oldmanfan Posted June 6, 2018 Share Posted June 6, 2018 If I was on either side I'd move to guaranteed contracts but for shorter lengths and less money. Players would know they are going to get X amount but would still have an incentive to perform because of the short term and lower number. And by lower number I would say a QB gets 15-20 a year as opposed to 20-25 or the insane Cousins deal. Maybe negotiate to assign salary ranges by years of service and position. Players would have certainty of income, owners would have certainty of expense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted June 6, 2018 Share Posted June 6, 2018 10 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said: Not feasible. I disagree (a little). The bottoms of the rosters, say the bottom 15 or 20 guys, are basically UDFA/vet min replaceable. 3rd string OG's, DB's, LB's, RB's are dime a dozen. Sorry it was supposed to say “are” not “aren’t.” I’d agree with the bottom 3rd being somewhat replaceable. The reality is those guys are a part of that 215 of 100,000. Those guys are the ones are least likely to have a large chunk guaranteed. The point was the top guys will always get large chunks guaranteed. The OP was suggesting that it should be more incentive based to give you a pass on a bad contract. The reality is that it is heading the other way. The NFL is giving MORE guaranteed money to the top players now. The Kirk Cousins deal set a very interesting precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreggTX Posted June 6, 2018 Share Posted June 6, 2018 I disagree that all contracts should be entirely because that ignores other worthy factors such as risk of injury and life long consequences as well as the many hours of preparation required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted June 6, 2018 Share Posted June 6, 2018 I think including Mario on that list is extremely harsh. He had 3 excellent years for the Bills and played at a borderline elite level (over his first 3 years here only JJ Watt and Justin Houston had more sacks in the same period). Halfway through year 4 - Rex's first year - he did appear to quit on the team and I thought so at the time too. Then I saw him 'play' the next season for the Dolphins and I am not sure Mario ever really quit. I just think somewhere around that London game Mario hit the career wall. He was done. Maybe the heart wasn't quite as willing but I think it is beyond doubt the body was no longer fully able in any event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted June 6, 2018 Share Posted June 6, 2018 3 hours ago, EasternOHBillsFan said: Holding someone to a standard at work? Noooo... don't do that... LOL Funny. This irony of this post coming during work hours. This place is hopping during Monday - Friday 9a - 5p when most of us are working. During off hours this place is a ghost town. How many of us aren't allowed to post here during work hours? This whole topic is funny to me because the contracts are performance and incentive based. There are many incentives worked into current contracts and they are paid AFTER they accomplish something. The performance they are paid for already happened (see Dareus). Under the new CBA the hardest contract to get is the 2nd one. Players that have completed their rookie contract and are in line for a raise get squeezed by the rookies making peanuts. Further imagine playing DT and killing yourself, putting your body on the line every day, putting your future at risk, on a rookie deal. Kyle Williams made 468k and then 360k his first 2 years in the league. That second contract is the one that sets players up for life. I can very easily see the motivation to put yourself in harms way being greatly reduced once you sign a huge contract. Once that extra motivation is gone it isn't surprising to see players struggle imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted June 6, 2018 Share Posted June 6, 2018 5 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: Sorry it was supposed to say “are” not “aren’t.” I’d agree with the bottom 3rd being somewhat replaceable. The reality is those guys are a part of that 215 of 100,000. Those guys are the ones are least likely to have a large chunk guaranteed. The point was the top guys will always get large chunks guaranteed. The OP was suggesting that it should be more incentive based to give you a pass on a bad contract. The reality is that it is heading the other way. The NFL is giving MORE guaranteed money to the top players now. The Kirk Cousins deal set a very interesting precedent. I think the NFL FA market is one of the most interesting in sports, because it sometimes seems very whimsical and based off recency. Case Keenum, for example. 1 very good year for him and he got $25M GTD over two years. The Brocketship had 6-7 games of "decent" play and signed a 4 year deal, with $37M GTD in the first two years. To me, that's the market taking a step back, not forward. Then you have Sammy Watkins getting 3 years, $46M, $30M GTD. And Allen Robinson gets 3 years, $42M, $25M GTD. Now Sammy has slightly better numbers compared to Robinson, but Robinson missed basically a whole year on an ACL. Per game, Robinson has better numbers, and played with a mediocre QB on a mediocre offense his whole career (so did Sammy for most of it too). So why the difference in contract? To my eye, Robinson should've gotten paid more. Then there was that wave a few years back of QB "prove it" deals. Kaep, Tanny, Taylor all got big contracts with "outs." But that seems to have fallen to the wayside compared to front loaded deals. Bradford comes to mind as a guy given a once off payday, paid like a franchise QB for one year. It's odd, really. I think it's impossible to predict. To the OP's point, the wave of the future may be incentive-laden midlevel deals. Rather than paying a Manny Lawons type player more than everybody else, structure his deal so that he can EARN more than what everybody is offering. If he doesn't earn it, he makes the normal amount at market value. Could teams fill out their mid to bottom rosters better with deals like this? Everyone is offering 2 years at $2.2M AAV to a vet LB, but if you have 80+ tackles at the end of year one, you got a $800k bonus? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted June 6, 2018 Share Posted June 6, 2018 12 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said: I think the NFL FA market is one of the most interesting in sports, because it sometimes seems very whimsical and based off recency. Case Keenum, for example. 1 very good year for him and he got $25M GTD over two years. The Brocketship had 6-7 games of "decent" play and signed a 4 year deal, with $37M GTD in the first two years. To me, that's the market taking a step back, not forward. Then you have Sammy Watkins getting 3 years, $46M, $30M GTD. And Allen Robinson gets 3 years, $42M, $25M GTD. Now Sammy has slightly better numbers compared to Robinson, but Robinson missed basically a whole year on an ACL. Per game, Robinson has better numbers, and played with a mediocre QB on a mediocre offense his whole career (so did Sammy for most of it too). So why the difference in contract? To my eye, Robinson should've gotten paid more. Then there was that wave a few years back of QB "prove it" deals. Kaep, Tanny, Taylor all got big contracts with "outs." But that seems to have fallen to the wayside compared to front loaded deals. Bradford comes to mind as a guy given a once off payday, paid like a franchise QB for one year. It's odd, really. I think it's impossible to predict. To the OP's point, the wave of the future may be incentive-laden midlevel deals. Rather than paying a Manny Lawons type player more than everybody else, structure his deal so that he can EARN more than what everybody is offering. If he doesn't earn it, he makes the normal amount at market value. Could teams fill out their mid to bottom rosters better with deals like this? Everyone is offering 2 years at $2.2M AAV to a vet LB, but if you have 80+ tackles at the end of year one, you got a $800k bonus? Great post!! A lot of interesting thoughts!! One more trend that we are seeing seeing more and more of is young players replacing mediocire vets. The money isn’t going to the Marshall Newhouse’s of the world. They sign for a relatively low number or are replaced by late round picks and UDFAs. The money is becoming more top heavy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted June 6, 2018 Share Posted June 6, 2018 18 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: Great post!! A lot of interesting thoughts!! One more trend that we are seeing seeing more and more of is young players replacing mediocire vets. The money isn’t going to the Marshall Newhouse’s of the world. They sign for a relatively low number or are replaced by late round picks and UDFAs. The money is becoming more top heavy. Yep. But honestly, that makes the most sense to me. Ceilings over floors for the most part. Give me Robert Foster (the Bama WR idk if that's his name) as my $500k #6 WR and let me see if he can become something, rather than signing a 30 year old Andre Roberts type for $1M. I know they tried to combat that with cap relief for vets, but it's not gonna cut it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted June 6, 2018 Share Posted June 6, 2018 I wish this could be true. I pray they are never fully guaranteed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarleyNY Posted June 6, 2018 Share Posted June 6, 2018 5 hours ago, HappyDays said: I will never understand people that worry about a billionaire's money. Totally agree. Tons of other issues too. Although I’d consider going along with the OP if the returned money went to the fans who spent money on tickets, jerseys, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StHustle Posted June 6, 2018 Share Posted June 6, 2018 So should teams also be forced to pay more when players outperform their paygrade? You can't have it one way. There is a players union if you didn't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted June 6, 2018 Share Posted June 6, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, T master said: Muhammad Wilkerson, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Marcel Dareus, Mario Williams, the list goes on there are a ton of players that have gotten huge contracts & then seem to be content with just showing up & going through the motions then there are those that luck into the big contract like Fitz & then go back to being their old self & can't deliver, get cut & go on to collect 2 pay checks simultaneously, or remember Albert Haynesworth that dude just fell off the NFL planet & still got paid !! Haven't these owners learned ? Why isn't there any clauses in these huge contracts that specify that the player has to reach certain goals or incentives before hitting a certain pay & if they don't then they don't get the big money that way the team is more so insured that they will get something in return rather than the scenario that happens in a lot of these big contract signings that don't pan out ! The player works their butt off to be the best they can be then they get the big contract (now with huge guarantees) & then they get complacent or the team (like the Fitz deal) jumps way to fast & think they have their guy of the future give them the big pay day & then the player just isn't the guy they thought he was going to be & get hung for all that cash then wind up paying out the contract when the dude is playing for another team ? In the world as we know it if you don't do your job up to the expectations put in place then you get let go & you don't still collect a pay check ! If you work for a company & do a great job for that company you get raises and are expected to continue to do that job at the high level that you have set for that position which is the reason you earned the pay raise & if you don't continue that level of performance like in most jobs or in the military you get knocked down in rank or reprimanded with a loss of compensation in some way ! I get it in cases like Eric Woods situation, you play for a long time for a team sign a contract & while doing that job "Because of the job" you find out you have a medical condition that causes you to not be able to do that job then the team or company should have to pay out the contract . Especially in a sports based contract if that player has set a high standard for their play & get paid as such they should have to live up to or at least be that above average contributor to continue to make that huge pay or have incentives built into their contracts to continue to have them over achieve to make the big money in that contract so they don't just show