Guion Slapped With 3 Games

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
I certainly understand the desire and advantages of heavily incentive laden contracts, even though it won't happen because of the NFLPA. But because of the health hazards and relatively short careers - compared to "normal" careers - I don't have a problem with guarantees for NFL players. And I like that the last CBA reduced the amount going to the top draftees, leaving more for vets who earn a big raise on their second - and later - contracts. I would like to see that trend continue.

Also, the NFL does have a performance based pay program. Here's a link to how it increased Corey Linsley's compensation last season. He got an extra $339.5K which was about a 56% increase over his comp last season, including his signing bonus. http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...ice-bonus-from-nfl-b99461597z1-296294331.html

I'm not sure how they decide the bonuses, but I don't think it makes sense for Aaron Rodgers and Clay to get the (relatively paultry) amounts they received. Rodgers' $8K is almost a rounding error... And why did Sherrod get more than $12K? Anyway, I'd like to see them clean up those kinds of things and use that money to better benefit the deserving underpaid.

It also won't happen because teams will always be willing to offer good guys guarenteed money. If Rodgers, for example, was a free agent and the Packers only offered an incentive laden contract, he could easily find another team willing to guarentee a lot.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,070
Reaction score
7,891
Location
Madison, WI
Kind of futile to even discuss it, since it won't happen.....but in "my pay structured fantasy"....players BASE salary would be capped at say $1 million dollars for the elite players, the rest of the money comes in incentives. A player like A Rod is capped at a base of $1 million and has a GREAT year, he makes his $25 Million, he goes "Cutler" on us and he only makes $4 Million.

A rookie might get a base of $50K with incentives that if he somehow had a "Rodgers like year" could makes a total of $24.05 million.

Caps would be used on the combined base salaries of all players on a team and the potential incentive pay that might be paid out by a team at the end of the year. The second part of that equation obviously is the hard part to predict.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
It also won't happen because teams will always be willing to offer good guys guarenteed money. If Rodgers, for example, was a free agent and the Packers only offered an incentive laden contract, he could easily find another team willing to guarantee a lot.
Right. There's nothing preventing teams from offering vets incentive laden contracts. Why are they uncommon, usually reserved for players with some kind of question mark? Because, as you say, it is a competitive market.

Even if you could get past that issue, which you can't, you'd have to come up with ways to measure performance that can be written into a contract. That would involve statistical benchmarks. Good luck with that. By week 10, the clubhouse would be a disaster area with every man for himself. Football begins and ends as a team game; it's not a collection of Amway salesmen or oil futures traders.

Then there's the issue of bad teams coming in way under the cap while good teams would blow it out. Suddenly, winning has a financial down side. Small market teams might not even have the cash flow to pay outsized bonuses in a big year.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
....I don't think it makes sense for Aaron Rodgers and Clay to get the (relatively paultry) amounts they received. Rodgers' $8K is almost a rounding error... And why did Sherrod get more than $12K? Anyway, I'd like to see them clean up those kinds of things and use that money to better benefit the deserving underpaid.
Rodgers signed that deal before there was a rookie salary scale. He was free to negotiate any amount he could manage. It's worth noting that contract had in it something like $17 mil in incentives and escalators, by the way. If he didn't earn them it was because he was on the bench for 3 years. The salary cap at the time of Rodgers deal was $85.5 mil, about half what it will be by 2018 for some perspective. In year 4, he broke out. After that year he got a nice renegotiation. What's wrong with that? Had he blown an Achilles on the first day of OTAs and never played a down that "rounding error" would have been a rip off, as with Sherrod (or Justin Harrell, or any other busted first rounder). There's 20/20 hindsight in your complaint.

Matthews also signed before the rookie salary scale was in place with the cap set at $123 mil for 2009. While Matthews was immediately impactful, the chronic hamstring injuries were troublesome. In any case, the Packers end up with a winning deal in the win-some-lose-some draft roulette. And Matthews got a whopping deal a year early for his trouble.

Sherrod was signed under the rookie scale. The salary scale is intended to prevent the opposite scenario that is worthy of equal complaint...Sam Bradford getting a $76 million rookie contract with $50 mil guaranteed being the last and largest of the ever more excessive rookie deals. Bradford was the last straw and the owners' poster child for the 2011 CBA negotiation.

All players are speculative at the time they are drafted. You win some; you lose some. At least the salary scale puts some rationality into the process instead of paying guys Pro Bowl money before they've even taken a snap.

The nub of the problem is in the nature of binding contracts (and collective bargaining agreements)...sometimes one party comes out ahead and the other gets the short end of the stick. How could it ever be otherwise? Sometimes, the guy on the long end wants to keep the guy on the short end happy and renegotiates. Sometimes he doesn't. In every walk of life people sign employment contracts or join a union. Some underperform their pay; some outperform it. What are you going to do about it? A contract is a contract. Life can be fair; often it is not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Also, the NFL does have a performance based pay program. Here's a link to how it increased Corey Linsley's compensation last season. He got an extra $339.5K which was about a 56% increase over his comp last season, including his signing bonus. http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...ice-bonus-from-nfl-b99461597z1-296294331.html
That has the look of some horse trading in the CBA sausage making process, to mix metaphors (unless we're talking about horse meat sausages. ;))

Note that the article says each team was awarded $3.633 mil from a common pool. This program has the look of some common revenue stream coming in stronger than expected (TV ad sales would be my guess) with the union having negotiated some points off of that excess pie with no particularly good way to distribute it retroactively.

It appears to be a team decision as to who gets what. But despite the amount being a "rounding error", to borrow your phrase, do you think there is no grousing in any locker rooms or questioning by any player of how these bonuses were arrived at?

And what about the fairness of crappy teams getting the same money as good teams? Packer players have been cheated relative to Jaguar players.

2022 players got "performance" bonuses. A 53 man roster + 10 ST guys on 32 teams totals 2016. Oh, there are some guys who got cut or were on IR, but nearly everybody in the league got a "performance" bonus. Derek Sherrod, a guy who's rookie contract you had some issue with, got a Packer bonus ($12,460.16) and he as cut in November.

Scale it up (smaller cap, big retro bonuses) and see what happens. Law suits will ensue, for good reason.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
You mean why wasn't it a D-? ;)

Raji deserved an F for his performance in 2013.

Rodgers signed that deal before there was a rookie salary scale. He was free to negotiate any amount he could manage. It's worth noting that contract had in it something like $17 mil in incentives and escalators, by the way. If he didn't earn them it was because he was on the bench for 3 years. The salary cap at the time of Rodgers deal was $85.5 mil, about half what it will be by 2018 for some perspective. In year 4, he broke out. After that year he got a nice renegotiation. What's wrong with that? Had he blown an Achilles on the first day of OTAs and never played a down that "rounding error" would have been a rip off, as with Sherrod (or Justin Harrell, or any other busted first rounder). There's 20/20 hindsight in your complaint.

Matthews also signed before the rookie salary scale was in place with the cap set at $123 mil for 2009. While Matthews was immediately impactful, the chronic hamstring injuries were troublesome. In any case, the Packers end up with a winning deal in the win-some-lose-some draft roulette. And Matthews got a whopping deal a year early for his trouble.

Sherrod was signed under the rookie scale. The salary scale is intended to prevent the opposite scenario that is worthy of equal complaint...Sam Bradford getting a $76 million rookie contract with $50 mil guaranteed being the last and largest of the ever more excessive rookie deals. Bradford was the last straw and the owners' poster child for the 2011 CBA negotiation.

All players are speculative at the time they are drafted. You win some; you lose some. At least the salary scale puts some rationality into the process instead of paying guys Pro Bowl money before they've even taken a snap.

The nub of the problem is in the nature of binding contracts (and collective bargaining agreements)...sometimes one party comes out ahead and the other gets the short end of the stick. How could it ever be otherwise? Sometimes, the guy on the long end wants to keep the guy on the short end happy and renegotiates. Sometimes he doesn't. In every walk of life people sign employment contracts or join a union. Some underperform their pay; some outperform it. What are you going to do about it? A contract is a contract. Life can be fair; often it is not.

