Are agents the cause of holdouts (1 Viewer)

[Hastur]

This might belong in the FFA, but I figure most of the 'hardcore' football fans would be better prepared mentally to handle this discussion.

Do agents persuade players to hold out for more money?

Do agents and players decide together it's the best route?

Do players demand more money?

 

[Deuceman]

Player

 

[SSOG]

I don't know whether players or agents are more commonly the proximate cause of holdouts, but I believe the ultimate cause is a non-guaranteed salary structure. In sports with fully guaranteed contracts, you don't see players holding out.

The current NFL bargaining agreement is very owner-centric with respect to contracts. Front offices have the ability to reduce a player's compensation at any time by simply cutting the player. Players, on the other hand, have no avenue to increase their compensation once a contract has been signed, which means their only recourse is to hold out for a new contract. If you either removed an owner's ability to reduce a player's contract at will (such as in baseball and basketball), or you created contract-slotting rules and formulas to determine maximum contracts (like in basketball), or you gave the players a course of action to increase their own salary (such as arbitration in baseball), then the number of holdouts would drop substantially.

Of course, part of the reason why the NFL doesn't have any of those things is because the players don't want them. Fully guaranteed contracts would reduce the size of all contracts (you think Vick ever would have gotten $100 million if it had been fully guaranteed?) and contract caps limit a player's earning potential. I think both sides are actually pretty happy with the current system. Holdouts are just a side effect of the current system rather than an indication of a problem.

 

[Hastur]

I don't know whether players or agents are more commonly the proximate cause of holdouts, but I believe the ultimate cause is a non-guaranteed salary structure. In sports with fully guaranteed contracts, you don't see players holding out.

The current NFL bargaining agreement is very owner-centric with respect to contracts. Front offices have the ability to reduce a player's compensation at any time by simply cutting the player. Players, on the other hand, have no avenue to increase their compensation once a contract has been signed, which means their only recourse is to hold out for a new contract. If you either removed an owner's ability to reduce a player's contract at will (such as in baseball and basketball), or you created contract-slotting rules and formulas to determine maximum contracts (like in basketball), or you gave the players a course of action to increase their own salary (such as arbitration in baseball), then the number of holdouts would drop substantially.

Of course, part of the reason why the NFL doesn't have any of those things is because the players don't want them. Fully guaranteed contracts would reduce the size of all contracts (you think Vick ever would have gotten $100 million if it had been fully guaranteed?) and contract caps limit a player's earning potential. I think both sides are actually pretty happy with the current system. Holdouts are just a side effect of the current system rather than an indication of a problem.

So, what percentage of the contract amount is an ego thing and what part is money?

 

[Deuceman]

Bottom line if a player tells the agent he wants to be in camp by X date he should be there, if not find another agent that will get you in camp. I'm sure this is discussed during the recruiting process by players for agents. I understand the agent wanting to drive the market for his player to get the best deal but at the end of the day, IMO, the player controls it.

 

[Hastur]

Bottom line if a player tells the agent he wants to be in camp by X date he should be there, if not find another agent that will get you in camp. I'm sure this is discussed during the recruiting process by players for agents. I understand the agent wanting to drive the market for his player to get the best deal but at the end of the day, IMO, the player controls it.

Here's my point: The player thinks he controls it. The player sails through school. The agent specializes in communication, sales, persuasion, and influence.

 

[SSOG]

So, what percentage of the contract amount is an ego thing and what part is money?

Realistically speaking, it's almost entirely an ego thing. The human mind can't even comprehend the figures involved when you're talking about the difference between $6 million a year and $12 million a year. Either figure is an obscene wad of cash well beyond our capacity to visualize. The only way for us to begin to compare $6 million to $12 million is for us to compare what $6 million gets you vs. what $12 million gets you- i.e. to compare assets instead of dollar signs. NFL players know that $12 million gets you Peyton Manning and $6 million gets you Chad Pennington (or whoever it is in the league making $6 mil a year right now), so they judge their value not by the quantity of the dollars being presented, but by what recent market transactions suggest is a comparable asset.

