What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Did you all know about this part of the CBA deal? (1 Viewer)

Ministry of Pain

Footballguy
As part of the new CBA agreement not only do the players now see drastically less money in the early parts of the 1st round but they also are locked into these contracts for the first 3 years. Some of you are saying big deal. I understand that logic however when you have guys like Colin Kaepernick and Russell Wilson who are taking their teams deep into the playoffs in their 1st year, you realize these guys are not just the future but the present. Well Wilson is slated to make $550k in 2013 after just $390k in 2012. $662k in 2014...he has to play for that money no matter what he and Seattle would like to do right now. That is nuts. CK has a similar situation.Over the next few years teams are going to make entire positions into cheap labor. Why would a team not just burn a 3rd or 4th every other year on a RB and fill that spot up for $500k x 3 positions, maybe a veteran you bring in for a couple million but I can't see how RB is going to ever be a lucrative position again. Same for OG/C. All rookies who sign these 4 year deals cannot renegotiate until after the 3rd year of that rookie contract. The avg NFL career is something like 3-4 years. This was a bad deal for the players IMO. Teams must spend a certain amount of money each year now but they will just increase the salaries of guys at key positions like QB/DE/WR/LT. Flacco is gonna get about $20m right? Wilson and Kaepernick better take some insurance out because they have to now survive the upcoming season and for Wilson it has to be 2014 as well before he can see any real money. I think teams should have the freedom to rip these contracts up as they find gems in the later rounds. Also it can give teams a false sense of how much money they have to play with. What do you think CK and Wilson are gonna get in 2013 and 2014? My guess is CK already has a trip to the SB, if he puts up big stats again in 2013 or take the Niners deep into the playoffs again, at least $100m or something in line with $15m per season whatever the length of the contract, Same for Wilson if he continues to thrive. How do you plan for a player going from $600k to $15m a season? You have to make major cuts on your roster.

 
i knew about it and did say big deal when it went through... but now that we're a year into it, it's definitely a bit more of a big deal that originally expected imo. you would think that the rookies would have the ability to renegotiate the deal in the right situations and if they deserve it - ie wilson. really does suck for him. :kicksrock:

 
I'm sure that the NFLPA was in full support of this as the rookies (prior to the new CBA) were getting $30-50M bonus's and there was less for the vets.

 
I personally like this. Its a prove to me you can do it multiple years before we give you a huge contract. Three years may be too much, but I wouldn't have a problem if it were for the first two years. What if the very next season the player just had a pedestrian year and the team didn't do as well. A team would then regret giving a huge contract to a average player who had one great year.

 
If teams dont plan for an increase when their contract is close to being up, then they are just stupid and deserve to have problems. Now, can't the TEAMS renegotiate in they want?If a guy is making like 500k for the next three years, maybe they can extend them and pay them some NOW instead of paying more in years 4-5 or something. Win-win for both sides there

 
the guys that prove themselves will likely sign contract extensions. if they don't, we'll probably see even more holdouts than we have in the past. in the end it's essentially not any different than guys that have out produced their draft status in the past.

 
Kapernick of course spent 1-1/2 seasons mostly carrying a clipboard before getting the starting role, and will have to play next year for a depressed amount but that is part of the deal. It mimics baseball's rule of 3 years of "low" fixed minimums (holdouts being the only option for the player), followed by 3 years of arbitration, then free agency. My guess is that the 49ers will try to work out a multi-year deal this offseason giving Kaepernick a substantial increase over the controlled price he would be under next year, in exchange for discounting a little on career years 4, 5 and 6. It would be mighty risky for the player to turn down an offer like that -- he could play for the contract price next year and wait for the big payday, but then a career-ending injury would mean no big payday ever.

 
I would agree though with whoever said a lot of players will sign insurance policies. That is also a win-win for everyone. The league is better for not paying rookies too much, insurance companies will make a killing, and the players will be insured for a few million in case something goes horribly wrong.

