The NFL has to do something about RB compensation

[kskboys]

Meanwhile, DT's have short careers and take a pounding and don't even get paid what RB's do.

 

[kskboys]

My hesitancy would be the fact that he has been suspended once and put himself in a position where he could have gotten suspended again. As far as ability goes, he deserves to be paid as the top back in the league based on his play. Dallas would prefer, as would any employer, not to have to raise his salary until absolutely necessary.

Frankly, I would not negotiate with him at this point. If he wants to hold out until he has to come in, that's fine. We don't need to see him in the preseason. I just have no vehemence if he desires to cash in on his success and chooses to try to force the team to do it, even if I would not up his pay yet. Like Emmitt Smith did, this is really his only avenue for getting paid at his value now and not risking that something happens to lower his value.

If it wasn't for the off-the-field questions, I would be far less hesitant about paying him now because there's a very good likelihood that he would be able to play out any contract given to him at this point. Two years from now, he might not have another four or five years in him.

Also, what is he asking for? A reup of 5 yrs/50 mil would be good for both sides. I would completely understand if that's what he's asking. If he's wanting a ton more, I'd simply let him play out his rook contract then most likely franchise him.

 

[gimmesix]

Also, what is he asking for? A reup of 5 yrs/50 mil would be good for both sides. I would completely understand if that's what he's asking. If he's wanting a ton more, I'd simply let him play out his rook contract then most likely franchise him.

I'd say it's at least what Gurley is getting. (There's a tweet saying he wants more than that.) So you're probably looking more at 4 years, $60 million or 5 years, $75 million. If we did a contract now, I'd go after the five-year deal. It would probably take at least $50 million in guaranteed money. You pay almost all of the guarantee out over the first four years and then go heavy on base that final year (when he's liable to be cut or renegotiate).

Year 1: $10 million total salary ($5 million base, $5 million signing bonus) — essentially $2 million more than he's expected to make now

Year 2: $12 million total salary ($7 million base, $5 million signing bonus) — essentially $3 million more than he's expected to make now

Year 3: $14 million total ($9 million base, $5 million bonus, built-in restructure)

Year 4: $16 million total ($11 million base, $5 million bonus, built-in restructure)

Year 5: $23 million total salary ($18 million base, $5 million signing bonus for $5 million dead cap hit)

You can push more from the front end or more into the front end, but the key is getting to the $50 million guarantee. With $25 million of that in signing bonus, the first two years of salary would be fully guaranteed along with $3 million from Year 3. So it becomes cost-effective to cut him in Year 4 ($1 million savings) and especially Year 5 ($13 million in savings).

 

[Flamma]

My hesitancy would be the fact that he has been suspended once and put himself in a position where he could have gotten suspended again. As far as ability goes, he deserves to be paid as the top back in the league based on his play. Dallas would prefer, as would any employer, not to have to raise his salary until absolutely necessary.

Frankly, I would not negotiate with him at this point. If he wants to hold out until he has to come in, that's fine. We don't need to see him in the preseason. I just have no vehemence if he desires to cash in on his success and chooses to try to force the team to do it, even if I would not up his pay yet. Like Emmitt Smith did, this is really his only avenue for getting paid at his value now and not risking that something happens to lower his value.

If it wasn't for the off-the-field questions, I would be far less hesitant about paying him now because there's a very good likelihood that he would be able to play out any contract given to him at this point. Two years from now, he might not have another four or five years in him.

I agree 100% with you on this. But unlike Emmitt this guy is set for life already. We're just debating how rich at this point. I'll be honest. I'm ok with letting him sit out both years and fine the crap out of him and see what he can get in 2021 in the open market. But I am also ok with giving him a big contract next season if he plays out this season because he is still young. But at some point you have to make a stand.

 

[gimmesix]

I agree 100% with you on this. But unlike Emmitt this guy is set for life already. We're just debating how rich at this point. I'll be honest. I'm ok with letting him sit out both years and fine the crap out of him and see what he can get in 2021 in the open market. But I am also ok with giving him a big contract next season if he plays out this season because he is still young. But at some point you have to make a stand.

Can't really compare it that way. At the time, Smith held out, he was receiving the going-rate at the time. In fact, there were no set rookie contracts so his agents had actually negotiated his first-round pay. If anything, Elliott has more reason to dispute what he's getting paid.

For what it is worth, I think athletes are paid exorbitantly, but I understand that as long as the NFL is making the kind of money that it is we're going to see athletes making millions upon millions and seeking what they believe is their fair share of the pie.