While most of what you posted above is true you missed the point. TJV was questioning the reasons for the league handing out $8K in performance-based pay to Rodgers, who is earning $20+ million per season.

It appears to be a team decision as to who gets what. But despite the amount being a "rounding error", to borrow your phrase, do you think there is no grousing in any locker rooms or questioning by any player of how these bonuses were arrived at?

The league uses a predefined formula to figure out the performance-based pay for each team. It is computed by using a “player index.” To produce the index, a player’s regular-season playtime (total plays on offense, defense and special teams) is divided by his adjusted regular-season compensation (full season salary, prorated portion of signing bonus, earned incentives). Each player’s index is then compared to those of the other players on his team to determine the amount of his pay.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Raji deserved an F for his performance in 2013.
I was trying to be positive in light of the new season. ;) When comparing Daniels' stats from 2014 to Raji's from 2013, with those guys taking about the same number of snaps at substantially the same positions, the Raji excuses go further out the window while going a long way toward confirming any reasonable eye test.
While most of what you posted above is true you missed the point. TJV was questioning the reasons for the league handing out $8K in performance-based pay to Rodgers, who is earning $20+ million per season.
That was one point of several THX was making. I guess I should check the rules to see if I'm required to address all of them. ;) But since you bring it up, why single out Rodgers? All of the highly compensated players got bonuses.
The league uses a predefined formula to figure out the performance-based pay for each team. It is computed by using a “player index.” To produce the index, a player’s regular-season playtime (total plays on offense, defense and special teams) is divided by his adjusted regular-season compensation (full season salary, prorated portion of signing bonus, earned incentives). Each player’s index is then compared to those of the other players on his team to determine the amount of his pay.
Then it's not a performance bonus at all. It's a snap count bonus regardless of the quality of the snaps. It more closely resembles a roster bonus than a performance bonus. The program is smart in not getting into statistical performance measures for the reasons cited previously, but it's probably not going to prevent clubhouse grousing (or silent resentment). THX is grousing, perhaps justified, about one $8,000 payment, and he doesn't even have any skin in the game. And while there will always be some bench players who silently (or maybe not so silently) desire that the player in front of him surrender his snaps one way or the other to get to that next contract, now there's hard immediate cash attached to it.

The program is not all bad, but it's no basis for a program designed to solve the broad "problem" of guys being underpaid or the lack of a mechanism to claw back guaranteed money from an under performer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Half Empty

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
4,465
Reaction score
598
But because of the health hazards and relatively short careers - compared to "normal" careers - I don't have a problem with guarantees for NFL players.

In every walk of life people sign employment contracts or join a union.

I sure we can all think of many jobs/professions in which health/danger is a major factor and/or where the tenure is limited, but the participants aren't rewarded with the ability to retire by age 30 - particularly after signing a contract where that amount is guaranteed, regardless of future performance. Same goes for everyone signing contracts or joining unions - plenty of folks work to support their families without either.

I am a Packer fan, but I was much more 60 years ago when the players needed off-season jobs and I could understand the numbers on their contracts. Made them "my" Packers instead of the whoever is in the current group of millionaires wearing Packer uniforms.

Sorry, but anyone defending current (and, particularly, guaranteed) sports compensation (including the commissioner, owners, et. al.) has really mashed my hot button. Back to the discussion at hand.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
But since you bring it up, why single out Rodgers? All of the highly compensated players got bonuses.

I just used Rodgers as an example. IMO players making several millions a season shouldn´t be eligible for the performance-based pay, which as you mentioned correctly is about performance at all.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,070
Reaction score
7,891
Location
Madison, WI
I understand the view of "what if a player gets hurt and can never play again" but that is what insurance (purchased by the player-see Jermichael Finley) or actually retraining for another job is for. IMO if a player/worker gets hurt during the course of their job, benefits that resemble that player/employee still doing that same job should cease.

