Blue-Kun
Footballguy
Really?
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Asomugha and Lechler deals, "wreck the league" (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Blue-Kun
- Start date
brednbuddah
Footballguy
sounds like the anonymous exec is nervous the ripple effect may cut into his slice of the pie...
NeverEnough
Footballguy
They can' t tag him
None_More_Black
Footballguy
Eagles are paying Samuel(who had a great year) avg of 9.5 a year over six years 20 mill guaranteed. Asomugha is getting 14+ a year. Ridiculous signing by the Raiders, but I guess they can say they have no other way of keeping their talent.
Cookiemonster
Footballguy
Anticipating the end of the current CBA, this may not look like a bad deal at all in 3 years.
None_More_Black
Footballguy
His third year, if the Raider's pick up the option, they have to pay him the average of the top five (top 3?) QB salary. If they were locking him up long term you might have a point, but they are not.
FUBAR
Footballguy
I like the way you think, but NFL execs are sheep. Haynesworth will be paid more now than he would otherwise have been.
Ozymandias
Footballguy
It doesn't wreck the league. It just raises the ante. If you don't want to play, you sit it out. All teams only have so much cap space; if you don't spend it here, you'll spend it there.
twitch
Footballguy
What it does is "wreck" the Franchise Tag #s. But imo, this is the last year of the Franchise Tag anyway. There is little doubt the players will bargain it away and off their next agreement. Next year is either going to be uncapped (very likely), or it will include a freshly negotiated CBA that all but eliminates the tag as we know it. Because its being completely misused, imo. And once the tag is eliminated, guys like Asomugha will be able to walk after their rookie deals without being forced into ridiculous one-year deals skewed out of proportion by horrible teams like the Raiders desperate to keep some of their best players by grossly overpaying them.
But this has been going on for years. I dont think the occasionally ridiculous contract like the Nate Clements deal or these 2 Raiders deals are going to ruin the league. The salary cap will see to that. As long as there is still a salary cap in the next CBA, the harmony of the league will be somewhat guaranteed, imo. What will "wreck" the league is to eliminate the hard cap. We'll see what happens in a couple of years, when ownership and the players are forced to sit down and iron out their differences. Until then, youve just gotta laugh at teams like Oakland. Because if youre a Raiders fan, its either laugh or cry. And those poor guys have gotta be all cried out at this point.
But this has been going on for years. I dont think the occasionally ridiculous contract like the Nate Clements deal or these 2 Raiders deals are going to ruin the league. The salary cap will see to that. As long as there is still a salary cap in the next CBA, the harmony of the league will be somewhat guaranteed, imo. What will "wreck" the league is to eliminate the hard cap. We'll see what happens in a couple of years, when ownership and the players are forced to sit down and iron out their differences. Until then, youve just gotta laugh at teams like Oakland. Because if youre a Raiders fan, its either laugh or cry. And those poor guys have gotta be all cried out at this point.
twitch
Footballguy
Chadstroma
Footballguy
These are the best players at their positions in the league. Each year, FA's get paid ever bigger contracts.... what is different with this? Oh, yea, it's the Raiders.
twitch
Footballguy
I cant imagine the guy signing a contract that wouldnt include that wording.
You might want to try reading the article.
One
Not Allowed In Mexico
Yep, correct.
yeah, this is what it's all about. If teams(and agents) knew what the climate would be like in 2010 things may be different.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
The only way the franchise tag is going away is if the players either allow longer rookie deals, or take a smaller piece of the total NFL revenue pie. The franchise and other tags were basically created in exchange for free agency. So a few high profile players "suffer" by getting huge guaranteed one year salaries so that everyone else can have free agency. No way will the league bargain away that chip unless they get a REALLY nice concession in return.
BoltBacker
Footballguy
I don't think either of these deals are anywhere near as harmful to the league as the Tommy Kelly deal but even then, that deal was more harmful to the raiders than it was the league as a whole. Sure Asomugha makes a lot of $ but how many players can walk into the office of the GM and honestly compare their play to Asomugha? Most of the league can claim they deserve a deal similar or better to the one Kelly received.
