotiating tactics. You can't ask for a big signing bonus and a nice multi-year contract for stability, and then come back 2 years later after playing pro bowl level football and ask for more money. I'm sorry, it doesn't work like that. If you want to be paid more as a player for better performance on the field, then you need to sign an INCENTIVE BASED CONTRACT. But players aren't willing to do that. They're getting the best of both worlds. They're signing contracts with HUGE guaranteed signing bonuses. And if their play on the field fails or they get injured, they still have their money. It's a win-win for the player. All the while, teams are being held hostage by star players with no choice but to pay the guy or lose him to some moronic team willing to pay a fortune for a diva and some marketing appeal. When does the bubble burst?

I think the price tag in draft picks spent on trading for Roethlisberger is secondary to the enormous price you pay morally for making the move. What kind of sick GM trades for this guy knowing he's getting a good deal on a piece of trash character. No way should we even consider this move. And the NFL is guilty of trying to profit on all of this. Nationally televising 5 Steelers games AFTER Big Ben returns from his suspension makes Goodell a total cash whore himself.

Wow... I mean this is sad. This is another example of the legal system being completely out of whack. He shouldn't have been able to ever drive again after the first incident. Let alone the 2nd and 3rd.

I agree that a trade for Lynch or Evans that brought back another proven player would be a different story. Talent for talent is ok by me, but not talent for "potential" talent. The draft is a great way to acquire future stars, but the chance of landing those types of players with late round picks is significantly lower.

Too many people want to get rid of Lynch, Evans, and Schobel for draft picks. Or trade down in the draft for more picks. This team, more than most in the league, needs to BRING IN more talent. Take a look at our division rival, the Jets. So far, they've added Tomlinson, Cromartie, and Holmes. And they're potentially grabbing Jason Taylor as well. These guys are stockpiling talent, and they haven't had to give up much to get it. If anything, we need less late round draft picks and more proven talent. If we're making any trades, it should be late round picks for players. Guys like Jared Gaither, Brandon Marshall, Matt Hasselbeck, Albert Haynesworth are worth their weight in gold to Buffalo. If they can be had, we should grab them immediately. Now many of them may not be available, but we need to get out of bottom-dweller mode and start believing we're on the same level as the rest of the NFL.

So basically trade like hell to avoid all talent this draft, and any chance of winning in the near future. Get real man. You can't get much better than the #9 pick. We need to use that position to bring in a star player. Something we're lacking on this team. There will be a 2 year plan. But it involves taking every opportunity to bring in the best players available.

My bad, didn't see that. And I agree with everything he said

He's a seasoned veteran, hard worker, and he's still productive. On top of that, he could teach some of our young guys how to play this game. Seems like someone this team needs. His career speaks for itself: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/4654/c...qxjUpOYA93.uLYF

Fair statement I don't think their team will dominate in any way, but they got better no doubt. But I do think they are taking the initiative a team needs to take to turn the corner and become a respectable franchise.

I never said anything about dominating. What they're doing is filling in positions of weakness with above average/quality players. Free agent signings don't have to be superstars to make your team better. If you can get better anywhere on your roster, that is a move you should make. It makes me wonder if the Lions are going to trade away their first pick as well. Lots of money being spent. And they may be looking to move down come draft day.

Wow, intense.

I don't know. They're starting to have the look of a playoff team. They've got a pretty solid defense with Ernie Sims, Julian Peterson, Deandre Levy, Corey Williams, Kyle Vanden Bosch, Luis Delmas, and Anthony Henry. Could be a surprise team next season.

I like this guy's aggression out there in the open market. He shows up at Vanden Bosch's house, and they end up signing the guy to a 4 year deal. They traded for Corey Williams, DT. And they already signed Burleson to a 5 year deal as well. Not a bad start for a franchise that looks to be heading in the right direction. I would love to see the Bills get aggressive like this.

Like I said, this is not a post about a new stadium. This is about a renovation. And yes, Ralph has been known to throw down money to improve the stadium over the years adding luxury boxes, improved seating, a new jumbotron, etc. This would be a fairly massive undertaking, but not as much as building an entirely new stadium. Funding: Dallas is raising $325 million in public funding through a 3 percent hotel occupancy tax and a 6 percent rental car tax, and received an additional $150 million from the NFL. Chicago is raising $400 million from a hotel occupancy tax, and $100 million from the NFL. Green Bay raised $160 million in public funds, and received over $100 million from the NFL as well. It can be done. And it needs to be done. I'm looking for solutions... not why it won't work. PS: I agree on Jim Kelly's group of investors. I tried to add sarcasm to that remark.

Unfortunately, Goodell is targeting the Bills as a team that needs to upgrade or build a new stadium. See this article: http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/...tory?id=4891541. The price would be theoretically minimal to the people of Buffalo. The team and the NFL help carry the bill. Many football towns like Green Bay and Chicago use hotel taxes to cover the extra revenue. Hey maybe the group of investors Kelly has put together would be willing to help fund the upgrade. Jim could add his own sports bar into the new design to leave his own mark on the new venue

Read this again. It's from the Lambeau Field website: "Revenue generated from the Packers Pro Shop, Packers Hall of Fame, Curly's Pub, the Atrium eateries and other restaurants, the stadium club and special events, as well as other Atrium businesses is essential to the Packers' long-term survival. In just the first year, with only the new Pro Shop open and several gate sponsorships sold, the Packers' NFL revenue ranking for the fiscal year 2002-03 jumped to 10th, up from 20th the prior year."

That's awesome Chalkie. And we've already got a new indoor training facility. We're ahead of where the Chiefs were when they started. Man, I would really love to see this happen.

Either way, when you're talking about $500 to $600 million LESS than building a new stadium, that is VERY significant. It may not happen while Ralph lives. But he may not be around much longer (and I'm not one that hopes this happens soon). This is about the FUTURE of the Bills in Buffalo.

More about the Packers redevelopment: The rest can be found here: http://www.lambeaufield.com/stadium_info/history/