 
Directly from the CBA:

(i) A Rookie Contract for a Drafted Rookie may not be renegotiated, amended or altered in any way until after the final regular season game of the player's third contract year.
Sounds to me like even if Seattle or SF wanted to extend Wilson or Kaep for more money up front in lieu of a smaller back end of the contract they are prohibited from doing so.
 
Directly from the CBA:

(i) A Rookie Contract for a Drafted Rookie may not be renegotiated, amended or altered in any way until after the final regular season game of the player's third contract year.
Sounds to me like even if Seattle or SF wanted to extend Wilson or Kaep for more money up front in lieu of a smaller back end of the contract they are prohibited from doing so.
Exactly
 
I blame the NFLPA for this. They gave this concession to the owners since they didn't care about future players, only the ones in the union at that time.

 
Are you kidding me? This is the best part of the CBA. Play out your damn contract, if you aren't happy with it don't sign it and go do something else. There are even more busts, then success stories. You take the good with the bad equally.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you kidding me? This is the best part of the CBA. Play out your damn contract, if you aren't happy with it don't sign it and go do something else. There are even more busts, then success stories. You take the good with the bad equally.
It's fine that teams have this position. But if the team and the player both want to do a new contract, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to.
 
What is the downside for someone like CK to hold out at this point? When do you have to report in order to accrue a year of service time?

 
Are you kidding me? This is the best part of the CBA. Play out your damn contract, if you aren't happy with it don't sign it and go do something else. There are even more busts, then success stories. You take the good with the bad equally.
It's fine that teams have this position. But if the team and the player both want to do a new contract, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to.
When does a team ever really want to pay more money?
 
Are you kidding me? This is the best part of the CBA. Play out your damn contract, if you aren't happy with it don't sign it and go do something else. There are even more busts, then success stories. You take the good with the bad equally.
It's fine that teams have this position. But if the team and the player both want to do a new contract, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to.
The point in preventing TEAMS from doing it is simple. With that rule in there, it completely removes all leverage from a hold out. The teams CAN'T do a new deal, and the player can't go anywhere else. So they stay and play. Holding out gets them nothing.If the team COULD redo a deal if they "wanted to" (which they don't of course), they'd be in exactly the same position they are now. The "rule" wouldn't do anything. The players are supposed to play out their contracts as it is, but holdout would still be a viable option since they know the team CAN re-do the deal.

 
'Holy Schneikes said:
Are you kidding me? This is the best part of the CBA. Play out your damn contract, if you aren't happy with it don't sign it and go do something else. There are even more busts, then success stories. You take the good with the bad equally.
It's fine that teams have this position. But if the team and the player both want to do a new contract, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to.
The point in preventing TEAMS from doing it is simple. With that rule in there, it completely removes all leverage from a hold out. The teams CAN'T do a new deal, and the player can't go anywhere else. So they stay and play. Holding out gets them nothing.If the team COULD redo a deal if they "wanted to" (which they don't of course), they'd be in exactly the same position they are now. The "rule" wouldn't do anything. The players are supposed to play out their contracts as it is, but holdout would still be a viable option since they know the team CAN re-do the deal.
There are a lot of more direct ways to remove the holdout as a leverage option for players. Like say changing the rules around holdouts, i.e. when they get credit for a year's service time, etc.
 
Are you kidding me? This is the best part of the CBA. Play out your damn contract, if you aren't happy with it don't sign it and go do something else. There are even more busts, then success stories. You take the good with the bad equally.
It's fine that teams have this position. But if the team and the player both want to do a new contract, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to.
When does a team ever really want to pay more money?
When it can save them even more money down the line. (See Rodgers, Aaron)
 