Let's face it, the NFL is a extremely lucrative business (thanks to us fans), with so much money being made that teams are able to secure the elite players with guaranteed money. So as long as we all keep watching, buying jerseys, etc the money is there for them to spend.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
I sure we can all think of many jobs/professions in which health/danger is a major factor and/or where the tenure is limited, but the participants aren't rewarded with the ability to retire by age 30 - particularly after signing a contract where that amount is guaranteed regardless of future performance.
Actually, this is fairly common in the entertainment industry at large. While "injury" per se is not an issue outside sports, there are many highly paid jobs where the "players" get big advance money on the speculation of a hit product, while those players are at high risk of a short shelf life. Think of all the tween idols who failed to transition as their audience ages. Or movie actresses, who are hired first for their looks and secondarily for their acting ability...the ones still working past age 40 are far outnumbered by the ones who don't.

Anyhow, it could be worse...MLB and NBA contracts are fully guaranteed. I'm convinced that the rash of arm injuries to MLB pitchers are partly a function of young players throwing all out on too high of a percentage of pitches to get to that second contract, after which the chips fall where they may, provided they last that long.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
Rodgers signed that deal … In year 4, he broke out. After that year he got a nice renegotiation. What's wrong with that? Had he blown an Achilles on the first day of OTAs and never played a down that "rounding error" would have been a rip off, as with Sherrod (or Justin Harrell, or any other busted first rounder). There's 20/20 hindsight in your complaint.
As captainWIMM noted, you completely missed the point. Nowhere in my post was a complaint about Rodgers’ renegotiation. In fact the only thing I wrote remotely relevant to that was I like the idea of top draft picks getting less money so more money is available to vets who earn their renegotiated deals. Rodgers was paid $10.9M in 2014 on a contract that averages about $22M/year. $8,256.86 is .07575% of $10.9M. I think characterizing less than one-tenth of one percent a rounding error is accurate. And your criticism that “there’s 20/20 hindsight in my complaint is funny since that is exactly what the NFL’s performance-based pay is. It looks back at the previous season and with 20/20 hindsight compensates underpaid players. The rest of your post may be relevant with regard to some other argument, but is not relevant with regard to the portion of my post you quoted, or my entire post. Let me try this one more time: The NFL's performance-based pay program is a good idea. Linsley is a great example of a player who deserved such a large sum (as a percentage of his 2014 compensation). Awarding Aaron Rodgers less than one-tenth of one percent makes no sense because: (1) If you really believe he was underpaid, that paltry amount doesn’t make up for it, and (2) If you believe he wasn’t underpaid, why not forgo those kinds of payments (to Matthews and Sherrod too) which either aren’t significant to the higher paid players, or aren’t deserved to players like Sherrod and add that money to the players who were truly underpaid.

BTW, nowhere in the article does it say the team gets to decide how much each player receives. It only says it’s a league program.
 
Last edited:

Vrill

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
137
I'm betting Guion's suspension gets cut down to 2 games. Steeler RB Bell's suspension went from 3 to 2 also. Both cases are kind of similar.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I'm betting Guion's suspension gets cut down to 2 games. Steeler RB Bell's suspension went from 3 to 2 also. Both cases are kind of similar.

Bell has been suspended for violating the league´s substance abuse policy because he was driving under the influence. While the league hasn´t announced Guion´s suspension because of the appeal process still running I expect him to be suspended under the personal conduct policy.
 

Vrill

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
137
Bell has been suspended for violating the league´s substance abuse policy because he was driving under the influence. While the league hasn´t announced Guion´s suspension because of the appeal process still running I expect him to be suspended under the personal conduct policy.

I meant being cut down a game from 3 to 2.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Let's face it, the NFL is a extremely lucrative business (thanks to us fans), with so much money being made that teams are able to secure the elite players with guaranteed money. So as long as we all keep watching, buying jerseys, etc the money is there for them to spend.
It's extremely lucrative for the top earning franchises, moderately lucrative for the middle third, and generally a lousy investment for the bottom third.

