Cowboys 'Not Fair' In Diggs Contract Talks? CB Wants 'Guaranteed' Deal?

[kskboys]

I don't think that would be the case, anymore than it already is.

All contracts have a guaranteed portion as it is. Most players end up seeing that amount anyways, before they are moved or restructured/extended.

Like I said though, my preference would be to have no cap and open the door to the players getting a bigger piece than they already do.

That's exactly what has happened in baseball. The uncapped league hurts your bottom line revenue in a big way, which means the players as a whole will make less.

The no cap league might get them bigger money at first, but would end up costing them a ton of money.

 

[kskboys]

I am interested to know what the non-stars are making because what the stars are making is dictated by the market. I would not believe a non-star MLBer receiving a minimum high six-figure or low seven-figure per year guaranteed contract is detrimental to both the player or the league.

It's not. It's dictated by what a few owners are willing to overpay, which artificially drives up the market for everyone. The end result is less money for everyone, as attendance rockets down for the bottom tier teams.

And the bottom tier teams don't even try to get better, as they are lowballing their players and making a fortune from the revenue sharing of teams over the cap. It's a complete mess.

 

[Vtwin]

And that includes maximizing profits for everyone, especially the just good players who don't get the big contracts. See baseball.

When you have an uncapped league, you end up w/ way too many Oak A's and KC Royals. Their attendance is just so bad, it drives down the revenue. Smaller revenue means less money for players.

I am not familiar at all with how MLB runs. Do they have a similar revenue sharing system as the NFL?

We see good players not getting the big contracts in the NFL now. Low value positions and older players who still have some game. We also see a lot of 'crap shoot' football as even the best teams have holes.

Maybe a good compromise would be to exempt draft pics from the cap, in some way. Put the team building focus on the draft and let the best managed teams build those dynasties and let them run their course, instead of a series of five year cycles for most teams.

 

[Flamma]

By distributing money to everyone, as opposed to the top players getting all the money. Baseball is providing a very solid example of an uncapped league. Trout and Judge get all the top money, while many good players get less. And here's the biggest factor. W/ a cap comes a minimum. If baseball had a, say, 220 mil or so minimum, then the players as a whole would make a ton more money. They only ones who might get a bit less would be the top guys, who would have to settle for 300 mil instead of 400 mil. All the uncapped league accomplishes is to get the stars huger money.

I get your point. I haven't paid close attention to baseball for many years. I'm not sure how they do things now. But I remember back in the 90s average players were getting a lot more money than they should. There were Yankees making 7-10 mil a year that weren't all that good. But yeah, I can see where it marginally helps players at the lower end.

 

[kskboys]

I am not familiar at all with how MLB runs. Do they have a similar revenue sharing system as the NFL?

We see good players not getting the big contracts in the NFL now. Low value positions and older players who still have some game. We also see a lot of 'crap shoot' football as even the best teams have holes.

Maybe a good compromise would be to exempt draft pics from the cap, in some way. Put the team building focus on the draft and let the best managed teams build those dynasties and let them run their course, instead of a series of five year cycles for most teams.

MLB has open market. When a team goes over, they must pay the league, and the money goes to the bottom teams. Which never get any better as their owners simply take the cash and run.

The problem we're having in the NFL at present is the extreme greed of the players which is exacerbated by the owners giving in and overpaying the few. Overpaying and greed is what is leading to these olders/lesser value positions getting less. Every time a player holds out for max value, it costs older players, average players, and lesser positional value players.

 

[DallasEast]

It's not. It's dictated by what a few owners are willing to overpay, which artificially drives up the market for everyone. The end result is less money for everyone, as attendance rockets down for the bottom tier teams.

You are describing market Economics 101 drivers stating 'It's dictated by what a few owners are willing to overpay, which artificially drives up the market for everyone.'

Every professional team sports league is bloated by the number of franchises that they are comprised of. The market corrects a company that expands too large after creating too many locations, etc. Retail store closures are one example.

Professional team sport leagues on the other hand? They do not dissolve member franchises. Attendance should decrease if fans of a particular franchise do not support the quality of the product that the franchise fields.

What could happen is the elimination of underperforming franchise markets. Overall player talent would consolidate with average-to-over performing franchise markets. Product quality would increase for the lessor quantity of franchises, which, in turn, would increase overall attendance for fewer franchises.

And the bottom tier teams don't even try to get better, as they are lowballing their players and making a fortune from the revenue sharing of teams over the cap. It's a complete mess.

Repeat that again bold part again. That is a very relevant problem with who gets paid what in professional team sports.

 

[kskboys]

I get your point. I haven't paid close attention to baseball for many years. I'm not sure how they do things now. But I remember back in the 90s average players were getting a lot more money than they should. There were Yankees making 7-10 mil a year that weren't all that good. But yeah, I can see where it marginally helps players at the lower end.

Not marginally, it helps them a ton.

Don't forget, w/ the salary cap comes a salary minimum, which helps everyone who is not a top star monumentally.

 

[kskboys]

You are describing market Economics 101 drivers stating 'It's dictated by what a few owners are willing to overpay, which artificially drives up the market for everyone.'

Every professional team sports league is bloated by the number of franchises that they are comprised of. The market corrects a company that expands too large after creating too many locations, etc. Retail store closures are one example.

Professional team sport leagues on the other hand? They do not dissolve member franchises. Attendance should decrease if fans of a particular franchise do not support the quality of the product that the franchise fields.

What could happen is the elimination of underperforming franchise markets. Overall player talent would consolidate with average-to-over performing franchise markets. Product quality would increase for the lessor quantity of franchises, which, in turn, would increase overall attendance for fewer franchises.

Repeat that again bold part again. That is a very relevant problem with who gets paid what in professional team sports.

A salary cap forces them to get better, which is a good thing.

W/ fewer franchises comes less money. The best way for everyone to make money is to keep everyone competitive, which means salary maxes and mins.

I don't think pro sports can be analyzed w/ normal market techniques. They are a business all to themselves.

There's no increase left for the top franchises. They are always sold out, and sell a ton of goodies. So this increase you're speaking of would not happen, or would happen to such a tiny degree that it wouldn't matter.

 

[Vtwin]

MLB has open market. When a team goes over, they must pay the league, and the money goes to the bottom teams. Which never get any better as their owners simply take the cash and run.

The problem we're having in the NFL at present is the extreme greed of the players which is exacerbated by the owners giving in and overpaying the few. Overpaying and greed is what is leading to these olders/lesser value positions getting less. Every time a player holds out for max value, it costs older players, average players, and lesser positional value players.

If I am understanding this correctly, that is a significant difference from the NFL model where teams share all the revenue except for gate receipts/parking/concessions.

Maybe instead of a salary cap we have a salary minimum which forces owners to keep up, but doesn't handicap those that want to go for it.

I don't know, man. I am admittedly looking at it from a fan point of view, which gets me the best product, tinged with nostalgia from the "good old days" when rosters remained stable, dynasties rose and fell and there were always some legitimate 'battles of the titans'.

 

[Cowboys93]

Diggs has given us stability at CB for the first time in a decade and people are wanting to move on because he wants to get paid for his services? Man putting your body on the line every Sunday really seems to a thankless role from the masses

 

[DallasEast]

A salary cap forces them to get better, which is a good thing.

W/ fewer franchises comes less money. The best way for everyone to make money is to keep everyone competitive, which means salary maxes and mins.

I don't think pro sports can be analyzed w/ normal market techniques. They are a business all to themselves.

There's no increase left for the top franchises. They are always sold out, and sell a ton of goodies. So this increase you're speaking of would not happen, or would happen to such a tiny degree that it wouldn't matter.

1. Salary cap enforces parity among franchises. It does not force every team 'to get better'. It does force teams that want to be successful to work within a restricted player compensation system. It does not force teams not striving for the same goal to optimize the opportunities within the restricted system.
2. Fewer franchises does not equate as less money. Ticket prices and television revenue comprise the bulk of the money the NFL (or any sports league) nets. For example, the NFL's broadcast rights contract distributes an even share to each franchise. Decreasing the number of teams would not reduce the amount distributed to fewer teams. In fact, the individual shares might increase if the league (or reduced teams) could convince networks that less teams equals a better overall product.
3. Really. Professional sports cannot be analyzed by 'normal market techniques'? Dude.
4. The NFL does not release official operational figures publicly. Well, Green Bay does in limited fashion though. You may think that top teams' revenue potential has peaked but it has not. It increases each year.

