did the defensive tackle sign from The Rams?
Is there a thought in the league that once a precedent is established that the league has irreparably lost something gained at the collective bargaining table - something that both mgmt and labor wanted.?
It's labor, as I understood it, that didn't want too much finite cap money going to a kid at the expense of a derserving veteran.
I think the principle underlying the agreement is wrong to begin with and patently illegal under the Anti trust act and "restraint of Trade".
How do you tell a prospective employee and non-union member that he can't get market value for his services.? That he can only be paid what others have decided on his behalf what he should be paid? Didn't Curt Flood decide that issue in a century past?
So I don't know if it's that simple and if, we will have a deal by this weekend. There's a reported ten million in cap space and maybe that's what it there for...but that raises still another issue
did the defensive tackle sign from The Rams?
Is there a thought in the league that once a precedent is established that the league has irreparably lost something gained at the collective bargaining table - something that both mgmt and labor wanted.?
Nothing is being lost or gained that hasn't already been established (i.e, JJ Watt )and the CBA allows for renegotiations for draft picks after three years on the rookie contract. So if the player's union gave up the right to renegotiations following the first two years in the new CBA and ownership agreed to allow it after year three, then nobody is more deserving of renegotiations than OBJ and Aaron Donald. It doesn't mean that team and player should automatically come to an agreement, but teams should be open to fair negotiations with players who have outplayed their rookie contracts.
Quote:
It's labor, as I understood it, that didn't want too much finite cap money going to a kid at the expense of a deserving veterans.
It was something both sides were in favor of because it benefits both sides (since it changes nothing as far as the overall salary cap and only effects to whom it is distributed). The only people against it were the agents.
Quote:
I think the principle underlying the agreement is wrong to begin with and patently illegal under the Anti trust act and "restraint of Trade".
Not true. As long as there is a union and a collective bargaining agreement, it legally circumvents antitrust legislation.
Quote:
How do you tell a prospective employee and non-union member that he can't get market value for his services.? That he can only be paid what others have decided on his behalf what he should be paid?
No agreement is going to benefit every single individual, but on balance, it's in the interest of both sides for there to be a players union and a collective bargaining agreement. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be either. And, in fact, the players have made their greatest gains when they threatened to disband the union. It's the nuclear option that nobody wants, but the players need to keep it in their toolbox to avoid being strong-armed.
if anything, makes bad business sense if he gets hurt. I say they sign him next offseason, pretty much as soon as the season ends so they can set up their salary cap/ free agency plan. Think February, after the Giants win the Super Bowl.
if anything, makes bad business sense if he gets hurt.
I get that it's in the Giants interest to let him play out the five years of his deal before entering negotiations, but OBJ is doing the "honorable thing" by not holding out, so the Giants should do the "honorable thing" and open negotiations. It doesn't mean they should pay him the moon, it just means they should negotiate in good faith. He's earned it. And he's not without leverage.
if anything, makes bad business sense if he gets hurt.
I get that it's in the Giants interest to let him play out the five years of his deal before entering negotiations, but OBJ is doing the "honorable thing" by not holding out, so the Giants should do the "honorable thing" and open negotiations. It doesn't mean they should pay him the moon, it just means they should negotiate in good faith. He's earned it. And he's not without leverage.
I suspect that the Giants have opened negotiations with OBJ's agent. It doesn't mean that an extension will be agreed upon soon. I would guess that an extension will be announced at the end of training camp next year.
Is there a reason for the Rams to give Donald a deal? Should OBJ be punished because he's willing to risk injury playing on a deal that will pay him $1.8M this year. He doesn't have to. He could be doing what Aaron Donald has chosen to do. From a strictly dollars and sense point of view, it's not good business to risk $40-$50M in guaranteed money to play on a $1.8M salary.
I'd be very surprised if he isn't signed to an extension before the end of the season. That only happens if he and his agent are unreasonable in their demands.
Is there a reason for the Rams to give Donald a deal? Should OBJ be punished because he's willing to risk injury playing on a deal that will pay him $1.8M this year. He doesn't have to. He could be doing what Aaron Donald has chosen to do. From a strictly dollars and sense point of view, it's not good business to risk $40-$50M in guaranteed money to play on a $1.8M salary.
Have the Rams given Donald a new deal yet?
As to the latter point, that's why Beckham (reportedly) signed an insurance policy.
Is there a reason for the Rams to give Donald a deal? Should OBJ be punished because he's willing to risk injury playing on a deal that will pay him $1.8M this year. He doesn't have to. He could be doing what Aaron Donald has chosen to do. From a strictly dollars and sense point of view, it's not good business to risk $40-$50M in guaranteed money to play on a $1.8M salary.
Didn't he take a insurance policy out on injury? Seems to remember a thread recently on that.
Conversely....why should the Giants risk paying him and then he gets injured? If there is a deal...it needs to take into account the risks for the Giants as well.
Is there a reason for the Rams to give Donald a deal? Should OBJ be punished because he's willing to risk injury playing on a deal that will pay him $1.8M this year. He doesn't have to. He could be doing what Aaron Donald has chosen to do. From a strictly dollars and sense point of view, it's not good business to risk $40-$50M in guaranteed money to play on a $1.8M salary.
Not talking about what's fair. I'm talking about the Giants and having a 5th year option to work with and there being no reason for them to rush and get a deal done.
Did he get it or was he simply looking into it? I imagine a $100M insurance policy would cost him more than he makes in salary this year, but that's just a wild guess.
p.s.--I'm reminded of the Tom Lehrer lyric...
We will all go together when we go
All suffused with an incandescent glow
No one will have the endurance to collect on his insurance
Lloyd's of London will be loaded when we go We Will All Go Together When We GO - ( New Window )
Apparently others were thinking about the insurance policy. Â
It might indicate that he was advised by his agent to get such an instrument to protect his financial future. It also might be an indicator that the initial opening negotiations are far apart from each other. The Giants might be willing to extend him now, but with the leverage that he is under contract and to take a bit less in exchange for long term security. His agent might not be willing to give up the full value contract and hence advised OBJ with the insurance policy realizing that negotiations will take longer.
Not talking about what's fair. I'm talking about the Giants and having a 5th year option to work with and there being no reason for them to rush and get a deal done.
He's not without leverage. And he has more leverage this year than he will next year, because this year it's only 10/16ths of $1.8M that he would sacrifice by holding out, next year it will be 10/16ths of $8.5M if he threatened a hold out.
Also, I wouldn't disregard the importance of keeping such an important cog in the offense happy. And sending a message to the locker room that you treat the players fairly. An unhappy OBJ could have impact the whole roster, especially if the belief is that OBJ is in the right. Which he would be if his contract demands are reasonable (i.e., an extension that averages roughly $18M/year).
It was an August 22 report that only said he was contemplating it, but I did pick up this nugget...
Quote:
A one-season insurance policy topping $100 million would likely cost Beckham more than $600,000 depending on the details of coverage, the sources said.
It was an August 22 report that only said he was contemplating it, but I did pick up this nugget...
Quote:
A one-season insurance policy topping $100 million would likely cost Beckham more than $600,000 depending on the details of coverage, the sources said.
That 600K is a fraction of his first check from the endorsement contract with Nike. I don't know if he did get the insurance policy, but there is no reason not to since he is sitting on a pile of cash right now.
Not talking about what's fair. I'm talking about the Giants and having a 5th year option to work with and there being no reason for them to rush and get a deal done.
He's not without leverage. And he has more leverage this year than he will next year, because this year it's only 10/16ths of $1.8M that he would sacrifice by holding out, next year it will be 10/16ths of $8.5M if he threatened a hold out.
Also, I wouldn't disregard the importance of keeping such an important cog in the offense happy. And sending a message to the locker room that you treat the players fairly. An unhappy OBJ could have impact the whole roster, especially if the belief is that OBJ is in the right. Which he would be if his contract demands are reasonable (i.e., an extension that averages roughly $18M/year).
There's many factors at play and lots of info we don't have. No point arguing it.
A one-season insurance policy topping $100 million would likely cost Beckham more than $600,000 depending on the details of coverage, the sources said.