up like some have done & collect a paycheck !! Or heck not even be there at all & collect 2 pay checks SIGN ME UP FOR THAT ONE !! ? I'm sure this has been talked about in the past so sorry if i bore you with this but i read a article this morning that prompted these thoughts !! GO BILLS !! There are incentive clauses worked into contracts that go beyond base salary. You seem to be against the players making what they're valued on in what is relatively a free market. Owners are making money. Fans are still attending and, most importantly, watching. And the networks can't seem to pay enough for the broadcast rights. So of course, you want the actual performer to be the one who gets the short end of the stick. (Excuse me, are you on the NCAA executive committee by chance?) Here's a better question, perhaps. Why are NFL contracts the only ones in pro sports that aren't entirely guaranteed? Is that fair? A case can be made one way or the other. But of course, you decide to go after the players on this one, asking them to risk everything with no certain guarantees. You seem to think many of these athletes have had it easy to get to where they are to make a living. They haven't. What is it, 90 percent of football players never make it out of college (I could be wrong on my numbers, so pardon me), and very few of them actually make it past their third season. But you're absolutely right, why should they be making all this money. They should be working for peanuts. Or, better still, making $25,000 a season like Gordie Howe did during much of the prime of his career. That's right, $25,000, while playing for an owner who at one point controlled two of the NHL six franchises. Was that fair, I dare to ask. Terrible, take. shrug. jw Edited June 6, 2018 by john wawrow 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted June 6, 2018 Share Posted June 6, 2018 (edited) I think your issue is valuation is established based on past performance and not tied to future performance. But contract values are absolutely performance based for the most part. just gotta know past performance isn’t necessarily always indicative of future performance, but the valuation system is heavily performance oriented... Edited June 6, 2018 by Over 29 years of fanhood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted June 6, 2018 Share Posted June 6, 2018 8 hours ago, T master said: Muhammad Wilkerson, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Marcel Dareus, Mario Williams, the list goes on there are a ton of players that have gotten huge contracts & then seem to be content with just showing up & going through the motions then there are those that luck into the big contract like Fitz & then go back to being their old self & can't deliver, get cut & go on to collect 2 pay checks simultaneously, or remember Albert Haynesworth that dude just fell off the NFL planet & still got paid !! play for a long time for a team sign a contract & while doing that job "Because of the job" you find out you have a medical condition that causes you to not be able to do that job then the team or company should have to pay out the contract . THAT ONE !! ? I'm sure this has been talked about in the past so sorry if i bore you with this but i read a article this morning that prompted these thoughts !! GO BILLS !! At no time did Fitzpatrick mail it in. I agree on Marcel Dareus, Mario Williams and Fat Albert Haynesworth but not Fitzpatrick. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zonabb Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 So your justification is the overpaid, underperforming players? What about the underpaid, over-performing players? In true GOP fashion that's OK because the company wins and the labor loses? Sh!t take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wily Dog Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 How about Ryan Shazier of the Steelers, about to sign a lifetime contract and gets injured. ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cba fan Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 6 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said: I think your issue is valuation is established based on past performance and not tied to future performance. But contract values are absolutely performance based for the most part. just gotta know past performance isn’t necessarily always indicative of future performance, but the valuation system is heavily performance oriented... agreed. The system to pay players 100% on performance ship has sailed. Founding fathers of NFL would have had to implement a system like that when they had all the power when league started. NFLPA union is too smart to give into this now. Even though NFL pays players on performance slightly with a payment made at end of year based on playing time and performance that NFL owners slipped in last time they "won" the CBA. I guess that could evolve over the years and make the paid for performance slowly come to be. This money counts towards salary cap and I suspect is something owners put in to guarantee they spend the proper amount of cap every year to avoid NFL players union litigation. The best system of course would be very simple. Rank all players on last year performance and playing time and pay them on a sliding scale.(age would be no factor) Spending all salary cap allowed. Rookies and first year players all play on min contracts(ideal) or draft slot pay(less ideal). If injury was a big factor previous year then pay the guy 80% of his take home for the next year just like workman's comp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iinii Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 12 hours ago, HappyDays said: I will never understand people that worry about a billionaire's money. Yes Sir! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 all contracts should be fully guaranteed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T master Posted June 7, 2018 Author Share Posted June 7, 2018 18 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said: The OP was suggesting that it should be more incentive based to give you a pass on a bad contract. The reality is that it is heading the other way. WOW some one that actually got the point from reading what was posted ... 1 out of 6o something that ain't bad ? Thank you KJ !!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts