Maddog69 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 I can't begin to fathom why fans would feel this way. I guess we'd all feel better if the Bills had paid Aaron Maybin the full $25MM on that contract?? The reasoning behind it is that maybe teams will smarten up and stop signing stupid contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 The reasoning behind it is that maybe teams will smarten up and stop signing stupid contracts. Have you seen that happen in other sports? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 You guys are acting as if all these contracts would remain for the same amount of something. If they were fully guaranteed they would be for far less money and be much more reflective of the players actual value. Right now, the contracts are basically worthless after 2 seasons. If it were changed to guaranteed the teams would just sign shorter term deals. They would also sign them for very close to the amounts that are guaranteed already. It's also extremely one sided. The player doesn't get to cancel the contract if he is outperforming it. His only recourse is to pout like a baby while he's sitting out training camp and the fans are getting angrier and angrier at them as each day passes. All while he's getting fined weekly for it and not getting paid. Tell me how many other contracts in life there are that one side can simply cut ties with whenever they want with little to no consequence (after 2 seasons)? It's dumb. You're confusing what might be "right" with what the league will actually be willing to do. The NFL is the biggest sport in the country, it's also the most physically damaging to the players. The league is never, ever going to fully guarantee contracts because they will end up losing money in the long run. And players aren't going to start taking less money (even if it's fully guaranteed) because they know the average career is only 3 years and want to earn as much as possible now. The owners know this, and have known this since the beginning of the league. There's a reason why the NFLPA is the weakest union in all of sports. The owners want it that way. That's why it'll never happen. The owners don't want it and won't stand for it. Is it right or fair? Probably not, but that's the ugly side of the league. The fact that Allen would be willing to fully guarantee the contract of his QB is startling to me, and as was said above, is probably going to mean Allen catches hell from the rest of the owners for doing so. I doubt it signals a change in how contracts are done in the future for all players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) You guys are acting as if all these contracts would remain for the same amount of something. If they were fully guaranteed they would be for far less money and be much more reflective of the players actual value. Right now, the contracts are basically worthless after 2 seasons. If it were changed to guaranteed the teams would just sign shorter term deals. They would also sign them for very close to the amounts that are guaranteed already. It's also extremely one sided. The player doesn't get to cancel the contract if he is outperforming it. His only recourse is to pout like a baby while he's sitting out training camp and the fans are getting angrier and angrier at them as each day passes. All while he's getting fined weekly for it and not getting paid. On what basis do you conclude the bold parts? Is that what happened in baseball? And we see players effectively hold out all the time so yes, they have plenty of leverage. Tell me how many other contracts in life there are that one side can simply cut ties with whenever they want with little to no consequence (after 2 seasons)? It's dumb. Tell me how many other contracts in life there are that one side can simply stop performing their duties and expect to continue to receive full salary for years into the future. The reasoning behind it is that maybe teams will smarten up and stop signing stupid contracts. Very flawed reasoning. There is no contract more stupid for a team to sign than one that is fully guaranteed. Ask the Yankees how that A-Rod is working out. Edited February 20, 2015 by KD in CT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark80 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) On what basis do you conclude the bold parts? Is that what happened in baseball? And we see players effectively hold out all the time so yes, they have plenty of leverage. Tell me how many other contracts in life there are that one side can simply stop performing their duties and expect to continue to receive full salary for years into the future. Very flawed reasoning. There is no contract more stupid for a team to sign than one that is fully guaranteed. Ask the Yankees how that A-Rod is working out. Apparently you have no knowledge of simple economics and finance principles. That's OK. Things like supply and demand, present value calculations, etc. would logically point to those trends. It's really not rocket science. Also, the reason they continue to get paid if they are not performing their duties is most likely because they are too injured to play (which any employer would have to compensate for on the job injuries) or injury impacted their level of performance. Either way, employees are protected from this in all walks of life in terms of on the job injuries. If they are not playing for some other conduct whether it be legal problems or some guy just can't stay in shape on his own, well, you can have clauses in any contract that could void the deal under whatever circumstances are appropriate. Edited February 20, 2015 by Mark80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 We've already seen this happen. In the NFL. With the new rookie wage scale they got rid of those ridiculous contracts and replaced them with reasonable prices but fully guaranteed. Guys like Cam Newton, Marcel Dareus, etc are already playing under fully guaranteed contracts that were much less than they would have been previously. It could work. It's not like there isnt some of this already going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 We've already seen this happen. In the NFL. With the new rookie wage scale they got rid of those ridiculous contracts and replaced them with reasonable prices but fully guaranteed. Guys like Cam Newton, Marcel Dareus, etc are already playing under fully guaranteed contracts that were much less than they would have been previously. It could work. It's not like there isnt some of this already going on. its about the top 15 or so guys each year in that boat, and you only see it happening because pay is artificially limited there (along with destination). it definitely is not happening anywhere on the open market. any player that wanted this could cut his salary in half and almost certainly find a taker, but players like the high ceilings more than the high floors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 its about the top 15 or so guys each year in that boat, and you only see it happening because pay is artificially limited there (along with destination). it definitely is not happening anywhere on the open market. any player that wanted this could cut his salary in half and almost certainly find a taker, but players like the high ceilings more than the high floors. Of course its not happening on the open market. Yet. My point was that it is happening somewhere in the NFL, and it has served its purpose in helping decrease the overall cost of those contracts, and therefore the risk. Im more responding to those saying fully guaranteed contracts would never happen, it would kill the league, and it wouldnt bring down the numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Of course its not happening on the open market. Yet. My point was that it is happening somewhere in the NFL, and it has served its purpose in helping decrease the overall cost of those contracts, and therefore the risk. Im more responding to those saying fully guaranteed contracts would never happen, it would kill the league, and it wouldnt bring down the numbers. if you look at the sports doing them on the open market instead of vets artificially forcing lower salaries on rookies leaving them nothing else to negotiate..... i cant say that its really lowered pay significantly has it? i cant claim to be an expert but it doesnt seem like it from a casual observer of other sports. the cap would stay the same and the money would have to go somewhere. theres a salary cap floor that must be reached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) if you look at the sports doing them on the open market instead of vets artificially forcing lower salaries on rookies leaving them nothing else to negotiate..... i cant say that its really lowered pay significantly has it? i cant claim to be an expert but it doesnt seem like it from a casual observer of other sports. the cap would stay the same and the money would have to go somewhere. theres a salary cap floor that must be reached. I meant pay for the rookies. It definitely has. Look at what Mario, Sam Bradford, Matt Ryan, etc made in their first 5 years vs what Newton, Bortles, and Dareus are. When theyre fully guaranteed, it would just make sense that the number would be smaller. Edited February 20, 2015 by DrDareustein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) I meant pay for the rookies. It definitely has. Look at what Mario, Sam Bradford, Matt Ryan, etc made in their first 5 years vs what Newton, Bortles, and Dareus are. When theyre fully guaranteed, it would just make sense that the number would be smaller.it changed because the vets and owners voted "you cannot pay the rookies more than XXXX" in the CBA. are you implying that bortles and dareus are taking less for that guarantee? they are maxing the allowed pay and then because they have nothing else to get they are maxing the guarantee on top of that since they cant get more money due to rookie pools. if all nfl contracts suddenly became 100% guaranteed, teams would still need to surpass the salary cap floor. so it couldnt bring down pay, though you might see some shift away from boom or bust guys and into safer bets. Edited February 20, 2015 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted February 21, 2015 Author Share Posted February 21, 2015 @ChrisTrapasso: Combine "buzz" heard from multiple people here: Marshawn Lynch likely waiting for Russell Wilson's "fully gtd" deal, then he'll ask for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beef Jerky Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 @ChrisTrapasso: Combine "buzz" heard from multiple people here: Marshawn Lynch likely waiting for Russell Wilson's "fully gtd" deal, then he'll ask for one. Heh that is funny stuff... 2 year deal 6 million, with 6 million guaranteed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HalftimeAdjustment Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Also, the reason they continue to get paid if they are not performing their duties is most likely because they are too injured to play (which any employer would have to compensate for on the job injuries) or injury impacted their level of performance. Either way, employees are protected from this in all walks of life in terms of on the job injuries. If they are not playing for some other conduct whether it be legal problems or some guy just can't stay in shape on his own, well, you can have clauses in any contract that could void the deal under whatever circumstances are appropriate. If it can be voided then it is not "fully" guaranteed. It might be relatively easy to deal with guarantees for football related injury. But guarantees for skill or desire are harder. Let's say a guy comes into camp at 400 lbs. The team wants to cut him for laziness. He claims to be suffering from mental illness e.g. depression and blames it on head trauma. Basically if your voiding clauses are narrow you are going to have to pay. Adrian Peterson and Greg Hardy got paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 This is really how every contract should be structured IMO. Every other sport has fully guaranteed contracts. It's just dumb to sign these enormous deals that never reach their full compensation ever. It's a risk vs reward way of doing business for sure but that's how the NHL and MLB operate. The difference being that the NFL pays 1st round rookie an absurd amount of money for never playing at the professional level (at least until recently). Yes, the NHL and MLB have farm teams/leagues for that but the NFL doesn't (unless you count college football) for that reason. They get the most money no matter what for roughly 260 games a year. A single season for 1 MLB team is 160, 82 for NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristocrat Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 The players had a lockout a couple years ago and could have collectively bargained for it. They didn't despite being the biggest league out there. It's not the owner's fault the NFL players union is at negotiating. I've always thought some gm's could get creative by offering fully guaranteed deals to certain players to save cap space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Trouble in paradise? https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/seattle-seahawks-were-expected-russell-180100275.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleveland Rocks? Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Trouble in paradise? https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/seattle-seahawks-were-expected-russell-180100275.html I read that he said last week he hasn't given up playing baseball and might want to do both. Maybe trying to light a fire underneath the negotiations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristocrat Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 I read that he said last week he hasn't given up playing baseball and might want to do both. Maybe trying to light a fire underneath the negotiations? he sucks at baseball. He was batting .230 in single a. he's not going pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) I read that he said last week he hasn't given up playing baseball and might want to do both. Maybe trying to light a fire underneath the negotiations? I hadn't heard that. It's definitely possible. I'm sure he's been constantly hearing the talk of discounts and I could understand him seeing that as a bit of an insult. He's been playing behind a bad/below average o-line with one of if not the worst receiving corps in the league. He doesn't get nearly enough credit for what he does, IMO. Getting paid will be the credit he rightly deserves. Edited April 17, 2015 by KikoSeeBallKikoGetBall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts