Signing BONUS concerns?

[CrazyCowboy]

If there were tears in his eyes when Jerry kissed Vanderjagt goodbye Monday, it probably had more to do with the $2.5 million signing bonus and some $850,000 in base salary for this season that will go with him, not to mention the $1.8 million he'll count against the team's cap next year.

ZONERS:

It just does not seem fair that these players when cut for not performing can keep those signing bonus......if they had to pay back say 50 percent for non performance.....would they try harder?

I believe YES the player would try/practice much harder and the NFL would be better off as an entity........what do you Zoners think? :bang2:

 

[Yeagermeister]

ZONERS:

It just does not seem fair that these players when cut for not performing can keep those signing bonus......if they had to pay back say 50 percent for non performance.....would they try harder?

I believe YES the player would try/practice much harder and the NFL would be better off as an entity........what do you Zoners think? :bang2:

I hate the cap period.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Signing Bonus is another way of saying "guaranteed money"

If you want to really do it right... all contracts should be based on passing incentives.... but that wont work for many reasons.... oh well...

 

[notherbob]

The players union would never allow that.

 

[AbeBeta]

ZONERS:

It just does not seem fair that these players when cut for not performing can keep those signing bonus......if they had to pay back say 50 percent for non performance.....would they try harder?

I believe YES the player would try/practice much harder and the NFL would be better off as an entity........what do you Zoners think? :bang2:

The NFL is the only league where contracts are not guaranteed - a player can sign a 5 year deal for say 3 million a year -- if he gets hurt in year 1 the team can cut him prior to year 2 and not pay out the remaining 12 mill of his deal.

That doesn't happen in baseball, hockey, or basketball.

NFL teams have such a huge contract advantage -- the signing bonus is the only way players can ensure they will get paid. No freaking way any agent goes for a deal like this -- no freaking way the union would support this sort of contract.

The system is fair. Teams take chances when they sign FAs. The chances in the NFL are greatly reduced in comparison to other pro leagues.

 

[Bryan8284]

The system works, but the people applying the system need to work it well to suceed.

Giving Rivera and Vandy big checks up front hurt a bit when we all want them gone.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Giving Rivera and Vandy big checks up front hurt a bit when we all want them gone.

Rivera still receives average $$$ for a starting guard. He was awful last year and he's decent this year, but supposedly his leadership is tremendous for the other O-Lineman. If he can play in 2007 like he has this season, all in all I'd say Dallas made out alright.

Obviously Vandy was a bust, but with our cap room he wasn't a significant hit.

The system works and most times busts have little to do with "not trying hard enough" and something else, mostly injuries.

It's one of the risks you run in FA. Not only do you chance a FA playing poorly, but many of them don't have much of a lifespan of good play left in him. I think we are all happy with what La'Roi Glover brought us, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that he only gave us 3 years of good play. Which is good to get from a FA.

In contrast guy like Roy, whom we drafted has been good for us going on his 5th season and will most likely be good for a few more years.

To me, that's one of the beauties of the salary cap, it forces teams to win by drafting well.



YAKUZA

 

[Rampage]

I hate the cap period.

i take it your a yankee fan?

 

[Stash]

I think the NFL has the best system.

Signing bonuses are the only guaranteed money a player gets. Guaranteed contracts allow players to call the shots and essentially kills a player's drive or ambition to excel.

The players need some form of guarantee and the league has to have an option to release a player.

I think the NFL's system works best.

If the Cowboys made mistakes giving bonuses to the wrong players - Vandy, Rocky Boiman, etc. - it's their problem, not the system's.

 

[Yeagermeister]

i take it your a yankee fan?

Actually no I hate the Yankees but I loved the early 90's

 

[Yeagermeister]

I think the NFL has the best system.

Signing bonuses are the only guaranteed money a player gets. Guaranteed contracts allow players to call the shots and essentially kills a player's drive or ambition to excel.

The players need some form of guarantee and the league has to have an option to release a player.

I think the NFL's system works best.

If the Cowboys made mistakes giving bonuses to the wrong players - Vandy, Rocky Boiman, etc. - it's their problem, not the system's.

It works well but the only change I'd make is a rookie cap. Rookie salaries are out of control. They should have too earn their first big paycheck.

 

[iceberg]

ZONERS:

It just does not seem fair that these players when cut for not performing can keep those signing bonus......if they had to pay back say 50 percent for non performance.....would they try harder?

I believe YES the player would try/practice much harder and the NFL would be better off as an entity........what do you Zoners think? :bang2:

it's a "signing bonus" - not a guarantee of performance. *no player* can do that and the owners / coaches must make judgement calls and sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. it happens. would they practice/play harder?

i don't think vandy's misses were because he was bored, has a big bank account and so forth - i think he's just losing it, that's all. that's why indy cut him, that's why we're cutting him and that's why he's not likely to get a huge bonus again from anyone else until he spends a year to prove he's still "got it".

aggrevating, to be sure - but what you suggest would likely never happen or be allowed to happen. again, it's a bonus to sign with the team, not perform.

