grammer_police Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 apuszczalowski on Jason Peters possibly wanting more money: "I agree. But its buisness. No one wants to be "underpaid", even if they agreed to the previous deal and played better. The buisness doesn't want to overpay, and would rather underpay (ie have a person paid fairly working above their potential and pay). The problem is, Peters, like many players, knows he is good and could get what he wants on the open market. So he can threaten to hold out and eventually get what he wants because he knows the Bills don't want to lose him. The thing is that I don't think that he is going to hold out and will play, but would like to rework the deal. Personally (and I know the Players association would never agree to it), I think that salaries and signing bonuses should all be based off of a flat rate plus incentives. An NFL QB would make, say $750,000 (this pay could also be on a scale based on experience and years in the league) a year just for being on a team, then would receive bonuses for certain stats. You would then have players giving 150% every game because they want the money, no one would be overpaid because they are paid based on production. You could remove the cap on salaries, and cap only the signing bonuses, this way it would limit teams with bigger incomes/markets from being able to steal all the big names because the teams would ahve to take into account how mauch they give in signing bonuses. I know its all a pipe dream though and would never happen though, but it would be the best way to run things. Another option could be to do like the NHL and say that you can not renegotiate a deal, and can not sign a player to an extension until the final year of the deal" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Personally (and I know the Players association would never agree to it), I think that salaries and signing bonuses should all be based off of a flat rate plus incentives. An NFL QB would make, say $750,000 (this pay could also be on a scale based on experience and years in the league) a year just for being on a team, then would receive bonuses for certain stats. You would then have players giving 150% every game because they want the money, no one would be overpaid because they are paid based on production. You could remove the cap on salaries, and cap only the signing bonuses, this way it would limit teams with bigger incomes/markets from being able to steal all the big names because the teams would ahve to take into account how mauch they give in signing bonuses. I know its all a pipe dream though and would never happen though, but it would be the best way to run things. Then you get players who want to accumulate stats, as opposed to players who want to win games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grammer_police Posted May 23, 2008 Author Share Posted May 23, 2008 Then you get players who want to accumulate stats, as opposed to players who want to win games. doesnt winning rather than stats make a team money? The stats will always give fans a reason to buy the jersey, but if a guy can win, then the teams will throw money at him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 doesnt winning rather than stats make a team money? The stats will always give fans a reason to buy the jersey, but if a guy can win, then the teams will throw money at him. Right. Thats the problem with basing salaries mostly on incentives. You want players who are motivated to win games, not players who are motivated to accumulate stats to fatten their paychecks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 This is a union, in my experience pay per performance isn't a thing unions like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Stats are a terrible way to determine how well someone is playing. Determining how much money a player deserves is so subjective that you have to let the open market decide it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 apuszczalowski on Jason Peters possibly wanting more money: "I agree. But its buisness. No one wants to be "underpaid", even if they agreed to the previous deal and played better. The buisness doesn't want to overpay, and would rather underpay (ie have a person paid fairly working above their potential and pay). The problem is, Peters, like many players, knows he is good and could get what he wants on the open market. So he can threaten to hold out and eventually get what he wants because he knows the Bills don't want to lose him. The thing is that I don't think that he is going to hold out and will play, but would like to rework the deal. Personally (and I know the Players association would never agree to it), I think that salaries and signing bonuses should all be based off of a flat rate plus incentives. An NFL QB would make, say $750,000 (this pay could also be on a scale based on experience and years in the league) a year just for being on a team, then would receive bonuses for certain stats. You would then have players giving 150% every game because they want the money, no one would be overpaid because they are paid based on production. You could remove the cap on salaries, and cap only the signing bonuses, this way it would limit teams with bigger incomes/markets from being able to steal all the big names because the teams would ahve to take into account how mauch they give in signing bonuses. I know its all a pipe dream though and would never happen though, but it would be the best way to run things. Another option could be to do like the NHL and say that you can not renegotiate a deal, and can not sign a player to an extension until the final year of the deal" There are a lot of good points in this post, but paying players for their stats isn't something that should be implemented. Take QBs, for example. If you're paying them for TDs, do you penalize them for INTs? What happens when it's the end of the first half, or the end of a game, and the coach tells the QB to make a desperation throw? The QB knows that the throw will probably be intercepted, so he's not going to want to cost himself what would probably be hundreds of thousands of dollars. Then again, you might have a DB--let's call him Nate--who goes for an interception at a point in the game when he should be batting down the pass. You could have a QB--let's call him Rob Johnson--who would rather take a sack than throw the ball away, because sacks don't count against QB rating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 These athletes shouldn't sign multi year deals. Sign a one year deal and work your ass off. Then you'll get a big deal next year and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 These athletes shouldn't sign multi year deals. Sign a one year deal and work your ass off. Then you'll get a big deal next year and so on. unless you get injured, then you get squat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 unless you get injured, then you get squat That's the double edged sword. I wouldn't let these guys off the hook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts