Jump to content

RB's only have them selves to blame for cheap contracts - Greed and stupidity


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

The CBA has made holding out nearly impossible.  And for rookie deal guys you can't even begin negotiating a new deal till year 3.  Meaning Pacheco would have to wait until 2024 at minimum on a new deal.  Given the shelf life of RBs there's no guarantee whatsoever he'll get to that point.

And of course its an issue with collective bargaining.  Especially when the NFL is all-powerful and the NFLPA is its hapless stooge. 

It’s also an item they can't negotiate back into the CBA until 2030.

I mean, I didn’t make the rules. My suggestion would be to stop watching football if you’re not comfortable with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

I thought a player could hold out at any time to work out a new contract. If they can’t this can be an issue with collective bargaining. Perhaps the union itself is outdated.  Players are also known for not caring about this stuff when it’s time to vote. A lot of them don’t even vote.

The teams are never going to agree to lowering that threshold, whereby a player can hold out for a new deal after just a rookie season. 

But to your point, the players don't care about this because the ones who vote are overwhelmingly not players in their y1-2 or y2-3 offseasons with a realistic desire to renegotiate. It'd be like a veteran player, about to cash in in upcoming FA, arguing for an uncapped rookie pay scale that'd necessarily take cap space away from veterans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

The teams are never going to agree to lowering that threshold, whereby a player can hold out for a new deal after just a rookie season. 

But to your point, the players don't care about this because the ones who vote are overwhelmingly not players in their y1-2 or y2-3 offseasons with a realistic desire to renegotiate. It'd be like a veteran player, about to cash in in upcoming FA, arguing for an uncapped rookie pay scale that'd necessarily take cap space away from veterans. 

Could players vote to abolish the union? How would that impact the current CBA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Matt39 said:

Could players vote to abolish the union? How would that impact the current CBA?

That I can't answer. My guess is even if they do, not until the CBA runs out, but that's totally a guess.

They're not going disband the union over a handful of semi-screwed-over RBs or rookies needing to vest 3 seasons before renegotiating, that's for sure.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

That I can't answer. My guess is even if they do, not until the CBA runs out, but that's totally a guess.

Yeah no idea. Again the issue here is supply and demand and the only resolution is eliminating the salary cap or getting rid of the union/cba and make it similar to soccer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jgb said:

You serious? Cause he might get hurt and get donkey dick next year.

He gets hurt( as long as it’s not career ending)  , he probably get cut after the season.   Some team will give him 10 million .( just don’t want to trade capital and pay him that much ). Just paying him 10 million a lot team would have interest .   10.3 + 10 million still comes to 20 plus.  Better than 19 million guarantee . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Matt39 said:

Yeah no idea. Again the issue here is supply and demand and the only resolution is eliminating the salary cap or getting rid of the union/cba and make it similar to soccer.

The issue here, you mean RBs getting franchise tagged?

There are ways around it without dumping the salary cap or the union/cba.

Will they? I don't know that it's that important to them collectively, tbh. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

That I can't answer. My guess is even if they do, not until the CBA runs out, but that's totally a guess.

They're not going disband the union over a handful of semi-screwed-over RBs or rookies needing to vest 3 seasons before renegotiating, that's for sure.

They’d vote out a union voted by them and vote in a new union. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Raideraholic said:

He gets hurt( as long as it’s not career ending)  , he probably get cut after the season.   Some team will give him 10 million .( just don’t want to trade capital and pay him that much ). Just paying him 10 million a lot team would have interest .   10.3 + 10 million still comes to 20 plus.  Better than 19 million guarantee . 

Yeah don’t go into financial advising 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sperm Edwards said:

The issue here, you mean RBs getting franchise tagged?

There are ways around it without dumping the salary cap or the union/cba.

Will they? I don't know that it's that important to them collectively, tbh. 

I don’t think the franchise tag is what their main issue is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jgb said:

Yeah don’t going into financial advising 

C'mon, seeing how it took until 3 seasons for Barkley to get back to what he was following his first ACL injury, I'm sure if he re-injured it (or snapped the other one) teams would still be throwing $10MM in guarantees his way in that upcoming offseason.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Matt39 said:

I don’t think the franchise tag is what their main issue is. 

