New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com - NOLA.com Breaking down Saints defensive end Alex Okafor's one-year contract

New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com (https://blackandgold.com/community/)

- Saints (https://blackandgold.com/saints/)

- - NOLA.com Breaking down Saints defensive end Alex Okafor's one-year contract (https://blackandgold.com/saints/81972-breaking-down-saints-defensive-end-alex-okafors-one-year-contract.html)

Re: Breaking down Saints defensive end Alex Okafor's one-year contract

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottF (Post 741194)

that's the way every contract in the league should be written

yeah except when a player hs proven themselves the other teams are going to bid for their services and it wont work. This is good though, maybe he gets after it this year and is a bonus for us

Re: Breaking down Saints defensive end Alex Okafor's one-year contract

We really caught a convenient break signing Okafor; his contract allows us to transition quite nicely...

And if he does break out, we can always extend him with a smarter contract as we did with Fairley...

Re: Breaking down Saints defensive end Alex Okafor's one-year contract

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaintFanInATLHELL (Post 749966)

Please explain exactly how any of these items are of more benefit to the actual players than the billions of dollars of lost income? Do you think that the owners are willing to do profit sharing to fund these activities?

Do you believe the average fan is willing to stand up for this? That's what it will take. Literally for millions of fans to stop watching football, stop going to the games, stop purchasing franchise items, and stop supporting any advertisers associated with NFL football. Only a legitimate threat of eliminating the funding of the NFL unless these changes are made would have any possible impact.

The bottom line is that none of the 4 principle stakeholders (owners, players, media, advertisers) have any incentive to make the kind of changes you propose.

So it seems like wishful thinking to me.

SFIAH

Not sure what this has to do with the fans. The average fan believes players are overpaid and most fans would welcome a pay-for-performance structure. On a small scale the NFL already has a program for underpaid first year players for pay-for-performance.

How would roster expansion aid all 4 shareholder groups? First, 3 more roster spots means 100 more players making $500,000 a year. Expanding the roster means dressing 8 o-lineman instead of 7, or a third quarterback, or 4th running back. Roster expansion limits wear and tear on everyday players, and gives players who would not normally make a 46 man roster a chance to see the field.

Re: Breaking down Saints defensive end Alex Okafor's one-year contract

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottF (Post 750040)

It has to do with the fans because only the fans think that players are overpaid as you just stated.

Quote:

How would roster expansion aid all 4 shareholder groups? First, 3 more roster spots means 100 more players making $500,000 a year.

At whose expense? I'm trying to get you to see that slice of money to fund this has to come out of the existing pie. So either the owners will have to take a cut on their profits, or the players in the existing structure would have to take a pay cut, or a combination of both. What's the incentive for either group to contribute to funding this?

Quote:

Expanding the roster means dressing 8 o-lineman instead of 7, or a third quarterback, or 4th running back. Roster expansion limits wear and tear on everyday players, and gives players who would not normally make a 46 man roster a chance to see the field.

Once again, this only seems to improve things from a fans perspective. None of that helps the 53/46 man squad or the owners. Players want to maximize their income. Owners want to maximize their profits. What you propose helps neither group to do that. So why would either have any incentive to restructure this way?

This whole angle seems to be driven from a feeling that players are overpaid and that guaranteed contract dollars makes players lazy and unproductive. Therefore each player should have 1 year prove it contracts with minimal dollars in order to keep them hungry. But it doesn't work because there is $5 billion a year to spend on player salaries and less that 2500 people eligible to receive those funds. Each team is required to spend 89% average of their cap. There's simply too much money to do what you propose.

The NFL isn't a charity. Everyone who's in it is there for the money to some degree. So to me the proposal makes no sense because it in no way helps those who are supposed to fund it.

SFIAH

Re: Breaking down Saints defensive end Alex Okafor's one-year contract

its the kind of contract that can rejuvenate a cats career , gets their mind on one thig and its get after it, i love it, if he bust out or bust bust we got a deal that won't carry for 5 years

Re: Breaking down Saints defensive end Alex Okafor's one-year contract

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaintFanInATLHELL (Post 750055)

It has to do with the fans because only the fans think that players are overpaid as you just stated.

and the fans drive ticket sales and merch sales, so yes, if they are disenchanted with the Gallettes and Byrds of the world, those revenue numbers will drop, and already have.
Less than half of NFL sells out, merch sales are down, and ratings were lower than '16.

At whose expense? I'm trying to get you to see that slice of money to fund this has to come out of the existing pie. So either the owners will have to take a cut on their profits, or the players in the existing structure would have to take a pay cut, or a combination of both. What's the incentive for either group to contribute to funding this?

[/b] With pay-for-performance, not everyone achieves optimum bonuses. You first asked where the extra money would go, so there you are. [/b]

Once again, this only seems to improve things from a fans perspective. None of that helps the 53/46 man squad or the owners. Players want to maximize their income. Owners want to maximize their profits. What you propose helps neither group to do that. So why would either have any incentive to restructure this way?

Not true. An expanded roster would help prolong careers, as well as adding more players who could develop. Overall play would improve. Additionally, injured players still get paid. With an expanded roster teams would have replacements readily available. In other words, it's is not just fans who win

This whole angle seems to be driven from a feeling that players are overpaid and that guaranteed contract dollars makes players lazy and unproductive. Therefore each player should have 1 year prove it contracts with minimal dollars in order to keep them hungry. But it doesn't work because there is $5 billion a year to spend on player salaries and less that 2500 people eligible to receive those funds. Each team is required to spend 89% average of their cap. There's simply too much money to do what you propose.

The NFL isn't a charity. Everyone who's in it is there for the money to some degree. So to me the proposal makes no sense because it in no way helps those who are supposed to fund it.

SFIAH

again, first you asked "And exactly where would the rest of the money go?"
and now it is "There's simply too much money to do what you propose."

Re: Breaking down Saints defensive end Alex Okafor's one-year contract

It has to do with the fans because only the fans think that players are overpaid as you just stated.

Quote:

and the fans drive ticket sales and merch sales, so yes, if they are disenchanted with the Gallettes and Byrds of the world, those revenue numbers will drop, and already have.

Less than half of NFL sells out, merch sales are down, and ratings were lower than '16.

Quote:

With pay-for-performance, not everyone achieves optimum bonuses. You first asked where the extra money would go, so there you are.

It can't be done with a hard salary cap. Any bonuses that a likely to be earned are treated as hard money. So those dollars cannot be allocated for anything else.

Once again, this only seems to improve things from a fans perspective. None of that helps the 53/46 man squad or the owners. Players want to maximize their income. Owners want to maximize their profits. What you propose helps neither group to do that. So why would either have any incentive to restructure this way?

Quote:

Not true. An expanded roster would help prolong careers, as well as adding more players who could develop. Overall play would improve. Additionally, injured players still get paid. With an expanded roster teams would have replacements readily available. In other words, it's is not just fans who win.

Just because you keep saying this doesn't change the motivation. Athletes from time immorial seek two things: playing time and dollars. You're proposing to cut both. You think Brees wants to share snaps? You think Ingram wants to share carries? You think that defensive linemen and linebackers want to platoon? High level competitive football players want to be on the field for every snap. So I cannot see how you can convince them that somehow sharing each of their playing time, dollars, and security in terms of guaranteed money is in fact in their best interest.

This whole angle seems to be driven from a feeling that players are overpaid and that guaranteed contract dollars makes players lazy and unproductive. Therefore each player should have 1 year prove it contracts with minimal dollars in order to keep them hungry. But it doesn't work because there is $5 billion a year to spend on player salaries and less that 2500 people eligible to receive those funds. Each team is required to spend 89% average of their cap. There's simply too much money to do what you propose.

The NFL isn't a charity. Everyone who's in it is there for the money to some degree. So to me the proposal makes no sense because it in no way helps those who are supposed to fund it.

SFIAH

Quote:

again, first you asked "And exactly where would the rest of the money go?"
and now it is "There's simply too much money to do what you propose."

They are two sides of the same coin. If you cut player contracts then the saved money has to be spent elsewhere. There is too much money that has to be spent to cut those contracts.

I just cannot understand why any stakeholder in the current system would want to take money and security out of their own pocket and give it to someone else. This is the reason that CBA negotiations are so tense and protracted as it is.

I'll say it again: the NFL isn't a charity. players and owners first and foremost want to get paid for their services. So the altruistic idealism that these folks will put up funds into a collective pot "for the good of the game" just really seems farfetched.

SFIAH

Re: Breaking down Saints defensive end Alex Okafor's one-year contract

"Disruption is production" - JJ Watt

Re: Breaking down Saints defensive end Alex Okafor's one-year contract

He has talent when he's playing.....getting him on the field is the problem. Fingers crossed.

Re: Breaking down Saints defensive end Alex Okafor's one-year contract

Quote:

Originally Posted by st thomas (Post 750058)

its the kind of contract that can rejuvenate a cats career , gets their mind on one thig and its get after it, i love it, if he bust out or bust bust we got a deal that won't carry for 5 years

thanks K i thought i were talking to a wall he ha:lolup: