Broncos nearing deal w/ CB Chris Harris Jr. (One-year deal)

[1234567]

Love CHJ. And maybe I'm just being a negative Nancy here, but to me this whole thing feels like an untimely and slightly irritating distraction. Is Harris underpaid? Yes. Has been his entire career. Was he stuck with that salary this year anyway? Unfortunately yes, because he agreed to that contract. Should we have traded him? As much as I hate to say it, probably. Because instead, we're now "negotiating" the last year of a contract that he's already on the hook for (he literally had zero leverage here other than to become a major distraction if he had chosen that route, which I doubt he would have done), all during a time where the organization/coaching staff have more important things to be focusing on. But I will be glad to see him in orange and blue for at least one more year. I think we can all agree on that part. 

[AKRNA]

8 minutes ago, 1234567 said:

Love CHJ. And maybe I'm just being a negative Nancy here, but to me this whole thing feels like an untimely and slightly irritating distraction. Is Harris underpaid? Yes. Has been his entire career. Was he stuck with that salary this year anyway? Unfortunately yes, because he agreed to that contract. Should we have traded him? As much as I hate to say it, probably. Because instead, we're now "negotiating" the last year of a contract that he's already on the hook for (he literally had zero leverage here other than to become a major distraction if he had chosen that route, which I doubt he would have done), all during a time where the organization/coaching staff have more important things to be focusing on. But I will be glad to see him in orange and blue for at least one more year. I think we can all agree on that part. 

Good post!

[champ11]

1 hour ago, AKRNA said:

Absolutely, the players should take care of their best interests. No disagreement from me at all.

So should the team. The better they are at securing and developing talent, managing contracts, etc. the better chance I have as a fan of watching my team win a SB. 

I guess I didn't make my initial point very well. If a player wants to chase the bucks good for him. If he wants to take a smaller contract to play where he wants, thats fine too. I don't really care.

Now, as to your 1st paragraph. Thats not really a fair representation is it? Do you really believe that? You're making these guys sound like indentured servants.

Another way to look at it. These kids chose this as their profession, knowing the rules, and they're compensated quite well for it.A rookie UDFA on the PS makes about $500,000. The lowest paid player that stays in the NFL for 4 years will make around $2.5 mil. Not enough to retire on, but more than most people make in a lifetime and a great jump start to a career. A guy like Dekoda Watson seems to always stick somewhere and has made around $10 mil as a career backup and ST ace. Good for him!

Basically, your 1st 4 years are like an apprenticeship and you're stuck with who signed or drafted you. After that you're free to do what you want and sign with who you want. 

Getting cut, getting fired, same thing. Getting laid off, having contracts negotiated down, happens regularly in many lines of work. 

Nobody made CHJ sign his original extension. Nobody can make him sign his next deal. He can stay a Bronco or chase the bucks, makes no difference to me.

 

 

 

 

https://www.milehighreport.com/2018/7/21/17598328/broncos-are-23rd-most-valuable-sports-franchise

My point is - looking at these guys in comparison to standard jobs is completely off base. Looking at the money is off base. The Broncos are a 2.6 billion dollar organization and Chris Harris' money earned over is career is peanuts for the organization...even if it is a ton of money compared to what we make. 

The players don't make enough money or have enough agency with regards to their contracts in the NFL tbh. And most fans hold it against players for acting in their own self interest. Most default to seeing contract negotiations from the team POV, since that is who they support. I simply just reject that. I think you have an understanding of this and I'm not calling you out...it's just how a lot of these discussions go. 

[champ11]

40 minutes ago, 1234567 said:

Love CHJ. And maybe I'm just being a negative Nancy here, but to me this whole thing feels like an untimely and slightly irritating distraction. Is Harris underpaid? Yes. Has been his entire career. Was he stuck with that salary this year anyway? Unfortunately yes, because he agreed to that contract. Should we have traded him? As much as I hate to say it, probably. Because instead, we're now "negotiating" the last year of a contract that he's already on the hook for (he literally had zero leverage here other than to become a major distraction if he had chosen that route, which I doubt he would have done), all during a time where the organization/coaching staff have more important things to be focusing on. But I will be glad to see him in orange and blue for at least one more year. I think we can all agree on that part. 

Distractions? In May? How do you think this negatively impacted the team? 

Coaches and other players aren't involved in Chris' contract negotiations. The front office is doing their job 

[1234567]

1 hour ago, champ11 said:

Distractions? In May? How do you think this negatively impacted the team? 

Coaches and other players aren't involved in Chris' contract negotiations. The front office is doing their job 

Because the coaching staff is all brand new. OTA's are literally the first chance new coaches have to begin selling their message to the players. And whether or not anyone would ever say it out loud, the CHJ situation has been a cloud hanging over this entire off season. You can't tell me that the players on that defense aren't distracted by it. Or that the coaches didn't miss out by not having Harris there when they began laying down the groundwork for next year. That kind of stuff matters when you're attempting to undo the kind of culture that was eating this locker room alive last year. 