It's that the tag prevents them from seeking out the highest bidder because no one's forking over two 1s for the privilege of outbidding the original team for a RB's 2nd contract.

However they should get rid of the exclusive franchise tag. That's just pure "There is no free agency for our best player who won't accept our contract offer, even if someone else is willing to pay a hefty price." That's what happened with Bell (among others). 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

It's that the tag prevents them from seeking out the highest bidder because no one's forking over two 1s for the privilege of outbidding the original team for a RB's 2nd contract.

However they should get rid of the exclusive franchise tag. That's just pure "There is no free agency for our best player who won't accept our contract offer, even if someone else is willing to pay a hefty price." That's what happened with Bell (among others). 

Cook is a free agent and you could argue is better than Barkley and doesn’t seem to have any takers (he will get signed just not at his price). The issue here is the supply. Too many good backs are available via the draft. It’s not fixable unless guys quit playing the position and the pipeline drys up. Creating an artificial carveout that’s not in line with the market always backfires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

C'mon, seeing how it took until 3 seasons for Barkley to get back to what he was following his first ACL injury, I'm sure if he re-injured it (or snapped the other one) teams would still be throwing $10MM in guarantees his way in that upcoming offseason.

It was too dumb to reply to, but I worry for the state of the world and that other dunces would bobble head in agreement. And that, the green balls cannot abide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

It also significantly drops the franchise tag figure for LT.  

No, it doesn't. That figure is based on the average of the top 10 contracts in the position group, which by definition can't be lower than the top 10 LT contracts, only higher

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Matt39 said:

Cook is a free agent and you could argue is better than Barkley and doesn’t seem to have any takers (he will get signed just not at his price). The issue here is the supply. Too many good backs are available via the draft. It’s not fixable unless guys quit playing the position and the pipeline drys up. Creating an artificial carveout that’s not in line with the market always backfires.

Why is Cook a free agent? Answer that question, and the rest will fall into place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Doggin94it said:

No, it doesn't. That figure is based on the average of the top 10 contracts in the position group, which by definition can't be lower than the top 10 LT contracts, only higher

Thanks for jumping in hours later. Way to be there 😂 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Nope I don't agree it raises all boats. It causes a gradual sinking of all boats in some cases, and RB is one of them. I explained why in that stupidly-long post I made earlier. 

The gist: the franchise tag caps it, but it's already capped at such a low starting point that it's very difficult to break out more than that. A RB has to make his own team feel that (a) they can't get by with the next man up; (b) someone else will pony up the draft pick compensation to get him; (c) the player will really hold out, effectively pissing away 1/3 to 1/2 of his remaining prime seasons; (d) the player has been a model of health and durability while playing the position, and is therefore more likely to keep that up; (e) the player has at least 2 if not 3+ more wow-seasons left in him. 

All told it's a lot stacked up against RBs and those circumstances don't all exist together for other positions.

The #1 problem is the career length, which dissuades any team from even considering a match for a tagged player. The last time someone would have was Lev Bell - or it would've been if he wasn't ERFA tagged - and how he turned out after that probably scared away more than a few GMs.

Why ante up to lock one's team into a player with a high injury risk, plus a lot of carries or injuries already racked up, when you can be year-to-year for the same if not for less money without any of the risk? The player has to be one of the unicorns to get past that -- a unicorn dual threat like CMC (how Bell was once seen) or a unicorn unstoppable bulldozer like Henry. Excuse me -- a young unicorn no older than 24-25 at the time of a 2nd contract. 

Ok well I wanted to make sure I understood what you meant. I guess we just disagree. Seems that team offer the contract you say they won't all the time. Barkley and Jacobs literally just the other day. The reason is because they are game changers. Those players are offered top money. That doesn't make it lower it makes it higher. It raises everyone's boat. Not sure how you don't see that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

Ok well I wanted to make sure I understood what you meant. I guess we just disagree. Seems that team offer the contract you say they won't all the time. Barkley and Jacobs literally just the other day. The reason is because they are game changers. Those players are offered top money. That doesn't make it lower it makes it higher. It raises everyone's boat. Not sure how you don't see that.