'Holy Schneikes said:
Are you kidding me? This is the best part of the CBA. Play out your damn contract, if you aren't happy with it don't sign it and go do something else. There are even more busts, then success stories. You take the good with the bad equally.
It's fine that teams have this position. But if the team and the player both want to do a new contract, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to.
The point in preventing TEAMS from doing it is simple. With that rule in there, it completely removes all leverage from a hold out. The teams CAN'T do a new deal, and the player can't go anywhere else. So they stay and play. Holding out gets them nothing.If the team COULD redo a deal if they "wanted to" (which they don't of course), they'd be in exactly the same position they are now. The "rule" wouldn't do anything. The players are supposed to play out their contracts as it is, but holdout would still be a viable option since they know the team CAN re-do the deal.
There are a lot of more direct ways to remove the holdout as a leverage option for players. Like say changing the rules around holdouts, i.e. when they get credit for a year's service time, etc.
Agreed. Lots of ways to skin the cat. But this one works, and doing it "one sided" wouldn't accomplish anything at all. That was my real point.
 
Are you kidding me? This is the best part of the CBA. Play out your damn contract, if you aren't happy with it don't sign it and go do something else. There are even more busts, then success stories. You take the good with the bad equally.
It's fine that teams have this position. But if the team and the player both want to do a new contract, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to.
When does a team ever really want to pay more money?
When it can save them even more money down the line. (See Rodgers, Aaron)
You mean the deal that was negotiated and signed during his 4th year in the league and would not have been affected by this rule?
 
Are you kidding me? This is the best part of the CBA. Play out your damn contract, if you aren't happy with it don't sign it and go do something else. There are even more busts, then success stories. You take the good with the bad equally.
It's fine that teams have this position. But if the team and the player both want to do a new contract, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to.
When does a team ever really want to pay more money?
When it can save them even more money down the line. (See Rodgers, Aaron)
You mean the deal that was negotiated and signed during his 4th year in the league and would not have been affected by this rule?
Yes, that one.Feel free to point out where I said that Rodgers' deal would have been affected by this rule.

The point, which I don't think is that difficult to understand, is there are situations where teams recognize that paying more now will save them much more later. Rodgers is a bargain today because of that contract.

And, as you're well aware, it was only the 4th year because he sat behind Favre for awhile. The extension was signed during his first year as a starter, as soon as the Packers realized what they had. Caepernick, Wilson, etc. don't have to sit as long as Rodgers did, and their teams already realize what they have, and should be able to make a similar decision that the Packers did with Rodgers, if they so choose. The team locks them up longer for cheaper than "Flacco" money, and the player gets more guaranteed money immediately, offsetting the risk of a serious injury ruining their value before their next contract is due. It's a win/win, and the fact that the two sides don't have this as an option is silly.

 
Are you kidding me? This is the best part of the CBA. Play out your damn contract, if you aren't happy with it don't sign it and go do something else. There are even more busts, then success stories. You take the good with the bad equally.
It's fine that teams have this position. But if the team and the player both want to do a new contract, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to.
When does a team ever really want to pay more money?
When it can save them even more money down the line. (See Rodgers, Aaron)
You mean the deal that was negotiated and signed during his 4th year in the league and would not have been affected by this rule?
Yes, that one.Feel free to point out where I said that Rodgers' deal would have been affected by this rule.

The point, which I don't think is that difficult to understand, is there are situations where teams recognize that paying more now will save them much more later. Rodgers is a bargain today because of that contract.

And, as you're well aware, it was only the 4th year because he sat behind Favre for awhile. The extension was signed during his first year as a starter, as soon as the Packers realized what they had. Caepernick, Wilson, etc. don't have to sit as long as Rodgers did, and their teams already realize what they have, and should be able to make a similar decision that the Packers did with Rodgers, if they so choose. The team locks them up longer for cheaper than "Flacco" money, and the player gets more guaranteed money immediately, offsetting the risk of a serious injury ruining their value before their next contract is due. It's a win/win, and the fact that the two sides don't have this as an option is silly.
And for every Kaep and Wilson, there are a slew of guys that have been held onto in the past because of the huge price the team paid...The rule was put in place because of that and to prevent the early holdouts from rookie deals.

What I see is it does not matter what the NFL does...there will always be someone to cry about some rule.

As fans we have said for a long time we wanted the rookie $$$s down...we don't like holdouts.

