Prickly Pete Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Fully guaranteed contracts would mean lower dollars/year contracts and for shorter terms. It would also likely mean an even higher pay disparity between the star players and the average players. Not knowing the NFLs pension/injury schemes, I assume Dockett has some decent points in that area......but asking for fully guaranteed contracts is perhaps highlighting why his eggs were only in the "can play football" basket. It seemed like a well written article. If he indeed wrote it himself, I think he will do alright. He was smart enough to seek a gig writing for SI. A lot of "if you don't like it, go get another job" sentiment in this thread. I.e., if someone has it pretty good, they're not allowed to complain about the negative aspects of their job or life. I don't agree with that sentiment, but I get where it's coming from. I just wish that the people who feel that way would apply those same standards to the owners, especially the ones who inherited their money. I'm really sick of common people leaping to billionaire owners' defense when those owners start a lockout to get more money (or a longer season, or more drug testing, or whatever). The owners, on the whole, have a MUUUUUUUUCH better deal than the players. And yet they're the ones who keep asking for more money - sometimes from the players, and sometimes from the public in the form of taxpayer-funded stadiums. Anyway, I thought this was a very nice article by Darnell Dockett, and the thing I like best about it is him calling out the media. Most sportswriters are very professionally lazy - a lot of these guys just keep writing the same "I don't like Player X because he doesn't play ball with the media" story over and over. Lynch happens to be the current target, but it's irrelevant. It's boring and pointless. I don't need every sports columnist to be conducting hard-hitting investigative journalism, but there are interesting topics to write about out there, if they're just willing to try something new. Beating up on players makes fans feel good. They spend a lot of time looking up, and when a chance comes to look down, they relish it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 I think the word "Warrior" is pretty accurate... war·ri·or (wôr′ē-ər, wŏr′-) n. 1. One who is engaged in or experienced in battle. 2. One who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause, or conflict: Using a definition of the word that the misuse of the word created to illustrate the word isn't misused. Tautology is tautological. As for Docket's article...that was a disorganized mess. From the long-term physical damage caused to star players, he somehow jumps to guaranteed contracts being the solution to a completely different problem - which is either ridiculously rich contracts "in name only" that will never be fulfilled, or players not getting paid after they're injured and can't play. His basic premise - the league cares little about ex-players - is sound. His presentation is half-assed. And here's a thought: contracts are individually negotiated. Why don't you talk to your agent about negotiating a guaranteed contract, instead of blaming the league? Or even better - have your agent negotiate a portion of your contract as some sort of an annuitized policy that will take care of you after you stop playing. Or talk to the NFLPA - why can't they offer any sort of preparation for post-football life for their players? Blaming "the league" is nothing more than a convenient excuse when the entire system - including the players themselves - screw over the players. Concussions have gone...unnoticed??? Where? For starters, I think Pete may have one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 It seemed like a well written article. If he indeed wrote it himself, I think he will do alright. He was smart enough to seek a gig writing for SI. ...... It seems that a vast majority of journalist are incapable of using logic in their thought processes.....but they can string together words to sound good. Darnell seems like he could fit right in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 (edited) Or talk to the NFLPA - Blaming "the league" is nothing more than a convenient excuse when the entire system - including the players themselves - screw over the players. ... That is really the essence of the issue no? If the players want these things, then nut up and collectively bargain for them. If it takes a year of no NFL games for a year, and no salary for the players, so be it. The players have the ability through collective bargaining to get changes through, they just do not have fortitude to get it done. This spring, the players have an election for a new President I believe, and if they want change they should elect Sean Gilbert, and throw De Smith out. Gilbert claims he can get the current CBA thrown out by proving collusion....so there is your chance Mr. Dockett. I say that even as I usually come down on the players side. My problem with this article is Dockett paints the picture he had no choice in life but to play NFL football or deal drugs. That's just garbage. He had a choice, as he does now, as all players do. They choose to do a risk/reward analysis, and clearly make a choice the risk is worth the reward. Edited February 1, 2015 by plenzmd1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiragandhi'sthong Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 To me, the NFL is a league growing too big and extending itself too far for its own good. Not only turning its back on the product - the players (current and former) - but also the fans that pay for and fill their stadiums. Their push for globalization and their focus on corporate cash, is killing what once made this league so great. And there is Roger Goodelll leading the way, getting the owners more and more $$$, but watching domestic violence, bullying, drug, brain injuries, etc. pile up and giving a weak-ass response. I love my Buffalo Bills, but in many the NFL is making me sick and turning me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Good read on MMQB Behind the Face Mask http://mmqb.si.com/2015/01/31/darnell-dockett-nfl-dirty-laundry/ While the media obsesses over quiet players and PSI, the biggest problems in professional football go unnoticed. From concussions to non-guaranteed contracts, players are getting fed up with the league's rampant hypocrisy The part of the article that strikes me is this, about