jaybadger82
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2012
- Messages
- 837
- Reaction score
- 83
...we could have the whitest receiving corps in the NFL.
"Security" is a terrible euphemism for jumping at guaranteed money in a profession where careers can end in a single play.
Jennings jumped at a similar offer a few years ago and it represented a great value to the Packers. Based on production, he was underpaid. Why be so accommodating this time around? I don't hold this against him. In free agency, Jennings would probably have a number of suitors and his value would be set by the highest bidder. That's not payment for past performance, that's market value.
Half of this third-contract star FA stuff is about bragging rights, ego, pecking order, "respect"...status. Why would an NFL locker room be different from the country club locker room, yacht yard or private plane hangers, albeit on a smaller scale?
We're largely in agreement. Except, in a league where the deck is so clearly stacked against players, I don't feel a need to take such a condescending and management-friendly tone in describing rational business decision-making by an individual player.
The Packers will probably steer clear of Jennings because large contracts present large risks. I don't hold this against them, either.
It will suck to see him in another uni, though.
I'm sure there are other teams with more than one white WR... Right? I'm not sure and entirely too lazy to check....we could have the whitest receiving corps in the NFL.
...we could have the whitest receiving corps in the NFL.
If you've ever seen one of those reality shows where people squander their lottery winnings you should know that it's easy to **** away millions.I think "security" is a somewhat apt term. Maybe "financial security" would be better? I don't know what else you'd call it when you're guaranteed $8 million or $20 million or $50 million in pay before you do the work.
If anything, it's inapt for the opposite reason you suggest. Jennings current 4 year deal was for about $27 mil with some incentives (most if not all have been earned), with about $16 mil guaranteed. He should ALREADY be financially secure. If he isn't, it ain't the owners' problem. I guess his next deal is for "more security".
I've got more sympathy for the guys playing for the minimum with no guarantee, but at least they got a free college education (if they chose to avail themselves of it) and at least $390,000 for one years work. Still and all, not a bad start in life if the guy busts out early in his career.
Don't get me wrong. Jennings is an outstanding player. He's one of the best route runners in the league, savy and productive in the red zone, not afraid to go over the middle, and one of the best back shoulder receivers in the league...those catches kill corner confidence. He's a hard worker, a good citizen, an engaging personality. The point I've been trying to make is that there are mounting signs he will not be resigned at market.
I think "security" is a somewhat apt term. Maybe "financial security" would be better? I don't know what else you'd call it when you're guaranteed $8 million or $20 million or $50 million in pay before you do the work.
If anything, it's inapt for the opposite reason you suggest. Jennings current 4 year deal was for about $27 mil with some incentives (most if not all have been earned), with about $16 mil guaranteed. He should ALREADY be financially secure. If he isn't, it ain't the owners' problem. I guess his next deal is for "more security".
I've got more sympathy for the guys playing for the minimum with no guarantee, but at least they got a free college education (if they chose to avail themselves of it) and at least $390,000 for one years work. Still and all, not a bad start in life if the guy busts out early in his career.
And that would matter because....?
It's just a remarkably ignorant statement.
I dunno. Ask CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31751_1...jordy-nelson-says-his-race-helps-him-succeed/
You still clinging to the idea of a colorblind society?
I'm always willing to grant the last word once I've made my points. Congrats.
I'm aware of the Nelson discussions last season. No, I don't cling to such an idea. Quite the opposite. I asked you why it mattered to you.
Why is desiring financial security in any situation “condescending”?
In contract law, “consideration” is “something of value given by both parties to a contract that induces them to enter into the agreement to exchange mutual performances.” So “security” in this context, modified or not, describes the money the players receive no matter what, while “consideration” includes the promises of both parties.
Exchanging a discount for security has nothing to do with naïveté, it’s reality. Otherwise why wouldn’t players love playing for the franchise tag amount? Three consecutive seasons of doing so would be more money than any long-term deal after those three years, but the reason players hate it is because of the risk of injury. When looking at NFL contracts, the guaranteed money is the key because of the risk of injury and job security (someone beating the player out). When I look at NFL contracts I look at the guaranteed money and the annual salaries until the year in which waiving the player renders a lower cap number than keeping him. Except for a career-ending injury, I consider the guaranteed money plus those annual salaries as the security the player is receiving.
jaybadger82, you seem to taking a pro-union, anti-business/management stance.