They "fix" that...and still people complain.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What is the downside for someone like CK to hold out at this point? When do you have to report in order to accrue a year of service time?
Hold out for WHAT?? More money that they aren't allowed to give him apparently??
Day brings up a great point. Why should CK report before game 8 or 9? Problem is though you do need the team/owner to step up after year 3. If CK were to just not play until the mandated date to serve another year, that would likely rub the Niners the wrong way and the 2 sides would simply go round and round year 4, then the franchise tag if nothing else, could get very ugly. Kaepernick would likely not hold out but I think Day nails it in the fact that there is no upside for the players like CK and Wilson...20 teams would line up to sign those two guys tomorrow, even teams that have drafted other QBs in the last 2-3 years. I just think it is interesting and I also do not think folks posturing with the "play the contract out" are thinking clearly. Trying to compare what these guys make to what you do in your daily life is nonsense. NFL careers are short, it's not like in baseball where guys play till they are 40. Most NFL careers are about over by 30, some make it longer, especially at QB but most guys are out of the league by their late 20s/early 30s.
 
Are you kidding me? This is the best part of the CBA. Play out your damn contract, if you aren't happy with it don't sign it and go do something else. There are even more busts, then success stories. You take the good with the bad equally.
It's fine that teams have this position. But if the team and the player both want to do a new contract, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to.
The point in preventing TEAMS from doing it is simple. With that rule in there, it completely removes all leverage from a hold out. The teams CAN'T do a new deal, and the player can't go anywhere else. So they stay and play. Holding out gets them nothing.If the team COULD redo a deal if they "wanted to" (which they don't of course), they'd be in exactly the same position they are now. The "rule" wouldn't do anything. The players are supposed to play out their contracts as it is, but holdout would still be a viable option since they know the team CAN re-do the deal.
Good post, question here. How about a guy holding out in year 4, knowing the team can now renegotiate? What if the team were like some of our posters in here and said "play out the contract"..."prove it to us 1 more year"...and some teams will play games with this. Would you put it past CIN and AZ to pull this? Heck let's toss Miami and their award winning front office into this discussion. Wait until we get into year 3/4 of some of these later round gems under rookie contracts that start holding out in year 4 of these contracts.
 
Are you kidding me? This is the best part of the CBA. Play out your damn contract, if you aren't happy with it don't sign it and go do something else. There are even more busts, then success stories. You take the good with the bad equally.
It's fine that teams have this position. But if the team and the player both want to do a new contract, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to.
The point in preventing TEAMS from doing it is simple. With that rule in there, it completely removes all leverage from a hold out. The teams CAN'T do a new deal, and the player can't go anywhere else. So they stay and play. Holding out gets them nothing.If the team COULD redo a deal if they "wanted to" (which they don't of course), they'd be in exactly the same position they are now. The "rule" wouldn't do anything. The players are supposed to play out their contracts as it is, but holdout would still be a viable option since they know the team CAN re-do the deal.
Good post, question here. How about a guy holding out in year 4, knowing the team can now renegotiate? What if the team were like some of our posters in here and said "play out the contract"..."prove it to us 1 more year"...and some teams will play games with this. Would you put it past CIN and AZ to pull this? Heck let's toss Miami and their award winning front office into this discussion. Wait until we get into year 3/4 of some of these later round gems under rookie contracts that start holding out in year 4 of these contracts.
Year four doesn't change much, players and team will be in exactly the same position at this point as they were before. Studs on a low rookie contract will now get paid in year four instead of holding out in year two or three. And honestly, the case for getting paid after several years of over-production is much better.I'm not saying the rule is great or necessary - just that I understand what they wanted to accomplish and I think it will work.