 

[Pickle Rody]

Don't take this the wrong way GG, but when I saw this thread I knew we'd see a lengthy post form you eventually.

 

[Catbird]

I think agents make 90% of the decisions for their players, as I think lawyers do for clients, doctors do for patients and financial planners tend to for investors (although perhaps less in the latter instance because they are representing people generally with more knowledge and familiarity with the situation).

Football players play and understand football. They want as much money as they can get, but generally have far less comfort with and understanding of how those figures are reached and how to get there. That's why they hire and handsomely pay guys agents who do. This changes some over time and contracts, but I don't think most players ever understand the intricacies of the system any more than someone involved in a traffic accident understands how the legal system works or someone with a disease understands treatment ramifications.

Even for the best-intended 'experts,' it is natural to arrive at an understanding of the best way to address a situation to get the best result. This can be based on what has worked before in similar situations, on schooling, on advice from someone you trust, on something read ... or just on what you know and what logically seems like the best path. And given that knowledge, anything the player (or client or patient) wants to do that is significantly different looks like a poor or misguided decision probably leading to a worse result. Agents don't want to deliver worse results, so they steer players to the course they feel is best. I think the agent ends up calling the shots based on a belief as to what they think wwwwll deliver the best result - although they may lay it out to the player as a choice, explained so that he thinks he is making the decision, but based on the agent's explanation of what will and won't work (which carries their decision in the explanation itself). I don't doubt that a player may say, 'Get me into camp, on time and on the best deal you can,' but I think the agent still makes the calls on how all of that happens and what path gets taken - even if the player feels like he fully understands and is making the choice (which is technically his exclusive right).

But I don't think its an accident that Rosenhaus players are ten times more likely to hold out than anyone else's (although a player's selection of Rosenhaus might corrrelate highly with a willngness to do so).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Bottom line if a player tells the agent he wants to be in camp by X date he should be there, if not find another agent that will get you in camp.

A player should never tell his agent that. It hamstrings the agent.It would be appropriate for a player to tell his agent that he really values being in camp on time, and that he's willing to sacrifice a certain amount of money to make it happen. But to give a hard date, and completely take away one option (holding out), really limits the agent's ability to be effective. Why hire an agent if you're not going to let him do his job?To address the original question, I think the poll choices are flawed. Where are the choices for the team's GM or owner?The real answer is that all negotiations are to some extent a game of chicken. The GM and the agent are waiting for the other guy to swerve first. It's not the fault of either one, necessarily; it's just the nature of negotiations. Don't hate the player (or the agent); hate the game.

 

[Truman]

(although a player's selection of Rosenhaus might corrrelate highly with a willngness to do so).

Bingo. Rosenhaus is experienced in those types of negotiations. He's dealt with superstar holdouts before. It's his clients who decide what they want him to do and he just follows their wishes for the most part. This isn't a Poston-like situation where they're getting in the ears of black superstars and telling them how much they're worth.

 

[Deuceman]

Bottom line if a player tells the agent he wants to be in camp by X date he should be there, if not find another agent that will get you in camp.

A player should never tell his agent that. It hamstrings the agent.It would be appropriate for a player to tell his agent that he really values being in camp on time, and that he's willing to sacrifice a certain amount of money to make it happen. But to give a hard date, and completely take away one option (holding out), really limits the agent's ability to be effective. Why hire an agent if you're not going to let him do his job?To address the original question, I think the poll choices are flawed. Where are the choices for the team's GM or owner?The real answer is that all negotiations are to some extent a game of chicken. The GM and the agent are waiting for the other guy to swerve first. It's not the fault of either one, necessarily; it's just the nature of negotiations. Don't hate the player (or the agent); hate the game.

My point is this.....IMO, Sam Bradford really does not need an agent to get a deal done. He can look at what Stafford got last year and take the same deal. Would he be in camp on time? Yes. Will he and the Rams be happy? Yes. Would this be good for the union? I don't know and it may not matter, why? It may be a salary cap in the next CBA and all 1st round rookie deal could be slotted.