I just hope if Elliott does try to force the issue that the holdout is just temporary and he reports in time to get ready for the season. I don't want to see my team and its chances of success hurt by this, so from my standpoint, either get it worked out or show up and play. However, I'm trying to be fair to the players' standpoint, which is the business aspect of the game. For them, their bodies and their production is a commodity and they want to get top dollar for it while it is worth that. Players can quickly devalue so they have to strike while the iron is hot. I'm not going to begrudge anyone for trying to make everything they are worth in their market. Most of us attempt to do that at least to some extent.

 

[gjkoeppen]

I disagree that it shows a lack of character. I don't like it when players choose that route, but they are the ones who are dealing with a fairly short career to maximize their earnings. It's easy to say just wait until your contract is up, but in a high-impact game where your career can be over in a snap, signing a contract is never meant to be the end of the negotiations.

Players (and their agents) who know that they are playing for less than their market value understand they need to get their money while they can. It's why Emmitt Smith held out in 2013. He had played above his contact. If he had played poorly, do you think the team would have hesitated to cut him? Do the teams lack character and honor when they give someone a five-year contract and cut them after two?

I deal with people every day who outperform their pay level here and leave for another job that pays more. There's nothing wrong with their character or honor for doing that. Contracts are just a starting point for both the team and the player in the NFL. If the player is underperforming his deal, then the team tries to pay him less or cuts him like Dallas did with Allen Hurns. If a player is overperforming then he seeks a better deal and can be forced to hold out in order to get it.

In your world where that player lacks character and honor, do you hold the team to the same standard for not honoring the deal it had with Hurns?

First off it's not a right to play in the NFL it's an honor. Second no player and in this case a RB signs a rookie contract and then the team says oh by the way RB's only have an average of 3 years. They know that when they signed the contract. Third all NFL contracts have the very same clause that states (para phrase) the contract is based on the player making the team each year. In other words the team can terminate the contract at any time and ALL players know this when they sign their contracts. Fourth when a player is released he is not then banned from the NFL and is free to negotiate a contract with any team that wants him. Fifth when a average Joe leaves one company to work for another for more money, 99% of the Joe's aren't under an employment contract with the first company. Now if the Joe's don't give the customary 2 week notice, then they are showing poor character.

Now if NFL player contracts had a clause that states a player can hold out for better pay, then fine but they don't. If the teams were violating the binding contracts that didn't give them the right to terminate those contracts at will, then the courts would be flooded with law suits trying to recoup that money. But again that isn't so. Your Hurns example is pitiful at best because the teams have that clause them the LEGAL right that allows them to terminate any player contract at will. The Cowboys gave Hurns the option to accept less money or they would exercise their right to terminate that contract. Again EVERY player knows this could happen when they sign their contracts. If players don't like this they can either choose another profession and make only a tiny tiny tiny fraction of what their making playing in the NFL or try their best to negotiate something else in the next CBA. But NOTHING you've said changes the fact that the tiny percentage of player who choose to hold out are not showing their lack of character doing it. This also sheds light on yours for thinking that it doesn't show a lack of character for not fulfilling a legal binding contract.
.

 

[gimmesix]

First off it's not a right to play in the NFL it's an honor. Second no player and in this case a RB signs a rookie contract and then the team says oh by the way RB's only have an average of 3 years. They know that when they signed the contract. Third all NFL contracts have the very same clause that states (para phrase) the contract is based on the player making the team each year. In other words the team can terminate the contract at any time and ALL players know this when they sign their contracts. Fourth when a player is released he is not then banned from the NFL and is free to negotiate a contract with any team that wants him. Fifth when a average Joe leaves one company to work for another for more money, 99% of the Joe's aren't under an employment contract with the first company. Now if the Joe's don't give the customary 2 week notice, then they are showing poor character.

Now if NFL player contracts had a clause that states a player can hold out for better pay, then fine but they don't. If the teams were violating the binding contracts that didn't give them the right to terminate those contracts at will, then the courts would be flooded with law suits trying to recoup that money. But again that isn't so. Your Hurns example is pitiful at best because the teams have that clause them the LEGAL right that allows them to terminate any player contract at will. The Cowboys gave Hurns the option to accept less money or they would exercise their right to terminate that contract. Again EVERY player knows this could happen when they sign their contracts. If players don't like this they can either choose another profession and make only a tiny tiny tiny fraction of what their making playing in the NFL or try their best to negotiate something else in the next CBA. But NOTHING you've said changes the fact that the tiny percentage of player who choose to hold out are not showing their lack of character doing it. This also sheds light on yours for thinking that it doesn't show a lack of character for not fulfilling a legal binding contract.
.

That you believe someone lacks character just because they don't agree with your position should make you take a closer look at yourself. I would not violate a contract if I signed it, but I also understand that the NFL works in a different reality than a lot of businesses.