The Packers, for example, are among the more healthy franchises, ranked 13th. on the Forbes 2014 franchise valuation list. For the 2015 fiscal year, the Packers reported record revenue of $375.7 million and net income of $29.2 million. That's a net margin of 7.8%, which is hardly "extremely lucrative" relative to, say, an average Fortune 500 company. Since they dipped a bit into reserves, it would appear net cash flow was negative. The difference between net income and the negative cash flow would appear to be accounted for by capital investments in the entertainment/lodging/shopping/whatnot complex surrounding the stadium in an effort to increase unshared revenue. It is a speculative investment...as we know, "build it and they will come" is far from a sure bet. And the Packers are hardly unique...unshared revenue is the owners' holy grail.

The NFL's impact is far more a cultural phenomenon than a financial one. Goldman Sachs, an investment bank (actually a "systemically significant" commercial bank with the associated capital requirements, but who's counting) is comparable in that such enterprises have a high number of highly compensated individuals taking home about half the revenue. GS is currently valued at 4x the Forbes' entire NFL valuation which is probably understated based on the Bills sale, on about 3x the NFL's revenue.

The most lucrative franchises are primarily the one's with long term ownership (individuals or families) with a relatively small initial investment...the return on invested capital must be very attractive for them. Their big issue is estate planning.

But what would induce someone like Terry Pegula to pay $1.4 billion cash for the Buffalo Bills, carrying the 31st. highest Forbes valuation of $930 mil with only the Rams ranking lower? And the Rams are demanding a new St. Louis stadium or, better yet, would jump at the chance to make the move to a new stadium in LA.

The answer to the Pegula question is mostly ego, I'd say. He zooms to the top of the list of most recognizable names in the region. He is a local hero for keeping the Bills in Buffalo, surpassing Cuomo (who gets mixed reviews for gun legislation among other things) who has committed $1 billion in Buffalo investment, $200 mil alone going to Solar City for 1,200 good jobs and supplier knock on affects.

Pegula is probably envisioning economies of scale and synergies with his Sabres ownership, but that's hard to see since the two stadiums are nowhere near each other. He did make Brandon president of both the Sabres and Bills, saving a paycheck, so that's something I guess. Long term, he'd have to be envisioning a downtown dome near the hockey arena, mostly on the taxpayer's dime, otherwise it doesn't make much financial sense. That's going to be a tough sell, and makes for a highly speculative investment, not a cash cow.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
As captainWIMM noted, you completely missed the point. Nowhere in my post was a complaint about Rodgers’ renegotiation.
My apologies. I misread your thousands as millions and thought you were comparing rookie contracts.

As for the rest, I don't see any reason to change my opinions, though they are not in counterpoint to yours.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I agree and no wink. His performance in 2013 was atrocious imo. I am hoping that he is on a very short leash and a snap count of no more than 30-35.

It depends on Raji's performance. If he's capable of stopping the run and provide some pass rush there's no need to have him on a snap count.

Who else ya got?

If Raji doesn't perform on a decent level Pennel could take some snaps at nose tackle as long as Guion is suspended with Daniels, Peppers, Neal and Jones (starting in week 2) rushing the passer from the inside in subpackages. Maybe Ringo is another option as well.

Bell was DUI and Pot, Our guy was a bunch of pot and money?

Guion had a gun in his car as well.

While Bell has been suspended for violating the substance abuse policy I expect Guion's case to fall under the league's personal conduct policy.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
I think the whole "gun in the car" thing is ****ing stupid. There's the letter of the law and intent. Having a gun with drugs was to add more penalties to those protecting drugs with guns and stop the trafficking of guns and drugs so we could pile on more punishment.

In this case, it was registered, he was licensed to carry by a state of these united States of America, the gun was unloaded and locked in a hard case and was merely being transported in a car. They tag it to the rest because they can, and the media loves it because it brings up images that sell copies.
 

Latest posts

Top