Of course we can expand the definition of the word "security" to this fit this context if we try hard enough. But, just to reiterate, it's a misleading term that suggests a benefit that players are not actually assured. Whereas a term like "consideration" more accurately describes what players receive: they get paid.You see contracts offering franchises security but offering “nothing of the sort to players”. A common definition of “security” includes “freedom from anxiety” and one online dictionary even offers, “freedom from the prospect of being laid off <job security>”. That’s not “on the nose” but pretty close to the situation we’re discussing. Most would agree “financial security” means never having to worry about money again. At the moment a player signs a contract including, for example, a $15M signing bonus, he has insured financial security for himself and his family even if he can’t play another down of NFL football. With reasonable management of that guaranteed money he and his family never have to worry about money again. Even if the player never works anywhere again. The player is free from financial anxiety and free from the worry of being “laid off”. So via common usage and dictionary definitions, the consideration that player received can be said to provide security for that player and his family.
There are just as many, probably more examples of players that are under compensated: Aaron Rodgers, Von Miller, Cam Newton, A.J. Green. (The new rookie wage scale figures prominently here.)It’s interesting you see teams, management, receiving security. There are many examples of teams being on the wrong side of contracts but because of his connection to the Packers on leaps to mind. I was amazed at the contract Javon Walker signed with the Raiders in 2008: Six-years for $55M contract, including $16M guaranteed. The consideration the Raiders received was: In 2008 in 8 games he caught 15 passes for 196 yards and a TD. In 2009 he played in three games and didn’t record a stat. He was released in March of 2010. The Raiders paid him $21M. Albert Haynesworth was guaranteed over $30M by the Redskins. In two seasons he played in 20 games, recorded 53 tackles and 6.5 sacks. I don’t know how much he collected, but do you think the Raiders, Redskins, and every other team that has paid huge money for nearly nothing in terms of production received security in those deals?
I wasn't really upset by any of this until the last sentence, which is just plain factually incorrect and underlines what all my quibbling is about.Players are represented by their union and by agents if they choose to employ them. Teams, players, and agents understand exactly what is being agreed to. Each recognizes that after signing the contract, the player can bust (due to poor performance or injury), underperform, over-perform or perform as expected. Each understands its an employment at will contract and once waived, the player can pursue employment with another NFL team.
Yes, the entire system was made to protect the franchise. You sign a contract saying that you will play this long for this much and that the team can release you at any time. If you are not prepared/willing to play under such conditions, don't sign the contract. Guaranteed money is how players protect themselves, "Even if you release me, you still have to pay x number of dollars: dollars that will affect your cap space." This guaranteed money however is a luxury afforded by productive performance. Take the shaft until you can negotiate some security. It's a play for pay league, and if you don't play, you'll never get paid.What does all this mean? -It means franchises receive broad protection from overpaying players but players do not receive corresponding protection from under compensation. This hinders the market from setting a fair price for services.
You seem to get upset a lot. Relax, this is at least a nice distraction from the Packers' "performance" yesterday. What happened to Cullen Jenkins or any other vested vet (per the CBA which was bargained by the NFLPA)? If they are waived or their current teams don't tag them and pay them multi-millions for one year, they are free to go to the highest bidder. It IS an at will arrangement for vested veterans per the CBA - which the players of course agreed to! That IMO is the biggest flaw in your argument: If the CBA is unfair to players, why did the NFLPA agree to it and why don't the players get better representation?I wasn't really upset by any of this until the last sentence, which is just plain factually incorrect and underlines what all my quibbling is about. A contract terminates at-will employment and replaces it with the terms negotiated.
