Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Jennings' contract question...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jaybadger82" data-source="post: 462017" data-attributes="member: 6211"><p>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.)</p><p> </p><p>Teams receive security by monopolizing a player's services and they are generally protected from overpaying players because they can cancel the agreement on a whim. On the other hand, players cannot cancel their contracts and it's difficult for them to renegotiate unless their team is interested in locking them up. As a whole, this system provides much greater security for franchises as long as they don't agree to a contract that is structured poorly (as with your Walker and Haynesworth examples above).</p><p> </p><p>P.S., I like how these examples came from Al Davis and Dan Snyder-owned operations. Seems about right.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>I wasn't really upset by any of this until the last sentence, which is just plain <u>factually incorrect</u> and underlines what all my quibbling is about.</p><p> </p><p>A contract terminates at-will employment and replaces it with the terms negotiated.</p><p> </p><p>Since NFL teams are generally free to dissolve a player contract when it suits them, the relationship remains fundamentally at will for management. However, players do not receive the corresponding freedom to take their services to a higher bidder. This is NOT an at will arrangement for players.</p><p> </p><p>So what does all this mean? -It means franchises receive broad protection from overpaying players but players do not receive the corresponding protection from under-compensation. This hinders the market from setting efficient prices for services. (And <em>I'm </em>the one in the "anti-business" camp?)</p><p> </p><p>Coupled with the uncertainty that characterizes an NFL career, this contributes to a disparity in bargaining position between players and management that makes me sympathetic to the individual athletes navigating this mess.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jaybadger82, post: 462017, member: 6211"] 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.) Teams receive security by monopolizing a player's services and they are generally protected from overpaying players because they can cancel the agreement on a whim. On the other hand, players cannot cancel their contracts and it's difficult for them to renegotiate unless their team is interested in locking them up. As a whole, this system provides much greater security for franchises as long as they don't agree to a contract that is structured poorly (as with your Walker and Haynesworth examples above). P.S., I like how these examples came from Al Davis and Dan Snyder-owned operations. Seems about right. [COLOR=#141414][FONT=Tahoma][/FONT][/COLOR] I wasn't really upset by any of this until the last sentence, which is just plain [U]factually incorrect[/U] and underlines what all my quibbling is about. A contract terminates at-will employment and replaces it with the terms negotiated. Since NFL teams are generally free to dissolve a player contract when it suits them, the relationship remains fundamentally at will for management. However, players do not receive the corresponding freedom to take their services to a higher bidder. This is NOT an at will arrangement for players. So what does all this mean? -It means franchises receive broad protection from overpaying players but players do not receive the corresponding protection from under-compensation. This hinders the market from setting efficient prices for services. (And [I]I'm [/I]the one in the "anti-business" camp?) Coupled with the uncertainty that characterizes an NFL career, this contributes to a disparity in bargaining position between players and management that makes me sympathetic to the individual athletes navigating this mess. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
Don Barclay
Green_Bay_Packers
PackerinSD
Latest posts
2024 Packer UDFA Tracker....
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Yesterday at 10:55 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 3rd round #88 MarShawn Lloyd RB
Latest: Poppa San
Yesterday at 10:38 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
R
2024 2nd Rd pick #58 Javon Bullard S
Latest: RicFlairoftheNFL
Yesterday at 10:05 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 Round 7, pick 245: Michael Pratt, QB
Latest: Thirteen Below
Yesterday at 10:04 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 Round 7, pick 255 (compensatory): Kalen King, CB
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 9:56 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Jennings' contract question...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top