This notion that the players are "greedy" is nonsense

FanofJerry

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
1,253
:hammer:

A lot of posters on this site apparently do not understand the number one rule of asset management..............."The value of an asset is soley determined by what somebody is willing to pay for said asset"

Dak's market value is soley determined by what even one single team is willing to pay him on the open market, that is simply a fact. People may not like that, but facts dont have feelings.
Everyone on here knows better than to pay Dak...thats why they work for flipping burger money and not Dak money.

Assuming all this is real, which is questionable.
 

Beast_from_East

Well-Known Member
Messages
29,982
Reaction score
27,060
But yet guys like Tua, Lawrence , Love and Cousins for example this offseason deserve it?

Maybe some fans just don’t like what Market Price represents . It’s not a pecking order or reward for winning championships.
Good point.

Here is the problem, posters think Dak doesn't "deserve" a top of the market contract because he has not had enough playoff success in their opinions.

What they fail to comprehend is "deserve" doesn't have jack crap to do with market value.
 

Beast_from_East

Well-Known Member
Messages
29,982
Reaction score
27,060
Honest question here. Is it greed when you are asking for market value?
Personally, I would say no but apparently there are a lot of posters on this site that believe otherwise.

Just read a couple of posts in this thread, "Dak has already accumulated generational wealth, he should take less money now but he is greedy".

No offense to anybody, but what the hell does Dak already having generational wealth have to do with his current market value???...................Answer....................Not a dam thing.
 

FanofJerry

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
1,253
Good point.

Here is the problem, posters think Dak doesn't "deserve" a top of the market contract because he has not had enough playoff success in their opinions.

What they fail to comprehend is "deserve" doesn't have jack crap to do with market value.
Its not that...its that if they were in a real GM's shoes with a real job on the line....they wouldnt trade Dak.

Losing your job because you trailblazed, lost your family a bunch on money from a good job....no one is trading Dak based on his play....no one.

If all this is real...its a career ender move. Lost a million+ dollar a year job because you are hard headed and think you know better. And you wife left you and your kids hate you now.

Its just a foolish move. Everyone on this board avoids talking about it though, because it makes reality look like a lie...which it most likely is....but they want to keep the lie going.

No one with anything significant on the line is trading Dak.

I would put out that a straight up trade...Dak for Purdy...no diluting the conversation with money, age, etc.....I think San Fran would do that deal no questions asked.
 

Beast_from_East

Well-Known Member
Messages
29,982
Reaction score
27,060
Still sounds like you described market value. You can argue that it is wrong or unfair that certain professions make such a large amount of money than others but not sure if greed comes into it.
Exactly.............not to get into economic policy and the fundamentals of free market capitalism, but if one person has the ability, skills, knowledge, or whatever else you want to call it to make exponentially more money than the average person, is that considered greed???

Dak wanting $60 million a year instead of $40 million a year.............is that considered greed?

Taylor Swift charging $500 for tickets to her concerts instead of $10.................is that considered greed?

Dwayne Johnson demanding $50 million to be in the next Fast and Furious instead of $10 million..............is that considered greed?

Keep in mind all of these individuals have already earned hundreds of millions of dollars already, vastly more than 99.9% of the average population will ever see in their entire lifetimes, but they still demand more for their services. Are they greedy???
 

Beast_from_East

Well-Known Member
Messages
29,982
Reaction score
27,060
Not to get into economic policy and the fundamentals of free market capitalism, but if one person has the ability, skills, knowledge, or whatever else you want to call it to make exponentially more money than the average person, is that considered greed???

Dak wanting $60 million a year instead of $40 million a year.............is that considered greed?

Taylor Swift charging $500 for tickets to her concerts instead of $10.................is that considered greed?

Dwayne Johnson demanding $50 million to be in the next Fast and Furious instead of $10 million..............is that considered greed?

Keep in mind all of these individuals have already earned hundreds of millions of dollars already, vastly more than 99.9% of the average population will ever see in their entire lifetimes, but they still demand more for their services. Are they greedy???
 

Swanny

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
3,333
I keep hearing about how Dak is greedy and Lamb is greedy and how the players need to do what's right, yadda yadda yadda. A NFL players career is extremely short and they hire agents to ensure they maximize their earning potential while they're still in their prime and able to perform at elite levels. Most of these guys don't come from much at all, and know they'll need to stack up everything they can to set themselves up and their families up for life after their career ends.

Owners are BILLIONAIRES. They're mainly older men with extremely deep pockets and no worries about what their future holds in terms of finances. If they don't have the ability to work the salary cap in their favor to keep the talent they have on the team and remain competitive, than the player is the last one to be blamed. NFL players have the worst players association, they don't have guaranteed contracts, they're at risk of CTE, and they're putting their bodies on the line every week to entertain the fans.

Jerry had all the time in the world to extend these guys and his priorities were completely out of whack . So while we want our Cowboys to remain competitive and we want our guys to sign, the only direction fingers should be pointing is at Jerry and his big face son. All this talk about "go out there and earn it, show up in the playoffs and you'll get your money..." that's not how it works. They work through training camp, meetings, practices, the regular season and hopefully the playoffs. They've earned their money and they WILL be paid their money. Supply and demand, just like any other industry. Now if you decide you no longer want to make a run at the super bowl and you're content scrapping the whole thing and starting over, you have that option. I think it's a loser's mentality but it's certainly an option. Either way though, it's not the players fault you can't get your financial affairs in order. The player has created their own value and deserves to be paid for it.
Jerry has never has issues with paying people. In fact he does the complete opposite of that. I don't get why fans think he does not pay his guys. He has run this franchise into the ground because he pays his guys far too often. Emmitt Smith might be the only example but even then Jerry paid the guy. Plus Emmitt wasn't really a hold out he was just not under contract. Rules were different back then.

The main reason fans care that players want a ton of money is because there's a salary cap. When 1 player wants a lot of money that means the team must run thin elsewhere on the roster.

The players union has agreed to the salary cap. Players have nobody to blame but themselves when it comes to how contracts are structured and how much they are paid. Players have agreed to the fines they receive when they don't show up under contract.

Fans have a legit reason getting upset about players wanting a ton of money . Players have a legit reason to want more money. Owners have a legit reason to want players to take less money. In the end it comes down to the players union and the owners contract that is on place. That contract restricts the great players from getting a too much of money but also helps fringe players get a large amount of money. Thanks to fans the salary cap will forever be a thing and both the owners and players union understands thar.
 

Swanny

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
3,333
Not to get into economic policy and the fundamentals of free market capitalism, but if one person has the ability, skills, knowledge, or whatever else you want to call it to make exponentially more money than the average person, is that considered greed???

Dak wanting $60 million a year instead of $40 million a year.............is that considered greed?

Taylor Swift charging $500 for tickets to her concerts instead of $10.................is that considered greed?

Dwayne Johnson demanding $50 million to be in the next Fast and Furious instead of $10 million..............is that considered greed?

Keep in mind all of these individuals have already earned hundreds of millions of dollars already, vastly more than 99.9% of the average population will ever see in their entire lifetimes, but they still demand more for their services. Are they greedy???
The NFL and the players union have a contract in place thst prevents the NFL being a capitalistic. The examples you give of Taylor Swift and The Rock is true capitalism. You're comparing apples to oranges.

It's not about Dak getting 60mil instead of 40mil. It's the fact thst he will take up such a large chunk of salary cap space.
 

FanofJerry

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
1,253
Jerry has never has issues with paying people. In fact he does the complete opposite of that. I don't get why fans think he does not pay his guys. He has run this franchise into the ground because he pays his guys far too often. Emmitt Smith might be the only example but even then Jerry paid the guy. Plus Emmitt wasn't really a hold out he was just not under contract. Rules were different back then.

