Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from DuncanOrange. Show DuncanOrange's posts

    Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    Yeah, I get it.  By getting franchised you only have a one year deal, so if get hurt you may never get that big contract.  But it's not like they low ball you with the franchise tag.  If Peyton Manning gets franchised he'll make 23 million next year.  If he has a typical Manning type year, he'll be in the same position next year as a free agent.   Same thing goes for Mankins, if you can't work out a deal, take the franchise money and shut-up about it.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    In Response to Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?:
    [QUOTE]Yeah, I get it.  By getting franchised you only have a one year deal, so if get hurt you may never get that big contract.  But it's not like they low ball you with the franchise tag.  If Peyton Manning gets franchised he'll make 23 million next year.  If he has a typical Manning type year, he'll be in the same position next year as a free agent.   Same thing goes for Mankins, if you can't work out a deal, take the franchise money and shut-up about it.
    Posted by DuncanOrange[/QUOTE]

    I think it's absolutely disgusting that those rich/greedy NFL owners franchise ANY player, forcing them to make for 1 year the AVERAGE (can you imagine that?) of the top 5 salaries for that position?

    Oh, the audacity and gall of it all!

    Perhaps those highly educated and motivated "athletes" should tell the owners where they can go and put those diplomas earned from those higher bastions of education to good/practical use. Why be sullied having to settle for $23M for 1 year when they can clearly make at least that much eating Oreos?

    DOES GREED HAVE NO BOUNDS?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    On one level it does bother me. Anybody scoffing at guaranteed millions seems foolish when I bust my hump working just to make ends meet. But I understand them wanting the security. Most of the players who complain publicly probably want out of their situation. Maybe they think it's good for bargaining. I suppose they have the right, after all, I'd want to get the big deal when most others who've reached FA have. I think it's a bigger distraction as there's no real football happening and it gets more exposure. But I do feel like you do sometimes. An eight-figure salary sounds sweet to me, even if it's only for a year!
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    As has been pointed out, it's hard to argue with the kind of money a franchise guy gets, but at what point do we simply admit that there's no such thing as an NFL contract? If a guy underperforms, he gets cut and his "contract" isn't worth the paper it's printed on. If he outplays his contract, teams indenture him beyond the length of his contract with "transition" and "franchise" tags, limiting his ability to market himself to the highest bidder, or to simply move on to greener pastures . . .   so that once again, even after he fulfills his "contract," he's still got little to no leverage.

    I'm not sure it's enough to simply say that the money involved is too much to be sneezed at, and simply call it good.



     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?:
    [QUOTE]As has been pointed out, it's hard to argue with the kind of money a franchise guy gets, but at what point do we simply admit that there's no such thing as an NFL contract? If a guy underperforms, he gets cut and his "contract" isn't worth the paper it's printed on. If he outplays his contract, teams indenture him beyond the length of his contract with "transition" and "franchise" tags, limiting his ability to market himself to the highest bidder, or to simply move on to greener pastures . . .   so that once again, even after he fulfills his "contract," he's still got little to no leverage. I'm not sure it's enough to simply say that the money involved is too much to be sneezed at, and simply call it good.
    Posted by p-mike[/QUOTE]


    Absolutely agree with this.  Guys should play out their contracts, but once they've done that they should be free to negotiate with any team for their services just like you and I can negotiate with any employer.  


     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from 4Adam13. Show 4Adam13's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised? : Absolutely agree with this.  Guys should play out their contracts, but once they've done that they should be free to negotiate with any team for their services just like you and I can negotiate with any employer.  
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    If they did away with franchise tags and RFA's, there would need to be something to force players to play out their contract. That's the only way I see the owners making the concession.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised? : If they did away with franchise tags and RFA's, there would need to be something to force players to play out their contract. That's the only way I see the owners making the concession.
    Posted by 4Adam13[/QUOTE]


    Players are forced to play out their contracts --- or quit.  There's no way you can stop a player from holding out.  Forced labor is illegal.  But you don't have to pay the player and when the player returns, he's still obligated to fulfill the contract.  That's how it works now and I don't think it would change.  I think with shorter contracts, though, you'd have fewer holdouts because the player would get a chance to renegotiate every few years.  The biggest problem, I think, is with these 5 and 6 year rookie contracts. In a league where careers are short (10 or 12 years is long), being tied up for half your career in a rookie contract (which you weren't able to negotiate in complete freedom because of the draft and which may be a bad one for you) is bound to cause disputes.  