I was listening to the WTMJ pregame show yesterday and the discussion turned to Jennings' contract and the other stars that will need to be extended in the near future. They turned to Mark Tauscher, a new commentator on the show. I find him to be very intelligent generally and of course knowledgeable about NFL matters. Guess which phrase he used in describing the difference between the franchise tag and signing a long-term extension? Yep, "financial security". So it's not just common language usage and common sense as applied to this situation, it's also a term at least one recent NFL player - and of course I've heard many other pro athletes use it.
There are examples from every franchise of players being overpaid, not just the most obvious. For example, how much money did Justin Harrell receive vs. how much he earned? How 'bout Brian Brohm? In addition to getting paid 4 years of his rookie contract, including signing bonus in Green Bay, Javon Walker received $15M in bonuses alone in Denver before bilking Oakland out of millions. Thank goodness Thompson isn't as foolish as many GMs, but before his tenure as GM, how 'bout Joe Johnson? It's not always a "play for pay league" - Ryan Leaf is another example of a player producing next to nothing for the millions he received.
You're right. I'm literally pulling my hair out over here, just overwrought.You seem to get upset a lot. Relax, this is at least a nice distraction from the Packers' "performance" yesterday.
What happened to Cullen Jenkins or any other vested vet (per the CBA which was bargained by the NFLPA)? If they are waived or their current teams don't tag them and pay them multi-millions for one year, they are free to go to the highest bidder. It IS an at will arrangement for vested veterans per the CBA - which the players of course agreed to! That IMO is the biggest flaw in your argument: If the CBA is unfair to players, why did the NFLPA agree to it and why don't the players get better representation?
That's definitely more than most people earn, but we're talking about an industry that generated $8.3 billion in revenue last season. If the fact that NFL players earn more than the average American helps you rationalize the fact that the NFL labor market subverts free market dynamics and promotes inefficient compensation, then so be it. I just don't understand why I'm being called "anti-business" for acknowledging these realities along with the general disparity in bargaining position between high production players and franchises. The NFL simply lacks a number of free market characteristics...The minimum salaries this season for a rookie, one year, two year and three year player are: $390K, $465K, $540K, and $615K. The vast majority of players get paid more. The minimums increase each year of the CBA so an undrafted rookie who makes a team this season and sticks for the next two years gets paid: $390K, $480K, and $570K. That's nearly a million-five. And everyone else makes more. Not bad for a first job out of college. And here's another fact: After leaving the NFL all players are "allowed" to work for a living and/or start their own business, just like the rest of us.
Hey c'mon, you were the one who posted you were upset - it's not like I made that up. And if the NFLPA doesn't represent the players very well - or well enough - whose fault is that?You're right. I'm literally pulling my hair out over here, just overwrought.
I posted, "jaybadger82, you seem to taking a pro-union, anti-business/management stance", because you bristled at the term "security" being applied to multi-million dollar players but assigned it exclusively to teams, as if only one party to NFL player contracts take all the risk. I believe you have since conceded that point.If the fact that NFL players earn more than the average American helps you rationalize the fact that the NFL labor market subverts free market dynamics and promotes inefficient compensation, then so be it. I just don't understand why I'm being called "anti-business" for acknowledging these realities along with the general disparity in bargaining position between high production players and franchises. The NFL simply lacks a number of free market characteristics...
Hey c'mon, you were the one who posted you were upset - it's not like I made that up. And if the NFLPA doesn't represent the players very well - or well enough - whose fault is that?
I conceded that "security" was widely used to describe what players receive when they sign contracts/extensions. I believe the term is a misnomer. On the balance, the greater security lies with NFL organizations, who possess the option to terminate an agreement.I posted, "jaybadger82, you seem to taking a pro-union, anti-business/management stance", because you bristled at the term "security" being applied to multi-million dollar players but assigned it exclusively to teams, as if only one party to NFL player contracts take all the risk. I believe you have since conceded that point.
That about sums it up.I don't have to rationalize anything in this discussion.
The NFL is in effect exempt from Sherman anti-trust laws because 1) if it weren't only super rich teams like the Cowboys would vie for championships and 2) the players are represented by the NFLPA. If the NFL were a pure free market enterprise, the Packers would have folded a long, long time ago.
That’s it for me on this subject, you can have the last word on this if you’d like…