I was speaking of Jordy's recent extention, so YES, it is a valid point. No doubt that Graham is an impact player and would be on any team, but he is a TE, cut and dry plain and simple. If he was somehow re-labeled as a WR then he would have a better argument to make more cash, but he is not. He would be simply setting the bar much higher at a faster pace for other TE's that are not nearly as good to be asking for more money, not as much as Graham, but still even more than what they should be making.
1) What was this recent extension of Jordy Nelson that you speak of? I haven't been able to find one that he signed since the one 3 years ago.
2) You never answered whether or not if you had a chance to receive an 80% raise professionally by arguing a potentially valid point to an arbitrator, you would do so.
3) It's not "cut and dry" and hasn't been in the long time. The TE position has evolved. If the pay structure is to remain the same, can Graham refuse to split out wide? After all, if he's a TE, why should he have to do the job of a WR most of the time? I'm part of a union at work, and if my employer continuously asked me to perform the responsibilities of a higher paying position but paid me at my current rate, I'm definitely going to argue that I should be paid at the higher rate.
4) You seem to believe that as long as a player is becoming the highest paid at their position, they should be content with this. What if the difference between them and the #2 paid player at that position is extreme? When Rodgers signed his contract with the Packers, Flacco at the time was the highest paid QB by yearly salary at $20.1M. The fact that Rodgers' contract was for $22M, and not $20.2M, was a reflection of the difference in worth between Flacco and Rodgers. Would you argue that if the Packers offered $20.2M, thereby making Rodgers the highest paid at his position, and he turned it down, that makes him a money grubber?