vike daddy Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 2 hours ago, SteelKing728 said: Yes, but that was also Mattison's rookie season. To me, that's anecdotal evidence. He could be radically different in year 2. I just don't see the point in extending Cook. At best, you get 8 healthy games out of him per year. That's it. not sure you understand what that phrase means... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavensfanRD Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 "You'll get your contract rates or your contract cancelled" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diamondbull424 Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 16 hours ago, Yin-Yang said: Any union worth their weight in salt wouldn’t settle for a contract cap that isn’t fully guaranteed. Especially if it’s coming at a pay cut - Wentz, Goff, soon to be Dak, etc, making $35M~, and now Mahomes is going to get capped? Any union agreeing to that pay cut, that isn’t fully guaranteed, while also lessening the contracts for every other player at every other position - would be rightfully under fire. How would this lessen the contracts of other positions? The cap would be unchanged, meaning that the vast majority of other players would be down for this I’m sure. Whats more the max contracts would likely be linked to a percentage of the overall cap space. That way if the NFL cap does go up significantly, the max deal would equally go up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soko Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 1 hour ago, diamondbull424 said: How would this lessen the contracts of other positions? The cap would be unchanged, meaning that the vast majority of other players would be down for this I’m sure. Whats more the max contracts would likely be linked to a percentage of the overall cap space. That way if the NFL cap does go up significantly, the max deal would equally go up. Because teams would use them as leverage. There’s natural inflation virtually every year with top of the market players, teams aren’t going to keep inflating deals up to QB-value. And a percentage would change the dollar value but it wouldn’t change the concept. QBs and their agents wouldn’t go for this and neither would a competent union. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikesfan89 Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 How competent is this union, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemike778 Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 On 09/06/2020 at 2:04 AM, NudeTayne said: His talent is a 1st rounder, his injuries a 3rd rounder, so he is probably a 2nd rounder to someone. They may even get a 3rd & 6th and call it a day. Either way, it makes sense for Cook to hold out, as his most recent tape is very good and he's on that 1.3 million for this year (and it makes sense from the injury-prone position to hold out in the last year--allows body to heal more). tl;dr maybe he'll get Brandon Cooks hot-potatoed You are suggesting someone would give up a 2nd round pick for the rights to offer a contract that in all likelihood will be horrible and set your team back. Why would anyone do that ? If you wanted to take that punt and pay that contract I would maybe offer a 7th 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelKing728 Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 On 6/13/2020 at 12:20 AM, vike daddy said: not sure you understand what that phrase means... Just from Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence That to seems like the appropriate term..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diamondbull424 Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 On 6/13/2020 at 12:43 PM, Yin-Yang said: Because teams would use them as leverage. There’s natural inflation virtually every year with top of the market players, teams aren’t going to keep inflating deals up to QB-value. And a percentage would change the dollar value but it wouldn’t change the concept. QBs and their agents wouldn’t go for this and neither would a competent union. This doesn’t make sense. Teams have a hard cap. The rollover mechanism was mostly a new inclusion. Taking that out means, you use it or lose it. Which means that teams will have to fill out their roster. You will literally need to explain to me how having a max contract gets all the other positions paid less. It’s simply not logical. It doesn’t make sense. If teams have $200m to spend and the max is $30m, why would they suddenly pay the Aaron Donald and Khalil Mack’s less money? Let alone the rest of the roster filler players. The goal is to win a SB, how could they justify not spending additional money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soko Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, diamondbull424 said: This doesn’t make sense. Teams have a hard cap. The rollover mechanism was mostly a new inclusion. Taking that out means, you use it or lose it. Which means that teams will have to fill out their roster. Fill out the roster = / = pay players market value and above. Quote You will literally need to explain to me how having a max contract gets all the other positions paid less. It’s simply not logical. It doesn’t make sense. If teams have $200m to spend and the max is $30m, why would they suddenly pay the Aaron Donald and Khalil Mack’s less money? Let alone the rest of the roster filler players. Because if QBs are capped at $30M, it’s going to stall the inflation on the pass rushers. Myles Garrett is rumored to be getting a deal in the mid-$20M territory - which maybe would work with a max contract, but after? How are they going to justify paying tackles, pass rushers, and receivers just a hair less than the quarterbacks? The extra money will go to lesser players but it’ll effectively cap the blue chip guys. Like I said, no union would ever go for that. Quote The goal is to win a SB, how could they justify not spending additional money? Ask a third of the league that has $20M+ in space right now. Having space doesn’t mean teams will use it. Edited June 14, 2020 by Yin-Yang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diamondbull424 Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this subject. I see it differently overall. But I’ll give this one last shot. 5 hours ago, Yin-Yang said: Fill out the roster = / = pay players market value and above. I feel it does. Less prestigious guys will still get paid less. This cap would have far more impact on the middle to high income players than it would the bottom feeders of a roster. Guys that are quality/strong starters that are fringe pro bowlers that you would generally be forced to let go on a contender, you could now bring a few more of those guys back. Meaning the wealth would spread around. 5 hours ago, Yin-Yang said: Because if QBs are capped at $30M, it’s going to stall the inflation on the pass rushers. Myles Garrett is rumored to be getting a deal in the mid-$20M territory - which maybe would work with a max contract, but after? How are they going to justify paying tackles, pass rushers, and receivers just a hair less than the quarterbacks? The extra money will go to lesser players but it’ll effectively cap the blue chip guys. Like I said, no union would ever go for that. Not really. With other positions, they’ve largely grown stagnant for a number of years; while QBs have been seeing a far larger amount of the cap, the other elite players have not seen their contract power rise to such a degree. It’s been INCREDIBLY minimum. So a max cap% would really only impact QBs inflated value. If the cap stays $30m, defensive guys getting $22m-$25m is no big deal. If the max is $35m, Garrett getting $27m is no big deal. I don’t know what the max would be, but whatever agreed upon it would allow other players to get better paid. You actually think owners are going to give the 50th best player more vs giving it to those in their top 10? I can’t agree. Feel like high level guys are more likely to get paid more or more mid level players will get paid. 5 hours ago, Yin-Yang said: Ask a third of the league that has $20M+ in space right now. Having space doesn’t mean teams will use it. This is with the current established rules/situations. If a team has to potentially worry about a QB demanding $40-50, they need to keep money reserved. But if their is a cap there isn’t a great need for a cap rollover mechanism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candyman93 Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 I’d let him walk and not think twice about it. Unfortunately, I think the same thing will happen with Nick Chubb. It is NOT a good idea to pay big bucks to LBs and RBs. Your money should go to a QBs, pass rushers, WRs, and offensive line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seriously27 Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 On 6/12/2020 at 11:33 AM, whitehops said: yeah, the max contract would really only affect quarterbacks. also, as far as i know there's nothing in the nba's cba that explicitly states veteran contracts are fully guaranteed, i think it's just the standard. there are partially or non-guaranteed contracts in the nba but it's usually fringe guys that sign those. Yeah it's pretty standard for players to have guaranteed contracts. The non guaranteed contracts are one's that either become guaranteed if they are not cut by the start of regular season or sometime early in the season. Almost every player, who isn't on one of their new two-way contracts, playing in the NBA is on a guaranteed contract. They have a way better union. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.