    Fans all want to see their favorite players stay with the team. I understand that. But our desire to see our players stay needs to be balanced with protecting the freedom of players to seek employment where they want like everyone else in America can. 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rerun85. Show Rerun85's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    I was sick of hearing it but I just don't listen anymore. I don't care who's mad or who's underpaid. These guys were put on earth for my entertainment purposes and nothing more. Let them cry to their team mates. They can commiserate about the abuses they've endured at the hands of the owners.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    Don't we all wish we could do this to our employers and not fear being unemployed in which the next "company" uses what you did to your previous employer as a reason not to hire you?  Unlike we "regular folks", the elite players who get franchised have many teams willing to fess up the $$$$ and pay them darn good to play for them.  But, alas, we are just fans who wish.....
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised? : Players are forced to play out their contracts --- or quit.  There's no way you can stop a player from holding out.  Forced labor is illegal.  But you don't have to pay the player and when the player returns, he's still obligated to fulfill the contract.  That's how it works now and I don't think it would change.  I think with shorter contracts, though, you'd have fewer holdouts because the player would get a chance to renegotiate every few years.  The biggest problem, I think, is with these 5 and 6 year rookie contracts. In a league where careers are short (10 or 12 years is long), being tied up for half your career in a rookie contract (which you weren't able to negotiate in complete freedom because of the draft and which may be a bad one for you) is bound to cause disputes.   Fans all want to see their favorite players stay with the team. I understand that. But our desire to see our players stay needs to be balanced with protecting the freedom of players to seek employment where they want like everyone else in America can. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    Shorter years for rookie contracts I can understand. Esp if a rookie wag scale comes into play. I'm thinking a 3 year limit with 1 year RFA. The 1 year of RFA, dependant on what level they want to place on them, would be worth double their last season salary or you could have an arbitration situation like in baseball.

    However, Vets want long term. The cry in most negotiations is that they want more years with more guarantied. Hence why Vet's get so mad at getting tag. Otherwise getting paid as a top 3 for a year would be ideal for most players.

    The thing about it is that players are assets to the owners. You can't think of players as ordinary workers because they aren't. They are more or less investment that owners can take great risks in. What I mean is look at the amount of money tossed into players that fail or get injured (though the full contract can be torn up there is still big amounts of guarantied money). Without the owners ability to tag and get something out of investments that pay off it could end up being a losing proposition to them. See the NBA and NHL for example

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised? : Shorter years for rookie contracts I can understand. Esp if a rookie wag scale comes into play. I'm thinking a 3 year limit with 1 year RFA. The 1 year of RFA, dependant on what level they want to place on them, would be worth double their last season salary or you could have an arbitration situation like in baseball. However, Vets want long term. The cry in most negotiations is that they want more years with more guarantied. Hence why Vet's get so mad at getting tag. Otherwise getting paid as a top 3 for a year would be ideal for most players. The thing about it is that players are assets to the owners. You can't think of players as ordinary workers because they aren't. They are more or less investment that owners can take great risks in. What I mean is look at the amount of money tossed into players that fail or get injured (though the full contract can be torn up there is still big amounts of guarantied money). Without the owners ability to tag and get something out of investments that pay off it could end up being a losing proposition to them. See the NBA and NHL for example
    Posted by PatsEng[/QUOTE]

    The three year contract with a fourth year of restricted free agency might work too. 

    Long contracts never really work in a player's favor, since it locks the player in at fixed price.  All the risk is on the player.  If the player underperforms, the owner cuts him, ending the deal. If the player overperforms, he's stuck playing out the contract even though his market value may now be above the contract salary.  What players really want, though, are big signing bonuses.  So they often trade length to get more upfront guaranteed money. If you take away the long contracts, then they have less ability to bargain for the big signing bonuses.  In my recommendations, I made an exception for "high value contracts" that would allow owners and players to continue to work out deals that trade guaranteed money for length.  But for lower paid players, I think the restriction on length is better for the player and fairer, given that contracts are unguaranteed. 

    As far as the investment a team makes . . . I'm not sure I quite buy that (it's not like players--especially the more expensive top picks--come into the league not able to play). If the team has made an "investment" and the player is working out, why not pay the player? Owners are only taking risks if they give players big signing bonuses.  But in those cases, I'm agreeing contracts should be allowed to go longer.      

