erynthered Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) http://sports.yahoo....max-deals-.html Edited May 18, 2012 by erynthered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 http://sports.yahoo....max-deals-.html The agents are totally to blame; they're not doing a good job of explaining the situation to their clients (players) and fighting for what's best for them. Maybe TJ Graham has a good agent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAWNDO Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 http://sports.yahoo....max-deals-.html Doesn't it make sense for agents to get a maximum contract so they get a larger commission? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 18, 2012 Author Share Posted May 18, 2012 Doesn't it make sense for agents to get a maximum contract so they get a larger commission? Sure it does, but the agents are afraid of losing the player to another agent. They're just looking out for their own commision and getting paid back any up front money they gave the player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Doesn't it make sense for agents to get a maximum contract so they get a larger commission? Theoretically, yes, but in practice, the additional incremental increase in the commission for negotiating a few more thousand dollars in the contract isn't really worth it (if you're an unethical agent). It's the same ethical dilemma faced by real estate brokers. Do they truly try to get the best price for your house? Probably not. Read Freakonomics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 Every player does not deserve MAXIMUM contract - that is why it is called the MAXIMUM amount. Some have turned it around to say that the players were shortchanged because they did not get maximum amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hplarrm Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 Every player does not deserve MAXIMUM contract - that is why it is called the MAXIMUM amount. Some have turned it around to say that the players were shortchanged because they did not get maximum amount. I find thos article very interesting (and different than most of the relatively superficial media analysis of the ecomics of the NFL) because this one shows great reporting by the writer who got quotes from folks which seem to reflect their true attitudes about the fiscal process going on here. From what I see, this article points to there not only being a often measurable to be seen difference in the quality of players (very good ones get the maximum contract and not the best players get lesser contracts) but this shows a measurable difference between agents. Some agents are going to be able to demonstrate that they obtained the maximum allowed contract for more of their players than other agents. The ones which can demonstrate this will use this market their services to more players and suceed over the agents who cannot demonstrate this. It really is a great example of the marketplace being self-adjusting. Over time what I suspect will happen as agents begin to market themselves by showing how successful they have been in acheiving the maximum allowed payout in the rookie scale for their clients you will begin to see agents urging their players to hold out to achieve the maximum allowed. It does not seem surprisiong to me that it takes a little time for the market to settle out as last year was simply an aborted year for the marketplace to develop because of the newness of the CBA and the short period of time to negotiate. This year we are seeing the "dead hand" develop in the marketplace. Next year we should begin to see tangible evidence of agents urging their players to hold out for the maximum they are allowed and we will see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 The NFLPA gave this away in order to get other benefits. The person who should have cared when he had the chance was Demaurice Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 The NFLPA gave this away in order to get other benefits. The person who should have cared when he had the chance was Demaurice Smith Every professional Job requires new employees to develop in their organization before giving them the big raises and bonus and stock options. The NFL should be no different. If an employee hired by Microsoft is fired after two years because he was not doing his job, do you expect Microsoft to have paid the Maximum for the employee for the 1st two years ? Considering the type of money thrown to rookies prior to this CBA was just asnine...and was blocking from teams giving the people who have really excelled the kind of deals they need to be given. The only weakness of the CBA would be that the teams should not have been given 4 years of exclusive rights to these players. It should have been 2 years and a 1 year of restricted right (at least for the 3rd to 7th round players). That gives these players some upper hand if they have beaten the rookie contract. Isn't that what a company like google or Microsoft would do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 Every professional Job requires new employees to develop in their organization before giving them the big raises and bonus and stock options. The NFL should be no different. If an employee hired by Microsoft is fired after two years because he was not doing his job, do you expect Microsoft to have paid the Maximum for the employee for the 1st two years ? I'm not sure why you think I disagree with you. The implication int he article was that teams (ie the organization, The NFL) is cheating these players out of money. It's not their responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hplarrm Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 I'm not sure why you think I disagree with you. The implication int he article was that teams (ie the organization, The NFL) is cheating these players out of money. It's not their responsibility. The interesting implication of the quotes in the article such as when an agent says Watson said. "The players and the agents don't have all the leverage in this situation." is that this implies the players and theit agents actually did have a lot of leverage umder the pld deal. I think the more direct proof of this is that it was the owners who chose to opt-out early and renrgotiate the pact. In general one does not reopem a deal you judge to be good. I think this shows that when Upshaw and the NFLPA renegotiated the CBA early in the millenia with the help of Paul Tagliabue the NFLPA simply ate the owners lunch. Upshaw publicly dictated that the final deal of the new CBA had to be based on total gross revenue rather than a designated gross and that the NFLPA share needed to start with a 6. The final deal not only gave the players 60.5% of the total gross but arguably made the NFLPA the majority partner in this new deal. Overall, I think the NFLPA did give up a chunk of change in the current CBA. Guys drafted after the 3rd are at higher risk for not getting the maximum allowed amount. However, in exchange for subjecting 2nd day+ picks to a chance at lower payment, the current players got the bigger deal for current members of slotting the draftee contracts at a lower level than before but basically leaves the total designated player cut the same. More money for current players out of the rookies hides. Pro Football is now remade to see the NFLPA under Upshaw and now Smitth really running the league far more than in the past. The NFL really is to me one of he clear examples of workers asserting their right to fair treatment and gaining control over the league which they now receive well over half of the gross receipts even under the new deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSBill Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 (edited) http://sports.yahoo....max-deals-.html I found the the imbedded article about Tim Tebow and Cubby T-Shirts (link) more interesting .... who cares about whiny agents? But I was left wondering why there were no BIlls shirts in the Cubby product line. I think we should start petitioning them. OK, try this link: [Also: Tim Tebow's lawyers reportedly send cease-and-desist letter over T-shirt] Edited May 20, 2012 by CSBill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 Pro Football is now remade to see the NFLPA under Upshaw and now Smitth really running the league far more than in the past. The NFL really is to me one of he clear examples of workers asserting their right to fair treatment and gaining control over the league which they now receive well over half of the gross receipts even under the new deal. Except...they're not. Look at the pissy fit they are throwing now because they didn't get control in the last CBA. Desmith went for the highest $$$ ignoring a number of other issues. Now they are throwing their own players who were targets of bounties and the guys who gave the league information on it under the bus to try get more control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 I disagree with both of you guys. As a person who works under a CBA, I think the NFL's latest CBA is excellent for both sides. The players conceded issues in the area of total gross revenues but made important strides in working hours and working conditions. The players have way fewer padded practices, two-a-day workouts in training camp, far fewer OTAs, more time to spend with their families, etc. It was a great deal for both sides, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
please stop the pain Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 I don't get it. The most "egregious example", Nate Irving is supposed to have been signed for far too little money. It is then stated he finished the year with 4 tackles. I hardly think this is worth the $47,000 extra dollars he could have signed for. The article also states they should be getting as much as possible as their tenure may be very short in the league. I believe they should be paid more if they are good and effective. I am a strong believer in incentives in contracts. More money if you earn it. If I owned a roofing company, I wouldn't want to pay first year guys more simply because they might not work out or fall off the roof and not be able to work again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts