Jump to content

Report: Rodgers Wants Out of Green Bay


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, ifeelasleep said:

its not that the agents are worse, the players have less leverage. there were 259 draft picks vs 60 in the nba draft for example, plus all the other udfa, street free agents, practice squad players. All the conditionals and bonus based structures favor the franchises, that kind of contract language doesnt happen in soccer for example, no outs or void years. No big signing bonus and spreading out the cap hit, that kind of contract math is there to maintain flexibility for the team under the cap.

p.s. some good points are being made, i dont want to quote separately but appreciate the discussion.

How does adding incentives over promised, guaranteed money favor the franchise?

Don't you think soccer players would like ADDITIONAL money above and beyond their guaranteed money?

If anything, NFL contracts are far more player friendly than any other league. They get the salary floor guaranteed AND they get conditional money on top of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

more like party 1: you cut the lawn four times, only with me, the fourth time is not guaranteed you have to come and see if ill have a job for you.

Soccer players do get bonuses for scoring extra goals, getting to the playoffs etc, but their contracts are fully guaranteed as soon as they sign, no salary floor bs.

Edited by ifeelasleep
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ifeelasleep said:

true about lang, sitton thats just what we assume, nothing conclusive came out, what about kyle fuller, eric fisher, etc. if were talking about the league it happens all the time

I can't speak to what other teams are doing, I would guess there is unknown context to the releasing of those players. What fans assume is a raw deal for the player often is to their benefit, as is the case of Fuller. He was scheduled to make 4.5M base salary with the Bears in the last year of his deal and got 9M guaranteed from the Broncos.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ifeelasleep said:

more like party 1: you cut the lawn four times, only with me, the fourth time is not guaranteed you have to come and see if ill have a job for you.

And you get the $100 regardless...

They might only have to mow 3 times instead of 4, and still get $100.

Sounds like it favors the mower (player)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Joe said:

Rodgers makes plays that most other QB's can't make except for Mahomes and maybe Josh Allen at this point. It all goes back to defense. We're not having this conversation if Pettine doesn't dial up that idiotic scheme before halftime of the NFCCG.

Throw out the Nick Foles and Joe Flacco years and you've had a HOF QB guide his team to victory in the past 18 Super Bowls all the way back to Tampa Bay's win in 2002. Yes, that does include Eli Manning who will sneak into the HOF based on stats and rings.

 
Rodgers does make plays during the regular season, just always comes up short in the playoffs except for one magical year. 
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

So...you support party 2 breaching contract in order to price gouge lol

Super dooper integrity, man

Unfortunately "integrity does not need to matter" if your a star QB. Heck you don't even see the NFLPA having any issues with players holding out for what they think they deserve. If teams want to 100% prevent players from holding them "hostage because they have no integrity" they can put that on the table in CBA negotiations. And NFLPA will put non-gaureented contracts on the table... and then owners will say "never mind, who cares if the star QB wants out"

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CriminalMind said:

Unfortunately "integrity does not need to matter" if your a star QB. Heck you don't even see the NFLPA having any issues with players holding out for what they think they deserve. If teams want to 100% prevent players from holding them "hostage because they have no integrity" they can put that on the table in CBA negotiations. And NFLPA will put non-gaureented contracts on the table... and then owners will say "never mind, who cares if the star QB wants out"

No clue what your point is. I don't think either side needs any changes to current structure. It's a legal document. Both sides sign it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, incognito_man said:

No clue what your point is. I don't think either side needs any changes to current structure. It's a legal document. Both sides sign it. 

The point is intriguity doesn't play the bills

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, ifeelasleep said:

No big signing bonus and spreading out the cap hit, that kind of contract math is there to maintain flexibility for the team under the cap.

Why would you think signing bonus rules favor the team? The player is pocketing literally millions of dollars just by signing a contract. He might never play a down for the team, be it due to injury, lack of ability or lack of interest, and he never has to return a penny. I'm honestly stunned that anyone would consider the usual NFL contract structures favors the teams. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, Packer_ESP said:

Why would you think signing bonus rules favor the team? The player is pocketing literally millions of dollars just by signing a contract. He might never play a down for the team, be it due to injury, lack of ability or lack of interest, and he never has to return a penny. I'm honestly stunned that anyone would consider the usual NFL contract structures favors the teams. 

Instant gratification vs Future rewards 
Thats how it works for every sport, except a few years down the line the team can release the player depending on the language of the contract, not in other sports. other sports get bonuses, incentives based on performance and awards, thats why it favors the teams.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Packer_ESP said:

Why would you think signing bonus rules favor the team? The player is pocketing literally millions of dollars just by signing a contract. He might never play a down for the team, be it due to injury, lack of ability or lack of interest, and he never has to return a penny. I'm honestly stunned that anyone would consider the usual NFL contract structures favors the teams. 

I think fans see the allure of the full contract that teams do not have an obligation to pay as being unfair.....despite the language of the contract being (likely) that those end of years being non-guaranteed.   Both sides know this going into signing the contract.  

The team pays money up front for work/performance that is yet to come--- pro player sided

The player needs to perform to earn the back end of the contract or they are potentially released --- neutral favoring

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ifeelasleep said:

 

Instant gratification vs Future rewards 
Thats how it works for every sport, except a few years down the line the team can release the player depending on the language of the contract, not in other sports. other sports get bonuses, incentives based on performance and awards, thats why it favors the teams.

Is your name a Metal Gear NES reference? Lol if so

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ifeelasleep said:

 

Instant gratification vs Future rewards 
Thats how it works for every sport, except a few years down the line the team can release the player depending on the language of the contract, not in other sports. other sports get bonuses, incentives based on performance and awards, thats why it favors the teams.

I am not sure if that is true.

Hockey contracts can be pretty brutal for teams. Players can sign up to 8 year deals and a lot of times their performance drops off after a few years. Heck, players have to be buried in the minors to save a few dollars (min. salary) but the rest still count towards the cap. You can front-load contracts if you want, to alleviate the pain of such situations but there is reprieve for the team unless they can trade the player or player chooses to retire. And even retirement is not an option if the players signed the contract after they turned 35. You can buy-out the player to distribute the cap over more years which helps with the cap but that simply reduces the cap hit, does not totally eliminate it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...