Your belief is it is an honor to play in the NFL and that should be sufficient. Players see it as a job that that they earned through a lot of hard work. College football was their job interview. Are they happy to have gotten the job? Absolutely, just like you would be in your profession. However, that doesn't mean they don't have the right to maximize their earnings in what is typically a fairly brief career.

It's funny that owners acknowledge that holding out is just part of the business, but you want to believe that they are somehow in violation of some code. You can't look at NFL contracts like you look at other contracts. NFL contracts are simply a starting point in the relationship where either side can decide at either point that the relationship needs to change. The owner can decide that he no longer wants to honor the contract and cut the player, the player is not worth the contracted amount and offer a pay cut or the player is worth more and extend his deal. The player can decide that he is worth more than what he is getting paid and seek to renegotiate or force the team to cut him, pay him or trade him. Both sides' tactics are valid in this arena.

Obviously, you don't agree with me on this, and that's fine. But you might want to not show a lack of character by questioning mine just because I see it differently.

 

[gimmesix]

First off it's not a right to play in the NFL it's an honor. Second no player and in this case a RB signs a rookie contract and then the team says oh by the way RB's only have an average of 3 years. They know that when they signed the contract. Third all NFL contracts have the very same clause that states (para phrase) the contract is based on the player making the team each year. In other words the team can terminate the contract at any time and ALL players know this when they sign their contracts. Fourth when a player is released he is not then banned from the NFL and is free to negotiate a contract with any team that wants him. Fifth when a average Joe leaves one company to work for another for more money, 99% of the Joe's aren't under an employment contract with the first company. Now if the Joe's don't give the customary 2 week notice, then they are showing poor character.

Now if NFL player contracts had a clause that states a player can hold out for better pay, then fine but they don't. If the teams were violating the binding contracts that didn't give them the right to terminate those contracts at will, then the courts would be flooded with law suits trying to recoup that money. But again that isn't so. Your Hurns example is pitiful at best because the teams have that clause them the LEGAL right that allows them to terminate any player contract at will. The Cowboys gave Hurns the option to accept less money or they would exercise their right to terminate that contract. Again EVERY player knows this could happen when they sign their contracts. If players don't like this they can either choose another profession and make only a tiny tiny tiny fraction of what their making playing in the NFL or try their best to negotiate something else in the next CBA. But NOTHING you've said changes the fact that the tiny percentage of player who choose to hold out are not showing their lack of character doing it. This also sheds light on yours for thinking that it doesn't show a lack of character for not fulfilling a legal binding contract.
.

Let me ask you this. Did Emmitt Smith lack honor and character when he held out in 1993? Did DeMarcus Lawrence lack honor and character earlier this offseason when he wouldn't get surgery until Dallas worked out a long-term deal with him?

What both players did was simply part of the system. I don't necessarily like it, but I understand the reason for it and don't accuse characters of being dishonorable for using the only available method they have to get a raise in a career where the next contract or next year is not guaranteed.

 

[gjkoeppen]

That you believe someone lacks character just because they don't agree with your position should make you take a closer look at yourself. I would not violate a contract if I signed it, but I also understand that the NFL works in a different reality than a lot of businesses.

Your belief is it is an honor to play in the NFL and that should be sufficient. Players see it as a job that that they earned through a lot of hard work. College football was their job interview. Are they happy to have gotten the job? Absolutely, just like you would be in your profession. However, that doesn't mean they don't have the right to maximize their earnings in what is typically a fairly brief career.

It's funny that owners acknowledge that holding out is just part of the business, but you want to believe that they are somehow in violation of some code. You can't look at NFL contracts like you look at other contracts. NFL contracts are simply a starting point in the relationship where either side can decide at either point that the relationship needs to change. The owner can decide that he no longer wants to honor the contract and cut the player, the player is not worth the contracted amount and offer a pay cut or the player is worth more and extend his deal. The player can decide that he is worth more than what he is getting paid and seek to renegotiate or force the team to cut him, pay him or trade him. Both sides' tactics are valid in this arena.

Obviously, you don't agree with me on this, and that's fine. But you might want to not show a lack of character by questioning mine just because I see it differently.

First it's not just my opinion that not fulfilling a legally binding contract is showing a lack of character. If you don't believe me, ask any attorney if it shows a lack of character if a person decides to stop honoring a legally binding contract. I've said it several times now, there's nobody holding a gun to the heads of players to sign their contracts. They know at the time of signing how long they are and what they are worth. If any part of it wasn't to their liking they shouldn't have signed them. They did sign them so those with honor and character fulfill their contracts. And as far as your "owners acknowledging holding out is just part of business" it is but for less than 1% of all NFL players. Using an owner saying something is a part of their business a lame excuse. In the business world employee theft is also a part of business but that doesn't mean they like and that it's somehow right or acceptable.
.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

It seems you still haven't caught on, but when you are winning games you run the ball.

