I would trade DJ for Metcalf in a New York minute and give Metcalf the deal.Originally Posted by polamalubeast
I would trade DJ for Metcalf in a New York minute and give Metcalf the deal.
Array title="tube517 has a reputation beyond repute">
Metcalf just signed 3 year $72 million with $30 million guaranteed
Fully guaranteed contracts.
At least 50 % of revenue to the players. 60 % ideal.
Lower the rookie contract length. Most guys are out of the league before those deals are over.
Let’s not pretend that the economics of the NFL benefit anyone but the owners. They have more and better lawyers and a unified resolve when CBA negations take place.
You want fully guaranteed contracts AND shorter rookie contracts? Well then guess what, either the star players are going to have to take about a 50% pay cut (yeah right) or you are going to have a hell of a lot of guys playing for the league minimum on one-year deals. Because you are basically proposing that every team allocate about a third of its salary cap to dead money being paid to guys who are washed up or injured or just couldn't pull their weight.
If what you are really saying is that the owners keep too much of the pie for themselves, that's another story, but I don't think they do. Tom Cruise makes tons and tons of money acting in movies, but the studio makes more. The other actors in the supporting cast make even less. Is that fair? Well, how much money could Tom Cruise make without the studio? No cameramen, no script, no director, no stunt doubles, no props, no special effects, no budget. I guess maybe Tom Cruise could organize all that himself, but he's not exactly known for being the smartest son of a bitch in the world. How good of a movie do you think he'd put out if you just handed him a camera and said "ok, Tom - GO!"
If you're not convinced by that, how about all the supporting actors? They don't just need the studio, they need Tom Cruise too, or else no one's going to come watch their shitty movie. Just like the NFL, most of them never make it big either; but also just like the NFL - that's showbiz.
So sure, while the players are the ones providing the product on the field - without the stage being provided by the league, they aren't getting paid shit. 50-50 (which is pretty damn close to what it is now) does not seem to me like they're getting hosed.
The hell of it is, even if you are a scrub who doesn't make it past your rookie contract, you already made more money than most working stiffs earn in 20 years. And just like a supporting actor who appeared in a few big-budget movies, you've got plenty of opportunities to continue making a decent living in periphery of the same field, or teaching others the ropes, once your career entertaining people is over. There is plenty of demand for people who know the game of football, just as there is plenty of demand for people who know acting. Or you can use your money and a little bit of recognition as a springboard to become successful at something else. It's a golden ticket for life if you play your cards right. And the smart ones do.
It's no one else's fault that a lot of these people (in both businesses) are just dickheads who can't get their lives together once they're out of the spotlight. And guess what, even if those guys had the benefit of fully guaranteed contracts, they'd still fuck it up just the same. I don't think the pay scale of the NFL has much to do at all with what happens to most players after football.
See you Space Cowboy ...
All the dead money stuff could be figured out. Baseball does it and no one complains. The cap is a totally invented and arbitrary phenomena.
The Mets are still paying Bobby Bonilla and it hasn't prevented them from doing anything they want with current contracts.
As to the issue with what happens to players in their lives...not relevant? I don't care what these guys do or don't do off the field.
The economics of their sport is totally skewed towards ownership and I think it sucks for the great majority of NFL players. The NFL, and all pro sports, positions most players as meat for the grinder. Not a shocking or new take.
I'm not sure I fully understand what you want at this point either. What good do guaranteed contracts do for the 85% of guys who only last a couple seasons in the league? For that matter, what good do they do the 15% who hit the big time and don't really need them? It's just a few guys here and there who would really benefit - and mostly highly paid guys who are past their prime, not young hungry players.
If these guys are "meat for the grinder" at an average of like $4M a year and a minimum of close to $1M - is what amounts to a 10-15% pay raise really going to change your opinion that much? Like if the guys at the top get an extra $1M a year and the scrubs get an extra $100K, then we're all good? Somehow I don't think you'd be happy even then.
Unless you think there is some alternate timeline where you can just set down a Super Bowl trophy and several pallets of $1 billion cash in some vacant lot in front of 1,500 guys, and they will not step all over each other to get it - it is ALWAYS going to be a cutthroat business.
See you Space Cowboy ...
There’s always going to be a “stars and scrubs” imbalance in any CBA. Every player will always vote for mechanics that make the high end contracts more lucrative because all elite athletes are wired to think that will be them at some point.
All I’m saying is that players should get 50-60% of the revenue pie and that there should be a method to payout contracts despite injury or degradation in play. Maybe so many can be “hidden” from the cap each year. I’m far too dumb to figure out the process.
And you’re 100% correct that nothing can take the cut-throat nature off the table.
I just think it’s worth acknowledging how lopsided it can be. Take Najee Harris. His whole career could easily be shorter than his rookie contract.
Vince Williams is another example. Maybe some sort of NBA style “vet exception” let’s teams keep players like that another year or two.
I don’t have answers or even sound ideas. But I do think that players have a point when they argue the current economic structure exploits their labor.
There are certainly many ways they could improve the cap/contract situation to help players who catch a tough break, and in fact you've named a few of them already. But I would never in a million years say they are "exploited" under the current system either. Even the mediocre players in the NFL are highly paid to do their dream job. They're famous and they get to bang hot chicks. Millions of guys fight each other tooth and nail for a chance at that job. If they were being exploited, don't you think word would get out and people wouldn't be so interested?
Given the violent nature of the game, it really would be better if they did something better to account for injuries. The idea of a cap exception for injured players is a good one (though lord would some coaches find ways to abuse it), and same with some type of veteran exception. They kind of have one now, but only if they sign for the league minimum (you get credit for the difference between the veteran minimum and the rookie minimum), but that does not really apply most of the time either.
I think a big problem is that things got so out of hand in the '80s and '90s with the good teams stockpiling talent and using cheap tricks to add aging veterans who were still good, that they tend to err on the side of not allowing any of that funny business, instead of what might make more sense for the players and the fans. Because if there is one thing that's certain, it's that if there's a loophole in the NFL cap rules, some dickhead will abuse it mercilessly and ruin it for everyone.
See you Space Cowboy ...
Array title="DesertSteel has a reputation beyond repute">
I am definitely pro-management in this scenario. Players are overpaid.
That's really laughable.
Why? Sure a small number of NFL players make serious life changing money. But the overwhelming majority do not.
https://howtheyplay.com/team-sports/...id-NFL-Players
Array title="DesertSteel has a reputation beyond repute">
As it is with other occupations, one's pay is commensurate with their abilities and contributions to the bottom line. As for the minimum salary players, they still make more in ONE YEAR than an average blue collar worker makes in 10 years. FOR PLAYING A GAME.
Why should every player get life-changing money? You play a smaller role, you get smaller pay.
If you're a backup who lasts a couple years mostly playing special teams, then guess what, you're a bit player. "Grocery Store Customer #2" in the credits, and your one line was "oh shit, man!" Sure, someone needs to play the role, but they're never going to get paid the same as the Oscar-winning lead actress with big tits.
What it boils down to is that the competition for pay is just is stiff as the competition for a championship. You have to be better than other professional football players to make it big. People do not show up to watch Ryan Mundy get pass interference penalties. Does he really need a big pay raise?
Harsh as that may be, it's still a competition where the 1500th-place prize every year is a million dollars. Fuck yeah, most people would sign up for that.
See you Space Cowboy ...
I think the players are generating 15+ billion in revenue and they should see more of it.
Sure, we view it as a game. But clearly we also value it to the tune of tens of billions of dollars a year.
Also, I remember watching Bettie struggle to take the stairs in his own home before Thursday of each week. Also read about the totally degraded physical condition most former players find themselves in by middle age.
The game takes a massive toll. I think even pass interference machines deserve a bigger slice of the cash to balance those scales.
A lot of this looks goofy from a Steelers perspective. They’re far better to their players than almost any other organization. Actually paying out contracts and doing things like what they did for Shazier.
The older I get, the less attractive the entire package seems - aside from about the top 5 guys on each team.
Also, because we don’t pay labor enough in one industry (and people wonder why there’s a shortage in the trades) is not a reason to pay another group less.
Array title="DesertSteel has a reputation beyond repute">
Plus, having played in the NFL opens a lot of doors for the rest of your life. Sure, if you're a douchebag, it won't help as much, but if you're a decent person and half-way intelligent, you can profit from your 2-3 years in the league for 40 years in real-world opportunities.
- - - Updated - - -
Plus, having played in the NFL opens a lot of doors for the rest of your life. Sure, if you're a douchebag, it won't help as much, but if you're a decent person and half-way intelligent, you can profit from your 2-3 years in the league for 40 years in real-world opportunities.
a few million a year for a couple years is very life changing for most people ...
you do not have to get Mahomes money for it to be considered life changing ...
I mean the vast majority of the population wont make in a lifetime what the average NFL contract pays per year https://www.statista.com/statistics/...alary-by-team/
Kenny Pickett is who I though he was .. Eagles problem now
It’s not a game. It’s a form of entertainment used to generate money. It’s no different than a blockbuster movie. Really, it’s no different than watching the Jersey Shore, The Bachelor or some dumb reality TV Show. There’s no reason Patrick Mahomes shouldn’t be paid like Robert Downey Jr. They both get paid to entertain and that’s all it is. The NFL is far past “just being a game”. Light years passed that. If you want to watch the sport of football as a game, the best you can do is high school football. Anything above that is an entertainment business. The bottom entertainer in the NFL probably gets paid much more than an extra in the Avengers franchise.
The average NFL career is 3 years. That is all rookie deal money.
Use Heyward as an example: After three years, he makes roughly $3 million.
Or Pickens, he cashes out at $6 million or so.
That sounds like a ton of cash....but it just isn't if you never make anymore $$$. Most retirement calculations do not view $5 million as enough to retire on at 65 much less at 28.
Obviously, many young men make the decision that the cost/benefit of a NFL career is worth it for them. And that is great. But no matter how you look at it the economics of the league is slanted to favor the owners not the players.
Remember, most owners do not plow the cash back into the franchise the way the Steelers do. Many teams do not spend to the cap annually - some struggle to make the salary floor. A number of teams play funny games with playing time and stats in order to avoid paying players incentives. Etc.
- - - Updated - - -
The average NFL career is 3 years. That is all rookie deal money.
Use Heyward as an example: After three years, he makes roughly $3 million.
Or Pickens, he cashes out at $6 million or so.
That sounds like a ton of cash....but it just isn't if you never make anymore $$$. Most retirement calculations do not view $5 million as enough to retire on at 65 much less at 28.
Obviously, many young men make the decision that the cost/benefit of a NFL career is worth it for them. And that is great. But no matter how you look at it the economics of the league is slanted to favor the owners not the players.
Remember, most owners do not plow the cash back into the franchise the way the Steelers do. Many teams do not spend to the cap annually - some struggle to make the salary floor. A number of teams play funny games with playing time and stats in order to avoid paying players incentives. Etc.
People say that but are there any concrete examples of a player being benched so they don’t hit an incentive? Maybe there are a lot but I don’t remember hearing a player bitch about that.
Sheesh, the NFL is just reflective of corporate life in the US today. The owner of CEO’s make a 1000 times or more than what the average worker makes. The strong union days are long over - globalism destroyed that
If you quit playing football and then never make any more money for 40 years, that is a reflection on you, not the NFL.
If your position is that every player should be able to play a couple years and then be set for life without ever working again - that is so far out of the realm of reality that you will just never be happy. Not that calling someone who makes $1 million a year "exploited" is that realistic in the first place.
Let's do the math - how much do you think a player needs in order to live comfortably for the rest of his life? $10 million? That's $100K a year for 100 years; factor inflation in, and it's probably just about enough to last into your 70s or 80s. Most players don't last very long, so they've gotta make it on their rookie contract - so, you've got to quadruple their pay to get from $2.45M over three years to $10M. Good, now your salary cap is at 200% of league revenue, and on top of that the owners are eating all the expenses of paying the coaches, running the stadium, scouting, paying the game crews, travel, hiring staff, etc. That is, unless you can convince Pat Mahomes and DK Metcalf to take it out of their pockets and spread the wealth around - good luck! Must be those damn greedy owner's fault, not the fact that what you're asking for is impossible.
See you Space Cowboy ...
That’s a total exaggeration of what I’m saying.
Of course no one can realistically advocate for a three year career that sets one up for life. I was only pointing out that the average NFL player isn’t living a baller lifestyle forever. Plus, we haven’t even looked at vet FA minimums.
The players divvying up less than half the league revenue and playing on non guaranteed deals is a bad deal for them.
Not earth shattering stuff. Most analyses I’ve seen of pro sports CBAs generally conclude the NFL is a poor deal for the players compared to their peers.
The average NFL salary is comparatively lower than other sports in large part because there are between double and quadruple the number of players per team, and between 10-20% the amount of games on the schedule. Your rank-and-file player is just never going to earn more money going into a 20-to-1 headwind. Yet they're still paid quite well.
I still don't get why non-guaranteed contracts strike you as such a huge injustice. Either the money goes to this player or it goes to that player, you're just very concerned over which player gets paid when for some reason.
All the players and the agents know how that game is played, why do you think the amount of guaranteed money is always one of the first things listed in the first sentence of any contract announcement? Why is it always one of the big bargaining chips when working out a contract? It's not as if this is a case of the evil owners catching the small guy by surprise and the players get hoodwinked over and over again. Same amount of money split up among the same number of players.
What is the players' "less than half" share of the revenue? 48.8%? Potato potahto. Bump it up 1.2%, which would certainly be within the realm of possibility - are you happy? No, you're somewhere way out there on this one. I've told you why I think roughly 50-50 is a reasonable split between the people who put on the show and the people who set up the stage and the cameras, but if you think it's grossly unfair, I guess we just disagree on what's fair.
See you Space Cowboy ...
Array title="DesertSteel has a reputation beyond repute">
I'm glad you made that point. It's very true. Do you think the disparity is greater or less with Hollywood studios and actors than it is with football franchises and their players? Players get roughly half of the pie. Do you think that the actors in a blockbuster film get half of the pie? It's not our problem that their playing career is so short. Welcome to the real world.
- - - Updated - - -
I'm glad you made that point. It's very true. Do you think the disparity is greater or less with Hollywood studios and actors than it is with football franchises and their players? Players get roughly half of the pie. Do you think that the actors in a blockbuster film get half of the pie? It's not our problem that their playing career is so short. Welcome to the real world.
thats crazy talk even a moron who places it in a savings account would earn enough to live on via interest alone ........ nobody has to live a lavish lifestyle , live within your means ... buy a 200-400k house no it wont be LA but who would want to live in that shithole anyways .... lots of NICE homes for 400k or less around here interest on the rest would be around 80k a year if that isnt enough to eat and pay utilities and give you some screw off coin then reevaluate your lifestyle because you are wasting a ton of cash ( per example )
https://www.realtor.com/realestatean...?ex=2942900755
Kenny Pickett is who I though he was .. Eagles problem now
https://www.northwesternmutual.com/l...ortably-at-65/
$3 million to retire at 65. I've seen several that question that benchmark and argue for far more in order to account for unexpected expenses.
It all depends on where you live and what you want to do.
Not everyone wants to live in the middle of nowhere with the associated low cost of living and availability of relatively inexpensive housing.
- - - Updated - - -
https://www.northwesternmutual.com/life-and-money/how-much-do-i-need-to-retire-comfortably-at-65/
$3 million to retire at 65. I've seen several that question that benchmark and argue for far more in order to account for unexpected expenses.
It all depends on where you live and what you want to do.
Not everyone wants to live in the middle of nowhere with the associated low cost of living and availability of relatively inexpensive housing.
invest then and get a job perhaps to supplement the investment?
come down off the high horse like you are a superstar and live like a normal person because if you was a superstar you would have more money in order to live like one ....
I can tell you this I am 59 give me 5 million and I will show you how to live the rest of your life in comfort and have the ability to do pretty much anything I want in the process and when I die I guarantee there will be way more than half of it left
Kenny Pickett is who I though he was .. Eagles problem now
Again you've assigned me a position that I haven't taken for some reason or another.
I've said 50-60% of revenue. This is line with the majority of other large professional sports leagues.
Guaranteed contracts or at least significant protection against catastrophic injury.
I've never said the owners were "evil". It is a collectively bargained thing. The owners job is to get the best deal for them. The players job is to get the best deal for themselves. Since the players suck at CBA negotiations, they have repeatedly agreed to deals highly slanted towards ownership and the roughly 10% of the league that occupies the "star player" portion of the salary cap table.
All of this is totally understandable and to be expected. There is no industry where the workforce is getting their fair share of the revenue pie. That isn't how any of this works.
But when players say they are underpaid and the system (stretching back to college) is set up to profit and exploit their labor and bodily harm -- it is a justified statement.
Will it change? Not anytime soon. Enough players are thriving in the current system to prevent massive work stoppages and the owners are making a ton of cash - so they aren't going to rock the boat either.
- - - Updated - - -
I got no idea. I'm never going to be able to retire based on my income and savings regime. So none of this applies to me.
Array title="DesertSteel has a reputation beyond repute">
The average NFL player who retires after three years at the age of 26 is not going to be able to avoid working for the next 40 years. Is there really something wrong with that??
Dude is really taking a clear stand with this one!
The Steelers will sign DJ at some point, in the future, but not right now...but maybe soon...or perhaps in the future.
- - - Updated - - -
Dude is really taking a clear stand with this one!
The Steelers will sign DJ at some point, in the future, but not right now...but maybe soon...or perhaps in the future.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
