|
|
Post by monsterike on Jul 18, 2018 8:22:51 GMT -7
Thats a terrible perspective. Youre calling him a selfish bad person for trying to provide for his family. If DJ got a career ending concussion today, his career earnings are $2,263,372. How much money do you think hes made the Cardinals and NFL? 100's of millions at least. Have some understanding of context. DJ isnt some 8 year pro whos got 30M in the bank and hes holding out for another raise. DJ is the face of the AZ cardinals, and hes currently renting a small house in Chandler. He wants a little security that he currently doesnt have. That must be a crazy feeling driving down the street seeing your face on all the billboards and commercials, and knowing you get paid less than the punter. Read it again. It was a question of which is he. A Jekyll or Hyde question. I understand risk is involved and so does he. He signed the contract. Blame the CBA for his near poverty. (small joke) Hundreds of millions? No need to overstate to make a point.
I am understanding - and firm about contracts having meaning and irritated by holdouts.
Do you expect to have that kind of money ten years from now? Twenty? Thirty? I'm hinting that most of us would be happy enough getting the contract amount for two partial years work and one year nursing a wrist injury plus one more earning year to come. Do you think he might be able to invest some and have a continual but smaller income for life?
You know and all of us know that he will get more money, more than enough to salve any feeling of being held hostage with his "face on all billboards and commercials" - of which he is one, not the only example. We don't know if it will be the Cardinals who pay it, or some other team, or how soon. I'm guessing it will be the Cards because there will be an agreement.
OK, so he lives in a modest rented home. Very sensible, and a hopeful sign that it is the agent playing chicken, not so much DJ personally. But his agent is his employee . . . so he could presumably cause the negotiations to be equitable and with a faster agreement, and participate in practices in an effort to help the team while making his wishes known.
And the old pro veteran punter is not a lock to remain. Probable, but not certain. I get your point though. Again, blame the CBA and the players who negotiated it.
Maybe you should change careers and become a sports agent. I can almost picture it in my mind . . . . . 
PS - when I say partial years, I mean the approx. 6 months devoted exclusively to football per annum by players.
I think you are naive about how professional sports/football contracts work. So DJ doesn't take a bad deal, has a great year, and then the likelihood of him playing under the Franchise Tag has gone through the roof. At that moment he is being paid very well and the Cards are taking a huge cap hit. It is rare when a player plays out his entire contract or gives a deal like Brady (who is set because of his wife). |
|
|
|
Post by Zaz on Jul 18, 2018 9:19:14 GMT -7
In other news the Rams traded for Brandin Cooks, extended him with big bucks today....while Aaron Donald still waits. He must be beyond livid.
Man. 2 things:
1. the more toxic that relationship is, the better for us.
2. I would trade 2 1st round picks for Donald. Easy. In a heartbeat. Might be one of the top 5 interior DL's in NFL history. Walking HOF'r. PAY HIM!!
|
|
|
|
Post by beaverhuntr on Jul 18, 2018 9:24:21 GMT -7
In other news the Rams traded for Brandin Cooks, extended him with big bucks today....while Aaron Donald still waits. He must be beyond livid. Man. 2 things: 1. the more toxic that relationship is, the better for us. 2. I would trade 2 1st round picks for Donald. Easy. In a heartbeat. Might be one of the top 5 interior DL's in NFL history. Walking HOF'r. PAY HIM!! He's like a 99 on Madden too.. The gotta pay Goff , Gurley and Donald.. |
|
|
|
Post by Zaz on Jul 18, 2018 9:40:34 GMT -7
In other news the Rams traded for Brandin Cooks, extended him with big bucks today....while Aaron Donald still waits. He must be beyond livid. Man. 2 things: 1. the more toxic that relationship is, the better for us. 2. I would trade 2 1st round picks for Donald. Easy. In a heartbeat. Might be one of the top 5 interior DL's in NFL history. Walking HOF'r. PAY HIM!! He's like a 99 on Madden too.. The gotta pay Goff , Gurley and Donald.. Yep. Fire sale! Thats why its so important to win a ring when you still have your QB on the cheap. Seattle with Russ are the perfect example of that. We have a 5 year window with Rosen to get a ring before we have to pay him and we cant afford our other guys anymore. |
|
Boomer
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1,488
|
Post by Boomer on Jul 18, 2018 9:55:25 GMT -7