 

[Faust]

It seems pretty clear after 18 votes:

Agent or player

Agent [ 4 ] ** [23.53%]

Player [ 4 ] ** [23.53%]

It depends [ 4 ] ** [23.53%]

Neither [ 1 ] ** [5.88%]

Both [ 4 ] ** [23.53%]

 

[coolnerd]

It seems pretty clear after 18 votes:Agent or playerAgent [ 4 ] ** [23.53%]Player [ 4 ] ** [23.53%]It depends [ 4 ] ** [23.53%]Neither [ 1 ] ** [5.88%]Both [ 4 ] ** [23.53%]

and this is probably accurate.

 

[Chargers86]

I am thinking both, but the agent influences it the most. He basically says if you don't hold out I can guarantee you up to X. However, if you are willing to sit out for a few weeks I can get you up to Y. Obviously he does his usual sales pitch about taking care of your family now because there are no guarantees..blah blah blah. It's in the agents interest to have his player hold out because it sets a precedent for future negotiations with GM's that he is willing to have his client sit out. So don't bother with a lowball offer if you want my client for TC.

 

[coolnerd]

http://www.xtrapointfootball.com/201005283...the-moneyq.html

Andre Johnson and why it maybe a good idea to have an agent.

 

[spider321]

Players like to try to hide behind their agents, and agents are more than willing to take the blame for the players they represent, but the agents work for the players.

If you answered "Agent", you are incorrect.

 

[fatness]

The poll needs a "team" choice.

 

[39407]

Players like to try to hide behind their agents, and agents are more than willing to take the blame for the players they represent, but the agents work for the players.

If you answered "Agent", you are incorrect.

As a player would you insist on some number you just pulled out of your butt, or would you let the agent do his job and trust that he knows what he's doing?I'm not calling you out here, but there's more to it than simply "you are incorrect".

 

[coolnerd]

Don't take this the wrong way GG, but when I saw this thread I knew we'd see a lengthy post form you eventually.

I came back in here expressly because I was enjoying that part of the conversasion. Oh well.

 

[TheWheel]

It is really situation oriented although, the league, teams, players, and agents all have implications.

The league salary cap makes contracts and distributing money an efficient way a must. Also, the way that contracts are set up also assist in this.

Teams are at blame in situations where a player is underpaid (as determined by the players production.) Chris Johnson for instance, has not been rewarded for his ability to produce right out of school. The fact that he was drafted low financially and produces so much, he deserves a new contract. Especially at a position where you can fall off in an instant, he should get a new contract and has every right to sit out.

Players and agents are kind of together. An agent can convince a player he is worth more than he is and create problems. The player who wants long term security is also at fault. Andre Johnson wanted a big, long contract but failed to realize that the more money teams get to play with, the more players are going to get paid. He and his advisors are at fault in his case. Asomugha's contract is a great contract for any elite player--he gets paid a lot of money, he writes a new contract after couple of years, and cashes in again with higher elite rates. Johnson is stuck in his deal and rightly so.

I'd say the fairest contract to prevent holdouts would be an intensely incentive laden one (with a salary) with on the field performance dictating the payment scale. You would never have to worry about people not trying (they wouldn't get paid) and it would make people show up for camp (as a better prepared player would produce more).

 

[Two Deep]

Agents; typical lawyer stuff, the more the player makes the more the agent gets. So the agent cons the player into holding out as long as possible to try and leverage as much money as possible for himself. I garauntee salaries and holdouts would be way down if you remove the agents.

 

[FUBAR]

Agents; typical lawyer stuff, the more the player makes the more the agent gets. So the agent cons the player into holding out as long as possible to try and leverage as much money as possible for himself. I garauntee salaries and holdouts would be way down if you remove the agents.

yes they would, which is why the players need agents. Owners aren't blameless here, neither is the union for creating this situation.

 

[Canuckleheads]

I voted neither.

In the end, its up to the owners to sign the paychecks.

