Another Unhappy WR

[Big Score 1]

So you say that what I am posting is so obvious & basic, but then you manage to throw out a last comment that I am wrong.

C'mon guy, you know what you said was obvious and basic. Even other posters here are laughing at it. Don't get your knickers in a knot over it. It was funny!

 

And I only said you're wrong, because you are. Wouldn't have said it otherwise would I?

This has been explained at length to you on two boards by numerous people - and you still don't get it. I surrender. It's no use trying to have a rational conversation with you on this stuff.

Here, or at the other board, you're the only person I've ever seen try to say that signing bonuses being the only gauranteed money in a players contract, is not a factor in the increasing sizes of these bonuses.

 

You're kind of on an island there guy.

[Big Score 1]

And the reason they want that money is?

 

BECAUSE THEIR CONTRACTS ARE NOT GUARANTEED! THEY CAN BE CUT AT ANYTIME!!

 

Exactly Hook.

 

IT IS THE ONLY GUARANTEED MONEY!!!

[Duchess Jack]

Why would you need to guarantee money if a team could not cut a player?

Edited July 28, 2006 by Duchess Jack

[Big Score 1]

Why would you need to guarantee money if a team could not cut a player?

 

You wouldn't.

 

As players & their agents know that the contract itself is not guaranteed, that the only guaranteed money is the signing bonus, we see the signing bonuses rising & rising & rising.

 

Cause & effect.

[Bronco Billy]

 

Here, or at the other board, you're the only person I've ever seen try to say that signing bonuses being the only gauranteed money in a players contract, is not a factor in the increasing sizes of these bonuses.

 

You're kind of on an island there guy.

 

 

That's a circular argument that makes no sense. That you don't recognize that you argument is circular is completely consistent with your lack of understanding of the situation.

 

The size of a signing bonus is based upon 3 factors:

 

1) The value a player has established either through past play at the NFL level or the position that he went in the draft.

 

2) The number of years in the contract.

 

3) The amount of the contracted annual salaries for the player.

 

As the value of a player increases, either a vet or a rookie, the amount of their signing bonus will increase. This is compounded by players whom teams believe have enough value that they want to lock those players in for extended years.

 

Thus, a 7th round pick may have a very small signing bonus - or *gasp! - no signing bonus at all, and marginal vets will sign "make good" contracts - again, *gasp* no signing bonus at all - because the perception of these players by teams in the NFL is that they are a high risk to even make the roster, thus the teams don't want to tie up cap space by giving them any guaranteed money.

 

Proven players, or higher draft picks, however, have much higher value to teams. Thus, the teams are willing to take a financial risk on these players and put forth guaranteed money before the player ever dons that team's uniform. If a team wants to extend the number of years of service by a player, then the signing bonus is going to have to be higher because the player is taking a risk himself by signing for additional annual salaried years during which players comparable to him might have salaries go up beyond what the player originally signed for. The more years that a team wants to sign a player for, the higher his signing bonus will grow.

 

Additionally, a player may be willing to trade a higher signing bonus up front for lesser annual salaries for each year that the contract is for. If a player is willing to take a smaller annual salary, a team may be willing to increase his signing bonus - thus actually making his annual cap hit smaller, while the player gets more money guaranteed up front - when the time/value of money is greater.

 

Then, of course, the last and most obvious determiner of a signing bonus is the perceived value of the player. A 1st round pick will generally get a larger signing bonus than a second round pick, because their perceived value is larger. The 1st rounder may not take a larger signing bonus, however, if his years of service are reduced or he contracts for a larger annual salary - sometimes written in as incentives - or has other bonuses written in, such as a reporting bonus or an offseason workout bonus for example. The same principles are true for veterans as they gain value through their actual play in the NFL. The 3 factors are quite interwoven in contract negotiation.

 

But to simply state that signing bonuses are larger just because they are the only guaranteed money for a player is in fact absolutely untrue, and show only the most simplistic understanding of what a signing bonus is with no accomodation as to how signing bonus size is reached through other factors involved in the negotiations.

[muck]

I'd bet that Eddie Kennison would be proud to know that a thread about lil' ol' him is now on it's third page.

[Azazello1313]

I'd bet that Eddie Kennison would be proud to know that a thread about lil' ol' him is now on it's third page.

 

 

yeah, he'll probably print it out and take it in to peterson's office as proof that he deserves a big raise

[Big Score 1]

That's a circular argument that makes no sense. That you don't recognize that you argument is circular is completely consistent with your lack of understanding of the situation.

 

The size of a signing bonus is based upon 3 factors:

 

1) The value a player has established either through past play at the NFL level or the position that he went in the draft.

 

2) The number of years in the contract.

 

3) The amount of the contracted annual salaries for the player.

 

As the value of a player increases, either a vet or a rookie, the amount of their signing bonus will increase. This is compounded by players whom teams believe have enough value that they want to lock those players in for extended years.

 

Thus, a 7th round pick may have a very small signing bonus - or *gasp! - no signing bonus at all, and marginal vets will sign "make good" contracts - again, *gasp* no signing bonus at all - because the perception of these players by teams in the NFL is that they are a high risk to even make the roster, thus the teams don't want to tie up cap space by giving them any guaranteed money.

 

Proven players, or higher draft picks, however, have much higher value to teams. Thus, the teams are willing to take a financial risk on these players and put forth guaranteed money before the player ever dons that team's uniform. If a team wants to extend the number of years of service by a player, then the signing bonus is going to have to be higher because the player is taking a risk himself by signing for additional annual salaried years during which players comparable to him might have salaries go up beyond what the player originally signed for. The more years that a team wants to sign a player for, the higher his signing bonus will grow.

 

Additionally, a player may be willing to trade a higher signing bonus up front for lesser annual salaries for each year that the contract is for. If a player is willing to take a smaller annual salary, a team may be willing to increase his signing bonus - thus actually making his annual cap hit smaller, while the player gets more money guaranteed up front - when the time/value of money is greater.

 

Then, of course, the last and most obvious determiner of a signing bonus is the perceived value of the player. A 1st round pick will generally get a larger signing bonus than a second round pick, because their perceived value is larger. The 1st rounder may not take a larger signing bonus, however, if his years of service are reduced or he contracts for a larger annual salary - sometimes written in as incentives - or has other bonuses written in, such as a reporting bonus or an offseason workout bonus for example. The same principles are true for veterans as they gain value through their actual play in the NFL. The 3 factors are quite interwoven in contract negotiation.

 

But to simply state that signing bonuses are larger just because they are the only guaranteed money for a player is in fact absolutely untrue, and show only the most simplistic understanding of what a signing bonus is with no accomodation as to how signing bonus size is reached through other factors involved in the negotiations.

 

 

You know what? You're right BB.

 

The fact that the signing bonus is the only guaranteed money in NFL contracts, has absolutley no bearing on the negotiations between the player, agent & team and is not the reason signing bonuses can get so high.

 

The only reason we see Teams giving out hugh signing bonuses, is because they like throwing money away.

[Azazello1313]

 

You know what? You're right BB.

 

The fact that the signing bonus is the only guaranteed money in NFL contracts, has absolutley no bearing on the negotiations between the player, agent & team and is not the reason signing bonuses can get so high.

 

The only reason we see Teams giving out hugh signing bonuses, is because they like throwing money away.

 

let me try and bridge this gap. i think what you're saying, that signing bonuses are the only guaranteed money in player contract, is obviously a huge reason why players/agents are always going to want signing bonuses to be as large as possible, both in terms of absolute dollars and in terms of percentage of overall contract "value".

 

but i think what BB is saying sort of assumes that players/agents will want bonuses to be as large as possible, and teams will want them to be as small as possible. and he's saying that where those negotiations end up in determining the size of the signing bonus isn't really a result of players wanting larger bonuses (which he's taking for granted), but more a result of how much leverage each side has in the negotiations. if the player has a lot of leverage, because of all the factors he's laying out, then he'll get a larger bonus.

 

but your point is totally valid, IMO. if more portions of NFL contracts were guaranteed (like, say, in the NBA), then signing bonuses wouldn't be as large. players wouldn't need to insist on a huge bonus to protect themselves.

[Big Score 1]

let me try and bridge this gap. i think what you're saying, that signing bonuses are the only guaranteed money in player contract, is obviously a huge reason why players/agents are always going to want signing bonuses to be as large as possible, both in terms of absolute dollars and in terms of percentage of overall contract "value".

 

but i think what BB is saying sort of assumes that players/agents will want bonuses to be as large as possible, and teams will want them to be as small as possible. and he's saying that where those negotiations end up in determining the size of the signing bonus isn't really a result of players wanting larger bonuses (which he's taking for granted), but more a result of how much leverage each side has in the negotiations. if the player has a lot of leverage, because of all the factors he's laying out, then he'll get a larger bonus.

 

but your point is totally valid, IMO. if more portions of NFL contracts were guaranteed (like, say, in the NBA), then signing bonuses wouldn't be as large. players wouldn't need to insist on a huge bonus to protect themselves.

 

Thank you.

[Bronco Billy]

 

 

but your point is totally valid, IMO. if more portions of NFL contracts were guaranteed (like, say, in the NBA), then signing bonuses wouldn't be as large. players wouldn't need to insist on a huge bonus to protect themselves.

 

 

 

And of course the success & fan appeal of the NBA as opposed to that of the NFL shows that the NFL ought to take direction from the NBA when establishing its finacial structure and procedures for signing players to contracts.

 

But you hit my points right on the head.

[tonorator]

Thank you.

 

 

az ... bringing people together. this is so beautiful.