college football: "I got to college, and I looked around and saw all the money changing hands and none of it coming our way. We put the fans in the seats, and we played hurt and injured, not for any kind of compensation, but for the slim chance that we might get paid three years down the road. You can talk about getting compensated with an opportunity to get an education, and that all sounds really great. I’ve heard people say, “You’re a student-athlete, don’t put all your eggs in one basket.” But the only people who say that have a lot of eggs. I didn’t have many eggs, so I put them in football. I never considered myself a student-athlete." I think that says it all "I never considered myself a student athlete". College football is a big money-making business for the schools. It is fueled by kids like Dockett, who don't have the academic background to take full advantage of a college education, and the programs are so time-intensive that even kids who do have the academic background, need to have superb time-management skills (and sometimes intervention by the Dean) to get a real education. So what happens to all the kids in college football who don't make it in the NFL, when "all their eggs" are in football? That's the part that's dirty, IMO. I get it that football players would like their big contracts to be guaranteed. I do think it's not fair that coaches apparently have such generous contracts and guarantees while players so little. But as for the "big payout" non-guaranteed contracts the handful of stars get, I do think Darnell needs to get a bit of a sense of perspective. Take a rookie contract like Kiko Alonso's "42nd highest of 100 ILB contracts" so, pretty average. According to OTC, it has something like a $1.5M signing bonus. Rookie year, $400k going up to $950k his 4th year. Median household income in the US is $53,000 this year. If Kiko stays in the game 3 years (average for NFL), and saves half his salary each year as well as his signing bonus, he will walk away with $2.4M dollars. Invested moderately, it could bring home about $100,000/yr (4% overall rate of return) and leave a nice nest egg for kids. Or, looked at another way, it's 45 years salary at the median income in the US this year. There are good points about the NFL's obligation to provide quality health insurance and disability insurance to players. There are also good points about the NFL reporting concussions down 25% and the "lameness" that passes for sports reporting not digging into that and looking under the hood. But by the standards of most people, even an average LB with a 3 year career gets pretty good compensation for someone "without a lot of eggs". It seems that a vast majority of journalist are incapable of using logic in their thought processes.....but they can string together words to sound good. Darnell seems like he could fit right in. I bet you have an interesting analysis, and I'd like to hear it. Please, Mr Dockett, if you do not like your profession, choose another. Just like any of us who find ourselves in a career path we do not like we change it. Says the man working in statistically one of the most hazardous jobs in America (farming) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Lots of people have injuries and disabilities that cut their careers short and/or leave them dealing with chronic pain and suffering. Most of them never played in the En Ef El. I remember hearing Randy Cross on Sirius NFL talking about his surgeries, and while listening to him go on, I was checking off what mine were: Two knees - check Two discs - check One shoulder replacement - check Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 The guaranteed vs non-gauranteed is a sham. Players negotiate guaranteed money based on their leverage, and many of them are quite substantial. He mentions Sherman and earl Thomas laying it out this weekend injured ... ironically both of them signed contracts recently guaranteeing tens of millions. If league rules specified fully gautanteed contracts then stated contracts would simply revert to the guaranteed amounts currently being offered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark80 Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 (edited) Maybe these athletes should look at their labor union who negotiates and agrees to all of these things with the NFL. It's quite simple, as the "company" the NFL is out to negotiate the most favorable deal with it's employees that it can, it's not their fault that their idiot representation accepts it. That is really the essence of the issue no? If the players want these things, then nut up and collectively bargain for them. If it takes a year of no NFL games for a year, and no salary for the players, so be it. The players have the ability through collective bargaining to get changes through, they just do not have fortitude to get it done.This spring, the players have an election for a new President I believe, and if they want change they should elect Sean Gilbert, and throw De Smith out. Gilbert claims he can get the current CBA thrown out by proving collusion....so there is your chance Mr. Dockett.I say that even as I usually come down on the players side. My problem with this article is Dockett paints the picture he had no choice in life but to play NFL football or deal drugs. That's just garbage. He had a choice, as he does now, as all players do. They choose to do a risk/reward analysis, and clearly make a choice the risk is worth the reward. This. This would be an extremely high profile labor strike / lockout. Many high profile labor unrest get settled on public relations issues. If the players go to bat and explain themselves to the media / public and garner their support I believe the NFL would have no choice but to give in eventually. They just don't have the balls to do it or aren't willing to sacrifice a years salary for the good of everyone going forward. The guaranteed vs non-gauranteed is a sham. Players negotiate guaranteed money based on their leverage, and many of them are quite substantial. He mentions Sherman and earl Thomas laying it out this weekend injured ... ironically both of them signed contracts recently guaranteeing tens of millions. If league rules specified fully gautanteed contracts then stated contracts would simply revert to the guaranteed amounts currently being offered. Most likely would fall somewhere in between the guaranteed number and the life of the contract number. Edited February 1, 2015 by