 
What is the downside for someone like CK to hold out at this point? When do you have to report in order to accrue a year of service time?
Hold out for WHAT?? More money that they aren't allowed to give him apparently??
Day brings up a great point. Why should CK report before game 8 or 9? Problem is though you do need the team/owner to step up after year 3. If CK were to just not play until the mandated date to serve another year, that would likely rub the Niners the wrong way and the 2 sides would simply go round and round year 4, then the franchise tag if nothing else, could get very ugly. Kaepernick would likely not hold out but I think Day nails it in the fact that there is no upside for the players like CK and Wilson...20 teams would line up to sign those two guys tomorrow, even teams that have drafted other QBs in the last 2-3 years. I just think it is interesting and I also do not think folks posturing with the "play the contract out" are thinking clearly. Trying to compare what these guys make to what you do in your daily life is nonsense. NFL careers are short, it's not like in baseball where guys play till they are 40. Most NFL careers are about over by 30, some make it longer, especially at QB but most guys are out of the league by their late 20s/early 30s.
Great...which is why people have been pushing these guys to actually take advantage of their free education...so that when their NFL career fades away (as it will for many of them within 5 years)...they actually have a degree to try and fall back on.
 
What is the downside for someone like CK to hold out at this point? When do you have to report in order to accrue a year of service time?
Hold out for WHAT?? More money that they aren't allowed to give him apparently??
Day brings up a great point. Why should CK report before game 8 or 9? Problem is though you do need the team/owner to step up after year 3. If CK were to just not play until the mandated date to serve another year, that would likely rub the Niners the wrong way and the 2 sides would simply go round and round year 4, then the franchise tag if nothing else, could get very ugly. Kaepernick would likely not hold out but I think Day nails it in the fact that there is no upside for the players like CK and Wilson...20 teams would line up to sign those two guys tomorrow, even teams that have drafted other QBs in the last 2-3 years. I just think it is interesting and I also do not think folks posturing with the "play the contract out" are thinking clearly. Trying to compare what these guys make to what you do in your daily life is nonsense. NFL careers are short, it's not like in baseball where guys play till they are 40. Most NFL careers are about over by 30, some make it longer, especially at QB but most guys are out of the league by their late 20s/early 30s.
Great...which is why people have been pushing these guys to actually take advantage of their free education...so that when their NFL career fades away (as it will for many of them within 5 years)...they actually have a degree to try and fall back on.
What? They can go back and finish when they leave the NFL. Brad Culpepper, former DT for the Bucs, started law school while he was in the NFL, then he finished pretty quick after he was done, now he is a successful lawyer and one of the top guys in Tampa Bay, see his signs up all over the place as an injury attorney. What does any of that have to do with what we are discussing here? You want to debate the upside of having a degree? I agree with you, they need it and I find that the ones who do have them tend to find their way into companies or organizations even if it is to use their name or former NFL career to push their products and services. You can't make these guys finish their degrees.
 
You left out a key part. Previously those same players would have had to sign 4 or 5 year deals when drafted. Now the CBA limits them to a max of 3 years. Guys in the lower rounds often take longer to develop than guys in the 1st round. So by and large, this is a huge net benefit to most players. They hit free agency earlier and can make the big money earlier. If a guy like Wilson or Kaepernick way outperforms expectations, he is only screwed for a very short amount of time. For Kaepernick, he already has just one more year before he hits free agency now. And since the team can't redo his deal now and try to get a cheaper extension before his free agent year, he actually stands to make MORE money assuming he doesn't get hurt and continues to play well.

 
You left out a key part. Previously those same players would have had to sign 4 or 5 year deals when drafted. Now the CBA limits them to a max of 3 years. Guys in the lower rounds often take longer to develop than guys in the 1st round. So by and large, this is a huge net benefit to most players. They hit free agency earlier and can make the big money earlier. If a guy like Wilson or Kaepernick way outperforms expectations, he is only screwed for a very short amount of time. For Kaepernick, he already has just one more year before he hits free agency now. And since the team can't redo his deal now and try to get a cheaper extension before his free agent year, he actually stands to make MORE money assuming he doesn't get hurt and continues to play well.
would it hurt if you guys figured out wtf you were talking about before you started posting all the nonsense?
 
... All rookies who sign these 4 year deals cannot renegotiate until after the 3rd year of that rookie contract. The avg NFL career is something like 3-4 years. ...
That's actually not correct.The average NFL player retires having accrued about 6 seasons. The 3.5 number was a widely reported bit of misinformation.

3.5... or actually 3.2 as the NFLPA was saying during the lockout, is the average accrued seasons to date of active players. It isn't the career length at time of retirement. So if you calculated it over again in 2013 using the NFLPA's method, you would treat Andrew Luck as only having a 1 season career.

When the NFL disputed the NFLPA's number during the lockout, Steph Stradley of the Houston Chronicle and Jason Lisk of Big Lead Sports got the NFLPA to provide them with their data set and confirmed the NFL's result, and figured out what the number the NFLPA was reporting actually was.

 
You left out a key part. Previously those same players would have had to sign 4 or 5 year deals when drafted. Now the CBA limits them to a max of 3 years.
Players drafted in rounds 2-7 sign four-year deals. Players drafted in round 1 sign five-year deals (technically four-year deals with additional one-year options held by the team).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Ministry of Pain said:
'ghostguy123 said:
'Daywalker said:
What is the downside for someone like CK to hold out at this point? When do you have to report in order to accrue a year of service time?
Hold out for WHAT?? More money that they aren't allowed to give him apparently??
Day brings up a great point. Why should CK report before game 8 or 9?
Because some people are more intelligent than this and can see farther than two feet in from of their face? Holding out until game 8 or 9 would put him in the doghouse of the coaches, his teammates, 49ers fans and anyone following the NFL in general. Anyone with even a shred of common sense sees why this would be a terrible long-term business decision.There's nothing wrong with this rule and to suggest that the teams want to play their players more money is just asinine. As previously stated, if the contracts were negotiable on the team's side, it would lead to all sorts of leverage problems.Nothing wrong with the rule whatsoever. It was agreed upon by all sides and now CK and Wilson will have to prove they're worth big $ before they get it. Just the way it should be.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
he has to play for that money no matter what he and Seattle would like to do right now. That is nuts
is it nuts for Oakland to have to pay $20 a year for a QB JRussel who sucks?how many 1st and 2nd round picks aren't doing anything but earning a huge paycheck ?goes both ways
 
'sho nuff said:
'The Comedian said:
'sho nuff said:
'The Comedian said:
'PlasmaDogPlasma said:
'The Comedian said:
'Beerguzzler said:
Are you kidding me? This is the best part of the CBA. Play out your damn contract, if you aren't happy with it don't sign it and go do something else. There are even more busts, then success stories. You take the good with the bad equally.
It's fine that teams have this position. But if the team and the player both want to do a new contract, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to.
When does a team ever really want to pay more money?
When it can save them even more money down the line. (See Rodgers, Aaron)
You mean the deal that was negotiated and signed during his 4th year in the league and would not have been affected by this rule?
Yes, that one.Feel free to point out where I said that Rodgers' deal would have been affected by this rule.

The point, which I don't think is that difficult to understand, is there are situations where teams recognize that paying more now will save them much more later. Rodgers is a bargain today because of that contract.

And, as you're well aware, it was only the 4th year because he sat behind Favre for awhile. The extension was signed during his first year as a starter, as soon as the Packers realized what they had. Caepernick, Wilson, etc. don't have to sit as long as Rodgers did, and their teams already realize what they have, and should be able to make a similar decision that the Packers did with Rodgers, if they so choose. The team locks them up longer for cheaper than "Flacco" money, and the player gets more guaranteed money immediately, offsetting the risk of a serious injury ruining their value before their next contract is due. It's a win/win, and the fact that the two sides don't have this as an option is silly.
And for every Kaep and Wilson, there are a slew of guys that have been held onto in the past because of the huge price the team paid...The rule was put in place because of that and to prevent the early holdouts from rookie deals.

What I see is it does not matter what the NFL does...there will always be someone to cry about some rule.

As fans we have said for a long time we wanted the rookie $$$s down...we don't like holdouts.

