Jump to content

Kiwanuka speaks out against NFL contracts.


SenorGato

Recommended Posts

Also, I glossed over it when I first read the article, but I do think Kiwanuka's claim that maybe everyone should be on 1-year contracts to be a bit disingenuous.  Franchised players hate the tag even though they're guaranteed big money.  They want more guaranteed $ than a 1-year deal buys them, and I can't say I blame them.  

 

And even aside from guys who are tagged, few UFAs are willing to pass up on additional security for the ability to max out on their earnings, by maxing out on successive 1-year contracts to the highest bidder.  Revis is doing that now, but he's the exception.  Players do it if a show-me deal is better for them than accept a lower paying long term deal (e.g. Hakeem Nicks this year, LaRon Landry 2 years ago, etc.).  But in a prime UFA year, few players desire a 1-year deal (or an effective 1-year deal like Revis is doing with NE) over a long-term one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Also, I glossed over it when I first read the article, but I do think Kiwanuka's claim that maybe everyone should be on 1-year contracts to be a bit disingenuous.  Franchised players hate the tag even though they're guaranteed big money.  They want more guaranteed $ than a 1-year deal buys them, and I can't say I blame them.  

 

And even aside from guys who are tagged, few UFAs are willing to pass up on additional security for the ability to max out on their earnings, by maxing out on successive 1-year contracts to the highest bidder.  Revis is doing that now, but he's the exception.  Players do it if a show-me deal is better for them than accept a lower paying long term deal (e.g. Hakeem Nicks this year, LaRon Landry 2 years ago, etc.).  But in a prime UFA year, few players desire a 1-year deal (or an effective 1-year deal like Revis is doing with NE) over a long-term one.

The 1 year contract thing is not new. But both sides what ever their reasons want to hold on to the devil they know rather than venture into the unknown. It might be chaotic for a time. Still it would be better than a cap. Players have a very short term of earning money.The NFL uses the cap to supress those wages. If there was some tradeoff for that-quality post career health care and pensions that vested sooner or partially, perhaps-may be there would be some justification. But there isn't.These players get dropped on the curb like day old bread.

And sadly for that the NFLPA is as bad as the owners. DeMaurice Smith likes announcements of huge unguaranteed long term contracts, shiny trinkets thrown to many of the silly fools who don't see the big picture of 3 year average careers and serious health issues in your late 30s and 40s.That may not be true of all the players, but a lot of them. Heck, practice squad guys get no pension vesting time until the make the roster.Guys can be stashed there almost forever. Goodell may be bad guy for doing the owners' bidding, but Smith is worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.  It's on the system.  He is right.  The system sucks.  He is not saying the Giants violated the rules, he is saying he doesn't like the rules.  He signed a 4 year deal and has a choice of a more than 50% pay cut or moving his pregnant wife.  Not exactly an easy choice. The team is not compelled because of the unfair system.  Especially when you consider that they have to artificially keep contracts down.  Kiwanuka's "family planning" was made in the middle of the deal, right when you'd responsibly expect it. 

 

 

Thats the way it typically works for higher income jobs, because they are more scare. Theres tons of executives at companies that move all over the country for their careers because it's very likely that the next job offer isn't going to come from the same area..

 

The people who really get the shaft are military families who are forced to move all the time, endure long periods of being separated and make small incomes. A girl I know got married 2 years ago, and has only lived together a few months, her husband is in CA and she is in NC, and she's not bothering to move because he's about to be deployed for 10 months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...