Question re: Dak and greed

[kskboys]

I don't have a problem with the team only being willing to pay as much as it feels is fair and it can afford. I believe both sides have the right to negotiate based on what they feel is fair and in their best interest. But the Cowboys can't avoid completing in the marketplace they exist in, so some of the burden still falls on the Cowboys to figure out how to do that.

Of course.

However, at this point Dak has been an above average player. Dak wants to be paid as a great player. Paying good players as great players is a quick route to mediocrity

 

[OmerV]

Omer is a very good poster, for whom I have much respect. We just see things differently on this subject.

Exactly, and back at you. The great thing is we can discuss even differences of opinion in a thoughtful and cordial manner, which unfortunately can be rare on a site like this.

 

[OmerV]

Of course.

However, at this point Dak has been an above average player. Dak wants to be paid as a great player. Paying good players as great players is a quick route to mediocrity

I don't get into the being paid like a "good" or "great" player thing because, as I've said many times, pay isn't based on a poll ranking the players, it's based on the market for players and what teams are willing to pay. I don't personally think Wentz has proven to be a great player, but he got what he got. That's just how the market worked for him.

And, again, do we really know what Dak is asking for? Media reports have been all over the board, and have proven time and again to be unreliable.

 

[kskboys]

I don't get into the being paid like a "good" or "great" player thing because, as I've said many times, pay isn't based on a poll ranking the players, it's based on the market for players and what teams are willing to pay. I don't personally think Wentz has proven to be a great player, but he got what he got. That's just how the market worked for him.

And, again, do we really know what Dak is asking for? Media reports have been all over the board, and have proven time and again to be unreliable.

That's how pay has been based in the NFL since the beginning. It's just been recently that players are starting to demand top pay just because they're the next man up.

 

[OmerV]

That's how pay has been based in the NFL since the beginning. It's just been recently that players are starting to demand top pay just because they're the next man up.

What is how pay has been based from the beginning? Market value? If that's what you mean, player's using precedents in the market as part of their negotiation is not a brand new thing. That's been a factor in negotiating all sorts of things since negotiating was invented. But it isn't just "next man up" because there is a talent component too. For example, a journeyman stepping into a starting QB role wouldn't have the same market value as a proven veteran would. That's part of the market for a player as well. And, ultimately, nobody is forcing teams to pay the kind of money they do. If teams are willing to pay it, that's the market.

 

[Runwildboys]

What is how pay has been based from the beginning? Market value? If that's what you mean, player's using precedents in the market as part of their negotiation is not a brand new thing. That's been a factor in negotiating all sorts of things since negotiating was invented. But it isn't just "next man up" because there is a talent component too. For example, a journeyman stepping into a starting QB role wouldn't have the same market value as a proven veteran would. That's part of the market for a player as well. And, ultimately, nobody is forcing teams to pay the kind of money they do. If teams are willing to pay it, that's the market.

I assumed he meant players used to be paid according to the quality of their play, rather than holding the team hostage, just because they know there's nobody better available.

 

[gjkoeppen]

You don't know a darn thing about me or "the same type of people" as me. Who the hell are you? My opinion that Dak is behaving in a greedy manner is just as valid as your's or anyone else's on this Dallas Cowboys board. Knock that stuff off!

OK take 2 or 3 or 25 deep breaths and think about how you think someone is being greedy because he's going to get a zillion times more money than you'll ever make in several lifetimes and that is triggering your thinking he's greedy. Since we live in a capitalistic society I believe every player as the right to make as much as he can.
.

 

[gjkoeppen]

What is how pay has been based from the beginning? Market value? If that's what you mean, player's using precedents in the market as part of their negotiation is not a brand new thing. That's been a factor in negotiating all sorts of things since negotiating was invented. But it isn't just "next man up" because there is a talent component too. For example, a journeyman stepping into a starting QB role wouldn't have the same market value as a proven veteran would. That's part of the market for a player as well. And, ultimately, nobody is forcing teams to pay the kind of money they do. If teams are willing to pay it, that's the market.

Technically teams are required to spend the money. All teams have to spend minimum of 95% of their cap every year.They're allowed to rollover 5% to the next year and that 5% is then added to their available cap for that year and 95% of that will have to be spent. They're allowed to carry that 5% to use in case of injury and they have to sign some player to replace the injured player.who get's put on IR.
.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

OK take 2 or 3 or 25 deep breaths and think about how you think someone is being greedy because he's going to get a zillion times more money than you'll ever make in several lifetimes and that is triggering your thinking he's greedy. Since we live in a capitalistic society I believe every player as the right to make as much as he can.
.

If it were truly capitalism, it wouldn't follow the next man up method.

 

[Corso]

If it were truly capitalism, it wouldn't follow the next man up method.

Nor would it have a hard cap limiting salaries. I don't like it, but it's there and it ain't going anywhere.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Nor would it have a hard cap limiting salaries. I don't like it, but it's there and it ain't going anywhere.

agreed.

 

[gjkoeppen]

If it were truly capitalism, it wouldn't follow the next man up method.

You're not making sense. What does a player making as much as he can on a team that has a set number of players per team have to do with next man up. A backup player isn't paid as much as a starter but that doesn't mean that the backup player didn't try to get as money as he could. A capitalistic society has zero to do with next man up.
.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You're not making sense. What does a player making as much as he can on a team that has a set number of players per team have to do with net man up. A backup player isn't paid as much as a starter but that doesn't mean that the backup player didn't try to get as money as he could. A capitalistic society has zero to do with next man up.
.

I agree. Capitalism has zero to do with next man up. That's the point exactly.

 

[OmerV]

I assumed he meant players used to be paid according to the quality of their play, rather than holding the team hostage, just because they know there's nobody better available.

I think quality of play is still part of the equation though. Like I said, a journeyman being elevated into a starting role isn't going to have the same market value as a proven veteran. But players holding firm on what they want isn't a new development in negotiations. It's really been around since free agency became a part of the NFL. Emmitt held out and missed 2 games in the early 1990's. There were a number of contract disputes even back when Tex Schramm was the GM. He had conflicts with both Lee Roy Jordan and Tony Dorsett as I recall. Then there was the year Randy White held out and nobody could find him, and later it was found he was on the lake fishing throughout training camp.

 

[gjkoeppen]

I agree. Capitalism has zero to do with next man up. That's the point exactly.

Lets try this another way. When the government dictates what a person is paid it's called communism. When the person is free to negotiate what he is paid it's called capitalism. Players negotiate what they are paid so yes they are part of the capitalistic society we live in. The next man up is generally used when a player is injured or if a player leaves as a free agent after NEGOTIATING a contract with another team. Sometimes a team feels they can no longer pay that player what he wants and just lets him go and surprise, in the real world companies often decide they can no longer pay an employee and they eliminate that position and let them go.. It's called downsizing.
.

 

[OmerV]

If it were truly capitalism, it wouldn't follow the next man up method.

But it isn't just "next man up". Not every QB will be considered for a $30 million/year + contract simply because his contract is expiring. How teams view the talent level is still a big part of the equation.

But even if it was purely "next man up", that wouldn't be the fault of capitalism. That would be the fault of the owners, who have the choice to pay the prices or not. Hell, they are the reason the prices are high - because they have competed for players and prices were driven up.

 

[OmerV]

Technically teams are required to spend the money. All teams have to spend minimum of 95% of their cap every year.They're allowed to rollover 5% to the next year and that 5% is then added to their available cap for that year and 95% of that will have to be spent. They're allowed to carry that 5% to use in case of injury and they have to sign some player to replace the injured player.who get's put on IR.
.

But they don't have to spend it on a particular player or position.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Lets try this another way. When the government dictates what a person is paid it's called communism. When the person is free to negotiate what he is paid it's called capitalism. Players negotiate what they are paid so yes they are part of the capitalistic society we live in. The next man up is generally used when a player is injured or if a player leaves as a free agent after NEGOTIATING a contract with another team. Sometimes a team feels they can no longer pay that player what he wants and just lets him go and surprise, in the real world companies often decide they can no longer pay an employee and they eliminate that position and let them go.. It's called downsizing.
.

And how does this equate to a salary cap? Corso is correct, that is also not a capitalistic principle. Essentially, next man up is dictating what a player is paid. It's not based off of play or production. It's based off of simply being the next guy up. The cap limits pay and goes against open market principles. You can try and shoe horn this in any way you want but this system is not even close to true capitalism.

Heck, a rookie cap is completely against Capitalism. There are so many things that prove this wrong. This system is anything but Capitalism.

 

[tyke1doe]

Even if he's doing it at the expense of the team?

If he gets injured or has to deal with the injuries and pains associated with playing football, the team aint gonna be there for him.
I say get what you can. It's not Dak's job to worry about paying the team. That's Jerry's job.

 

[tyke1doe]

On the other hand, I wouldn't say he's not being greedy by doing so.

Fans are fans. They don't have to play the game. They just get to enjoy it. The players play the game and have to look out for their best interest because no one else is.