They "fix" that...and still people complain.
I don't get why you're pretending that preventing any extensions for 3 years is the best and only way to prevent holdouts. It also has nothing to do with bringing rookie salaries down, one can be done without the other.
 
'sho nuff said:
'The Comedian said:
'sho nuff said:
'The Comedian said:
'PlasmaDogPlasma said:
'The Comedian said:
'Beerguzzler said:
Are you kidding me? This is the best part of the CBA. Play out your damn contract, if you aren't happy with it don't sign it and go do something else. There are even more busts, then success stories. You take the good with the bad equally.
It's fine that teams have this position. But if the team and the player both want to do a new contract, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to.
When does a team ever really want to pay more money?
When it can save them even more money down the line. (See Rodgers, Aaron)
You mean the deal that was negotiated and signed during his 4th year in the league and would not have been affected by this rule?
Yes, that one.Feel free to point out where I said that Rodgers' deal would have been affected by this rule.

The point, which I don't think is that difficult to understand, is there are situations where teams recognize that paying more now will save them much more later. Rodgers is a bargain today because of that contract.

And, as you're well aware, it was only the 4th year because he sat behind Favre for awhile. The extension was signed during his first year as a starter, as soon as the Packers realized what they had. Caepernick, Wilson, etc. don't have to sit as long as Rodgers did, and their teams already realize what they have, and should be able to make a similar decision that the Packers did with Rodgers, if they so choose. The team locks them up longer for cheaper than "Flacco" money, and the player gets more guaranteed money immediately, offsetting the risk of a serious injury ruining their value before their next contract is due. It's a win/win, and the fact that the two sides don't have this as an option is silly.
And for every Kaep and Wilson, there are a slew of guys that have been held onto in the past because of the huge price the team paid...The rule was put in place because of that and to prevent the early holdouts from rookie deals.

What I see is it does not matter what the NFL does...there will always be someone to cry about some rule.

As fans we have said for a long time we wanted the rookie $$$s down...we don't like holdouts.

They "fix" that...and still people complain.
I don't get why you're pretending that preventing any extensions for 3 years is the best and only way to prevent holdouts. It also has nothing to do with bringing rookie salaries down, one can be done without the other.
Yeah...Im sure we all here have the best ideas right?And Im sure the NFL and the NFLPA would go right along with those types of ideas and never thought of them or tried them right?

 
I think it's a good rule. It lets players and teams renegotiate when there's a full year left on their contact. It doesn't make a lot of sense to do it before then anyway.

 
'sho nuff said:
'The Comedian said:
'sho nuff said:
'The Comedian said:
'PlasmaDogPlasma said:
'The Comedian said:
'Beerguzzler said:
Are you kidding me? This is the best part of the CBA. Play out your damn contract, if you aren't happy with it don't sign it and go do something else. There are even more busts, then success stories. You take the good with the bad equally.
It's fine that teams have this position. But if the team and the player both want to do a new contract, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to.
When does a team ever really want to pay more money?
When it can save them even more money down the line. (See Rodgers, Aaron)
You mean the deal that was negotiated and signed during his 4th year in the league and would not have been affected by this rule?
Yes, that one.Feel free to point out where I said that Rodgers' deal would have been affected by this rule.

The point, which I don't think is that difficult to understand, is there are situations where teams recognize that paying more now will save them much more later. Rodgers is a bargain today because of that contract.

And, as you're well aware, it was only the 4th year because he sat behind Favre for awhile. The extension was signed during his first year as a starter, as soon as the Packers realized what they had. Caepernick, Wilson, etc. don't have to sit as long as Rodgers did, and their teams already realize what they have, and should be able to make a similar decision that the Packers did with Rodgers, if they so choose. The team locks them up longer for cheaper than "Flacco" money, and the player gets more guaranteed money immediately, offsetting the risk of a serious injury ruining their value before their next contract is due. It's a win/win, and the fact that the two sides don't have this as an option is silly.
And for every Kaep and Wilson, there are a slew of guys that have been held onto in the past because of the huge price the team paid...The rule was put in place because of that and to prevent the early holdouts from rookie deals.

