Rebuttal to ESPN (Buying Drew's BS)

[jagenius]

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica] ESPN thinks that Drew has a "fairly reasonable business argument" when Drew huffs and puffs about teams being able to cut players when they do bad, so why shouldn't they be forced to pay more for them when they do good.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=garber_greg&id=2072819

However, the key to any well-functioning economic system is stability. Teams--like any business--will pay more into a system where they retain control than into a system where the outcome is uncertain. The current CBA and practice capture this idea by striking a balance wherein teams are free to cut players, but in exchange teams are expected to give large signing bonuses. In essence, the signing bonus buys from the player some semblance of control over time, as they do not expect to have to renegotiate every time a player performs well.

The placement of control in the hands of the team is a desirable outcome for everyone. Players get more money than they would if teams were left at the mercy of the player walking off on a whim, and teams in exchange get the ability to predict and control their 50+ man rosters. Fans also benefit, as keeping the control in the hands of the teams allows for long-term planning.

If Drew's worldview prevails, the teams will not be getting that semblance of control. If teams think they are getting less at the bargaining table, they will obviously give less as well. Thus, in the long term, players overall (and especially those known to deal with Drew) will get LESS guaranteed money, because they team can never be assured that they are a few extra passes from having to reenter negotiations.

Thus, Drew's rhetoric may sound good, but it quickly loses its power when you think beyond any single negotiation. The stability of the current system benefits all players, in effect making the "guaranteed money" pie larger for everyone to share, as teams are willing to pour money into that pie in exchange for the stability it brings. Drew's insistence on undermining the system may temporarily mean his players get a large piece of the guaranteed money pie, but owners will quickly learn their lesson, and the pie will shrink.

Whether its ignorance or greed (the system will take time to adjust, so maybe he just hopes to grab and run, to hell with ramifications to the NFL and the fans), who knows, but Drew's rhetoric is pure bull, and shame on ESPN for not taking him to task for putting forth such shallow slogans in the place of reasoned analysis.

You can huff and puff and scream and slick your hair back and call yourself a shark all you want, Drew, but that doesn't make you right, nor does it make you any less of an a$$.

(As an aside: The salary-cap ramifications of cutting a player outright give a serious disincentive to doing so, and thus Drew's basic assumption that teams can cut on a whim whenever a player performs below expectations is inaccurate. It also ignores the fact that the length of the contracts are understood by all parties involved to be a function of that salary cap calculation than an actual term of service--but teams do expect the players to play more than one year before asking for another one. However, these are relatively minor points in comparison with that regarding negotiation expectations discussed above.)[/font]

 

[kerouac9]

All this falls apart when rookie contracts are involved (which is the real problem). Especially considering the long-term nature of rookie contracts for runningbacks (who only have 5-6 good years in the league anyhow).

Chad Johnson and Clinton Portis's performances far outpaced thier salaries over their first few years in the league. As did Anquan Boldin's. They're shackled, though, because they're forced into signing four- or even five-year contracts with minimum salaries and slotted signing bonuses. The only "out" for those two-year veterans is to hold out for more money. You never know if or when that ACL tear is coming, and then you don't even have a nice bonus to fall back on.

Drew Rosenhaus has absolutely no responsibility to the League. His only responsibility is to get each player the highest amount of money that he can. He works inside the rules (the ESPN article makes it clear that he's scrupulous about working within the letter of the law), he uses whatever leverage he has. Hard to blame him for leveraging a fickle, intangible thing like "fan sentiment" into a tangible asset like money for his guys.

Of course the teams want a system that they can "control", but how is this good for the players involved? Or the fans? Is it a good thing that the fans are hamstrung with horrible draft choices like Kyle Vanden Bosch, Raynoch Thompson, and Tommy Knight because they have a deal with the players, or because their old SBs are too high? The teams want control, the players want control. Right now, it sure seems like the players have too little. Rosenhaus is trying to even the playing field.

How is the "guaranteed money pie" any smaller because Boldin or Javon Walker outperformed their rookie contracts? There is no guaranteed money beside the signing bonus, and a lot of players just don't have that much time in the league.

