blakngold4

okay, i was having a discussion on another board about this topic today and was absolutely appalled at the slant of the discussions. before you decide to tear into me after reading my little rant, i wanna make it abundantly clear that i know and understand the following...

1) athletes make a lot of money for what they do, more than many make in a lifetime

2) it's a pretty damn good life for 'em

3) they're hardly sympathetic figures given their financial situations and the perceived ease with which their wealth is acquired.

now, with all of that said, i'm sure the football fans among us have noticed TO's current situation. his agent botched his contract out last year, he wound up getting traded, and signed for a relative bargain in philly, considering the money coming to randy moss and soon to be heading marvin harrison's way. one year later, he's looking for a new, more front-loaded deal that would guarantee him a payout and likely keep him in Philly for a longer period of time. the hypocrisy of the people complaining about TO's negotiation is what's killing me. i understand where they're coming from, but many are living in fantasyland.

first, they bitch about TO not honoring his contract, failing to realize that it'll be a cold day in hell before any 7yr deal in the NFL is fully realized. beyond that, they don't have any moral qualms with the concept of the team being able to cut him for any reason or no reason at all whenever they want.

second, and this is the one that really burns me, they get on their highhorse and start complaining how athletes aren't worth what they're paid blah blah blah. that's fine. he'll make upwards of 40 million bucks in his career for catching passes and blocking for RB's. yeah, seems a little high. but the people that complain fail to see other side of the equation. whether you think an athlete should be paid seven million dollars or not, the following things are true...at least 60,000 people in his town are willing to pay 50 bucks a pop to see him play ten times a year. millions more watch on tv when the nfl gives them a chance. the team also has radio contracts, merchandising, and other game revenue (parking, concessions most notably) flowing their way because, in part, they want to see him (or whatever other relevant star) play.

whether you think a star athlete deserves their fat check or not, don't you HAVE to concede that the star athlete is worth their deal on an economic level? i don't want this to spiral into a discussion of TO's specific issues (or randy moss's, or ron mexico's, or anyone else's) but the people complaining about athlete salaries (especially in football or basketball, where they have caps) should realize that salaries are determined by league revenue, and salaries are high because the teams make that much money and more. still, i hear complaint after complaint, and when pressed for an alternative, one doesn't show up. so long as people are willing to pay $50 each to see these guys play, ticket prices will NOT drop. so long as people watch on tv, tv revenue will not drop. as such, salaries will not drop. even if they did, i'd much rather have a league with owners making millions and players making millions than one where owners just exploited the shit out of the players and sent 'em home when they were done. it's healthier for the league's long-term prospects. without the promise of big money, fewer would strive for success in the game. quality of play would decline over time. eventually, fans would trickle away, prices would drop, salaries would drop, and the game would be open to everyone (albeit as a second class sport) but that's something i'd rather not see happen.

am i insane? do i talk too much? does anyone else have a take on this?

radioguy

i always find it amusing when athletes want to "tear up" their contract and get more money because they are doing awesome on the field, yet when they are performing poorly or not playing at all, because of injury or other matters, they don't offer to renegotiate or diminish their contract.

i'm not saying that they should or that even i would, but it just strikes me as funny the way that athletes want to be rewarded, but not punished or downgraded in their money situation.

he could have signed a 1 yr contract at 3.5 and then negotiated a new contract, but he wanted the stability of a 7 yr deal or something. i thought he was happy being in philly, not anymore?

for the record, i'm not a huge fan of TO but i do understand the greatness of his athletic ability and think he should be making more money. i just don't agree with the way he's going about it.

pan6467

Personally, it's very rare that 1 single player in a team sport can draw 50,000 fans, only a winning team will draw fans.

Cleveland Indians in the 90's still sold out every game after Albert (don't call me Joey) Belle signed elsewhere. Sooooooo, where's the argument HE put the people in the stands? It was a WINNING TEAM that did it not HIM!!!!!!!

Cleveland Caveliers have arguably the best young talent in the NBA, whose future looks to be on par with Jordan..... yet as the Cavs lose downward go ticket sales..... sooooooo is Cleveland saying he isn't worth watching.... NO, the fans just as in any city want a winner.....

When the Cavs had Mark Price, Brad Daugherty, Larry Nance, Craig Ehlo and company, they drew close to as many fans as they do now, the difference is, they were a winning, non choking team at that time.

The Browns, filled the house with Bernie and company and they were winners, did people go to watch Bernie.... probably but if he had not had Slaughter or Drennen or Newsome to pass to or a line to defend him, he would have been playing to empty stands.

A-Rod signed that huge contract in Texas, guaranteeing that Texas would never have money to contend with. What happened Texas never contended with him there and the attendance dropped..... did he take responsibility for attendance dropping and pay back money so that Texas could afford a winner? Hell no, he wanted out and got his ass traded.