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from 4Adam13. Show 4Adam13's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised? : Players are forced to play out their contracts --- or quit.  There's no way you can stop a player from holding out.  Forced labor is illegal.  But you don't have to pay the player and when the player returns, he's still obligated to fulfill the contract.  That's how it works now and I don't think it would change.  I think with shorter contracts, though, you'd have fewer holdouts because the player would get a chance to renegotiate every few years.  The biggest problem, I think, is with these 5 and 6 year rookie contracts. In a league where careers are short (10 or 12 years is long), being tied up for half your career in a rookie contract (which you weren't able to negotiate in complete freedom because of the draft and which may be a bad one for you) is bound to cause disputes.   Fans all want to see their favorite players stay with the team. I understand that. But our desire to see our players stay needs to be balanced with protecting the freedom of players to seek employment where they want like everyone else in America can. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    There are ideas to force players to play out their contracts. If they sit out, how about they lose a whole year of elgibility. How about in addition to the money they are losing, they have to also pay into the organization. Yeah, I know, the players would never go for that, but there needs to be repercussions. Before you know it, every tom, dick, and harry who thinks they are underpaid will be holding out.

    They are ones that signed that contract, they are obligated to adhere to it. I got to respectfully disargree with you prolate. You are comparing the NFL to corporate America. I don't know of a corporate job where an employee can refuse to show up for work, even if he is a top performer, and stay out until he gets a bigger payday. 99% of companies would tell him or her to leave and hit the road. You think that company would hire him again? You think that companies competitors would want to touch him? The differences are obvious and I think it is ridiculous to say the players deserve the same "rights" of every common schmoe. They enter into the agreements willfully, no one is sticking a gun to their heads. They are welcomed to go play in the CFL. They have options. Fact is, these guys want large pay days. They sign contracts to play a game. When they get their panties in a wad because someone is making more than them, they hurt their teams, owners, fans, and own wallets by sitting out. The Pats were not able to recoup money from Adlius Thomas when he under performed, why should Mankins be able to hold out and force the Pats hand because he "thinks" he deserves more. Maybe he should have performed better to begin with and he would have gotten a better contract. Can't blame the organization that paid him what everyone thought was a fair deal to begin with.
     
    MLB would still be the national past time if it weren't for the 95 strike. The CBA got out of control and the owners, in that sport, have no one to blame but themselves. Of course, I know, steroids hurt the game as well, but the MLB CBA was one of the biggest disasters in the history of organized sports. The NFL has been able to avoid it because of good management (even though I dislike RG). The only thing I really agree with the players on are the health benefits for retired players. They need to be taken care of.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    some of these guys will have a hard time getting out of bed in 10 years. concussions and the like will shorten their life expectancy as well. I understand their point of security playing on a one year deal. If you figure that a guy 35 years old is over the hill by football standards. Its a lot of money for the one year deal but like Manning, he wants his coin and the security of a long term contract. I personally feel that if a player holds out then he shouldnt get credited for a season if he comes back by week 10. It should be by something less then that like week 4. If I missed a quarter year at work I bet I wouldnt get a raise if I even had a job to come back too.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    @4Adam13

    Mankins did play out his contract--without complaining. When he became a restricted free agent, he refused to sign the tender.  There's nothing wrong with that.  He didn't have a contract after 2009 and he didn't sign a new contract until he came back mid season in 2010.  He's not under contract now. 

    The problem with the Mankins situation was that the CBA has these restricted free agency rules and franchise tag rules that prevent a guy like Mankins from freely renegotiating a contract after his regular contract expires. That's what I want to get rid of.  Guys should play out their contracts, but once they've played them out, they should be free to negotiate with all teams for a new one.

    Guys holding out when they actually have contracts isn't so much the issue.  It's the rules that restrict guys from negotiating once their contracts expire that I think should go.  

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised? :  I got to respectfully disargree with you prolate. You are comparing the NFL to corporate America. I don't know of a corporate job where an employee can refuse to show up for work, even if he is a top performer, and stay out until he gets a bigger payday. 99% of companies would tell him or her to leave and hit the road. You think that company would hire him again? You think that companies competitors would want to touch him? [/QUOTE]

    True--but the difference is that NFL players have rare talent that is in great demand.  Most employees are a lot easier to replace.  In a free country, people with talent should be able to negotiate for a lot of money. CEOs do it all the time. Goodell gets paid between 9 million and 11 million a year.  What's wrong with football players doing the same?

