Jump to content

2017 Predictions


big9erfan

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, y2lamanaki said:

Hurting his team's chances is his only leverage. Honoring a rookie contract that they had no financial control over or control of the length is kind of a crazy thing to ask of someone. 

And there is doubt that he'll get paid. How much is Dominique Easley going to get paid? Sharrif Floyd? Donald is one crazy slip on the turf or awkward hit away from never earning another cent from the NFL. So it behooves him to get a deal done now. His value is not going to grow. 

I do see your point as well, but what's the alternative? Return to paying guys who've never played an NFL ridiculous contracts? Again I'll just say Darnold is not the first nor is he the last rookie/younger player to out play his rookie contract. Happens all the time, and so do injuries. Just a part of the game. Again I'll say it, just a part of the GAME. In which these guys should have their whole lives set up for because of said game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As soon as I read about a player wanting to give back some money from his contract when he doesn't live up to expectations I'll be more sympathetic to guys that want more when they exceed expectations. The whole point to the rookie wage scale is to ensure that teams don't end up paying tens of millions for guys who don't even work out as NFL players or turn out to be marginal players. That was bad for the NFL, bad for veteran players who earned less because so much money was going to untried rookies, and even bad for fans as so much money went to rookies that set the team back deeply if that rookie failed.

While I"m sympathetic to him not being paid as much as guys who are not as good as him, that is in fact precisely what happens in most union situations. I think just about every union I've ever heard of pays new guys less than veteran guys even if the new guys happen to perform as well as the veterans.  That kind of arrangement is part and parcel of being in a union. Yes, he wasn't totally free to set his rookie contract.  But his union was and the rookie wage scale is the result. Love the union or hate it, but this is what you get..  Players want the benefit of a union, the promise of guaranteed money no matter poorly they might play, and yet want to void all that if they happen to turn out to be a really good player - which frankly is what should be expected of them when a team utilizes a very high pick on a guy.  Sorry, sympathetic to the guy not eaning as much as other guys but not sympathetic to the principle involved.

Aside from that he is schedule to earn 3.25 million this year and 6.8 million next year.That's hardly chicken feed. And if he continues to play well he'll end signing for tens of  millions.   So if he gets hurt in the next year or two he'll end up making millions, many millions, for a 4 or5 year career.  If not, and he continues to play well he'll end up making tens of millions instead of millions. I don't see anything wrong with that arrangement,  especially given the union and their desire to set a rookie wage scale. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Count me among those who have no issues when guys hold out. There's no loyalty from the owners, no promises of future earnings...you play the most brutal of the major sports and have the worst contract situation. Go get yours when you can. Cash in at peak value. 

Also, I see a lot of people who say that they don't like it, but I don't see many people who give a reason why they shouldn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, y2lamanaki said:

Allow players to renegotiate their rookie deals after two years and hold out if necessary to force the club to the negotiating table?

3 year deals followed by 2 years of arbitration  before unrestricted free agency, maybe? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, y2lamanaki said:

Allow players to renegotiate their rookie deals after three years and hold out if necessary to force the club to the negotiating table?

And why would they stick with with that? What shows you that they would be ok with that and stick with it? Their word...? Where does it stop, after every good year they get paid accordingly after one or two seasons worth of work? Blake Bortles would be living fat right now if that were he case. Those DTs you mentioned would be making a lot of money while not providing anything out on the field and they aren't even close to the talent that Donald is. They are allowed to renogotiate or work towards a better contract after whatever year they want, I don't neccesarily acting like a child holding his breath is meccessry though. They can already do that once they've fulfilled their rookie contracts, sign one year almost fully guaranteed deals like Alshon, Pryor and Cousins and keep making the money you're worth. Now I understand, they are rookies and sign 4, pretty much 5, year deals but these "complications" really only come into play with a handful of players a draft class, maybe. So the whole system has to change because one guy isn't happy and feels undervalued and mistreated as if he were the only one who's ever dealt with the "issue" he's going through?

I got a question though, does the CBA make these rookies sign 4 year deals?