Sinrman
Footballguy
Al Davis is exactly why there's a salary cap. He's the George Steinbrenner of the NFL, overpaying horribly for players. Every now and then he'll find a gem in Asomugha, but man that is an insane contract for a defensive back. Ok, maybe he's not quite the George Steinbrenner, since there's a cap, but if Davis could spend like Steinbrenner, he sure would...
Does it "wreck the league"? No, that's silly. It just shows that Al Davis is out of touch and his team is destined for mediocrity for many more years...
Does it "wreck the league"? No, that's silly. It just shows that Al Davis is out of touch and his team is destined for mediocrity for many more years...
Cookiemonster
Footballguy
You'll never hear that out of Aso. He's as classy as they come despite playing in Oakland or Berkley.
disagree on franchise tag(as much as players claim to dislike it, being paid one of the top 5 is pretty great)agree on hard cap but I actually think it's too high now and will be a point of contention.*******the thread in general-I don't think players and GMs are ignorant of the ones that don't prove to be worth the money. Desmond Howard and Larry Brown got alot of money after playing well in the Supe. IIRC they were both available for the vet minimum 2 years later and no one wanted them. I don't hear (when talking about a current CB) "but Larry Brown signed a deal for XXX"I think sometimes people get carried away with the whole setting a precedent notion.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
trader jake
Footballguy
The only thing bad deals "wreck" is the teams that sign them.
Did Tommy Kelly's deal help wreck the league? No
Did Tommy Kelly's deal help wreck the Raiders? Yes
Did Tommy Kelly's deal help wreck the league? No
Did Tommy Kelly's deal help wreck the Raiders? Yes
Sinrman
Footballguy
Exactly. Obviously other GMs and owners are crying because they're afraid of losing top notch players to hopes and dreams of such insane contracts. Let 'em. And when a few teams get burned by this, they'll stop doing it, and players will realize they can't quite go that nuts with contract demands or face playing for the Raiders forever...
Phurfur
Footballguy
Working for "The People"?
I never understood why everyone gets so worked up about how much money players are getting in contracts. Personally, I think guys like Asomugha deserve big contracts like this over #1 picks in the NFL draft. You should pay the players that have proven themselves as class acts on and off the field. Not to mention Asomugha is a legit top 3 corner in the NFL.On a side note...how is giving Lechler a 4 year $12 million dollar contract "wrecking" the league? If you think it is just because he is a Punter....ask SD how they feel about their punter? He was a HUGE part in their playoff win over the Colts.
Banger
Footballguy
I'm not worked up, they can pay whatever they want to pay but this isn't a one off thing. They way overpaid Kelly, and Walker last year and now this year they are at it again. I'm not debating Asom's talent because he's very talented but you have to balance the contracts vs. the market and they have been absolutely terrible at that aspect, which is not a small thing. There's a reason why they have been among the worst franchises (and will continue to be) over the last number of years despite being at the top of the draft year after year. They don't manage their assets well at all, whether that be signing FA players, drafting the right players, cutting/trading players or resigning players for too much money. Everything must be balanced if you are going to be successful long term (see NE Pats) and the Raiders are at the complete opposite end of the spectrum.
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.
Maybe we are just misunderstanding...but your original post seems to be implying that the Asomugha signing is worse than the Kelly and Walker signings of last year. I think that is far from the case. I agree the Kelly and Walker signings were horrendous. I don't agree that the Asomugha signing was a bad signing. When you are a bad team you have to overpay to get players to stay with your franchise. So why not overpay for the players that have proven themselves in the NFL on your own franchise?? Why would any player sign with the Raiders for say 10 million a year if they could get that same 10 million a year to play in NE, Pitt or anywhere else basically?
tombonneau
Footballguy
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!!
Fiddles
Footballguy
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
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.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
good luck with that Mr. general managerFiddles said:
Chadstroma
Footballguy
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.Toomuchnv said: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!!tombonneau said:
Similar threads