    [QUOTE] The differences are obvious and I think it is ridiculous to say the players deserve the same "rights" of every common schmoe. They enter into the agreements willfully, no one is sticking a gun to their heads. They are welcomed to go play in the CFL. They have options. [/QUOTE]

    Actually, as long as there is a CBA, no one (owners or players) is entering into agreements in complete freedom.  The CBA governs what they can do and limits what they can do.  That's why getting a good CBA is important.  One thing the CBA does (to help the owners) is significantly restrict player freedom to negotiate with other employers.  In some ways, the CBA helps the owners more than it does the players.  Maybe the scariest thing for the owners would be a real free market where players and their representatives could negotiate their own agreements and bargain freely with every team. 


    [QUOTE]Fact is, these guys want large pay days. [/QUOTE]

    That's the American way isn't it?  

    [QUOTE] They sign contracts to play a game. When they get their panties in a wad because someone is making more than them, they hurt their teams, owners, fans, and own wallets by sitting out. [/QUOTE]

    They should fulfill their contracts--but the CBA should be designed to prevent it from being possible for players to get locked into long contracts that they signed when they didn't have full freedom to negotiate.  Rookie contracts are a prime example. Most of the actual holdouts are from long rookie contracts.

    Posted by 4Adam13[/QUOTE]


     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    What franchise tag?

    http://views.washingtonpost.com/theleague/nflnewsfeed/2011/02/union-franchise-player-tags-not-valid-if-labor-deal-expires.html
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    yes. but they are concerned about job security.

    what they should do is put themselves in the common man's shoes, who could never dream to make 10 million dollars in his lifetime,
     
    a football player makes 10 million in one year which could sustain him a lifetime.

    i can't sympathize with them on the franchise tag, but i do with other matters.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from harleyroadking11. Show harleyroadking11's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    Come on Kansas lighten up they have children to fed and in Cromartie's situation 
    children and children and children and children........Cool
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    Here's a thought.  How about anyone making over $50K a year isn't allowed to be in a union.

    Unions were formed to protect workers who were being taken advantage of.  Now a days unions are mostly greedy organizations more interested in collecting dues and making sure their members pay $0 towards there obnoxious benefits packages.

    In case anyone missed this one....Bloomberg is trying to end/cut the fluffy PENSION BONUSES  (something I never even knew existed) that Retired Police and Firefighters get.

    1) They get 2/3 pay after 20 years.

    2) There is some great union rule that allows them to base their pension $ on the ave. of their last few years pay....so of course they all work huge amounts of overtime their last few year, wink - wink.

    3) They get to collect the full amount immediately.  They don't have to wait till they are 65.

    4) They collect Pension bonuses of up to $15k a year on top of what they are already screwing the Tax payer for. 



    GO Unions!!!!! 

    Keep raping the Tax Payers.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?:
    [QUOTE]Cromartie's situation  Posted by harleyroadking11[/QUOTE]

    LMAO on this nut job
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?:
    [QUOTE] Now a days unions are mostly greedy organizations Posted by tcal2-[/QUOTE]

    i would have to agree, they have pretty caused many manufacuring jobs to leave the USA.

    As for the players union, they pretty much need it because of greedy owners and because of the short life cycle they have due to injury.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised? : i would have to agree, they have pretty caused many manufacuring jobs to leave the USA. As for the players union, they pretty much need it because of greedy owners and because of the short life cycle they have due to injury.
    Posted by kansaspatriot[/QUOTE]

    kp, no one is forcing these people to play football in the first place, they could always go to their fall back career that they studied for in college......Prison.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from paparui. Show paparui's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    Mankins played out his contract for 5 years then was restricted FA when his deal was up. The guy played by the rules when he was underpaid for his performance for 5 years and still wasn't allowed to seek another employer when his contract was up. Now they want to franchise him which would prevent him from seeking another employer that would gladly pay him more with a big signing bonus for many years. If you ask me I'd do the same thing he has if it meant I had the freedom to seek the most money I can for my line of work. If you were very valuable to your employer they wouldn't kick you to the curb which in Mankins case he is a very valuable player that every team would sign if they could.