Edit : Answered my own question, 4 years has to happen I guess. Sounds like they need to address this issue when they agree to the new CBA, adding escalators for performance and such. Again these things are all negotiable when they agree to terms correct? Why are they not touched on? I'm in a union as well, and when the members want change there are ways to go about it, its hard to complain, gripe and throw tantrums about things us as members agreed to. If we still don't like it, we can always go to a different union or choose another career. I mean Donald will have made 10 mil at the end of this rookie contract and can sign a one year deal from there on out till the end of his career if he so chooses to earn as much guaranteed money as possible. But 10 mil at the end of this rookie contract, excuse me for not feeling too bad for him. I believe Muhammad Wilkerson, Suh and Shortt (most recently) signed a very lucrative deal at the same age Donald will be when his rookie contract is as well so I'm not quite buying into the idea of Donald missing out on anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fureys49ers said:

And why would they stick with with that? What shows you that they would be ok with that and stick with it?

Because that's the current system. Teams can sign players to an extension at the end of their third season. Players can hold out (Aaron Donald). After three seasons, you know what's going on with a player for the most part. The players that deserve extensions can fight for them. The players that don't tend to show up and play out their deal as is. The team has options - it can cut the player any time it sees fit in those 4 (or 5) years. Why can't the player likewise have options?

Also to be fair - my post did earlier say after "two." I was counting Donald with two seasons left. It should have read after "three." I think the current system is fine for both players and teams - as long as the player can fight for what they're due. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fureys49ers said:

I believe Muhammad Wilkerson, Suh and Shortt (most recently) signed a very lucrative deal at the same age Donald will be when his rookie contract is as well so I'm not quite buying into the idea of Donald missing out on anything. 

None of them had career-altering or -ending injuries. That's sort of the point. A player can't predict whether or not they'll suffer said injury, same as the club can't. So I have no problem with guys wanting to get that security when they were already playing for a bargain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, y2lamanaki said:

None of them had career-altering or -ending injuries. That's sort of the point. A player can't predict whether or not they'll suffer said injury, same as the club can't. So I have no problem with guys wanting to get that security when they were already playing for a bargain. 

Id even say that wilkerson is the type of example you want to be mindful of. He was awful last year after breaking his leg. Complete shell of himself from before. He's not getting that same deal if he had been a FA at the end of last year and that was just due to a broken leg... we aren't even talking shredding your knee or popping an Achilles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Forge said:

Count me among those who have no issues when guys hold out. There's no loyalty from the owners, no promises of future earnings...you play the most brutal of the major sports and have the worst contract situation. Go get yours when you can. Cash in at peak value. 

Also, I see a lot of people who say that they don't like it, but I don't see many people who give a reason why they shouldn't. 

Can the team re-negotiate too if the player doesn't meet expectation.  Can they soimehow get some of that guarnteed money back?  I sign a contract with a certain expectation of how well I will play - high expectations for a high first rounder; high expectations for a free agent pro bowler, etc. If I meet those high expectation then I don't want to live up to my end of the contract.  But if I suck I still want all my guaranteed money.  How does that make sense?  It sort of means the contract is the minimum amount I'll work for - if I suck or am merely OK then I'll take what I agreed to, but  If I'm better than that then of course I'll want to throw the contract away and will want more.  In any case, I'll say again - unions: love 'em or hate 'em.  It's all about the greater good for the members of the union, not a free for all pitting one union member against another.  Every young player that gets a huge contract is essentially getting money that the union wants to go to veteran players.  You're right in saying "get yours while you can", but that applies to all the guys. And the veterans who play the longest get the most long term damage to their bodies and so the union has put a system in place to protect their earning power too. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, big9erfan said:

Can the team re-negotiate too if the player doesn't meet expectation.  Can they soimehow get some of that guarnteed money back?  I sign a contract with a certain expectation of how well I will play - high expectations for a high first rounder; high expectations for a free agent pro bowler, etc. If I meet those high expectation then I don't want to live up to my end of the contract.  But if I suck I still want all my guaranteed money.  How does that make sense?  It sort of means the contract is the minimum amount I'll work for - if I suck or am merely OK then I'll take what I agreed to, but  If I'm better than that then of course I'll want to throw the contract away and will want more.  In any case, I'll say again - unions: love 'em or hate 'em.  It's all about the greater good for the members of the union, not a free for all pitting one union member against another.  Every young player that gets a huge contract is essentially getting money that the union wants to go to veteran players.  You're right in saying "get yours while you can", but that applies to all the guys. And the veterans who play the longest get the most long term damage to their bodies and so the union has put a system in place to protect their earning power too. 