The main reason fans care that players want a ton of money is because there's a salary cap. When 1 player wants a lot of money that means the team must run thin elsewhere on the roster.

The players union has agreed to the salary cap. Players have nobody to blame but themselves when it comes to how contracts are structured and how much they are paid. Players have agreed to the fines they receive when they don't show up under contract.

Fans have a legit reason getting upset about players wanting a ton of money . Players have a legit reason to want more money. Owners have a legit reason to want players to take less money. In the end it comes down to the players union and the owners contract that is on place. That contract restricts the great players from getting a too much of money but also helps fringe players get a large amount of money. Thanks to fans the salary cap will forever be a thing and both the owners and players union understands thar.
I provided an example of how top producers on rookie deals are getting screwed with the risk of injury.

I dont care about the NFLPA agreement...it is wrong for top earners.

Your stance is to blame the players for agreeing.

Its a bad deal for top performers at their position. Its not debatable. Notice: this forum isnt driven by 2nd string contract disputes.

There is an issue with top producers who have given energy from a young age, that could be deprived of their payday because of injury, by owners who are flush with cash.

Owners dont have to worry about 'flipping burger money'...........they care about winning some game that involves math and maximizing winning potential by propaganda that encouraging low wages for top producers.

As I has said in another thread of this one....the salary cap is a perfect excuse to blame the player and not the owner. "youre selfish sense there is a cap. i dont care that other teams will pay you....youre selfish....cap. listen and believe me...cap. cap. my excuse is cap....dont ruin it"
 

Swanny

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
3,333
I provided an example of how top producers on rookie deals are getting screwed with the risk of injury.

I dont care about the NFLPA agreement...it is wrong for top earners.

Your stance is to blame the players for agreeing.

Its a bad deal for top performers at their position. Its not debatable. Notice: this forum isnt driven by 2nd string contract disputes.

There is an issue with top producers who have given energy from a young age, that could be deprived of their payday because of injury, by owners who are flush with cash.

Owners dont have to worry about 'flipping burger money'...........they care about winning some game that involves math and maximizing winning potential by propaganda that encouraging low wages for top producers.

As I has said in another thread of this one....the salary cap is a perfect excuse to blame the player and not the owner. "youre selfish sense there is a cap. i dont care that other teams will pay you....youre selfish....cap. listen and believe me...cap. cap. my excuse is cap....dont ruin it"
The players union agreed to rookie contracts. The players have nobody to blame but the leadership they pay to represent at the negotiating table. NFL rookies are getting screwed. They are getting screwed by the very contract that the union they play for negotiated.
 

FanofJerry

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
1,253
The players union agreed to rookie contracts. The players have nobody to blame but the leadership they pay to represent at the negotiating table. NFL rookies are getting screwed. They are getting screwed by the very contract that the union they play for negotiated.
My position is...NFL owners, with all their money and resources, should be able to figure out who is a worthy prospect and who isnt. Im not a fan of Owners getting screwed over by busts like Jamarcus Russell....but they have nothing to lose but a few million and pride they lost to other Billionaires, in a math game revolving around taking advantage of most player contract wise.

The NFLPA is not an excuse Im willing to read. There is an issue for top performers losing out on 100M+ type dollars because of injury.

Yes...the NFLPA was agreed to by the players. Yes it is letting top players down.

Whats being side-stepped is the reasonableness to make sure a top performing players is extended before injury.

The player has given plenty of energy up to this point to insure a good bag. Owners should not allow a hole in the system to get out of this deserved payment to top performers....just for the right to claim victory in some math game.

No reasonable person thinks Lamb should forgo 100M because of a rookie contract....especially after producing at top of the league for 3 or 4 years. The owners didnt get something for nothing...he produced...pay him. Its the owners wanting to create singularities to get something for nothing. And yeah....the player gave all his energy to be a top performer at a high level since a young age....so dont give me the owners get screwed if a player gets injured after a contract. First/rookie contract is below market anyway...so who cares if the owner loses on that deal if a player is injured on first year of his deal.