Are you a chat bot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

Cook is a free agent and you could argue is better than Barkley and doesn’t seem to have any takers (he will get signed just not at his price). The issue here is the supply. Too many good backs are available via the draft. It’s not fixable unless guys quit playing the position and the pipeline drys up. Creating an artificial carveout that’s not in line with the market always backfires.

Cook turns 28 next month. Barkley turned 26 in February. Cook has some 400 more touches over the last 3 seasons. Those aren't subtle differences (certainly not to NFL GMs). 

Also rightly or wrongly, Cook's not as big of a name, played with a much stronger cast taking pressure off the ground game, played all his home games in a dome (last year there was a 0.7ypc disparity home vs away), his production badly trailed off when the weather got colder from 11/24 onward, and a playoff team didn't just see fit to cut a 100% healthy Barkley.

Next, there is already an effective, artificial carveout for this or that position in franchise tagging, btw. That's why centers can't get tagged, for example. 

Also I kinda start from the point that the RB position is already inherently unequal because of career length before they commonly taper off. Treating them equal, from that POV, will simply perpetuate unequal outcomes. For those 3 tagged backs young & good enough to get long term contracts in FA, they're prevented from doing so because of the tag, otherwise their teams wouldn't be using the tag in the first place. Also a circular effect takes place: the more likely they are to get franchise tagged, the less likely they are to get long term deals, which then keeps the franchise tag artificially lower for the next season(s). 

RB is now the lowest-paid position, and there isn't any mechanism to make them one of the higher paid positions until such time as supply & demand changes dramatically.

The reality is the #6, #7, and #8 highest paid RBs are all franchise tagged this season, their teams wouldn't tag them if they felt it wasn't a bargain, and that's keeping the franchise tag lower for the next guy even as the overall salary cap has exploded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

No, it doesn't. That figure is based on the average of the top 10 contracts in the position group, which by definition can't be lower than the top 10 LT contracts, only higher

Right.  @JohnnyGreenBalls already pointed that out.  I don't know why I didn't think that through.  Guess it works the same for the 5th year option, but will probably suppress 1st round IOL since they can more easily make pro bowls and playing time, kicking their value into the franchise/transition LT tender market.

I don't know how much any of this will deter teams from drafting RB because they don't mind paying RB, they just don't want to get locked in long term.  Plus they can contribute right from the jump.  People always talk about drafting 10 year starters as if it is the goal.  I honestly could not give a **** about that.  I want a guy that kills it for the 4-5 years he is on my squad and then draft another.  James Farrior was the opposite of a good draft pick.  Good player, good career, contributed very little to his drafted team.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Embrace the Suck said:

The first draft was nothing to brag about (though we may still get a franchise T out of it, maybe) but.... Tell that to this guy. He had, what, eleven picks in one draft and not one of them contributed for even a year from what I remember. Idzik drafted guys no one heard of, didn't have 'measurables', or even big team names. He drafted guys who hunted boars, and guys who had 20 surgeries in college. Idzik may have actually threw darts at names on a board. JD isn't perfect but we've had far worse. In Idzik's defense he cleared up the cap mess whereas Mac did nothing other than pass time. 

John Idzik's Tenure as New York Jets General Manager Was Short and  Unsuccessful - YouTube

The boar hunter was a MT pick. 

It's not much to hang one's hat on, but Idzik did trade a 4th rounder for Chris Ivory. It won't go down as a successful draft pick, but it was clearly successful use of a 4th round pick to get Ivory for 3 years at $2MM a pop. So, while all didn't pan out for the Jets, he did acquire 3 future pro bowlers with his 2013 draft picks. Not even terrible considering how weak that '13 class was widely considered to be.

2014 was simply a disaster that got him fired (and whatever sh** sundae that draft was, his cringy latter-season presser was the cherry on top). Nominally he got 2 multi-year starters out of that draft class, which is still more than the 2020 draft class yielded. But blech, even if they were mostly late/later picks: 5 of the 12 picks were in rounds 6-7, and 9 of them were on day 3 outright. Not that there weren't many missed opportunities for solid starters, but also note there were all of 4 probowlers drafted on day 3 in that '14 draft so you'd need some hindsight for that.

Amazingly, Maccagnan was worse. He just had 3 more seasons of opportunities.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...