Asomugha and Lechler deals, "wreck the league" (1 Viewer)

[Buckna]

I doubt the contracts will wreck the league, but they will likely wreck the Raiders for a few more years.

 

[Bri]

disagree on franchise tag(as much as players claim to dislike it, being paid one of the top 5 is pretty great)

It's not "great". You're a FA, you could go get a 40-50-60 million dollar contract, but you're forced to stay put and make 9mil. If you have a bad season, get hurt. That big contract might lose 10-15 million. Guys want long term contracts with big signining bonuses. One year deals are more or less a nightmare when people will give you huge deals.

Unions are weak in the US compared to how they once were. Any union that can get a person to be one of the top 5 in his field "has to" consider it that they're doing a great job. I don't see how that can change and still keep the union mindset/system-they're thinking collectively while players are thinking individually. If the NFLPA went away then maybe but, I don't think that's happenning.The NFLPA is what's at the bargaining table for a new CBA not necessarily individual active players.

WTF are you blabbering on about.

apparently something you don't know about?http://www.askthecommish.com/freeagency/faq.asp

Someone is top 5 regardless of what the NFLPA does. You're completly missing the point.Player A can go sign a 60 million dollar deal, but a team can franchise him forcing him to take a 1 year 9mil deal.

Which would you rather have? Players actually WRITE into the contract they can't be franchised at the end of the deal. The players without question want to get rid of the franchise tag. It's not complicated.

a union has to represent a group as a whole with individuals only making up the sum end result. They're not only negotiating a CBA that helps the top so many players but also the lower tier trying to get that veteran minimum raised. I am saying that if you try to think of it collectively(not individually) like they have to, then it's pretty great that they can assure their member worker that they'll get a top 5 salary.

If you wanted them to push the franchise tag to be the top 5 for 3 years (or some other total) instead of one year, well that'd be a decent goal. That would still leave the franchise tag though.

Also keep in mind that if your player above signs a 60 mil deal and gets hurt, it's probably not guaranteed as few NFL contracts are. Franchise tag contracts are though.

How would you present a group goal for the NFLPA to fight for, without making it an individual goal? And then keep in mind that holdouts are ugly for teams, owners, NFLPA, NFL, agents, and players.

Guaranteeing a Top 5 salary still seems pretty great to me.

 

[Bri]

Why is everyone bashing Al Davis? The Raiders just locked down the cornerstone of their #24 ranked defense; that's just smart business.

OMG you are right!! They should let the best player on their defense walk because he was the sole reason they were ranked 24th. In fact....just cut all 53 players!!

Yea, I mean, if you let one of the best CB's in the game walk then your defense will get better! What a moronic statement. Was it a good deal? Who knows but to say that their defense ranked #24 means that Aso should not be signed is just dumb. Lechler is the best punter in the game. Aso is one of the best, if not the best, CB's in the game. These contracts are not the same bad moves of Kelly and Walker last year.

And but one of the reasons the franchise tag started was so teams(and thus their fans) wouldn't necessarily lose their marquee players.I think some of the younger guys around here might not know the bitter feeling when your favorite player is suddenly playing for your rival.

 

[Toomuchnv]

peter king had something in mmq today:

The most interesting thing I learned at the combine actually had nothing to do with the combine at all. It had to do with the contract the Raiders negotiated with agents Tom Condon and Ben Dogra for Nnamdi Asomugha. Put simply, this is the kind of revolutionary contract that will reverberate around the league for this entire off-season. Maybe longer.

Taken on an average-per-season basis, Asomugha's contract is 62 percent higher than any cornerback contract in NFL history.

This is what one general manager with several important players to sign told me about the deal: "I've already told two agents that if they include that contract in all the contracts in our negotiations, I'm not listening. It's insane. It's beyond insane. I've never seen a contract like it. The Raiders guaranteed a cornerback more money than Tom Brady or Peyton Manning ever got guaranteed. So I'm not going to listen to any agent who tries to use it as leverage. It makes no sense.''

The richest previous contract signed by a cornerback (and I don't count the eight-year, $80-million Nate Clements deal with San Francisco, because it has two phony years at a total of $27.3 million stuck on the end of it, years both sides know will never be played out) came last year -- Asante Samuel's six-year, $56.14 million deal with the Eagles. Let's compare the Samuel and Asomugha deals:

Player Date Years Total Guaranteed Ave. per year

Samuel 2-29-08 6 $56.14m $20m $9.36m

Asomugha 2-19-09 3 $45.38m $28.6m* $15.13m

Asomugha's average pay per year is $5.77-million per year more than Samuel's, or 62 percent more than any cornerback contract ever. Good for him. And good for the Raiders in one way -- they don't lose their best player, and because they don't force a franchise tag on him, they don't have their best player grousing about what a bad team he's on ... at least for now. But in this economy? With the Raiders always lobbying for a more revenue-producing stadium?

* One bit of clarification on the Asomugha contract: The deal is for at least two years and $28.6 million. Then the Raiders have a choice. They have until the fifth day of the league year (approximately March 5, 2011) to decide whether to keep Asomugha or allow him to become an unrestricted free agent. If they keep him, which is highly likely in what could very well be an uncapped year, they will have to pay him a minimum of $16.874 million.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ.../22/mmqb/2.html

IMO the Raiders had to give him this much money to get him to stay. Again...when you are a bad team you have to pay more to get players to stay. Using your Asante Samuel analogy....do you think Samuel would have signed with the Raiders if they had offered him 6 years 60 million with that same offer coming from the Eagles?? I highly doubt it.

but at some point you seriously have to consider dealing an asset for other assets if it's going to totally upset the pay structure on your team and your salary cap to keep him.

Honestly, trading a player that doesn't have a contract usually doesn't result in you getting true value. I am happy the Raiders resigned Aso....I think they have learned some from last years mistakes. Rather than deal out a ton of money for players that weren't on your team pay that money to guys on your team that have already proven themselves. Build the rest of your team through the draft and a little free agency. Not the other way around.

 

[tombonneau]

Why is everyone bashing Al Davis? The Raiders just locked down the cornerstone of their #24 ranked defense; that's just smart business.

OMG you are right!! They should let the best player on their defense walk because he was the sole reason they were ranked 24th. In fact....just cut all 53 players!!

Letting someone walk and grossly overpaying for them are not mutually exclusive concepts. They could have paid market value and retained NA without re-defining the ceiling.My point was even with one of the best CBs in the game, the Raiders defense stunk. So now same piece stays in place, only now it takes up a much greater piece of the salary cap and they will have much, much less money to spend on other areas of the defense. Thus, their best position remains constant, while other areas likely degrade even further. How does this help you win football games again?

 

[tombonneau]

Why is everyone bashing Al Davis? The Raiders just locked down the cornerstone of their #24 ranked defense; that's just smart business.

A three year contract is not worthy of the "lock down" label.

You're right, I hadn't even thought of that aspect. That's what makes the deal even worse. In three years, NA will be primed rob Al Davis all over again.