Im talking about top preforming rookies deals. Players should hold out if they have preformed. Using a contract as an excuse is weak and pro-ripping athletes off. Especially poor athletes that arent caught up in some numbers game and dont come from wealth.

Its not even close to defendable.
 

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
57,399
Reaction score
38,225
The NFL and the players union have a contract in place thst prevents the NFL being a capitalistic. The examples you give of Taylor Swift and The Rock is true capitalism. You're comparing apples to oranges.

It's not about Dak getting 60mil instead of 40mil. It's the fact thst he will take up such a large chunk of salary cap space.
And who’s responsible for having a Salary Cap?

So, not only are the players responsible for their performance on the field they are also responsible for managing the budget. I don’t think so.

Yes, the Cap is a problem for team building and maintaining talent but that’s not the players problem.

Fans need to redirect their anguish. This is the nature of the NFL business and the bed the owners made for themself.

They sold it as Parity but the NFL already had it with Equal TV Revenue and sharing tickets sales. It’s how small market teams like Green Bay and Pittsburgh were able to build dynasties and have as much or more success than bigger market cities.
 

Swanny

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
3,333
My position is...NFL owners, with all their money and resources, should be able to figure out who is a worthy prospect and who isnt. Im not a fan of Owners getting screwed over by busts like Jamarcus Russell....but they have nothing to lose but a few million and pride they lost to other Billionaires, in a math game revolving around taking advantage of most player contract wise.

The NFLPA is not an excuse Im willing to read. There is an issue for top performers losing out on 100M+ type dollars because of injury.

Yes...the NFLPA was agreed to by the players. Yes it is letting top players down.

Whats being side-stepped is the reasonableness to make sure a top performing players is extended before injury.

The player has given plenty of energy up to this point to insure a good bag. Owners should not allow a hole in the system to get out of this deserved payment to top performers....just for the right to claim victory in some math game.

No reasonable person thinks Lamb should forgo 100M because of a rookie contract....especially after producing at top of the league for 3 or 4 years. The owners didnt get something for nothing...he produced...pay him. Its the owners wanting to create singularities to get something for nothing. And yeah....the player gave all his energy to be a top performer at a high level since a young age....so dont give me the owners get screwed if a player gets injured after a contract. First/rookie contract is below market anyway...so who cares if the owner loses on that deal if a player is injured on first year of his deal.

Im talking about top preforming rookies deals. Players should hold out if they have preformed. Using a contract as an excuse is weak and pro-ripping athletes off. Especially poor athletes that arent caught up in some numbers game and dont come from wealth.

Its not even close to defendable.
I'm not worried about owners getting screwed on contracts. It's real simple and fans like to get emotions involved. The NFLPA is garbage. The NFLPA had negotiated an awful contract for its members. The contract is in place and they have to play or hold out. But the players negotiated making holding out nearly impossible. The NFLPA has to make some serious changes at the next contract negotiation. Until then the players especially rookies are screwed. Yes CD deserves to be paid. Yes he should have been making more money. Yes he can hold out. Yes he is screwed if he holds out. Yes the owners negotiated a great deal.

There's no argument the NFLPA screwed it members and it's members are stuck until the NFLPA stands up for them.
 

Swanny

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
3,333
And who’s responsible for having a Salary Cap?

So, not only are the players responsible for their performance on the field they are also responsible for managing the budget. I don’t think so.

Yes, the Cap is a problem for team building and maintaining talent but that’s not the players problem.

Fans need to redirect their anguish. This is the nature of the NFL business and the bed the owners made for themself.

They sold it as Parity but the NFL already had it with Equal TV Revenue and sharing tickets sales. It’s how small market teams like Green Bay and Pittsburgh were able to build dynasties and have as much or more success than bigger market cities.
The NFLPA and The NFL agreed to salary cap. Both sides are responsible for the cap being in place.
 

Brooksey

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,082
Reaction score
7,448
I keep hearing about how Dak is greedy and Lamb is greedy and how the players need to do what's right, yadda yadda yadda. A NFL players career is extremely short and they hire agents to ensure they maximize their earning potential while they're still in their prime and able to perform at elite levels. Most of these guys don't come from much at all, and know they'll need to stack up everything they can to set themselves up and their families up for life after their career ends.

Owners are BILLIONAIRES. They're mainly older men with extremely deep pockets and no worries about what their future holds in terms of finances. If they don't have the ability to work the salary cap in their favor to keep the talent they have on the team and remain competitive, than the player is the last one to be blamed. NFL players have the worst players association, they don't have guaranteed contracts, they're at risk of CTE, and they're putting their bodies on the line every week to entertain the fans.

Jerry had all the time in the world to extend these guys and his priorities were completely out of whack . So while we want our Cowboys to remain competitive and we want our guys to sign, the only direction fingers should be pointing is at Jerry and his big face son. All this talk about "go out there and earn it, show up in the playoffs and you'll get your money..." that's not how it works. They work through training camp, meetings, practices, the regular season and hopefully the playoffs. They've earned their money and they WILL be paid their money. Supply and demand, just like any other industry. Now if you decide you no longer want to make a run at the super bowl and you're content scrapping the whole thing and starting over, you have that option. I think it's a loser's mentality but it's certainly an option. Either way though, it's not the players fault you can't get your financial affairs in order. The player has created their own value and deserves to be paid for it.
I think the problem is when you have 2 -3 players that want to reset the market or want record deals. A great deal works for both parties.
 

kskboys

Well-Known Member
Messages
47,123
Reaction score
49,921
My position is...NFL owners, with all their money and resources, should be able to figure out who is a worthy prospect and who isnt. Im not a fan of Owners getting screwed over by busts like Jamarcus Russell....but they have nothing to lose but a few million and pride they lost to other Billionaires, in a math game revolving around taking advantage of most player contract wise.

The NFLPA is not an excuse Im willing to read. There is an issue for top performers losing out on 100M+ type dollars because of injury.

Yes...the NFLPA was agreed to by the players. Yes it is letting top players down.

Whats being side-stepped is the reasonableness to make sure a top performing players is extended before injury.

The player has given plenty of energy up to this point to insure a good bag. Owners should not allow a hole in the system to get out of this deserved payment to top performers....just for the right to claim victory in some math game.

No reasonable person thinks Lamb should forgo 100M because of a rookie contract....especially after producing at top of the league for 3 or 4 years. The owners didnt get something for nothing...he produced...pay him. Its the owners wanting to create singularities to get something for nothing. And yeah....the player gave all his energy to be a top performer at a high level since a young age....so dont give me the owners get screwed if a player gets injured after a contract. First/rookie contract is below market anyway...so who cares if the owner loses on that deal if a player is injured on first year of his deal.

Im talking about top preforming rookies deals. Players should hold out if they have preformed. Using a contract as an excuse is weak and pro-ripping athletes off. Especially poor athletes that arent caught up in some numbers game and dont come from wealth.

Its not even close to defendable.
NFLPA is made up of vets. Not paying rooks means they get more. That's on the players.
 

kskboys

Well-Known Member
Messages
47,123
Reaction score
49,921
The players union agreed to rookie contracts. The players have nobody to blame but the leadership they pay to represent at the negotiating table. NFL rookies are getting screwed. They are getting screwed by the very contract that the union they play for negotiated.
A union made up of vets who will make less money if rookies get paid more.
 

Hadenough

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,820
Reaction score
13,204
You have no clue what he’s “demanding”. No clue.
Does it really matter? Everything else he said is true. Dude folds in the playoffs. Only playoff wins he has are games Rush could of won.
 
Top