    If you look at it from a players perspective the guy does all the hard labor and risks his future health for a team and they can't guarantee him a long term deal. What's a one year deal if the guy blows his knee out in week 2. Is the team gonna give him another contract if he can't do his job effectively anymore after injury? Hell f****** no they won't so why are you blaming Mankins for the stand he's making. People are just selfish individuals that could care less about what happens with a player. The guy worked hard to get to where he's at and he wants an opportunity to seek out more money for his services like any person in real life does when seeking a job on their own.

    I get the Pat's reasoning for not wanting to give out a big long term deal to a OG but Mankins has every right to refuse signing a new contract that he doesn't like. I would have a problem if it was a player that doesn't play up to a contract and asks for more but Mankins has earned a new deal either in NE or somewhere else. I don't wanna hear about the Pats past offer cause I don't remember any official guaranteed salary announced on that deal. For all I know it could have be 10 Million guaranteed out of the 49 million which would have been laughable compared to what the guy could get in the open market. I want him to resign with the Pats but the Pats tend to low ball players all the time which is why they tend to lose some talent but manage to keep some depth at low salaries.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from hagen910. Show hagen910's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    no, I don't blame the players.  For me its about losing the chance to become a free agent and choose where you want to play and live. Forget the money side.  Its great for the game, but if I were a player I would want the freedom to choose where I play after my 5 years to the team that drafted me.  You and I can choose so why can't a player.  The NFL tries to make it up by giving you a big one year deal
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from 4Adam13. Show 4Adam13's posts

    Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?

    In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anyone Else Sick Of Players Complaining About Being Franchised? : True--but the difference is that NFL players have rare talent that is in great demand.  Most employees are a lot easier to replace.  In a free country, people with talent should be able to negotiate for a lot of money. CEOs do it all the time. Goodell gets paid between 9 million and 11 million a year.  What's wrong with football players doing the same? Actually, as long as there is a CBA, no one (owners or players) is entering into agreements in complete freedom.  The CBA governs what they can do and limits what they can do.  That's why getting a good CBA is important.  One thing the CBA does (to help the owners) is significantly restrict player freedom to negotiate with other employers.  In some ways, the CBA helps the owners more than it does the players.  Maybe the scariest thing for the owners would be a real free market where players and their representatives could negotiate their own agreements and bargain freely with every team.  That's the American way isn't it?   They should fulfill their contracts--but the CBA should be designed to prevent it from being possible for players to get locked into long contracts that they signed when they didn't have full freedom to negotiate.  Rookie contracts are a prime example. Most of the actual holdouts are from long rookie contracts. Posted by 4Adam13[/QUOTE]
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    Prolate, I stand corrected. For some reason, I thought Mankins was under the last year of his deal last year. I don't agree with the RFA status either.

    Again however, I must disagree with you on the pay. These players are signing contacts whether it is for 3, 4, 5, 6, or whatever years. Because they negotiate and agree to the terms in which they signed, it isn't right for them sit out on their contracts, i.e. Revis.  Players are negotiating their salaries. I don't understand why you think they don't. Brady negotiated his This is the whole preface behind executive compensation and changing the way heads of large institutions, especially those receiving bailout dollars, are being paid. If they don't live up to the details of the contracts they sign, they don't get paid. It's called tying compensation into performance and is becoming more popular

    I certainly wouldn't label everyone in the league an "in demand rare talent". I look at the very best players and compare them to the best stock brokers, the best consultants, or anyone else who are at the top of their field. What if a stock broker, who signs a contact, ends up feeling as though he should receive larger commissions from the company. He threatens to walk and take his customers with him, even though his contract says his customers are the property of the company. What would happen? It's no different than an NFL player not living up to his contract. They are both legal guidelines under Labor law. And they are entering into it in complete freedom. If they don't like the terms, go play in the CFL. They don't have to agree to the terms and sign the contract. Hypothetically, I want to be a cop for XYZ agency. They operate under a contract. I don't like the terms. I think I should be paid X, have Y for benefits, and Z in other compensation. The contract remains what it is. Whose responsibility is it if I sign it? Sorry Prolate, but I simply don't feel any sympathy for these players who make millions of dollars and agree to the contracts that THEY sign.

    Ok, get rid of RFA's. I could live with that. But there has to be a rookie salary cap. There has to be a league salary cap. There has to be draft compensation for people who are traded or walk.
     

Share