mikemike778 Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 21 hours ago, Pugger said: It appears this guy is more interested in his bank account than actually winning anything. Any team that breaks the bank for him will be strapped to build a good team around him. I never heard of any team that did much with a super star WR and not much else. Ask the Lions when they had Calvin Johnson. Adams was saying the same thing, people weren't calling him a punk. Its a status symbol, players want to be the highest paid. Whether they are paid 30m v 15m probably makes zero difference to their quality of life, they just want to be seen as being the highest paid at least at the point they sign the contract. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 (edited) 1 hour ago, mikemike778 said: Adams was saying the same thing, people weren't calling him a punk. Its a status symbol, players want to be the highest paid. Whether they are paid 30m v 15m probably makes zero difference to their quality of life, they just want to be seen as being the highest paid at least at the point they sign the contract. I think it's more pragmatic than status symbol. Many of these guys grew up dirt poor. They want to get as much as they can, so their kids and grandkids don't have to grow up poor. Also, to quote the famous philosopher Patrick Ewing, defending NBA players being paid so much. "Yeah, we make a lot of money, but we spend a lot of money too!" Edited February 10 by Old Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilltray Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 From a team/roster building point of view, I NEVER want to pay a high end WR contract. The best offenses have wr corps like the Packers did both now and in the early Rodgers era. I'd rather have 4-5 guys who could be a #2-3 on most teams in the league than invest in having one elite guy that then basically requires a certain % of passes to go his way. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemike778 Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 22 minutes ago, Old Guy said: I think it's more pragmatic than status symbol. Many of these guys grew up dirt poor. They want to get as much as they can, so their kids and grandkids don't have to grow up poor. Also, to quote the famous philosopher Patrick Ewing, defending NBA players being paid so much. "Yeah, we make a lot of money, but we spend a lot of money too!" I don't know, its very hard to know how people think if you aren't them. but the likes of Jefferson must know that he could take a 75% pay cut and still set up his family for generations. I find it a bit strange. I remember an interview with Suh when he as asked where he was going to play and he said its 100% up his agent. The guy was going to get ludicrously rich regardless, you would want to pick where you want to play. You can do that and still earn more than you will ever need. In my career, a 25% pay increase would improve my quality of life infinitely more than a 25% pay rise would affect likes of Adams and Jefferson but I wouldn't want to take that pay rise to move somewhere I didn't want to move to. For most players vanity dollars (money that looks nice in the bank balance) seem to be everything . The only real explanation is that its about the status, I am the best receiver in the world so show me some respect and pay me like it. Its up to the player and they earn their money so no issues with it. Not saying they shouldn't negotiate the best deal but when you aren't playing for the team you want to just for vanity money then something is a bit wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemike778 Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 32 minutes ago, spilltray said: From a team/roster building point of view, I NEVER want to pay a high end WR contract. The best offenses have wr corps like the Packers did both now and in the early Rodgers era. I'd rather have 4-5 guys who could be a #2-3 on most teams in the league than invest in having one elite guy that then basically requires a certain % of passes to go his way. The only possible future issue we have is that if they all keep progressing, you have 4 talented receivers all around the same age (possibly even five if Melton comes on and 7 if you count the tight ends) who will all want pretty good money for their second contract. You probably don't want all your weapons the same age down the line. Not the worst problem to have. Suppose the answer lies in who is demanding that high end contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 26 minutes ago, mikemike778 said: In my career, a 25% pay increase would improve my quality of life infinitely more than a 25% pay rise would affect likes of Adams and Jefferson but I wouldn't want to take that pay rise to move somewhere I didn't want to move to. For most players vanity dollars (money that looks nice in the bank balance) seem to be everything This is an interesting aspect. NFL players have 30 choices of where they can be. Nearly all large metropolitan areas. You and I can select from a much broader range of options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoSixFive Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 (edited) 22 hours ago, mikemike778 said: The only possible future issue we have is that if they all keep progressing, you have 4 talented receivers all around the same age (possibly even five if Melton comes on and 7 if you count the tight ends) who will all want pretty good