What I see is it does not matter what the NFL does...there will always be someone to cry about some rule.

As fans we have said for a long time we wanted the rookie $$$s down...we don't like holdouts.

They "fix" that...and still people complain.
I don't get why you're pretending that preventing any extensions for 3 years is the best and only way to prevent holdouts. It also has nothing to do with bringing rookie salaries down, one can be done without the other.
Yeah...Im sure we all here have the best ideas right?And Im sure the NFL and the NFLPA would go right along with those types of ideas and never thought of them or tried them right?
I'm not surprised you have this attitude.
 
I believe the NFL is paying younger players bonuses based on the percentage of snaps they play. This extra pay went away for a while, but I believe it was reinstated this past year. I searched, but couldn't find a link.

 
I personally like this. Its a prove to me you can do it multiple years before we give you a huge contract. Three years may be too much, but I wouldn't have a problem if it were for the first two years. What if the very next season the player just had a pedestrian year and the team didn't do as well. A team would then regret giving a huge contract to a average player who had one great year.
How is this applicable to players on their rookie contract and not, say, all players ever in the entire history of the NFL? What if Albert Haynesworth had a huge season, and then some team signed him to a $100m contract, and he just had a pedestrian year and the team didn't do as well? What if Peerless Price had a huge season and a team traded its first rounder for him and gave him a huge contract and all of a sudden he sucked? What if a team signed Nnamdi Asomugha to a megabucks contract on the open market and then his play fell off a cliff? Any player with any amount of experience can be given a huge contract and fail to live up to it. Why is it a travesty when those big contracts go to 3rd year guys and not when they go to 8th year guys?
'ghostguy123 said:
I would agree though with whoever said a lot of players will sign insurance policies. That is also a win-win for everyone. The league is better for not paying rookies too much, insurance companies will make a killing, and the players will be insured for a few million in case something goes horribly wrong.
You're going to have to explain to me how this is a "win" for players. The league wins, because they don't have to pay the players. The players lose, because they don't get paid. Either they don't get hurt, in which case they lost all that money they spent on insurance... or they do get hurt, in which case they have to live on the insurance pay-out, which is substantially less than they would have gotten in guaranteed money on a new deal. In any possible case, the insurance path will leave the players with less money than they would have otherwise had. Seems like textbook "win-lose" to me.
 
I personally like this. Its a prove to me you can do it multiple years before we give you a huge contract. Three years may be too much, but I wouldn't have a problem if it were for the first two years.

What if the very next season the player just had a pedestrian year and the team didn't do as well. A team would then regret giving a huge contract to a average player who had one great year.
How is this applicable to players on their rookie contract and not, say, all players ever in the entire history of the NFL? What if Albert Haynesworth had a huge season, and then some team signed him to a $100m contract, and he just had a pedestrian year and the team didn't do as well? What if Peerless Price had a huge season and a team traded its first rounder for him and gave him a huge contract and all of a sudden he sucked? What if a team signed Nnamdi Asomugha to a megabucks contract on the open market and then his play fell off a cliff? Any player with any amount of experience can be given a huge contract and fail to live up to it. Why is it a travesty when those big contracts go to 3rd year guys and not when they go to 8th year guys?
'ghostguy123 said:
I would agree though with whoever said a lot of players will sign insurance policies. That is also a win-win for everyone. The league is better for not paying rookies too much, insurance companies will make a killing, and the players will be insured for a few million in case something goes horribly wrong.
You're going to have to explain to me how this is a "win" for players. The league wins, because they don't have to pay the players. The players lose, because they don't get paid. Either they don't get hurt, in which case they lost all that money they spent on insurance... or they do get hurt, in which case they have to live on the insurance pay-out, which is substantially less than they would have gotten in guaranteed money on a new deal. In any possible case, the insurance path will leave the players with less money than they would have otherwise had. Seems like textbook "win-lose" to me.
who told you it wasn't a travesty when an 8th year guy steals money?also, the money saved by not paying the players gets used to pay the players, so the players win.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top