In other news the Rams traded for Brandin Cooks, extended him with big bucks today....while Aaron Donald still waits. He must be beyond livid. Man. 2 things: 1. the more toxic that relationship is, the better for us. 2. I would trade 2 1st round picks for Donald. Easy. In a heartbeat. Might be one of the top 5 interior DL's in NFL history. Walking HOF'r. PAY HIM!! He's like a 99 on Madden too.. The gotta pay Goff , Gurley and Donald.. Do you really think having Aaron Donald not getting extended and playing for a contract next year would be good for us??? Give me some of whatever you are on please. |
|
biggs
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1,076
|
Post by biggs on Jul 18, 2018 9:58:19 GMT -7
Its a matter of the value of your work. His value to the AZ Cardinals is worth 15M+ per year. But hes getting paid under 2M. Forget the NFL. This is a simple concept that can be applied to any job. Say youre a technician at some company. You get paid $50,000. Thats plenty to live on. But all the other technicians get paid $150,000. The value of your work is 150k. But youre paid 50k. Theres nothing greedy about seeking what youre worth. Thats what men do. Jerkoffs sit back and let themselves be walked over. I agree with your point about taking care of his family. He was slotted by a deal between the Union and the owners. His current contract is meaningless in terms in terms of something that was negotiated in good faith between two parties. I don't see any reason he is obligated to play under the terms of his contract if he wants to withhold services. Of course he won't get paid. That's seems pretty fair. He also will lose rights regarding his eligibility as free agent. Also fair. Clearly DJ overproduced his 4 year contract in year 2 forgetting his production in year 1. There is nothing at all greedy about DJ's position. Of course acknowledging that and the Cardinals giving up leverage are two entirely different matters. DJ has no real leverage. Fair isn't really at play here. This is about leverage. DJ is trying to create it by withholding his services. Unfortunately for him if he actually does hold out it's not going to help his family one bit. His real leverage comes from the fact if he performs this year and is franchised the franchise tag grossly overpays him and isn't in the Cardinals best interest. The more games he plays this year and produces will actually increase his leverage. The holdout is decidedly not in his best interest right now. |
|
|
|
Post by aris on Jul 18, 2018 10:15:25 GMT -7
or the money comes first Me My Mine dictator?
Thats a terrible perspective. Youre calling him a selfish bad person for trying to provide for his family. If DJ got a career ending concussion today, his career earnings are $2,263,372. How much money do you think hes made the Cardinals and NFL? 100's of millions at least. Have some understanding of context. DJ isnt some 8 year pro whos got 30M in the bank and hes holding out for another raise. DJ is the face of the AZ cardinals, and hes currently renting a small house in Chandler. He wants a little security that he currently doesnt have. That must be a crazy feeling driving down the street seeing your face on all the billboards and commercials, and knowing you get paid less than the punter. Both sides are not wrong. The cardinals are acting in good faith by honoring an existing contract. DJ feels he's worth more now and has virtually no leverage. A new contract has to be beneficial to both parties. The Cardinals need to be more cutthroat then they were with the HB. |
|
biggs
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1,076
|
Post by biggs on Jul 18, 2018 10:17:01 GMT -7
the greed of players is just never ending...I was hoping that bell would get the money he wanted in a long term deal and then to watch him get beat up every game as the steelers had no money for blockers. its simply ridiculous for dj to want the big money now-he has been hurt too much. I would rather have a great ol and an average rb. I said this before about Rodgers-when he signs his 30 mil+/year deal sooner or later the packers will run out of money to pay other players. the salary cap for 2018 is 177mil and change. qb gets 25, rb and top wr get 15 each, best ol gets 12, best corner gets 12, pass rusher gets 12...that leaves 86(if my maths right) for 47 players with their average salary around 1.84 mil/year. we will see LOTS of rookies playing signifigant time and older vets will be playing for less or retire until the new cba in 3 years. the nfl landscape is going to change a lot and I fear that it will be for the worse. I see a future nfl where there are no contracts longer than 4 years and every year there will be huge roster turnover-kinda like college fb. The Packers are a public company. They reported their revenue earlier this month. It was up by 8%. FYI last year, unlike the year before they didn't make the playoffs. The players didn't make the market for QB's the owners did. That's a result of a lack of supply and huge demand. The rookie wage scale was created by an owner lock out not a strike. The owners thought they needed protection against themselves to limit competition for contracts. That's why they demanded a cap and a rookie wage scale. Capitalism isn't based on greed unless you're a socialist or communist. It's based on a market. The owners are rigging the market to protect themselves from the market. I agree greed is a problem but I think you have it placed on the wrong side of the ledger. No doubt high demand players have very little reason to protect the rank and file players. The owners have done a marvelous job exploiting that. |