Mark80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Maybe these athletes should look at their labor union who negotiates and agrees to all of these things with the NFL. It's quite simple, as the "company" the NFL is out to negotiate the most favorable deal with it's employees that it can, it's not their fault that their idiot representation accepts it. This. This would be an extremely high profile labor strike / lockout. Many high profile labor unrest get settled on public relations issues. If the players go to bat and explain themselves to the media / public and garner their support I believe the NFL would have no choice but to give in eventually. They just don't have the balls to do it or aren't willing to sacrifice a years salary for the good of everyone going forward. Most likely would fall somewhere in between the guaranteed number and the life of the contract number. I hear what you're saying because they'd factor in odds of paying all or some of nongauranteed amount, but still contract values would decline substantially ....a proxy is how many non-gauranteed players get waived Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 The guaranteed vs non-gauranteed is a sham. Players negotiate guaranteed money based on their leverage, and many of them are quite substantial. He mentions Sherman and earl Thomas laying it out this weekend injured ... ironically both of them signed contracts recently guaranteeing tens of millions. If league rules specified fully gautanteed contracts then stated contracts would simply revert to the guaranteed amounts currently being offered. The players have guaranteed contracts...it's the guaranteed money when they sign their new deals. Everything else is window dressing. It's LAMP money so they can say they are the highest paid whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 It seems that a vast majority of journalist are incapable of using logic in their thought processes.....but they can string together words to sound good. Darnell seems like he could fit right in. Yet there he is, playing in the NFL, AND writing for SI, while you Dibby, write for message boards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Yet there he is, playing in the NFL, AND writing for SI, while you Dibby, write for message boards. I think perhaps that you could do a decent job writing for the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 ...... I bet you have an interesting analysis, and I'd like to hear it. ...... I gave my conclusions upthread.....but will give reasonings here for them. Regardless of how big a slice of the overall pie that the players negotiate for, the money is portioned out via cap spend. Each team has a certain amount that they can pay their players. Fully guaranteeing contracts would mean that any bad contracts(ones that are needed to be terminated prior to the full term, either due to injury or bad performance) would cost the team's salary cap in higher dead cap hits.....thus leaving less money to spend on players. Player salaries would have to be reduced to cover the extra monies given in dead contracts. It would also follow that in order to avoid any massive dead contracts that the length of contracts would also be greatly reduced. For instance, a player who would now get 6 years at 12M/year would become an extremely dangerous one if fully guaranteed. If injured after 1 year, it would mean a 12M dead hit for the following 5 years. Even worse would be when players fail to perform to the level of pay they are receiving. Players like Fitz(with Bills) or Cutler would become a burden to their team......earning high dollars without the ability to get remove their contracts from the books. The money enforced to spend on them would directly result how much can be spent on other players. Star players would also likely take a larger chunk than they do now. In order to win the bidding war to obtain them, teams would essentially have to gamble that the player will play at a high level throughout their contracts. As we all know, this is often not the case, and again that extra money spent on the underperforming star player cannot then be spent on other players. I think that fully guaranteed contracts would mean shorter contracts for lesser monies.....it would mean older players would get much smaller contracts than they do now for fear of performance drop off......and it would mean that a few mistakes in signings could set a team back for years. It seems to be very much a "be careful what you wish for" scenario for players wanting fully guaranteed contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 The part of the article that strikes me is this, about college football: "I got to college, and I looked around and saw all the money changing hands and none of it coming our way. We put the fans in the seats, and we played hurt and injured, not for any kind of compensation, but for the slim chance that we might get paid three years down the road. You can talk about getting compensated with an opportunity to get an education, and that all sounds really great. I’ve heard people say, “You’re a student-athlete, don’t put all your eggs in one basket.” But the only people who say that have a lot of eggs. I didn’t have many eggs, so I put them in football. I never considered myself a student-athlete." While Darnell was living his charmed life in college, did he also happen to look around and see all of the other non student athletes in the stands and in his classes and around campus who were assuming massive debt to attend that college? I bet he didn't. Every NFL contract has guaranteed money. Every aspect of every NFL player's contract has been agreed upon explicitly by the player's own union--100% i agreement with the owners. So what is this player really complaining about? As for "the billionaire owners", who cares? They make their money, they pay their taxes. They provide a valuable form of entertainment to us for free, essentially. And they provide a living for former college athletes, most of whom didn't bother (like Docket) to prepare for life after their career of playing a game for a living is over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 As for "the billionaire owners", who cares? They make their money, they pay their taxes. Well...31 of them do. Bob Kraft probably cheats on his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 (edited) While Darnell was living his charmed life in college, did he also happen to look around and see all of the