In essence it is the owners fault for the salaries that prohibit them from competing yet, it is also the athletes who are greedy and refuse to see that their high salaries may defeat the purpose of signing them .... i.e. a losing team that cannot compete.

In TO's situation, he signed the contract he should honor it plain and simple. He knew the risk of being cut and that's on him. Philly can probablytake what he wants go out and get 2-3 average maybe better than average recievers or a RB, and a couple linebackers that will help win more games and in turn draw more people than TO will.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

crewsor

While I believe Owens should honor the contract he signed only a year ago, because nothing has changed to justify reworking it. I can understand his position that he should be paid as a top receiver, because he is one. But again, he is the one who agreed to the contract. The biggest problem is Owens mouth. Always has been and always will be. I can't understand how slamming his supposed friend, McNabb, whom he accused of sucking in the Superbowl is going to help his case. He should have just kept his big mouth shut and let his new agent try to get him a better deal. But no, thats not in his nature. I hope Philly plays hardball with him.

__________________
We all have wings, some of us just don't know why.

blakngold4

doesn't the fact that the team has the right to cut him at any time without compensation outweigh or at least balance the fact he can ask for more when he does well?

pan, you're right that players like this don't really put that many people in the stands, but it still happens indirectly IF the player is successful: the iggles win more, sell more tickets and jerseys (and parking and food), get bigger tv and radio contracts, more local endorsements, and more money. it's a little weird to figure where the individual player comes in, but given that teams have a fixed amount they can spend, productively using that money would conceivably pay dividends. a lot of the interest in the team shows up in presold tickets. your basketball and baseball comparisons, while true, are slightly different because you get 41 and 81 games a year. football has 8 regular season games. carlos beltran signs in new york, and not a whole lot of people will up and buy 81 baseball tickets for them and their family (corporate tickets could be another thing entirely). if a team signs a big free agent or gets a big draft pick in football, that might play out a little better.

this is the hypocrisy i'm talking about. he's not the ONE that agreed to the contract. he's one of the two, the other being the team. if the team wasn't happy with the bargain they made, they could put him out on his ass without any additional cost to them. why shouldn't he have the right to ask for more then?

i think football is so different from other sports because of 1) non guaranteed contracts, 2) the cap, and 3) the increased physical nature of the game that probably leads to more career-risking injuries. in baseball, you sign for below mkt value, you play below mkt value. you sign above mkt value, you're the overpaid albatross of a contract that destroyed your team's financial flexibility. same in hoops. deals are guaranteed and don't get reworked except in rare cases (john smoltz, for example, lowered his salary for this year in exchange for two extra years being tacked onto his deal).

jobu

I think what you need to consider is that the signing bonus is the most important part of the contract because it is guaranteed. So when a player gets cut, the team is still on the hook for the signing bonus money. That is the payers protection against being cut.


In T.O.'s case, I really don't have much sympathy here because he signed this deal last year. Usually, it seems like players start complaining in years 3-4 of their contract not year 2. He was one of the best WR's last year when he negotiated this deal. So, because he is one of the best again (which he should be because that is why he got paid in the first place) he should get more money? When does the team get a chance to benefit? If he signed a bad deal then he can only blame himself. Remember that he wanted out of San Fran and maybe to get out he had to give a little. I really do think that NFL players have it worse than any other sport. And for what they have to do I think they should get paid more than any of the other sports, but I have to side with the Eagles on this one.

Spartak

blakngold4, you seem to be (conveniently) forgetting cap economics here. Philly hammered out a deal with TO that suited both parties, Philly cap-wise and TO everything else-wise (or so they thought).

Yes they can waive him, but probably be cap-fucked for some time while that "Superbowl window" slams shut.

People like TO give gm's headaches, and ultimately lead to bland mediocre football as teams field jobbers in some positions in order to accomodate their star's salary demands.

On another but similar note, Skip Bayless should shut the fuck up, I can't listen to him talk about TO without rolling my eyes. The Niners were a sure thing for the playoffs in 2003? Give me a break.

__________________
I can read your mind... looking at you... I can read your mind...

blakngold4

spartak...i'm sure there would be a cap penalty associated with trading or cutting TO at this juncture, but the worst that would happen would be a 1-year cap hit of whatever money was left prorated from his bonus (right now, probably a fair sum) and they'd be relieved of his salary. for a team like philly who never really runs into cap trouble, this would be a bearable burden if push came to shove, especially if they opted for trading owens and got future draft picks in return.

as with all football decisions, it's a tradeoff, but given his relatively low cap figure last year, it's still hard to argue they "lost" on the exchange.