 

[conraddobler]

I'm not too worried about it actually, the salary cap and greedy/rich owners will work it out.

The competing forces actually in the long run cause several teams run even marginally wrong to implode faster and that's good for us.

DG is such a strong drafter that we will see our share of this, yet we also can keep a steady supply of replacements handy.

I'm ok with it because in the end it still has to somewhat fit under the cap that everyone has to deal with.

I think closing more loopholes in the cap would help the most.

 

[Redheart]

What a freaking opportunity...

...for the owners and ALL the current NFL players, veterens every one, to fix the rookie NFL draft salary structure.

The new agreement should:

• Set a slotted salery/bonus stucture based on drafted-position and playing-position.

• Set every rookie contract at exactly 3-year's.

• Allow the team to renegotiate the players contract anytime after the 1st year.

The owner's will be thrilled because rookie-negotiations will be eliminated as well as a majority of the risk. They owner's will also be eager to renegotiate long-term contracts with players who have had a year or more to show thier worth and earn the big-bucks. Each team will have to decide how much cap-space they will want to have for these desired contract-extensions.

The veteran players will be thrilled (that is EVERY player who played last season) because the big signing or extension bonus will go to players who have PLAYED in the NFL. Not players like Sean Taylor, Kellen Winslow, Ontario Davis, ... think about players like Terral Davis, Ben Rottaburger, Anquan Boldin...they would top the list of contract-extensions. Think about all those third-year journeymen getting their chance at free-agency unless the team takes care of them.

Rookies don't even have to hire an agent until their contract-extension or free agency.

The draft would be HUGE. Free-Agency would be a BLAST. Drew would be PISSED!


SOMEBODY SHOUT AMEN!!!

Nice Post Jagenius...

 

[jmr667]

Kinda gotta agree with Jagenius.

The CBA set up these contracts with the salary portion having no more guarantee than any of us have with our employer. If we do really good we may get raises. If we do something really bad we may get fired. If we get injured and can't work anymore we better have good insurance. Same thing goes with players. If they do really well a team would be crazy to not try and sign them to a bigger long-term contract. If they slack off they loose their jobs.
What the players get that most of us don't get is a signing bonus that is guarenteed. Show up for practice and on game days for the length of that contract and the player gets to keep the bonus money. Heck they don't even have to try hard and they still get to keep the bonus money.
What Drew is saying is that he does not like that agreement between the NFLPA and the League. He wants the salary portion guaranteed (players can't be cut) or the players to be allowed to keep the bonus if they don't feel like showing up for work anymore for the salary they agreed on.
Fair or not fair it was put in place by the entire NFLPA and now one guy wants to throw out the whole deal so he can scam some percentage off of new contracts.

 

[JasonKGME]

Two things, #1 there is no perfect world when it comes to pro sports and contracts, those people wishing for guarenteed contracts please see the NFL and Penny Hardaway with the Suns, god what a fiasco that turned out to be.

#2 In the NFL both sides at least have something going for them, for players they have the "signing bonus", what the players need to do is to look at that bonus as an "advance" on thier paycheck. I.E. if I hire a player to a 3-year contract with Salaries of $1.5Mil, $1.9Mil & $2.5Mil, I choose to pre-pay them $500,000 for each of those 3 years, so my player gets a $1.5Mil "signing bonus" and $1mil, $1.4mil and $2mil in salary. If I cut him after a year, he basically got $1mil in "severance pay" thur the pre=payment of his salary. Wouldn't it be nice if this was true in your job? Wouldnt you like an employeer to tell you, "ok Jim, I'm gonna hire you for the next 3 years, I'm gonna pay you $50K this year, $60K next year and $70K the third year, but I'm gonna pre-pay $10K each of those years, so here's $30K up front, with $40, $50, $60 for the next three years, but if I fire ya after one, you get to keep the $30K." I for one would jump at the deal and be happy!