 

[Flamma]

Pretty much agree with everything.

Only quibble is that in my scenario the player would be getting the same guaranteed money in either case. I used Dak's contract as an example. If he was cut in year one he would have still received the 126 million that was guaranteed. I think most times the guaranteed portion is the real amount the player will see over the course of the contract anyways. The only incentive to the player is if he wants to chase that next contract.

Unlikely my scenario ever happens as the players likely wouldn't want to forgo the massive signing bonuses and the owners wouldn't want to lose the cap flexibility.

I've never bought parity as the real reason for the cap. Especially with the revenue sharing model in place. Is there really any such thing as a "small market" team anymore? Like you say, it's all about keeping costs down and maximizing profits.

I've been trying to work out the differences, or advantages to certain type contracts. I think ultimately your play determines future contracts. The only time a player hurts themselves is when they sign a 6 or more year deal. Obviously by the last few years of your contract you're going to be underpaid. They should know this at signing.

 

[DallasEast]

Major League Baseball revenue sharing is essentially local revenue (i.e. a franchise's local television contract revenue) and gameday revenue (i.e. ticket sales, etc.) that is pooled together and then distributed to all teams unevenly. As the article at this link states, "Teams like the Yankees and Dodgers receive far less than they put in, for example, while teams like the Rays and Guardians receive far more than they contribute."

Per the NFLPA's Economics 101: league revenue is defined as "...everything football related in three general categories: television/broadcast, sponsorships and local revenues. Some examples of this are: all television deals, ticket sales, concessions, league sponsorships, local media deals and yes, even gambling revenues..." All revenue sharing is all of those specified monies distributed equally among all franchises.

 

[cowboyblue22]

i dont believe in the end that diggs will be resigned to play for the cowboys

 

[TwistedL0g1k]

Remember that CB Jalen Ramsey (the player Dallas should have selected instead of Elliot) was traded for 2 First Round picks plus a Fourth Round pick.

I like Diggs, but Dallas should consider his trade value as it decides what type of contract to offer him.

 

[Praxit]

tell Diggs, getting back to grabbing double digit INT's would do the trick.

 

[DuncanIso]

Remember that CB Jalen Ramsey (the player Dallas should have selected instead of Elliot) was traded for 2 First Round picks plus a Fourth Round pick.

I like Diggs, but Dallas should consider his trade value as it decides what type of contract to offer him.

Elliot is 3rd all time in Dallas rushing.

80 TDs

10k APY

Who cares about Ramsey.

Diggs is All Pro. He’s making peanuts.

Just pay him.

 

[Adreme]

If he's not worth the market rate, it's over paying. All cornerbacks don't make market rate coming off rookie contracts. Only quarterbacks do.

Except he clearly is a CB1 and a top 5 CB who has improved every year (yes he played better last year and it was not close). The fans always do this though. They love the young guys until its time to pay the young guys then suddenly they hate them.

 

[TwistedL0g1k]

Elliot is 3rd all time in Dallas rushing.

80 TDs

10k APY

Who cares about Ramsey.

Diggs is All Pro. He’s making peanuts.

Just pay him.

After a few seasons, Ramsey was worth a haul of draft picks, and Elliot is now dead money for years and unemployed. Using a rare, ultra high pick on a RB is a tragic mistake, and I don't care how many yards he had. Elliot was a great player.

Ramsey was used as an example of what Diggs might fetch in a trade. A team that has confidence in its ability to scout and draft has to at least consider the possibility of a trade. It would be negligent not to- for any player.

So many have said "just pay him", but that's a black and white answer when the reality is shades of grey. How much? How long? What's guaranteed? What's his trade value. Smart GM's take a more nuanced approach.

 

[Flamma]

Except he clearly is a CB1 and a top 5 CB who has improved every year (yes he played better last year and it was not close). The fans always do this though. They love the young guys until its time to pay the young guys then suddenly they hate them.

I was only answering your question. If he's a top player at his position, he gets market value. If he isn't, he doesn't. That's all I was saying. Some people believe he's not worth it. Me personally, I'm on the fence. In the last few games he played he avoided contact. I'm assuming he did that to avoid injury prior to a new deal, because if that's how he's going to play moving forward, there is no question in my mind he's not worth top market value. This is what we're going back and forth with.