DirtyDez Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 Sounds like a 5th year option plus two tags. Pretty simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtmmike Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 6 minutes ago, AkronsWitness said: Wilson has a opt out in his contract after this year. The Browns could let Baker walk in free agency and sign Wilson if the opt out happens and renegotiate a new 4-5 year deal. You would still have to pay him 65,000,000 million To put that in Common terms cut 3 Myles Garrett's from the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OkeyDoke21 Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 2 minutes ago, mtmmike said: You would still have to pay him 65,000,000 million Why is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtmmike Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 26 minutes ago, OkeyDoke21 said: Why is that? Myles salary 25,000,0000 per year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OkeyDoke21 Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 29 minutes ago, mtmmike said: Myles salary 25,000,0000 per year No, I mean why would you have to pay Russell Wilson $65 million? Am I misunderstanding what you are saying? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iknowcool Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 1 hour ago, DirtyDez said: Sounds like a 5th year option plus two tags. Pretty simple. Not really related to Mayfield, but I hate that this is even a thing. Rookie contracts were definitely an issue back in the day when you had to pay a guy like Bradford an arm and a leg without seeing him play, but I also hate that a guy could conceivably be held onto for 7 years if neither side is able to come to an agreement. I wish they would make it where it's a 3 year contract w/ a 4th year option, then allow teams to only be able to franchise tag a guy once. This gives you 5 years with a player. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE DUKE Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 23 minutes ago, iknowcool said: Not really related to Mayfield, but I hate that this is even a thing. Rookie contracts were definitely an issue back in the day when you had to pay a guy like Bradford an arm and a leg without seeing him play, but I also hate that a guy could conceivably be held onto for 7 years if neither side is able to come to an agreement. I wish they would make it where it's a 3 year contract w/ a 4th year option, then allow teams to only be able to franchise tag a guy once. This gives you 5 years with a player. In those 7 years he stands to make upwards of $120 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 (edited) 25 minutes ago, iknowcool said: but I also hate that a guy could conceivably be held onto for 7 years if neither side is able to come to an agreement. That guy is not an aggrieved party. Having earned $100 million dollars for wearing those golden handcuffs. The players always talk about long-term security for their families - but if you can't make it work with $50 M in the bank, then its not a revenue problem. Its a spending problem and the 5th year option and tag has no impact on that. With today's' dollars dwarfing what players used to earn, that argument is pretty hollow imo. Its just posturing by the agents playing the agent game If a guy genuinely wants out, he and his agent can let the front office know they have no intention of signing a long term deal, cash their tag checks and move on Kirk Cousins played that game and it worked out spectacularly for him on the $$ side. There is no aggrieved party here - they are all highly compensated and have both a union and an agent to ensure they are getting their fair share. Edited October 28, 2021 by Shanedorf 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iknowcool Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 1 minute ago, THE DUKE said: In those 7 years he stands to make upwards of $120 million. Just because Mayfield is going to be rich no matter what doesn't mean there aren't flaws with the system. Being able to franchise tag someone two years in a row is stupid. I don't know how Mayfield being able to make $120m in 7 years nullifies that, especially when you consider that "only" comes out to $17m per year. That is far below the going rate for franchise QBs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iknowcool Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 5 minutes ago, Shanedorf said: That guy is not an aggrieved party. Having earned $100 million dollars for wearing those golden handcuffs. The players always talk about long-term security for their families - but if you can't make it work with $50 M in the bank, then its not a revenue problem. Its a spending problem and the 5th year option and tag has no impact on that. With today's' dollars dwarfing what players used to earn, that argument is pretty hollow imo. Its just posturing by the agents playing the agent game But I'm not talking about the money portion of it. A guy is drafted to a team and technically could be held on said team for 7 years without ever having actually been able to negotiate a contract with said team. That is flawed. NBA players have a MUCH longer shelf-life and even they can field offers from other teams after their 4th season. And no such thing as a franchise tag in the NBA. So I don't get what Baker being rich regardless has to do with it. I'm just talking strictly about the lack of player choice that goes into it. Making it a 3 year contract + a 4th year option and 1 franchise tag still gives you 5 years with a player, the same as it works in the NBA. And far, far better than the 7 years a team could potentially keep you for without allowing you to sign your own contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtmmike Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 52 minutes ago, OkeyDoke21 said: No, I mean why would you have to pay Russell Wilson $65 million? Am I misunderstanding what you are saying? Because he is outpacing Mahomes 50,000,000 dollar contract Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronjon1990 Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 8 minutes ago, iknowcool said: But I'm not talking about the money portion of it. A guy is drafted to a team and technically could be held on said team for 7 years without ever having actually been able to negotiate a contract with said team. That is flawed. NBA players have a MUCH longer shelf-life and even they can field offers from other teams after their 4th season. And no such thing as a franchise tag in the NBA. So I don't get what Baker being rich regardless has to do with it. I'm just talking strictly about the lack of player choice that goes into it. Making it a 3 year contract + a 4th year option and 1 franchise tag still gives you 5 years with a player, the same as it works in the NBA. And far, far better than the 7 years a team could potentially keep you for without allowing you to sign your own contract. Nobody forces them to sign in the first place, either. Sit out. Demand a trade. Be vocal about absolutely stinking up the joint if they want to force your hand. If the players having a "choice" is so important, ditch the Draft too. They're really not victims. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OkeyDoke21 Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 10 minutes ago, mtmmike said: Because he is outpacing Mahomes 50,000,000 dollar contract I don't know if that would be outpacing as much as it would be obliterating. He isn't going to be a $65M cap hit, regardless of his deal, though. They'd "kick the can" and manipulate his cap number, like everybody else. I thought you meant there was some kind of clause in his contract I didn't know about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 46 minutes ago, iknowcool said: So I don't get what Baker being rich regardless has to do with it. Why do football players play football? They do it to become rich. So complaining that a highly compensated employee has less choice in employer is a bit silly and in the grand scheme of things is just fluff that is irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronjon1990 Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 20 minutes ago, Matts4313 said: Why do football players play football? They do it to become rich. So complaining that a highly compensated employee has less choice in employer is a bit silly and in the grand scheme of things is just fluff that is irrelevant. Exactly. He's already limited to 32 teams (if we even venture to say all 32 would be options) in 1 league, because his choice is to play in the NFL and get rich. If he (or any other player) were truly THAT outraged, there are plenty of other football leagues around the globe that would gladly give a bonafide NFL player whatever they wanted in terms of latitude. Why don't disgruntled NFL stars go play elsewhere? Easy, they won't be compensated nearly as much to "just play the game they love". They don't typically get to pick and choose what team to play for as soon as they'd maybe like to? Boo hoo. Go play for peanuts in Bulgaria and come back when you learn how fortunate you are lol 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.