Also this is completely fabricated.

Cowboys- 48 wins
Hawks- 51 wins
Pats- 62 wins

Pittsburgh Steelers - 54
Kansas City Chiefs - 54. Reid runs on like 35% of plays.
Philadelphia Eagles - 46 (counting playoffs cowboys arent even top 5) Doug runs a lot sometimes, and never sometimes. Does Reid proud.

 

[gjkoeppen]

Let me ask you this. Did Emmitt Smith lack honor and character when he held out in 1993? Did DeMarcus Lawrence lack honor and character earlier this offseason when he wouldn't get surgery until Dallas worked out a long-term deal with him?

What both players did was simply part of the system. I don't necessarily like it, but I understand the reason for it and don't accuse characters of being dishonorable for using the only available method they have to get a raise in a career where the next contract or next year is not guaranteed.

Because Emmitt, a very big fan favorite which I too like did it doesn't mean at that point he didn't show a lack of character. He did make up for that by playing the last game of a season against the giants when the Cowboys needed the win to win the division he played the 2nd half with a bad shoulder to help get that win. What Lawrence did in no way broke his word on an existing contract. I'm not crazy about him doing it but it was a legal way to push the Cowboys into seriously negotiating his contract. The other thing is neither player has/had any off season troubles that got them suspended.
.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Meanwhile, DT's have short careers and take a pounding and don't even get paid what RB's do.

https://external-preview.*******/L56K4042otoz067nBQ127Ljf528GxpL6PfRaXZcSaL0.png?auto=webp&s=df870ea463b2326d3333000e65f753d70bfcb186

 

[robertfchew]

Hold your horse Amigo. For every Zeke, who deserves a bigger contract, there are many RBS who wash out of the NFL in one or two seasons.

like that dude on the jags.

 

[gimmesix]

Because Emmitt, a very big fan favorite which I too like did it doesn't mean at that point he didn't show a lack of character. He did make up for that by playing the last game of a season against the giants when the Cowboys needed the win to win the division he played the 2nd half with a bad shoulder to help get that win. What Lawrence did in no way broke his word on an existing contract. I'm not crazy about him doing it but it was a legal way to push the Cowboys into seriously negotiating his contract. The other thing is neither player has/had any off season troubles that got them suspended.
.

Oh, if we're strictly talking about Elliott, I've voiced my concerns about his off-field behavior and it would make me hesitant to do a deal with him now. I would try to push it off until next season by testing his resolve until late in camp. I just don't have a problem with him trying to force the issue. Equally, I don't have a problem with the Cowboys not giving in to it. Now, if he holds out and misses two games like Emmitt did, I'll begin having a problem with both sides.

 

[kskboys]

https://external-preview.*******/L56K4042otoz067nBQ127Ljf528GxpL6PfRaXZcSaL0.png?auto=webp&s=df870ea463b2326d3333000e65f753d70bfcb186

I wish they'd separate out those who wash out as opposed to those who have their career ends. Generally speaking, including players who aren't good enough doesn't give a fair representation of the length of careers.

 

[Hoofbite]

Then why do backup quarterbacks often make more than 80 percent of the starters on their teams?

Serious?

 

[Beaker42]

I agree with the overall premise of your post. Running backs on rookie contracts are way underpaid relative to the value they can bring to their team.

What is the best solution? Could it be giving a discount on their cap numbers? Something like getting a 25% discount on their cap number, so that the elite guys can get bigger contracts?

I’m honestly not sure what the best fix is. But I would be in favor of some kind of solution to help them out.

See how much they make flipping burgers at BK or operating the Screaming Eagle at Six Flags. The market is what the market is. I’m sick of these guys making the kind of money they do to play A GAME.

 

[QuincyCarterEra]

Pittsburgh Steelers - 54
Kansas City Chiefs - 54. Reid runs on like 35% of plays.
Philadelphia Eagles - 46 (counting playoffs cowboys arent even top 5) Doug runs a lot sometimes, and never sometimes. Does Reid proud.

Yeah, no reason to even mention the Eagles, they are down there.

 

[OmerV]

Meanwhile, DT's have short careers and take a pounding and don't even get paid what RB's do.

Yeah, well the chair at my desk makes my lower back hurt and the computer screen damages my eyes. What’s that worth?

 

[Jake]

I'll be honest. I'm ok with letting him sit out both years and fine the crap out of him and see what he can get in 2021 in the open market. But I am also ok with giving him a big contract next season if he plays out this season because he is still young. But at some point you have to make a stand.

Indeed. It's high time billionaire owners fine the crap out of the guys who fill their stadiums and their pockets. Make a stand!