Jump to content

Luck should be an example to both owners and players about player salaries


stl4life07

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, The LBC said:

Conversely, it also sends a message about how quick you should be to guarantee money to players without some kind of failsafe (at which point, how "guaranteed" is it?).  We had a spike in premature retirements since the last CBA was signed.  It's naive to think that that won't have some sort of effect on the negotiations of the next one.

Teams have already tried to de-guarantee "guaranteed" money as much as possible. Leonard Fournette is an example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MWil23 said:

Yes, although that's deceptive. Since there's no income tax in Florida, even though he took LESS in Miami than he would have in Cleveland, he made more after taxes. CRAZY.

It's same in Texas, no income taxes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luck didn't get a big deal until 2016. Grigson had 4 years of Luck on a cost controlled contract and he blew that by having terrible drafts and FA signings. He also alienated just about everyone in the building during that time. He was a terrible GM and you can't blame Luck's contract for why the team was so talent deficient for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Nabbs4u said:

If you're also married to a Super Model whose yearly earnings dwarf yours as a NFL QB? Yes, yes it is!

Tired of that narrative above being used as to the Patriots success.  Brady could afford to take less per year because he didn't have nor need a Wife working at a Boutique on the weekend trying to add $50 to his 300M. Massive difference. 

Brady took a paycut in '04/'05, before he'd even started dating Bundchen, let alone married her.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fully guaranteed deals for NFL players won't happen unless the deals get a lot smaller. Paying guaranteed deals to that many players per year in a physically demanding sport where the average career length is only a few years is a lot different than guaranteeing the salaries of far fewer players in a less physically demanding sport where average career length is longer.

Boston Celtics have 18 active contracts, the Red Sox have 25. The Patriots have 92.

https://www.spotrac.com/nba/boston-celtics/contracts/

https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/boston-red-sox/payroll/

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/new-england-patriots/contracts/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for players getting what they can, more power to them, but to think they couldn't "afford" to take less is just ignorance.  They can afford to quite easily, millions of dollars after taxes is still millions of dollars.  Do they have to?  No.  Should they have to?  No.  Will it increase their chances of winning if they do?  Yes.

Also I think the full salary cap should be required to be spent by owners.  Whether it's in salaries, or placed into a player pension fund or something, where the money would end up in players pockets eventually.  This way there is no argument that taking a "pay cut" is benefitting the owner at all.  No it's benefitting the player and the rest of the team in their mission to win a Super Bowl.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Brady is like the highest paid QB this year. He is making $35m... they are just spreading it over multiple years.

 

Actually Brees is probably highest paid. Brady is second.

Brady is making 25 million this year. He will be a FA in March.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...