[AKRNA]

34 minutes ago, 1234567 said:

Because the coaching staff is all brand new. OTA's are literally the first chance new coaches have to begin selling their message to the players. And whether or not anyone would ever say it out loud, the CHJ situation has been a cloud hanging over this entire off season. You can't tell me that the players on that defense aren't distracted by it. Or that the coaches didn't miss out by not having Harris there when they began laying down the groundwork for next year. That kind of stuff matters when you're attempting to undo the kind of culture that was eating this locker room alive last year. 

How 'bout "pay me or trade me" a few days before the draft? Distraction?

[germ-x]

I have absolutely no issue with Harris wanting paid and it doesn’t diminish his legacy as a Bronco for me if he ends up leaving after this season.  

Glad they were at least able to work it out for this season as I think Denver’s defense has a shot at being exceptional and Harris will be a big part of that.

[lomaxgrUK]

12 hours ago, 1234567 said:

Because the coaching staff is all brand new. OTA's are literally the first chance new coaches have to begin selling their message to the players. And whether or not anyone would ever say it out loud, the CHJ situation has been a cloud hanging over this entire off season. You can't tell me that the players on that defense aren't distracted by it. Or that the coaches didn't miss out by not having Harris there when they began laying down the groundwork for next year. That kind of stuff matters when you're attempting to undo the kind of culture that was eating this locker room alive last year. 

Players will have absolutely no problem with an elite player not turning up to OTA's in May because he is being paid as an above average/good CB, rather than elite. This hasn't threatened to be anything long term and we've been in open dialogue since the draft out of respect for Chris, hence the pay rise.

We're giving a guy a 1 year pay rise because of a) his elite playing ability and b) out of respect for what he's done. There really is no issue here.

[champ11]

16 hours ago, 1234567 said:

Because the coaching staff is all brand new. OTA's are literally the first chance new coaches have to begin selling their message to the players. And whether or not anyone would ever say it out loud, the CHJ situation has been a cloud hanging over this entire off season. You can't tell me that the players on that defense aren't distracted by it. Or that the coaches didn't miss out by not having Harris there when they began laying down the groundwork for next year. That kind of stuff matters when you're attempting to undo the kind of culture that was eating this locker room alive last year. 

Players are going to be more loyal to each other than the organization, tbh. I'm sure they are very excited for Chris. Quotes from Von and others all offseason were in support of Chris. It's a non-issue, IMO. It's May. They have all of TC to get ready 

[BroncoSojia]

I'm still pissed that we signed Kareem Jackson to such a big deal. No wonder CHJ was pissed. He's been the 2nd best player on the team for years while underpaid, and we go and sign a player that's a year older than him and not even half as good to way more money than CHJ was getting paid. Jackson also carries a 14 mil cap hit for next year. 

We could've used that money to re-sign CHJ to a multi year deal, while bringing in a much cheaper safety if we needed to. And now that it's pretty clear he's not coming back, we should've just traded him instead of giving him a one year raise. Now we're now going to lose him for nothing. (and we're not getting a high comp for him because we're going to need to sign a high priced CB in FA next year to replace him)

BTW, screw the fans that are calling CHJ selfish and a distraction. The guy just wanted to be paid what he was worth by the team he initially gave a hometown discount to.

The FO has just bungled this situation completely

Edited May 31, 2019 by BroncoSojia

[AKRNA]

On 5/29/2019 at 11:41 AM, champ11 said:

https://www.milehighreport.com/2018/7/21/17598328/broncos-are-23rd-most-valuable-sports-franchise

My point is - looking at these guys in comparison to standard jobs is completely off base. Looking at the money is off base. The Broncos are a 2.6 billion dollar organization and Chris Harris' money earned over is career is peanuts for the organization...even if it is a ton of money compared to what we make. 

The players don't make enough money or have enough agency with regards to their contracts in the NFL tbh. And most fans hold it against players for acting in their own self interest. Most default to seeing contract negotiations from the team POV, since that is who they support. I simply just reject that. I think you have an understanding of this and I'm not calling you out...it's just how a lot of these discussions go. 

It's be great to debate this but it's a long chat. Pretty much starts with the NFLPA, the first CBA in 1968, the abject failure of the union to adequately address the needs of 90% of the players and the continuation of it. (how does a union support a system that allows the highest paid player to make 72 times the league minimum?)

Why do players have to have three years in the NFL to be fully vested when the average NFL career is 3 years? 

I got a huge list. These things have nothing to do with ownership, it's all the NFLPA. A union more concerned with stars than the average player. By the way, it's been that way since it's inception. I expect it always will.

I agree, players don't make enough. Nor do they have adequate medical and retirement benefits. Here's a thought. Make the minimum salary $1,000,000. Also, add in $200,000 per year per player for a medical savings account and another $100,000 in a pension plan. After 5 years a player can opt to have those added to his salary.

Sounds great and would be a huge benefit for most players in the league. It'll never happen for the same reason it didn't happen 50 years ago. It would limit the amount of the pie available to the stars. It didn't happen then and it won't happen now for the same reason.

Hows that for a Thursday afternoon rant?

[lomaxgrUK]

15 hours ago, BroncoSojia said:

I'm still pissed that we signed Kareem Jackson to such a big deal. No wonder CHJ was pissed. He's been the 2nd best player on the team for years while underpaid, and we go and sign a player that's a year older than him and not even half as good to way more money than CHJ was getting paid. Jackson also carries a 14 mil cap hit for next year. 

Elway is clearly thinking that by giving Jackson the deal he did, he gets Harris and Jackson for this coming season. If he was to just pay Harris, he'd be locked in for an absolutely minimum of 3 years in my opinion and we wouldn't be able to have any season of having both (Jackson wouldn't have taken a 1 year deal). 

I know it isn't a popular opinion, but with the cap mistakes this team has made and with the lack of (current) talent, is locking CHJ down to a guaranteed 3 year, $50m+ deal really a good move?

I bet there isn't a person on this forum that respects CHJ's game more than me. I've loved him ever since @AntiSuperstar pointed out his gunner prowess in the preseason of his rookie year. But having a 34 year old CB on $15m a year isn't what we need, for me. 

Jackson's deal will end up being a 2 year, $23m deal with no long term ramifications, plus we get a year out of him and CHJ being in the same Defense.

I am not saying I agree with the logic but it's not as simple as saying that Jackson got CHJ's money.

[broncos67]

This move has more to do with signaling that we're willing to take care of a star player who was underpaid than anything else. That was more or less echoed by Ben Allbright. 

Kareem Jackson was a good signing, so I don't think we should be bashing a key FA signing (where contracts are naturally over-inflated) vs Harris' more team friendly deal. We did right by Harris making him the highest paid CB on the team, but frankly, we shouldn't be giving Harris a blank check to make up for a team friendly contract previously.

[champ11]

17 hours ago, AKRNA said:

It's be great to debate this but it's a long chat. Pretty much starts with the NFLPA, the first CBA in 1968, the abject failure of the union to adequately address the needs of 90% of the players and the continuation of it. (how does a union support a system that allows the highest paid player to make 72 times the league minimum?)

Why do players have to have three years in the NFL to be fully vested when the average NFL career is 3 years? 

I got a huge list. These things have nothing to do with ownership, it's all the NFLPA. A union more concerned with stars than the average player. By the way, it's been that way since it's inception. I expect it always will.

I agree, players don't make enough. Nor do they have adequate medical and retirement benefits. Here's a thought. Make the minimum salary $1,000,000. Also, add in $200,000 per year per player for a medical savings account and another $100,000 in a pension plan. After 5 years a player can opt to have those added to his salary.

Sounds great and would be a huge benefit for most players in the league. It'll never happen for the same reason it didn't happen 50 years ago. It would limit the amount of the pie available to the stars. It didn't happen then and it won't happen now for the same reason.

Hows that for a Thursday afternoon rant?

I love it. Hopefully the player's union can make some progress in the next deal. As I get older the NFL gets more frustrating for me seeing how the contracts go and the shelf-life of players being so short but I still love this game and this team. 

[champ11]

6 hours ago, lomaxgrUK said:

Elway is clearly thinking that by giving Jackson the deal he did, he gets Harris and Jackson for this coming season. If he was to just pay Harris, he'd be locked in for an absolutely minimum of 3 years in my opinion and we wouldn't be able to have any season of having both (Jackson wouldn't have taken a 1 year deal). 

I know it isn't a popular opinion, but with the cap mistakes this team has made and with the lack of (current) talent, is locking CHJ down to a guaranteed 3 year, $50m+ deal really a good move?

I bet there isn't a person on this forum that respects CHJ's game more than me. I've loved him ever since @AntiSuperstar pointed out his gunner prowess in the preseason of his rookie year. But having a 34 year old CB on $15m a year isn't what we need, for me. 

Jackson's deal will end up being a 2 year, $23m deal with no long term ramifications, plus we get a year out of him and CHJ being in the same Defense.

I am not saying I agree with the logic but it's not as simple as saying that Jackson got CHJ's money.

I've truthfully been mostly emotional with regards to my feelings on CHJ lol. I do think he is a player that will play well into his 30s, though