other non student athletes in the stands and in his classes and around campus who were assuming massive debt to attend that college? I bet he didn't. Every NFL contract has guaranteed money. Every aspect of every NFL player's contract has been agreed upon explicitly by the player's own union--100% i agreement with the owners. So what is this player really complaining about? As for "the billionaire owners", who cares? They make their money, they pay their taxes. They provide a valuable form of entertainment to us for free, essentially. And they provide a living for former college athletes, most of whom didn't bother (like Docket) to prepare for life after their career of playing a game for a living is over. I understand your point about billionaire owners. Every business has its owners, worth billions, and its senior executives, compensated in the multi-millions, and working hard down in the trenches didn't even garner a bigger slice of the pie for the folks who made it happen under communism, in the "workers paradise" *cue move to ppp in 3...2...1* I also think Dibs had a pretty valid analysis of the impact bigger and longer contract guarantees would have, at least under the current cap system (to be fair to the original article, the current cap system may be one thing Docket would like to change). As far as the charmed life of a student athlete and the massive debt of other students....I don't know about the time commitment of college football. I do have a friend whose daughter is on a full-ride Div I scholarship, and her "charmed life" is approximately the time equivalent of a full-time job. Don't get me wrong, she loves her sport and wouldn't trade the opportunity for anything, but it's a constant hard grind for her and she has amazing time management skills and came to college with sterling academic credentials. My understanding is that football players have even more demanding expectations of practice and physical conditioning - 5 or 6 hrs a day? And most of them don't have the academic background and time management skills to get an actual education. It's a joke. The first point being: a student assuming "massive debt" could likely expend the same time commitment or less working an entry-level job for $18-20,000/yr, which is pretty close to the estimated in-state tuition and room/board costs for a state university in the Midwest. Most students choose to work less and assume some debt because it leaves them more free time, which is their choice. The more important point, to me, is that by maintaining college football as the premier route to the pros, the NFL is essentially getting a minor league farm system run for their benefit for free - at the expense of kids who actually could benefit from the opportunity to go to college on an athletic scholarship but who aren't as physically talented. Maybe you don't have a problem with that, but actually I do. I think the NFL should restart NFL Europe or some kind of minor league farm team system, and potential college football players should have to pass standards of academic readiness to show they can actually take advantage of that "charmed life". Edited February 1, 2015 by Hopeful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 The beady shifty eyes give it away . He's cheating. bank it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 I understand your point about billionaire owners. Every business has its owners, worth billions, and its senior executives, compensated in the multi-millions, and working hard down in the trenches didn't even garner a bigger slice of the pie for the folks who made it happen under communism, in the "workers paradise" *cue move to ppp in 3...2...1* I also think Dibs had a pretty valid analysis of the impact bigger and longer contract guarantees would have, at least under the current cap system (to be fair to the original article, the current cap system may be one thing Docket would like to change). As far as the charmed life of a student athlete and the massive debt of other students....I don't know about the time commitment of college football. I do have a friend whose daughter is on a full-ride Div I scholarship, and her "charmed life" is approximately the time equivalent of a full-time job. Don't get me wrong, she loves her sport and wouldn't trade the opportunity for anything, but it's a constant hard grind for her and she has amazing time management skills and came to college with sterling academic credentials. My understanding is that football players have even more demanding expectations of practice and physical conditioning - 5 or 6 hrs a day? And most of them don't have the academic background and time management skills to get an actual education. It's a joke. The first point being: a student assuming "massive debt" could likely expend the same time commitment or less working an entry-level job for $18-20,000/yr, which is pretty close to the estimated in-state tuition and room/board costs for a state university in the Midwest. Most students choose to work less and assume some debt because it leaves them more free time, which is their choice. The more important point, to me, is that by maintaining college football as the premier route to the pros, the NFL is essentially getting a minor league farm system run for their benefit for free - at the expense of kids who actually could benefit from the opportunity to go to college but who aren't as physically talented. Maybe you don't have a problem with that, but actually I do. The second point being: many of these football recruits are in no way prepared to With all due respect to your friend's daughter, Docket clearly didn't bother to or didn't need to budget any time for academics. He said so clearly in his post. He said he was no student and only an athlete. His choice. As for tuition paying students...are you suggesting that they could get a full time job paying 20,000 right out of high school while attending college full time. That seems unlikely. Showing up to work every day isn't like training/practicing for the football team, which, in order to perpetuate the facade of "the student athlete", schedules almost activities of players around class schedules. Docket present absolutely no new or fresh thoughts in his piece. It is completely unoriginal. We've heard all of this countless times from other players and media commenters. Let him post this nonsense in March...see how much traction it gets then. None. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts