BeeR Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5197469 First let me say that while clearly he won't come close to last year, Johnson has certainly established himself as a top RB and I can understand wanting a new contract. But when I read this by Faulk: When you are drafted you are paid as to where you were drafted, not to how you play. And then after you play and prove your worth you are then paid as to how you play I thought I'd be fine w/that IF a player gives money back if he plays under expectations in a similar way (man how I'd love to see that happen to Russell, he'd be taking out loans)...but we know that isn't reality. Guess I'm just saying it should cut both ways so basically shut tf up Faulk. And yes we did land on the moon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 I think that a players rookie contract is the one contract where sitting out makes sense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5197469 First let me say that while clearly he won't come close to last year, Johnson has certainly established himself as a top RB and I can understand wanting a new contract. But when I read this by Faulk: I thought I'd be fine w/that IF a player gives money back if he plays under expectations in a similar way (man how I'd love to see that happen to Russell, he'd be taking out loans)...but we know that isn't reality. Guess I'm just saying it should cut both ways so basically shut tf up Faulk. And yes we did land on the moon. But it does often cut both ways. Because, a team can cut you if they decide you're not worth the money. And, with very few exceptions, much of the money these guys get is not assured. Sure, Russel is a fine example of one where they were stuck, but there are plenty others where a guy's signing bonus is not as lavish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 (edited) CJ can holdout all he wants, but the Titans aren't going to be stupid and hand him a hugh bonus as a loophole to the 30% rule. It's bad timing and he's stuck with the contract he signed. Edited May 18, 2010 by budlitebrad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 (edited) Being stuck in the 30% rule really sucks. But it is what it is. Now playing devils advocate, imagine if CJ goes ahead and plays without a contract rework and has a career ending injury. One of the best RB's in the league goes out with mere pocket change. You could strongly argue either side on this one. Edited May 18, 2010 by tazinib1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBroncos Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 I can understand CJ's angst, considering WHite was making a ton more than the starter. Yet, he also needs to relaize this is the bed his agent made for him. To be candid, this kid diserves a TON more and the Titans would be wise to bite the bullet and not make the kid beg for it. Amazing talent and you don't come across such talent like this to often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 Being stuck in the 30% rule really sucks. But it is what it is. Now playing devils advocate, imagine if CJ goes ahead and plays without a contract rework and has a career ending injury. One of the best RB's in the league goes out with mere pocket change. You could strongly argue either side on this one. 12 million is pocket change? If he is that concerned about a career ending injury, why doesnt he take out a massive lloyd of London insurance policy? Wouldnt that cover it? I also think the Titans realize the need, but they are severely limited here. No need for this to be bantered about in the media and make the situation worse by dumb comments like Faulk's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 a rookie contract is more about draft position than anything else. a player can ask for all he wants - but he hasn't done anything in the NFL yet. If he decides to hold out for what he feels he's worth - he hurts himself by not getting in camp and draws the ankst of football fans. so they really lack bargining power. I 100% understand why a player who just put up a 2000 yard season playing on a rookie contract might want to revisit things. I don't like holdouts after a player's rookie contract - but in CJ case - I agree with him 100% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBroncos Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 Soooo, wondering what this does for LaGarrette's value /joke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 When I see the words CONTRACT and NFL in the same sentence I can't help but laugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 12 million is pocket change? If he is that concerned about a career ending injury, why doesnt he take out a massive lloyd of London insurance policy? Wouldnt that cover it? I also think the Titans realize the need, but they are severely limited here. No need for this to be bantered about in the media and make the situation worse by dumb comments like Faulk's. five-year, $12 million contract. The deal contains $7 million guaranteed, including $1.125 million in first-year bonuses and a $3.86 million roster bonus in the second year. 2010: $550,000, 2011: $800,000, 2012: $2.21 million, 2013: Free Agent I think we are talking base salary here Brian. Sure he has the gauranteed and roster bonus cash, but yeah. But this is the contract he signed. Like I said earlier, you can make a strong argument on both sides in this case. He has, without a doubt, played himself out of this current deal. Just wait until we have a rookie salary cap. This ain't nothen honey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 (edited) Well, I've made my views pretty overt on this. The system is predominantly a very good system. There is a pretty fair exchange of risk/reward on both sides. The risk that the team takes is paying a signing bonus before a player ever plays a down for them - the guaranteed part of the contract. A player can wash out in several ways and they still pocket all of the signing bonus. The player takes the signing bonus with no guarantee of a job in the future - they can be cut at any time - and they are locked into a certain fixed annual salary - usually escalating per each ensuing year for obvious reasons. There are cases where both sides get screwed, because like in all systems involving humans nothing is perfect. Sometimes the player get a massive bonus and is such a ginormous turd that the team has to cut them before the contract is up. The team can't even use them as special teamers or towel boys because they are so bad. Then the team has to carry that player's pro-rated signing bonus on the books and is handicapped in trying to be competitive. JaMarcus Russell and the Raiders are a perfect example. Other times, guys like Johnson break out and prove they are valuable way beyond their compensation in relation to other players. They get screwed too, in that in an open market they could command more money immediately, but because the players are represented by a union dedicated to protecting all members as much as possible, they got locked into a contract. Johnson finds himself in that position and there isn't much to do about it. If the labor contract changes and the parameters of rookie contracts is changed - maybe they would take a lot less money up front in exchange for incentives that boost pay for players who prove their value like Johnson - then a guy like Johnson could reap the rewards while a team like Oakland wouldn't have to suffer the consequences of a Russell. I think that is going to be a hugh part of the talks between the owners and the NFLPA in the coming contract agreement. The world ain't perfect. It doesn't make it right, it just makes it understandable. Let's not lose sight of the fact that Johnson is going to pocket $7M guaranteed - that is part of the equation that Johnson's agent is carefully leaving out. It ought to make the whole situation sting a little less. Personally, if I were TEN, I might find a way to relent a little bit and find some way to compensate such a vaulable employee just a bit more somehow, so that they might be inclined to stick with my team a bit longer when it comes time to write the big contract after this one - in it indeed does happen. After all, winning puts butts in the seats, sells merchandise, and gives you more leverage in media contracts. Be the exception to the rule (and I for one admittedly do not like making exceptions when a contract is in place that both parties willingly signed, and normally do not support player holdouts for that reason) for a kid like this - that's good business. Edited May 18, 2010 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 When I see the words CONTRACT and NFL in the same sentence I can't help but laugh. Why is that, keg? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 (edited) five-year, $12 million contract. The deal contains $7 million guaranteed, Only 7 million dollars guaranteed, even if he gets hurt tomorrow? That is highway robbery! CJ is getting cheated by "the man" !!!! Then he should have had a better agent that writes in huge incentives based on production . . . like Larry Fitzgeralds rookie contract. Remember when he hit some huge incentives that would trigger massive bonuses a few years back? Negotiate it upfront . . whether it is likely or not. That way the teams have to pay the players that produce (and outplay) their base salaries. Edited May 18, 2010 by bpwallace49 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 Why is that, keg? cause they are all NON-Guaranteed Contracts....that just makes me laugh...a contract that isn't guaranteed, aint that rich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 cause they are all NON-Guaranteed Contracts....that just makes me laugh...a contract that isn't guaranteed, aint that rich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 cause they are all NON-Guaranteed Contracts....that just makes me laugh...a contract that isn't guaranteed, aint that rich Pretty sure the money is guaranteed, the roster spot and opportunity to earn more in bonuses is not. that is why they say "guaranteed money" . . right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 Pretty sure the money is guaranteed, the roster spot and opportunity to earn more in bonuses is not. that is why they say "guaranteed money" . . right? i believe the signing bonus is the only thing that is guaranteed and imo a bonus is a bonus...ie: you sign with us we will give you a signing bonus but then your "Contract" is the following. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 please enlighten me if I am wrong. And I don't mean on how the salary cap is affected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 please enlighten me if I am wrong. And I don't mean on how the salary cap is affected. So your position is that the guaranteed money paid for a signing bonus is mutually exclusive of the signing of the contract? Then what exactly does the team receive in compensation for giving the player the guaranteed money? The awesome experience of being in the same room? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 So your position is that the guaranteed money paid for a signing bonus is mutually exclusive of the signing of the contract? Then what exactly does the team receive in compensation for giving the player the guaranteed money? The awesome experience of being in the same room? I tried the "Awesome-ness" approach at my last contract negotiation . . . it didnt end the way I wanted it too . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 So your position is that the guaranteed money paid for a signing bonus is mutually exclusive of the signing of the contract? Then what exactly does the team receive in compensation for giving the player the guaranteed money? The awesome experience of being in the same room? Say a player signs $100 million dollar deal ($20 mill signing bonus and then 10mill/year for 8 years)....the player does get 20 mill "guaranteed" but tell me how they can have a "contract" where they can get cut 2yrs into the 8 years and not receive any of the money the contract called for over the next 6 years? It is because they have "Non-Guaranteed Contracts"...again, I understand it but it does make me laugh....and realize that the signing bonus came as a way to work around the salary cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 I tried the "Awesome-ness" approach at my last contract negotiation . . . it didnt end the way I wanted it too . . how would you feel if you signed a 5 yr contract and 2 years in your employer said, ah we are gonna cut you loose and we wont be paying you for that contract you signed 2 years ago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 how would you feel if you signed a 5 yr contract and 2 years in your employer said, ah we are gonna cut you loose and we wont be paying you for that contract you signed 2 years ago If the right of the company to do so was included - which the NFL has - and was offset by a signing bonus that the company could not recover, and my being cut loose was the result of underperformance of duties on my part, I'm having a tough time seeing the problem with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 (edited) If the right of the company to do so was included - which the NFL has - and was offset by a signing bonus that the company could not recover, and my being cut loose was the result of underperformance of duties on my part, I'm having a tough time seeing the problem with this. like I said, I understand it but the words Contract and NFL still just make me laugh EDIT: Is this the point where I am supposed to call you names or something like that Edited May 18, 2010 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.