 

[Stash]

It works well but the only change I'd make is a rookie cap. Rookie salaries are out of control. They should have too earn their first big paycheck.

I absolutely agree with you here.

The league is way overdue in implimenting a rookie cap. They could learn from the NBA on that one.

And capping rookies would allow for veterans to make more money and prolong many careers.

I find it ridiculous that unproven players can make tens of millions before ever playing a single down in the pros.

And it shouldn't be hard to put into effect as the league and players association would both benefit.

 

[Big Dakota]

The NFL is the only league where contracts are not guaranteed - a player can sign a 5 year deal for say 3 million a year -- if he gets hurt in year 1 the team can cut him prior to year 2 and not pay out the remaining 12 mill of his deal.

That doesn't happen in baseball, hockey, or basketball.

NFL teams have such a huge contract advantage -- the signing bonus is the only way players can ensure they will get paid. No freaking way any agent goes for a deal like this -- no freaking way the union would support this sort of contract.

The system is fair. Teams take chances when they sign FAs. The chances in the NFL are greatly reduced in comparison to other pro leagues.

Good post!

 

[Danny White]

I think the NFL has the best system.

Signing bonuses are the only guaranteed money a player gets. Guaranteed contracts allow players to call the shots and essentially kills a player's drive or ambition to excel.

The players need some form of guarantee and the league has to have an option to release a player.

I think the NFL's system works best.

If the Cowboys made mistakes giving bonuses to the wrong players - Vandy, Rocky Boiman, etc. - it's their problem, not the system's.

You hit the nail on the head.

What's more, no one is forcing the teams to offer signing bonuses. I'm sure there are some players that would forgo a signing bonus for a higher base salary.

 

[speedkilz88]

The nfl does have a rookie cap, (rookie pool). What they need is to get the union to agree to giving the rookies incentive laden deals rather than guaranteed money and then let the veterans get that new part of the pie.

 

[iceberg]

The nfl does have a rookie cap, (rookie pool). What they need is to get the union to agree to giving the rookies incentive laden deals rather than guaranteed money and then let the veterans get that new part of the pie.

you mean like vandy?

 

[JD_KaPow]

ZONERS:

It just does not seem fair that these players when cut for not performing can keep those signing bonus......if they had to pay back say 50 percent for non performance.....would they try harder?

I believe YES the player would try/practice much harder and the NFL would be better off as an entity........what do you Zoners think? :bang2:

The NFL system works in favor of the owners, not the players. The salary cap and the rookie pool artificially reduce salaries compared to what they would be in a free market environment. The signing bonus is the only mechanism a player has to ensure getting paid.

Besides, nobody's forcing the owners to sign these contracts. In what way is it unfair to them? If the player overperforms, should his signing bonus be doubled?

The salary cap may be good for competitive balance, but it's a rotten deal for the players. It's in place because the NFLPA is the lapdog of the owners.

 

[AdamJT13]

The NFL system works in favor of the owners, not the players. The salary cap and the rookie pool artificially reduce salaries compared to what they would be in a free market environment. The signing bonus is the only mechanism a player has to ensure getting paid.

Besides, nobody's forcing the owners to sign these contracts. In what way is it unfair to them? If the player overperforms, should his signing bonus be doubled?

The salary cap may be good for competitive balance, but it's a rotten deal for the players. It's in place because the NFLPA is the lapdog of the owners.

You need to do some research. The CBA also includes minimum team and player salaries, guaranteeing that the players collectively receive a certain percentage of the NFL's total revenue -- more than the players in any other sport. If you eliminated the cap, you'd also eliminate the minimum guarantees, and cheap teams could have $15 million payrolls, like they do in baseball. Young players and backups would make a lot less money, too. Only the star players would benefit. Overall, the players would receive a lower percentage of the total revenue. Unlike the baseball players' union, the NFLPA looks out for EVERY player, not just the highly paid stars.

 

[BARRYRAY]

Well it all evens out, I mean we are playing Bledsoe an obscene amount of money to hold a clipboard, and yet we got the best qb or at leat number two for minimum wage so you know it all even out. the people that kill me are the ones that say well bledsoe will just retire, well he won't during the season cause he gets a game check every week thats more than you and I make in four or five years, and man have you noticed what a long and healthy life a back up leads, I mean you got time to check on your investments, you feel like playing golf, no black and blue, sorry I degress, but ask Babe Laflenberg
, it isn't such a bad gig. I'm wondering if old Bledsoe won't restructure and be our vet back-up next year..