It really isn't more complicated than that.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

To address the original question, I think the poll choices are flawed. Where are the choices for the team's GM or owner?

Agreed. There are two sides to a salary negotiation, and this poll is missing one of them (unless the team is included under "other", in which case it is still a bit flawed).

 

[CaptainHook]

why isnt one of the choices "the way contracts are structured"

 

[SSOG]

Agents; typical lawyer stuff, the more the player makes the more the agent gets. So the agent cons the player into holding out as long as possible to try and leverage as much money as possible for himself. I garauntee salaries and holdouts would be way down if you remove the agents.

Yeah, the agents CON the players into signing bigger contracts (thus getting the agent more money). I'm sure every player who has held out is saying to himself "man, I wanted to sign for $10 million a year but my agent totally scammed me into signing a deal worth $11 million a year. What a sleazy sack of bird droppings."The only way for an agent to get more money is for an agent to get his client more money. There's no "con" involved- it's just a case of two parties' interests aligning.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

As someone else mentioned, the agents work for the players, and can be fired at any time. They can also be directed to do something specific or be given parameters to work within. The playe's don't even have to have agents at all if they don't want to. If they want the most money possible it's probably a good idea in most cases, but again - it's all completely up to the player.

I don't generally blame agents or players for doing what they feel is necessary, but in the end the responsibility is almost by definition the player's (in terms of holdouts, of course there are two sides to every negotiation). The agents are trying to get the max dollars for both themselves and their clients, but it doesn't HAVE to be that way.

 

[Reaper]

I blame the Agent.

Just about everyone who posts here (lets assume Salary cap stands)... Realizes that an NFL team operates under a salary cap. With that, we all understand that all the pieces of the pie have to fit, There's a limit to what a player can make while playing for a competitive team. If a player wants to go out and get max money on a team where he's the only star then they should say that. The comment should be "I'm all about money, I don't care about making my salary work for THIS team and I'm willing to be on one of the worst teams in the league for MORE money"

How about "I fully understand the business of the NFL and I'm personally looking at my teams roster trying to come up with a reasonable salary that leaves room for me to have talented teammates get paid as well".

What I hear from players today is "I did everything asked of me and I should get what I deserve"

That's Agent Brainwashing..... That's not reality.....

What you deserve has to be in context of what all you buddies and team mates are making if you want to win with that team....

You can't ##### and moan about a team not paying your buddies when you're demanding to be the highest paid at a position...

And why would a team ever be labeld "Cheap" or "Not looking out for their players" when they have to make decision based on a cap... Everyone is basically spending the same. If a team blows off a few players then I got news for ya - The team decided that player wasn't worth the money and possibly had a new guy to take over SO THEY CAN PAY THE BIG GUYS WHAT THEY DEMAND!!!!

 

[Two Deep]

Agents; typical lawyer stuff, the more the player makes the more the agent gets. So the agent cons the player into holding out as long as possible to try and leverage as much money as possible for himself. I garauntee salaries and holdouts would be way down if you remove the agents.

Yeah, the agents CON the players into signing bigger contracts (thus getting the agent more money). I'm sure every player who has held out is saying to himself "man, I wanted to sign for $10 million a year but my agent totally scammed me into signing a deal worth $11 million a year. What a sleazy sack of bird droppings."The only way for an agent to get more money is for an agent to get his client more money. There's no "con" involved- it's just a case of two parties' interests aligning.

Agent Eugene Parker: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...nt-to-hold-out/Let's see if Suh holds-out. He wants to get in there and play lets see if Parker honors that.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

Agents; typical lawyer stuff, the more the player makes the more the agent gets. So the agent cons the player into holding out as long as possible to try and leverage as much money as possible for himself. I garauntee salaries and holdouts would be way down if you remove the agents.

The question is whether the player's net salary would be lower. Generally, I think it would still be lower which is why they use the agents.

My point is this.....