money for their second contract. You probably don't want all your weapons the same age down the line. Not the worst problem to have. Suppose the answer lies in who is demanding that high end contract. This is the same thing as I have been saying elsewhere. When you have lots of talented guys all getting to their 2nd contract at the same time, it can be an impossible task to keep them all. It is even worse if many of those guys are in the same position group. THAT is why, though in 2024 we don't really need a WR, in 2025 we should grab one to start spreading out the ages of guys in that position group. We will (I suspect) lose (at least) one good WR in 2025 and replace them with a rookie. Enjoy the now, when all receivers are on first contract. Of course there is one side benefit of having lots of guys in one position group that are good - and that is the option to trade a guy from that group, either for draft picks or for a player at a position of need for you. Even now you could trade one of your WRs for (for example) a good Safety (though after the 2024 season might be the best time for that). Edited February 11 by OneTwoSixFive 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilltray Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 41 minutes ago, mikemike778 said: The only possible future issue we have is that if they all keep progressing, you have 4 talented receivers all around the same age (possibly even five if Melton comes on and 7 if you count the tight ends) who will all want pretty good money for their second contract. You probably don't want all your weapons the same age down the line. Not the worst problem to have. Suppose the answer lies in who is demanding that high end contract. They are nice players but so far the only two that I'd be interested in resigning to somewhat large contracts would be Reed and Watson (if he can stay healthy). Not that the rest aren't nice players, but I'd rather stay young, cheap and deep at WR and only keep guys who are physically "special". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoSixFive Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 3 minutes ago, spilltray said: They are nice players but so far the only two that I'd be interested in resigning to somewhat large contracts would be Reed and Watson (if he can stay healthy). Not that the rest aren't nice players, but I'd rather stay young, cheap and deep at WR and only keep guys who are physically "special". If you want to keep guys (at WR) that are young, cheap and physically 'special' then you are competing with 31 other teams who will all be wanting the exact same thing. What THAT means is those players that are all of the above, will be going early in the draft, so you have to expend high draft picks to get them. Worse, you have to do that again and again, if you want to stay young. That is a very big commitment of resources to pursue this philosophy. It might be possible to recoup some draft capital by trading away good receivers that are hitting 2nd contracts for draft picks, but get the draft pick wrong and things soon start to look grim where you have spent so much to stay young and now you ARE young at that position............... but not talented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugger Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 (edited) 23 hours ago, mikemike778 said: Adams was saying the same thing, people weren't calling him a punk. Its a status symbol, players want to be the highest paid. Whether they are paid 30m v 15m probably makes zero difference to their quality of life, they just want to be seen as being the highest paid at least at the point they sign the contract. Yup, and now he is on a team that is struggling to make the playoffs. But if memory serves he also wanted to go back to CA closer to his family. Edited February 11 by Pugger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 21 hours ago, spilltray said: They are nice players but so far the only two that I'd be interested in resigning to somewhat large contracts would be Reed and Watson (if he can stay healthy). Not that the rest aren't nice players, but I'd rather stay young, cheap and deep at WR and only keep guys who are physically "special". It's probably premature to want to sign any of them to long-term contracts at this point. Based on the way the ball is going to be distributed, I don't think any of them will require top 10 money at the position. I can't count out Wicks and Doubs from that conversation of possibly extending at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 The Packer WR's are fine. They (plus Love's growth operating MLF's schemes) allow us to pass on anybody. All we need is for Watson to actually take another step forward - outside of his injury downtime, this season was a positive for him IMO. Who knows how the draft will fall, but they dont need to use a high/higher draft pick on this position - until next year or the one following IMO. They want to manage the depth rotation they'll be facing (cant pay them all...) by priming the pump when the need isn't pressing. Keeps the room full and the overall cost manageable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 On 2/8/2024 at 7:51 PM, {Family Ghost} said: They'd probably be smart to trade him. Some team would give them a bundle of picks for him. Resetting the TE market with Hokensen and then letting JJ walk sounds like something MIN would do. 1 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.