Contract Details of Whitner

[Alaska Darin]

Fair enough. How do you feel about this article? Hope, a proven NFL talent, signed for less than Whittner.

This in itself is admittedly not unusual in the NFL. The thing is, it does appear that despite what you say about the recent trend (which I do not dispute) of drafting safties earlier, Hope (again, a proven player) signed a deal calling for less than Whittner received.

Now, how many OGs that were drafted in 06 will sign for more than the Vikes gave Hutch? Did the Jests give Ferguson as much as the 49ers gave Jennings (I truly do not know)?

737085[/snapback]

Ferguson got $17 million in guaranteed money for either 5 or 6 years. Jennings got $12 million guaranteed over 7 years.

[Dibs]

I hope they gave him a deal that was structured in the manner of the Vikes/Winfield contract. As I recall, the Vikes gave him a HUGE 1st year salary.

 

I like it this way because the Bills don't seem to be in dire need (if any at all) of cap room in 06. If they give him the cash in 1st year salary instead of bonus, his cap hit would not be so bad in future seasons, leaving us room to sign more players. Also, it would make him easier to cut down the road IF he does not play up to expectations.

Are you out there Clump? 

737229[/snapback]

I totally agree & have no idea why they are not doing it(at least in part). Peters was another contract which could have used the method you suggest.

Does anyone know a legitimate reason why we are not front loading our contracts(& reducing signing bonuses) since we have so much room under the cap?

[Pyrite Gal]

It's the nature of the beast.  Vernon Davis is the NFL's highest-paid TE EVER before he even suits up.  And not surprisingly, the idiot owners who drew-up the new CBA didn't even address this situation.

737378[/snapback]

 

I think there is a "situation" here for fans who see the contracts as some statement analagous to the actual performance of a particular player, By this logic it is legitimate to view this as an at best irrational situation where a rookie is guaranteed large chunks of money when he has not produced on iota as an NFL player.

 

This logic legitimately questions the fact that MW got a huge payment for being a bust and why RJ was given a $8 million when he is injury prone.

 

However, the partnership between team owners and the NFLPA does not operate with compensation for players being based only (or in rookie cases at all) on a player;s play..

 

Instead the partnership is interested instead in producing a product which it can sell to the TV networks and ticket buyers which delivers big bucks to team owners and gives the workers union a big enough slice of the revenue to ensure that a saleable product will be produced.

 

One might hold the view that compensation should be pretty much equivalent to production and that is true in a more perfect world but the last view is simply reality.

 

The huge and slotted rookie contracts exist as a mechanism for laying a baseline for payment of 59.5% of the total revenues of the league to the players. By agreeing to these levels which are currently set by % of the salary cap allocated to rookie salaries by the partnership between the NFLPA and the NFL a market has been created to set this base among the players drafted.

 

By allocating this enormous payment to unproven players a chunk of cash is wasted on players whose production does not remotely merit this payment. However, the partnership realizes that these often sillty payments provide a base where good players set the market by demanding and getting raises above this base and even pedestrian players can point to the fact that their team or the league has compensated players who produce far less than they do more handsomely than their salaries.

 

The huge salaries for unproven rookies also serves to stop college players from organizing effectively against the restraint of trade which the NFL and NFLPA excert on Americans below the age of the college graduation. In MLB, the NBA, NHL and virtually all other sports people sign contracts at ages like 14 and 16 year olds because the market will compensate them for their talent.

 

In the NFL even adults who are 19, 18 up until an age when their college class (if they were in college) would have graduated are not allowed to sell their services in the NFL. In cases like that of Maurice Clarett the courts have upheld this Un-American restraint of trade for a number of reasons such as the lotto like win that performing college players can get without any professional production.

 

Overall, the system simply works to produce a product many people enjoy and which both owners and the extremely well compensated players union agree to this restraint. Who are the courts to uphold individual rights when many of these individuals are kids, they can at least pretend to get a college education, and forces opposing this restraint are disorganized folks with idiots for test cases.

 

For those who determine the rules and a society which loves to be entertained there simply is no situation here.

[CaliforniaCheez]

As a comparison last year a team with a bad cap situation had a Pro Bowl Safety whose contract was due to balloon to 7 million for the season. They went to the 8 year veteran and said we want to renegotiate as we can only afford 2 million.

 

The player Darren Sharper of the Packers said "No" and was cut signing with the Vikings for 3 million last season. He singlehandedly won 3 games for the Vikings and led the NFC with 9 interceptions. He has missed only 7 games in the last 8 seasons.

 

If Whitner has a good rookie season and gets 3-6 INT's and a good number of tackles he will still be "overpaid" by 50%. Will some call him a bust because of it? Other teams veterans will point to his contract and say they are underpaid. Then a cycle of salary increases take place. The NFLPA loves it.

 

The NFL then looks to screw thier customers out of more money to pay these salaries. A rookie salary structure should be implemented.

 

For the good of the league and ultimately the fans, a rookie salary limit should be structured or worded that no rookie should be in the top 10 league salaries for their position.

 

Some of these rookies are labled busts because their performance while good is not the superstar level of their contracts. The pressure can be excessive.

 

A J Hawk is the 6th highest paid LB in the league (about 100 starters) without making an NFL tackle. Davis is the highest paid TE.

 

It is a problem that needs to be addressed.

[ganesh]

I totally agree & have no idea why they are not doing it(at least in part).  Peters was another contract which could have used the method you suggest. 

Does anyone know a legitimate reason why we are not front loading our contracts(& reducing signing bonuses) since we have so much room under the cap?

737797[/snapback]

 

The reason is there is a Rookie Salary Pool Cap for each team in the NFL

depending on where they pick. They cannot exceed the salary that they

pay to the rookies for this year beyond that value and that value is

reasonably small. Considering that we had to sign two 1st rounders there

was no way for us put too much upfront money in the 1st year of the

contract.

 

Of course they could hav done what you suggest with Peters contract.

[Dibs]

The reason is there is a Rookie Salary Pool Cap for each team in the NFL

depending on where they pick.  They cannot exceed the salary that they

pay to the rookies for this year beyond that value and that value is

reasonably small.  Considering that we had to sign two 1st rounders there

was no way for us put too much upfront money in the 1st year of the

contract.

 

Of course they could hav done what you suggest with Peters contract.

740159[/snapback]

Thanks for that ganesh.