Wide Receiver Options

[tynimiller]

Athletes are not employees like us. Unless you work for a monopoly with no competition on a contractual job you are not like them. If anything they’re closest to the military. Sign a 4 year deal with the possibility of unvolintarily having your service extended even if you have a better deal on the table (5th year option, franchise tag).

Most jobs if you excel in your field you would look for a raise. If you are denied that raise you could go pursue another job in your field with a competing job. If worth more you will get the raise you deserve.

Pro athletes can’t do that because there are no competing leagues.

That fifth year option is a hefty hike in pay and is a result of a player proving to be worth it however? No?

(Not directed at any specifically with following)

It is a give and take type situation in the NFL, neither side is blemish free in the “issues” and both sides choose to be part of the chaos (owners and players)

 

[Voyageur]

Athletes are not employees like us. Unless you work for a monopoly with no competition on a contractual job you are not like them. If anything they’re closest to the military. Sign a 4 year deal with the possibility of unvolintarily having your service extended even if you have a better deal on the table (5th year option, franchise tag).

Most jobs if you excel in your field you would look for a raise. If you are denied that raise you could go pursue another job in your field with a competing job. If worth more you will get the raise you deserve.

Pro athletes can’t do that because there are no competing leagues.

You're right about the average person not being under contract on their jobs. Still, they try to negotiate for higher wages, and if they don't get it, look for better employment. The difference is, the door won't hit them in the rear on their way out, where as the pro athletes can't get the door open without making waves. I'm not saying it's fair, or not. That's not my department. I do know that the money they makes comes with a lot of restrictions, and they have a choice out front, of going down that path, or taking a job in another field.

I spent quite a few years of my life working under contracts. I understand them fully. It doesn't change the fact that even when you're under contract, you still have the desire to advance yourself, and make more money. I renegotiated a couple of mine midstream.

The difference is, my unhappiness with the contracts wasn't hashed over in the media, and I wasn't called a traitor, etc, because I wanted to renegotiate. Athletes live in a fish bowl, and everything they say, and do, becomes a pissing match in the media because of fans.

And yes, I even had two military enlistments. I did a hitch in the Army, and another in the Air Force. Both of them were a form of contract, because they held specified dates of duration.

 

[Packerbacker1996]

Athletes are employees just like each of us are on our jobs. I wonder how many fans would be happy about their lives being turned into a fish bowl existence like the athletes? My guess is, the number wouldn't be too high. Especially after the unfounded rumors and accusations by idiots start to enter the picture.

I think most of the fans would be just fine being compliant if we ware making the reduculouse amounts of money they do.

Don't compare someone making $1000/week with someone making $10000/week---$1000000/week and they have same level of expectations from them.

Use your head.

 

[Team Ronny]

It doesn't matter what they make..it is never enough!! I mean Rodgers will have made close to 500 million in his football career. Who knows how much from endorsements and bucks ownership.

 

[Voyageur]

I think most of the fans would be just fine being compliant if we ware making the reduculouse amounts of money they do.

Don't compare someone making $1000/week with someone making $10000/week---$1000000/week and they have same level of expectations from them.

Use your head.

I suggest you use your head. The amount of money people makes is not a criteria as to whether or not they can be unhappy with the earnings. It's all relative to what they're getting paid in comparison to their peers, not in comparison to the sorry arsed pay check you're getting.

And by the way, they don't really give a rat's *** what you think. Come to think of it, neither do I.

 

[PikeBadger]

Just a quick reminder to get your picks in the annual Amish draft contest in soon over at the Draft Talk forum. We're less than a week away from the big day.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

How is that a real option? You mean they could quit football? Obviously the franchise tag was good for us.

Yes. They can refuse to sign the franchise offer. And if the Packers decide not to trade the player (as they have the right to refuse to do) then the player can retire.

A player not signing the franchise tender must be prepared to sit out either an entire season or at least several games. But at some point the team will figure out it's best to trade such a player instead of receiving nothing in return.

and him signing last minute or at any point would have counted just over 20M against our cap this year.

Just for the record, Adams counted $20 million against the cap as soon as the Packers put the franchise tag on him.

The player has the option to sign the tag and play for the money or sit out the year and then he becomes a free agent again (I don't think a team can apply the tag a second time if the player sits but I could be wrong.)

As far as I know a team could put the franchise tag on a player who sat out the previous season while not signing it.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I think most of the fans would be just fine being compliant if we ware making the reduculouse amounts of money they do.

Don't compare someone making $1000/week with someone making $10000/week---$1000000/week and they have same level of expectations from them.

Use your head.

The people making 10,000/week aren't comapring themselves to people making 1,000/week. You think every job should look at minimum wage and be happy with whatever they're paid, even if they're grossly underpaid by their employer relative to what others in their profession are making? Actually looking at your logic, what you're advocating is for the people signing the checks to take more money home and pay the employees less.

 

[OldSchool101]

Where do I hear the impassioned pleas for the Packers to honor the contract that Z Smith signed?

The Packers did honor ZaDarius contract.

Explain this?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

The Packers did honor ZaDarius contract.

Explain this?

I feel like you're trying to be witty in some way that's just beyond my simple mind. Z Smith was released by the Packers this year when his cap number was $27.6 million. What am I missing here?

 

[Packerbacker1996]

The people making 10,000/week aren't comapring themselves to people making 1,000/week. You think every job should look at minimum wage and be happy with whatever they're paid, even if they're grossly underpaid by their employer relative to what others in their profession are making? Actually looking at your logic, what you're advocating is for the people signing the checks to take more money home and pay the employees less.

No. What I'm advocating for is. For the players like Debo to consider his hood fortune and give it some thought as to how his actions will effect the team and the fan base that was cheating for him last season and think that maybe I shut to f up and play hard because I'm only in this position because of all this pore battery's that work 9-5 to watch me play in the first place , and they deserve my commitment to them.

Secondly. If the more domeknr is being paid the more expectations are placed on them and justifiably so bouth by the organization and us the fans to conduct themselves in a way that makes us still want to chear for our respective teams and the league in general.

As for owners taking more instead of the players.
Owners money taking doesn't effect the salary cap and therefor doesn't hurt the organizations ability to field a more competitive team. Greedy selfish players do.

Not a perfect system but from fan perspective better for thd fan base which in 10ns of millions but somehow you and some other folks think that the needs of the few outweigh thd needs of thd many even if the few are already very well of.

 

[OldSchool101]

I feel like you're trying to be witty in some way that's just beyond my simple mind. Z Smith was released by the Packers this year when his cap number was $27.6 million. What am I missing here?

That’s not correct.

Was Z or was he not paid according to the terms of his contract? Was his contract breeched by the Packers?

In fairness please answer Yes or No and then you can elaborate. Don’t continue to elaborate without answering yes or no first please.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

That’s not correct.

Was Z or was he not paid according to the terms of his contract?
Yes or No and then you can elaborate. Don’t elaborate without answering yes or no.

Yes it is. Part of the contract is the time on the contract. 4 years is 4 years. The packers signed a contract to pay him X dollars over 4 years. That didn’t happen did it?

 

[Mondio]

Yes it is. Part of the contract is the time on the contract. 4 years is 4 years. The packers signed a contract to pay him X dollars over 4 years. That didn’t happen did it?

no, but he trades those guarantees for time with up front and bonus monies paid out, which he got everything in the contract.

 

[OldSchool101]

Yes it is. Part of the contract is the time on the contract. 4 years is 4 years. The packers signed a contract to pay him X dollars over 4 years. That didn’t happen did it?

Yes it was met.

The contract has a minimum requirement to
A = pay him a guaranteed
OR
B= satisfy the Contract term

The propositional definition of
OR
means

A = a true value (or satisfied)
B = true
A and B = true.

The contract is met if they pay him his contractual guaranteed regardless of him ever taking a snap.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

no, but he trades those guarantees for time up front and bonus monies paid out, which he got everything in the contract.

Ok, teams don't have to honor contracts because the player knows they won't but players should honor contracts when they and the team know those contracts will be re-negotiated later? What am I missing? Does logic only work when it's pro-team?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Yes it was met.

The contract has a minimum requirement to pay him a guaranteed
OR
Contract term

OR means

A = true (or satisfied)
B is true
A and B is true.

And teams don't know players will want to be paid commensurate with others at their position? Again, why does this logic only work when it's pro-team?

 

[OldSchool101]

And teams don't know players will want to be paid commensurate with others at their position? Again, why does this logic only work when it's pro-team?

Or doesn’t only work pro team. That’s why it’s called a contract.

It takes at least 2 parties to make a contract. It’s an offer by at least 1 party. A consideration by the other parties. They review it and either accept or decline or counter it.

ZaDarius Smith and the Packers entered a binding contract. The contract came to fruition once the guaranteed requirements were met.

You’ve made an accusation against the Packers Organization that is unequivocally false and misleading.
Why is that?

Ohhh Are you mad about Davante attempting to breech his agreement?? You do realize the Packers were being nice letting him go don’t you? They were much more cordial than they had to be.
It is well known that each team has a franchise tag and can exercise its use if needed in order to match offers. The Team with the tag takes precedent and can receive up to 2 separate Day 1 selections in a dispute like this. All parties knew that long ago. Heck. You knew that.

 

[Mondio]

Ok, teams don't have to honor contracts because the player knows they won't but players should honor contracts when they and the team know those contracts will be re-negotiated later? What am I missing? Does logic only work when it's pro-team?

There's a give and take, I don't put them all under a blanket rule. It's an odd profession in that it generates a ton of money plus more in which guys have careers that are relatively short to the regular work force. There is a lot of unknown in development and they're paying a lot more than the start up 30K amounts as a ground floor employee and working their way up. There are injury risks and investments that are risky for both player and teams etc. There's a lot going on. None of it is probably perfect for any one person, but seems to be pretty good for the players and league as a whole.

Most players on rookie contracts do very well for the amount of production they give. Some over play it. Vets know the game. They give up guaranteed numbers of years for guaranteed dollars. Teams take a risk with up front dollars hoping they can reach 2,3,4,5 years into a contract depending on the player and position/age etc. I don't think there is usually a problem with it.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Or doesn’t only work pro team. That’s why it’s called a contract.

It takes at least 2 parties to make a contract. It’s an offer by at least 1 party. A consideration by the other parties. They review it and either accept or decline or counter it.

ZaDarius Smith and the Packers entered a binding contract. The contract came to fruition once the guaranteed requirements were met.

You’ve made an accusation against the Packers Organization that is unequivocally false and misleading.
Why is that?

Ohhh Are you mad about Davante attempting to breech his agreement?? You do realize the Packers were being nice letting him go don’t you? They were much more cordial than they had to be.

Because you just told me the contract isn't binding! The team can opt out whenever it wants so long as the guaranteed portion is paid. I'm not mad about anything other than the convoluted logic that says teams get to cut players whenever they want but players don't have any right to use leverage and re-negotiate a contract. Fans get really anti-labor when it comes to sports. The players aren't just stopping playing, they're holding out. They're not tearing up their contract, if they don't play then they don't get an accrued year on the contract but fans treat players like they have to be good little doggies and obey their masters at all times.

 

[sschind]

The people making 10,000/week aren't comapring themselves to people making 1,000/week. You think every job should look at minimum wage and be happy with whatever they're paid, even if they're grossly underpaid by their employer relative to what others in their profession are making? Actually looking at your logic, what you're advocating is for the people signing the checks to take more money home and pay the employees less.

For me it is not about the players making an absurd amount of money or wanting to be the highest paid. I think its ridiculous but like you said when they are compared to their peers should we really expect them to take less than someone else. What gets me is that in the NFL there is only so much money to go around and it has to be shared by 60-70 people, maybe more. If the guys at the top demand a bigger slice that leaves less for the rest of the guys and if you think having more money to spend on other players means you will have better players thus a better team it gets kind of touchy.

I don't so much mind a player going for all he can get but when his demands make it harder for the team to put or keep better players around him I can't help but lose a bit of respect for him. Especially if he makes any sort of comment about winning being important. IMO you can't realistically expect to be a part of a consistent winning team if your demands are making it that much harder to build a winning team.

My favorite players, besides the best ones are the ones that played their whole careers, or most of it for one team. Especially those who suffered through one horrendous team after another without making extreme contract demands. Now in many of these instances these players were very well compensated for their loyalty. I'm not saying they necessarily took less but you never heard about them in the midst of a contract struggle. Their teams took care of them but they never wanted more. Guys like Larry Fitzgerald, Calvin Johnson, AJ Green, Matt Stafford, Tim Brown and a bunch of others. I know that some of these guys were probably the highest paid at their positions at one point (Johnson and Stafford I think for sure) but I don't recall them making that demand. It was time for them to get paid and the team came through. Heck, I even have a bunch of respect for Tom Brady in that respect. I am in no way suggesting he hasn't made a ton of money nor am I suggesting he took less but he was willing to work with his team to at least give them a chance to keep a winning team around him. Its so much better IMO than a player, even if he is the best at his position, saying I demand to make more than anyone else because I am the best.

So go ahead. Demand all the money you can get, you have earned earned that right and I won't even say you are wrong for doing so but if you want me to take your side that's not the way to get it done. I know you don't care if I take your side or not since I am one person that you will never even know exists but I am part of the public opinion and part of your fan base. If you want the support of the public and the fans you may just want to think twice about it. Not that I expect you to because like most of society "I got mine" seems to be the prevalent ideology.

 

[Mondio]

Because you just told me the contract isn't binding! The team can opt out whenever it wants so long as the guaranteed portion is paid. I'm not mad about anything other than the convoluted logic that says teams get to cut players whenever they want but players don't have any right to use leverage and re-negotiate a contract. Fans get really anti-labor when it comes to sports. The players aren't just stopping playing, they're holding out. They're not tearing up their contract, if they don't play then they don't get an accrued year on the contract but fans treat players like they have to be good little doggies and obey their masters at all times.

if that's how you see my position, I guess that's what it is. Maybe ALL the money that is designated towards players in every year should go into one giant pool. Every player, every position is paid a set amount by slots. Just like rookie pools are now. and then at the end of the year there are bonuses paid to those that produce the most. But then you can never cut a player before his contract is up so you don't get into the place where a guy gets 30M up front to protect him against an injury shortened career and is in year 2 of a contract and is done, but has been paid for 3.5 years of service up front with more to be earned later.

now he gets his base no matter what, but it's hundreds of thousands, like rookies and to make the 10's of millions, he must produce and earn bonuses. I don't think the players will take it, but it could work.

 

[Dantés]

Here's a full list of receivers whose names have at least been rumored to be on the block. They haven't all been connected to Green Bay, and they don't all make sense to me, but here they are in one place:

-D.K. Metcalf, Seattle, 24, 1/4M remaining

-Deebo Samuel, San Francisco, 26, 1/4 remaining

-A.J. Brown, Tennessee, 24, 1/4M remaining

-Terry McLaurin, Washington, 26, 1/2.8 remaining

-Tyler Lockett, Seattle, 29, 3/40 remaining

-Keenan Allen, L.A. (Chargers), 29, 3/50 remaining

 

[OldSchool101]

Because you just told me the contract isn't binding! The team can opt out whenever it wants so long as the guaranteed portion is paid. I'm not mad about anything other than the convoluted logic that says teams get to cut players whenever they want but players don't have any right to use leverage and re-negotiate a contract. Fans get really anti-labor when it comes to sports. The players aren't just stopping playing, they're holding out. They're not tearing up their contract, if they don't play then they don't get an accrued year on the contract but fans treat players like they have to be good little doggies and obey their masters at all times.

You’re making it sound like it’s 1 poor little helpless player against the league. That’s not the case at all is what I’m trying to get across.

Players have Unions, Agents and all sorts of safeguards in place. Contract Minimums, retirement plans, injury solutions. Todays players are not only paid very well, they have better benefits than the US military does after retirement.

I think you are being overprotective of players like Davante.
That Cat is Fat and happy
You and I should be the ones feeling sorry for ourselves! Davante should be defending our sorry butts

It would be fun to see Watson and Pickens light it up with #12

 

[sschind]

Yes it is. Part of the contract is the time on the contract. 4 years is 4 years. The packers signed a contract to pay him X dollars over 4 years. That didn’t happen did it?

I could be wrong but I think every NFL contract has the stipulation in it that the team can cut a player. If it does then the teams are doing nothing wrong. If the players want 4 years to mean 4 years with no option for the team to cut them they had better be prepared to make a whole lot less money The players union could fight for guaranteed contracts, which is what you are asking for, in the next CBA but they will need to realize that the contracts will be a lot shorter and for a lot less money and for a lot less up front (no signing bonuses). I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that.