 

[jagenius]

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]Two Thoughts:

First, you defend Drew on the grounds he doesn't have a responsibility to the league or fans, just his clients. However, I was reacting to Drew's use of the rhetoric "if teams can cut, players can hold out" by pointing out that its not that simple. At the time of negotiations, the player knew he could get cut but took $X to compesate him. [/font][font=verdana,arial,helvetica]The teams, however, had no way of knowing that players would hold out in year 1 of a 7 year deal, and so they were duped. To imply that "team cutting" and "player holding out" is to deny the basic set of assumptions that both sides brought to the bargaining table to begin with, which is my real problem with Drew. Its not that one system is innately better than the other, its that his argument deny the fact that his system is different, and that difference can have league-wide ramifications.

Second, relatedly, the problem is that he may be trying to get more money for one or two clients to the detriment of all his other clients (as well as the league in general). Consider a hypothetical wherein only 2% of players really agree with Drew and feel fine holding out after year 1. Teams, however, have no way of knowing which 2% of players those are, so have to adjust (downward) the contracts of ALL players just in case ... especially if they see Drew at the bargaining table.

Breaking contracts is a great way for individuals to gain in certain situations for the short-term, but over the long haul it injects too much uncertainty into the system and everyone is hurt, and that hurt will eventually be felt by Drew's clients. (And, my posts above address why teams cutting isn't "breaking the contract", i.e., the power to do so was already assumed at the negotiating table because that is the way the system of assumptions have operated to date, and the player accepted $X knowing that was the system rather than $X+Y dollars for, say, a one-year deal or an incentive-laden contract.)[/font][font=verdana,arial,helvetica]
[/font]

 

[Totally_Red]

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]Two Thoughts:

First, you defend Drew on the grounds he doesn't have a responsibility to the league or fans, just his clients. However, I was reacting to Drew's use of the rhetoric "if teams can cut, players can hold out" by pointing out that its not that simple. At the time of negotiations, the player knew he could get cut but took $X to compesate him. [/font][font=verdana,arial,helvetica]The teams, however, had no way of knowing that players would hold out in year 1 of a 7 year deal, and so they were duped. To imply that "team cutting" and "player holding out" is to deny the basic set of assumptions that both sides brought to the bargaining table to begin with, which is my real problem with Drew. Its not that one system is innately better than the other, its that his argument deny the fact that his system is different, and that difference can have league-wide ramifications.

Second, relatedly, the problem is that he may be trying to get more money for one or two clients to the detriment of all his other clients (as well as the league in general). Consider a hypothetical wherein only 2% of players really agree with Drew and feel fine holding out after year 1. Teams, however, have no way of knowing which 2% of players those are, so have to adjust (downward) the contracts of ALL players just in case ... especially if they see Drew at the bargaining table.

Breaking contracts is a great way for individuals to gain in certain situations for the short-term, but over the long haul it injects too much uncertainty into the system and everyone is hurt, and that hurt will eventually be felt by Drew's clients. (And, my posts above address why teams cutting isn't "breaking the contract", i.e., the power to do so was already assumed at the negotiating table because that is the way the system of assumptions have operated to date, and the player accepted $X knowing that was the system rather than $X+Y dollars for, say, a one-year deal or an incentive-laden contract.)[/font][font=verdana,arial,helvetica]
[/font]

Good points, and I basically agree. One caveat. With the slotted bonuses and salaries for rookie contracts, it is very possible for a player to "out-perform" his rookie contract, especially non-first round draft picks. See Anquan Boldin. Even a guy like Kurt Warner who was signed for the minimum while winning the MVP with the Rams in 1999. Unusual situations like that, I have no problem with an agent seeking redress. But in situations like TO, that is just flat-out wrong, no matter how much Michael Irvin tries to say otherwise.

 

[danny l]

One side of the issue that no one seems to notice is that Drew R. isn't just trying to get money for TO and his other clients. He is trying to get a bigger slice of the pie for himself. Actually when you break it down it seems that his personal greed is the driving force. If TO gets an EXTENSION even with more of a signing bonus, the prior agent gets a big slice and Roenhouse gets much less. But if TO gets a NEW contract then Rosenhouse is the agent of record and gets the whole agent fee. So do you think players like TO and Boldin are getting good, unbiased advice from Rosenhouse?