IMO, Sam Bradford really does not need an agent to get a deal done. He can look at what Stafford got last year and take the same deal. Would he be in camp on time? Yes. Will he and the Rams be happy? Yes. Would this be good for the union? I don't know and it may not matter, why? It may be a salary cap in the next CBA and all 1st round rookie deal could be slotted.

I've wondered about this in the past. Withe the top guys, would they be better off without an agent on their first contract. Could they net more without an agent? Anyone know what the agent cut is on the top players?

 

[dhockster]

I think holdouts happen more because the Agent is most concerned about getting the max dollar amount for his client (and himself since he gets a % of the contract) right now. While that seems to benefit both the player and the Agent (getting max dollars) it may hurt the player in the long run, if he has to hold out to get max dollars, and that hold out causes him to basically be ineffective as a player for a period of time. Some players never recover from their rookie holdouts and don't get another big contract because they were ineffective players.

The agent uses the holdout to get the best contract right now. The holdout can do serious harm to a players career. Good agents/smart players recognize this and don't go too far with their holdouts.

Players need to also understand that if they and their agent are labeled as difficult to sign/negotiate with, this may hurt them by limiting the market when they become free agents down the line. My perception of most agents is they are less concerned with this, and just want to get the biggest contract right now so they get their money right now. I don't blame them for this, I just think it is a bit shortsighted, and I would be more concerned with the bigger picture if I were an agent.

 

[massraider]

I think holdouts happen more because the Agent is most concerned about getting the max dollar amount for his client (and himself since he gets a % of the contract) right now. While that seems to benefit both the player and the Agent (getting max dollars) it may hurt the player in the long run, if he has to hold out to get max dollars, and that hold out causes him to basically be ineffective as a player for a period of time. Some players never recover from their rookie holdouts and don't get another big contract because they were ineffective players.The agent uses the holdout to get the best contract right now. The holdout can do serious harm to a players career. Good agents/smart players recognize this and don't go too far with their holdouts.Players need to also understand that if they and their agent are labeled as difficult to sign/negotiate with, this may hurt them by limiting the market when they become free agents down the line. My perception of most agents is they are less concerned with this, and just want to get the biggest contract right now so they get their money right now. I don't blame them for this, I just think it is a bit shortsighted, and I would be more concerned with the bigger picture if I were an agent.

The agent is, but the long term for him is to be able to sign more clients.And right or wrong, if a holdout has his career damaged by a holdout, the agent won't be held responsible. It will be assumed the player isn't very good. And maybe that theory is right, because a lot of players hold out, and aren't damaged at all. And the damage done to an agent if he is thought to have negotiated a below-market deal cannot be understated. If Drew Rosenhaus negotiated a 'bad deal' for a rookie, and he is competing the next winter with Tom Condon for some prospect, you can bet Condon is going to tell the kid every detail about how Rosenhaus' client got screwed.

 

[Andrew Garda]

Players like to try to hide behind their agents, and agents are more than willing to take the blame for the players they represent, but the agents work for the players.

If you answered "Agent", you are incorrect.

I think most players don't get the bolded part. The agent WORKS for you and this is just as true in sports as it is for the entertainment industry when i worked in it. YOu call the shots. The agent will give you options but YOU are the one who decides if you will hold out, for how long and what you are willing to risk. Now some guys arent that sharp and get influenced by their representation. But the longer you're in the biz, the savvier you should be in controlling your guy.

ALL THAT said, I think it depends on the situation. The GM, team cap, agent, player - all can influence a holdout both in length and nastiness.

I think each situation happens because of different things and is influenced by many factors.

 

[dhockster]

I think holdouts happen more because the Agent is most concerned about getting the max dollar amount for his client (and himself since he gets a % of the contract) right now. While that seems to benefit both the player and the Agent (getting max dollars) it may hurt the player in the long run, if he has to hold out to get max dollars, and that hold out causes him to basically be ineffective as a player for a period of time. Some players never recover from their rookie holdouts and don't get another big contract because they were ineffective players.

The agent uses the holdout to get the best contract right now. The holdout can do serious harm to a players career. Good agents/smart players recognize this and don't go too far with their holdouts.

Players need to also understand that if they and their agent are labeled as difficult to sign/negotiate with, this may hurt them by limiting the market when they become free agents down the line. My perception of most agents is they are less concerned with this, and just want to get the biggest contract right now so they get their money right now. I don't blame them for this, I just think it is a bit shortsighted, and I would be more concerned with the bigger picture if I were an agent.

The agent is, but the long term for him is to be able to sign more clients.And right or wrong, if a holdout has his career damaged by a holdout, the agent won't be held responsible. It will be assumed the player isn't very good. And maybe that theory is right, because a lot of players hold out, and aren't damaged at all.

And the damage done to an agent if he is thought to have negotiated a below-market deal cannot be understated. If Drew Rosenhaus negotiated a 'bad deal' for a rookie, and he is competing the next winter with Tom Condon for some prospect, you can bet Condon is going to tell the kid every detail about how Rosenhaus' client got screwed.

I agree with your last paragraph, and it kind of goes along with what I am saying. An agent tries to get max dollars for the player right now, to get himself the most money now, and also to get more clients in the future by showing them that he can get max dollars. That in turn leads to the agent getting more money. Again, I am not condemning agents for acting in that manner (making as much money as they can), I just think sometimes they hurt the players more by having them holdout then they help them by getting them a little bit more money now.I think that if there was a study done comparing rookies by position who held out vs. those who did not hold out (factoring in draft position), the ones who did not hold out would as a group have more productive careers.

The attached article is a good example of how I think agents/players/teams can work together to help everyone get the most out of a players career.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/A-blind-eye.html

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

IMO, Sam Bradford really does not need an agent to get a deal done. He can look at what Stafford got last year and take the same deal.

Where would he look to find out what Stafford got last year?He can read the headlines, "Stafford gets deal worth $X million," but the contract itself is a bit more involved than that. Consider JaMarcus Russell's current situation, for example. None of us know what Russell's contract says (and we probably have no good way of finding out), but whatever it says about bonuses versus advances, guaranteed vs. non-guaranteed, etc., appears to be kind of important right now. He's probably rather happy that he had an agent handling it for him.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

IMO, Sam Bradford really does not need an agent to get a deal done. He can look at what Stafford got last year and take the same deal.

Where would he look to find out what Stafford got last year?He can read the headlines, "Stafford gets deal worth $X million," but the contract itself is a bit more involved than that. Consider JaMarcus Russell's current situation, for example. None of us know what Russell's contract says (and we probably have no good way of finding out), but whatever it says about bonuses versus advances, guaranteed vs. non-guaranteed, etc., appears to be kind of important right now. He's probably rather happy that he had an agent handling it for him.

True, and I think the other factor might be that these guys sign with agents right around the time they declare. So the agent has been working for the player for months already (ostensibly making sure he gets drafted highly, thereby setting the groundwork for getting the big contract). In certain cases, I do believe the player might be able to get by without an agent (Suh wasn't going to drop much past #2 no matter what for example) altogether, but they do represent their clients on things other than NFL contract negotiations. Keep in mind, there are also endorsement opportunities, appearance fees, etc.In the NFL, I don't think agents can make more than 3% (and are also subject to other limitations). While that can be a TON of money for a big contract, it isn't as bad as the rates in some other entertainment fields. Basically, if the agent gets you a deal that is just 3% better than what you could have gotten on your own, you've saved yourself a BUNCH of headaches and gotten all of your money back.By the way, I'm not an agent.

 

[Sweet Love]

I think multiple parties are at fault here. I am a headhunter (you could say "job agent"...cake as it may sound, some people classify themselves as this) and while the more my candidate makes, the more I make, there are many other factors that go against my trying to get every cent possible for my candidate. Let's say a first round pick at #10 in '09 got 10mm and the expected increase on said signing bonus (due to history) is 11mm. If I come up short of 11mm, my credibility will be tarnished by my competitors in 2011 when they are meeting with a potential client and they bad mouth me for not getting as much as possible for my client. The baseline then is 11mm, so if I can get that or a tad more, I come out unscathed (this is the shady side from the agent). Let's be frank; would you be willing to risk 4% of 11mm for 4% of 12mm...personally, I would not and that is how I service my clients when I get to a "breaking point". The agents also want future negotiations to be friendly (we are all humans after all), so squeezing an extra 100k may be counterproductive in the longrun).