That 600K is a fraction of his first check from the endorsement contract with Nike. I don't know if he did get the insurance policy, but there is no reason not to since he is sitting on a pile of cash right now.
It is less than I thought it would be, but the devil--as they say--is in the details.
From the same article...
Quote:
So while Beckham awaits his well-deserved payday, he's contemplating an insurance policy that could be worth more than $100 million in injury protection if there is no new contract before the start of the regular season, reports Yahoo.com's Charles Robinson. "If a deal isn't done by the regular season, he'll take steps to protect himself. But a new deal is preferable to adding insurance," one source told Robinson.
see how things play out this season. If OBJ is smart...he got the insurance policy. I know what OBJ represents and how good he is....but $15M/yr + is a big chunk of yearly salary cap space. I don't know that any WR is worth that kind of outlay is Salary Cap space.
superb points. I wasn't available of the provisions after year three - at least not in that context.
I still disagree on the legality re: rooks. To begin with you can not sign away a constitutional right. In effect, no one can sign a non disclosure deal, because your first amendment right can't be bargained away. It is inviolate and sacrosanct.
But, and more importantly, you're not signing away a union members rights. They (the union and ownership)signed away the rights of kid who was in High school at the time, just graduated from college last year, is not a union member and is entitled to free market value.
Sonny Werblin is the man who really forced the merger when he signed Namath out of college for the un-heard of figure of $150,000.
Look back at the new deals given to studs on rookie deals, most are paid at the end of year 4 after the team had picked up the 5th year option. Signing a player early sets a dangerous precedent for your franchise, I truly believe the Rams extending Tavon Austin after his 3rd year has a lot to do with the Donald holdout.
The one thing truly working in Beckhams favor is that the Giants have a lot on their plate next offseason, so they may want to knock it out early.
Look back at the new deals given to studs on rookie deals, most are paid at the end of year 4 after the team had picked up the 5th year option. Signing a player early sets a dangerous precedent for your franchise, I truly believe the Rams extending Tavon Austin after his 3rd year has a lot to do with the Donald holdout.
The one thing truly working in Beckhams favor is that the Giants have a lot on their plate next offseason, so they may want to knock it out early.
JJ Watt signed an extension after three years. It's not a dangerous precedent, it's an appropriate one. It's what you do for a player who gives you three Pro Bowl years in a row at bargain prices....
Quote:
Prior to the start of the 2014 season, the Texans and Watt agreed to a six-year contract extension, worth $100 million.[29] Watt received $30.9 million at signing and he will receive $21 million at the start of the 2016 season if he is on the roster. This contract made him the NFL’s highest paid non-quarterback, based on average yearly salary.
Is there a thought in the league that once a precedent is established that the league has irreparably lost something gained at the collective bargaining table - something that both mgmt and labor wanted.?
It's labor, as I understood it, that didn't want too much finite cap money going to a kid at the expense of a derserving veteran.
I think the principle underlying the agreement is wrong to begin with and patently illegal under the Anti trust act and "restraint of Trade".
How do you tell a prospective employee and non-union member that he can't get market value for his services.? That he can only be paid what others have decided on his behalf what he should be paid? Didn't Curt Flood decide that issue in a century past?
So I don't know if it's that simple and if, we will have a deal by this weekend. There's a reported ten million in cap space and maybe that's what it there for...but that raises still another issue
Is there a thought in the league that once a precedent is established that the league has irreparably lost something gained at the collective bargaining table - something that both mgmt and labor wanted.?
Quote:
if anything, makes bad business sense if he gets hurt.
I get that it's in the Giants interest to let him play out the five years of his deal before entering negotiations, but OBJ is doing the "honorable thing" by not holding out, so the Giants should do the "honorable thing" and open negotiations. It doesn't mean they should pay him the moon, it just means they should negotiate in good faith. He's earned it. And he's not without leverage.
I suspect that the Giants have opened negotiations with OBJ's agent. It doesn't mean that an extension will be agreed upon soon. I would guess that an extension will be announced at the end of training camp next year.
Quote:
no real reason to do it now
Is there a reason for the Rams to give Donald a deal? Should OBJ be punished because he's willing to risk injury playing on a deal that will pay him $1.8M this year. He doesn't have to. He could be doing what Aaron Donald has chosen to do. From a strictly dollars and sense point of view, it's not good business to risk $40-$50M in guaranteed money to play on a $1.8M salary.
Have the Rams given Donald a new deal yet?
As to the latter point, that's why Beckham (reportedly) signed an insurance policy.
Quote:
no real reason to do it now
Is there a reason for the Rams to give Donald a deal? Should OBJ be punished because he's willing to risk injury playing on a deal that will pay him $1.8M this year. He doesn't have to. He could be doing what Aaron Donald has chosen to do. From a strictly dollars and sense point of view, it's not good business to risk $40-$50M in guaranteed money to play on a $1.8M salary.
Didn't he take a insurance policy out on injury? Seems to remember a thread recently on that.
Conversely....why should the Giants risk paying him and then he gets injured? If there is a deal...it needs to take into account the risks for the Giants as well.
Quote:
no real reason to do it now
Is there a reason for the Rams to give Donald a deal? Should OBJ be punished because he's willing to risk injury playing on a deal that will pay him $1.8M this year. He doesn't have to. He could be doing what Aaron Donald has chosen to do. From a strictly dollars and sense point of view, it's not good business to risk $40-$50M in guaranteed money to play on a $1.8M salary.
Not talking about what's fair. I'm talking about the Giants and having a 5th year option to work with and there being no reason for them to rush and get a deal done.
p.s.--I'm reminded of the Tom Lehrer lyric...
We will all go together when we go
All suffused with an incandescent glow
No one will have the endurance to collect on his insurance
Lloyd's of London will be loaded when we go
We Will All Go Together When We GO - ( New Window )
Also, I wouldn't disregard the importance of keeping such an important cog in the offense happy. And sending a message to the locker room that you treat the players fairly. An unhappy OBJ could have impact the whole roster, especially if the belief is that OBJ is in the right. Which he would be if his contract demands are reasonable (i.e., an extension that averages roughly $18M/year).
Quote:
A one-season insurance policy topping $100 million would likely cost Beckham more than $600,000 depending on the details of coverage, the sources said.
That 600K is a fraction of his first check from the endorsement contract with Nike. I don't know if he did get the insurance policy, but there is no reason not to since he is sitting on a pile of cash right now.
Quote:
Not talking about what's fair. I'm talking about the Giants and having a 5th year option to work with and there being no reason for them to rush and get a deal done.
He's not without leverage. And he has more leverage this year than he will next year, because this year it's only 10/16ths of $1.8M that he would sacrifice by holding out, next year it will be 10/16ths of $8.5M if he threatened a hold out.
Also, I wouldn't disregard the importance of keeping such an important cog in the offense happy. And sending a message to the locker room that you treat the players fairly. An unhappy OBJ could have impact the whole roster, especially if the belief is that OBJ is in the right. Which he would be if his contract demands are reasonable (i.e., an extension that averages roughly $18M/year).
There's many factors at play and lots of info we don't have. No point arguing it.
That 600K is a fraction of his first check from the endorsement contract with Nike. I don't know if he did get the insurance policy, but there is no reason not to since he is sitting on a pile of cash right now.
From the same article...
I still disagree on the legality re: rooks. To begin with you can not sign away a constitutional right. In effect, no one can sign a non disclosure deal, because your first amendment right can't be bargained away. It is inviolate and sacrosanct.
But, and more importantly, you're not signing away a union members rights. They (the union and ownership)signed away the rights of kid who was in High school at the time, just graduated from college last year, is not a union member and is entitled to free market value.
Sonny Werblin is the man who really forced the merger when he signed Namath out of college for the un-heard of figure of $150,000.
The one thing truly working in Beckhams favor is that the Giants have a lot on their plate next offseason, so they may want to knock it out early.
The one thing truly working in Beckhams favor is that the Giants have a lot on their plate next offseason, so they may want to knock it out early.
JJ Watt signed an extension after three years. It's not a dangerous precedent, it's an appropriate one. It's what you do for a player who gives you three Pro Bowl years in a row at bargain prices....
In two years?