Utah_Saint

You'd like to think.

neugey

If I can get one of those workout bonuses then I will schedule a return vacation trip to NOLA!

jeanpierre

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...

st thomas

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

st thomas

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

SaintFanInATLHELL

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

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?

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?

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

   
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

Super Bowl Championships: New Orleans Saints:1, Carolina:0, Atlanta Chokers: STILL ZERO

Only Atlanta choked in an unchokable situation... Life is definitely good.

Seer1

It's actually us who is putting all that money into a collective pot for the good of the game (read: owners and players).

K Major

"Disruption is production" - JJ Watt

Rugby Saint II

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