 

 

Well, you know, they can basically fire him by cutting him. So I'd say yes. Also, not all guaranteed money is truly guaranteed. When a guy has a roster bonus that is guaranteed on a certain date, that counts toward the athlete's "guaranteed money", but obviously if they cut him prior to that vesting, he doesn't get it, so he stll doesn't get all his guaranteed money. 

I don't know if you have ever been fortunate enough to work at a job that will give you a signing bonus, but it's the same for most jobs. I've gotten signing bonuses in the past - that's an employer decision. They wouldn't get the money back if I sucked at my job (the ones I have had only have to be returned it I quit voluntarily within a certain time period). A signing bonus is a decision that the employer makes that essentially equates to marketing - they are trying to market themselves as an employer and make them more appealing to an aspiring applicant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, y2lamanaki said:

Because that's the current system. Teams can sign players to an extension at the end of their third season. Players can hold out (Aaron Donald). After three seasons, you know what's going on with a player for the most part. The players that deserve extensions can fight for them. The players that don't tend to show up and play out their deal as is. The team has options - it can cut the player any time it sees fit in those 4 (or 5) years. Why can't the player likewise have options?

Also to be fair - my post did earlier say after "two." I was counting Donald with two seasons left. It should have read after "three." I think the current system is fine for both players and teams - as long as the player can fight for what they're due. 

By that I think you mean by not living up to the terms of the contract they signed.  Just curious for all you folks supporting this notion ... how often do you sign a contract where you're OK with the other party not living up to their end of the contract? How many contracts have you signed where you refused to live up to your end of the contract?

As for why the player can't have options?  The answer currently is because contracts are governed by the union agreement.  Players CAN have options as soon as the union negotiates a new contract.  That is assuming of course that veterans are OK with large contract going to young players while the veterans get whatever cap money is left over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Forge said:

Well, you know, they can basically fire him by cutting him. So I'd say yes.

That why "guaranteed money" is part of almost every deal.  Every player and player's agent understands that part of the arrangement. To be clear, cutting a guy is part of the contract; wanting more than you agreed to is not part of the contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, big9erfan said:

That why "guaranteed money" is part of almost every deal.  Every player and player's agent understands that part of the arrangement.

Not all guaranteed money is truly guaranteed. And see the rest of my post...i edited it while you were responding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, big9erfan said:

By that I think you mean by not living up to the terms of the contract they signed.  Just curious for all you folks supporting this notion ... how often do you sign a contract where you're OK with the other party not living up to their end of the contract? How many contracts have you signed where you refused to live up to your end of the contract?

As for why the player can't have options?  The answer currently is because contracts are governed by the union agreement.  Players CAN have options as soon as the union negotiates a new contract.  That is assuming of course that veterans are OK with large contract going to young players while the veterans get whatever cap money is left over.

I am good at my job, so I don't have to worry about that. But my employer doesn't get my signing bonus back if I suck at it and they end up firing me. Thats never been in any employment contract I've ever signed. Like I said before, If I voluntarily quit within a certain time frame, yes, I have to pay it back. But I have never had any other provision with regards to sign on bonus. Like I said, employers know the risk involved in this - but it's a marketing tactic to make themselves more appealing. 

And the player does have options - holding out. CBA doesn't strictly forbid hold outs, so they are working within the framework of the CBA. Just happens to be the only option that they have. 

Oh, and when my employer doesn't live up to what I feel that they should, yes, I hold them to it. When I feel that I'm underpaid or not getting what I should, I have no issues forcing their hand. My options are different than a players, obviously, but I take advantage of them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...