From the player side, these guys too know the score and it does not take a mathematical genious to understand (the agents are the ones figuring this out), the expected increase in the Cap year-over-year. Very few say, "hey, as an olive branch to my new team, I will take 3% less than the guy last year"...correct? They want what they feel is coming to them too. In fact, in my business I am blamed (or often take the "unknown brunt") for botched deals in order to make the candidate seem on the up-and-up in hopes that future negotiations can occur. Do you really think Randy Moss is better now than he was in the past? Randy is to blame for being unmarketable, not his agent. Most agents feel "I want my money now"...when you can make a deal for 95% of the fee in a quick 1 hour session, why would you fight for weeks for another 5%???

From the team side, they need to be more upfront about what they are willing to do (more like arbitration than negotiation). No one is really going to not sign and enter the draft the following year (Clarett and BMW have provided a cautionary tale for that), so just say "I can pay the exact, expected increase for position X" or " I can bump a small premium because your player is in a unique situation (i.e. first QB taken)".

When you consider the overall monies involved, they are literally quibbling over 5-7% and in the end, no one is better off for it.

 

[dhockster]

I think multiple parties are at fault here. I am a headhunter (you could say "job agent"...cake as it may sound, some people classify themselves as this) and while the more my candidate makes, the more I make, there are many other factors that go against my trying to get every cent possible for my candidate. Let's say a first round pick at #10 in '09 got 10mm and the expected increase on said signing bonus (due to history) is 11mm. If I come up short of 11mm, my credibility will be tarnished by my competitors in 2011 when they are meeting with a potential client and they bad mouth me for not getting as much as possible for my client. The baseline then is 11mm, so if I can get that or a tad more, I come out unscathed (this is the shady side from the agent). Let's be frank; would you be willing to risk 4% of 11mm for 4% of 12mm...personally, I would not and that is how I service my clients when I get to a "breaking point". The agents also want future negotiations to be friendly (we are all humans after all), so squeezing an extra 100k may be counterproductive in the longrun). From the player side, these guys too know the score and it does not take a mathematical genious to understand (the agents are the ones figuring this out), the expected increase in the Cap year-over-year. Very few say, "hey, as an olive branch to my new team, I will take 3% less than the guy last year"...correct? They want what they feel is coming to them too. In fact, in my business I am blamed (or often take the "unknown brunt") for botched deals in order to make the candidate seem on the up-and-up in hopes that future negotiations can occur. Do you really think Randy Moss is better now than he was in the past? Randy is to blame for being unmarketable, not his agent. Most agents feel "I want my money now"...when you can make a deal for 95% of the fee in a quick 1 hour session, why would you fight for weeks for another 5%???From the team side, they need to be more upfront about what they are willing to do (more like arbitration than negotiation). No one is really going to not sign and enter the draft the following year (Clarett and BMW have provided a cautionary tale for that), so just say "I can pay the exact, expected increase for position X" or " I can bump a small premium because your player is in a unique situation (i.e. first QB taken)".When you consider the overall monies involved, they are literally quibbling over 5-7% and in the end, no one is better off for it.

I appreciate the viewpoint from a pseudo-agent perspective. Your last sentence sums it up pretty well, although I am sure the owners and players union would say that while 5-7% may not mean that much on any individual contract, if the overall salaries move 5-7% than you are talking about a lot of money.I think most fans, like myself, get frustrated that potentially good players jeopardize the speed of their indoctrination into the NFL by holding out for a couple hundred thousand more, when they are already guaranteed millions.I think a lot of the holdout issues will go away when the owners and players union agree to a rookie wage scale.