|
|
|
Post by rooseveltcardsfan on Jul 18, 2018 11:07:28 GMT -7
Yes I do. Players hate tags. GMs hate tags. So it is logical that DJ will get tagged because neither side will blink and be reasonable for a few years. Depends on DJ’s 2018 season. I think the tag # is over 14 mil. If he has a drop off this season, he might not be tagged. If a reasonable offer is made this summer, I still believe that it is in DJ’s best interest to look hard at the offer from the Cardinals. There are so many variables, things we don’t know. It’s all up in the air. IMHO |
|
|
|
Post by Zaz on Jul 18, 2018 11:15:49 GMT -7
Thats a terrible perspective. Youre calling him a selfish bad person for trying to provide for his family. If DJ got a career ending concussion today, his career earnings are $2,263,372. How much money do you think hes made the Cardinals and NFL? 100's of millions at least. Have some understanding of context. DJ isnt some 8 year pro whos got 30M in the bank and hes holding out for another raise. DJ is the face of the AZ cardinals, and hes currently renting a small house in Chandler. He wants a little security that he currently doesnt have. That must be a crazy feeling driving down the street seeing your face on all the billboards and commercials, and knowing you get paid less than the punter. The cardinals are acting in good faith by honoring an existing contract I disagree. Its not good faith to actively leverage legality over someones head, when morally you know what the right thing to do is. Overly dramatic example would be: A kid is playing on your lawn and you kick them in the face. You can throw up your hands and say "Hey, I was within my legal right. That was a trespasser and I am allowed to defend my home". Legally, that person is correct. Same as the Cards. But morally, you know youre wrong. |
|
Boomer
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1,488
|
Post by Boomer on Jul 18, 2018 11:27:31 GMT -7
You have a responsibility to do what is right for the team both fiscally and competitively, that's it. Everything else is just window dressing and DJ has a very, very long way to go before you can start talking what is right and wrong about signing him on a moral level. Fitz is the example of when you can consider morals in regards to a business decision about contacts and DJ ain't no Fitz and even then it's a small part of the equation.
|
|
|
|
Post by rooseveltcardsfan on Jul 18, 2018 12:00:18 GMT -7
Let compare the 177 mil 2018 cap and a 15 mil payday per year for DJ. That is somewhere near 9%. Try and associate that with your family budget. Let’s say you make $60,000 a year. And the payment on your Volvo (safe car for the wife and kids to be in) is $5400 per year. To me that’s reasonable. Except 65% of the time, the safe Volvo is in the shop. Well the lease is coming due on the Volvo, would you go ahead and purchase the car after the lease ends? I think I would maybe consider a new lease on a completely different car, especially if the new car payment was considerably less than that of the Volvo. I don’t think the Cardinals should offer a contract to DJ that is anywhere near 15 million a year. There are lots of good running backs out there making closer to 8 million a year. So I think that is the number that the Cardinals should be considering. 8 to 10,000,000 a year plus incentives. I’m not against DJ, and I hope the Cardinals do the right thing. Three year extension, $35 million including incentives with 18 million guaranteed in the first two years. If he performs and hits the incentives, good for him. If he is hurt 65% of the time, it’s not killing the Cardinals Cap. It’s a business. And the assets of the business are people. Take care of DJ, he is a good person. Just don’t mak e a mistake by over paying for a player that is in street clothes on game day.
|
|
|
|
Post by aris on Jul 18, 2018 12:00:18 GMT -7
The cardinals are acting in good faith by honoring an existing contract I disagree. Its not good faith to actively leverage legality over someones head, when morally you know what the right thing to do is. Overly dramatic example would be: A kid is playing on your lawn and you kick them in the face. You can throw up your hands and say "Hey, I was within my legal right. That was a trespasser and I am allowed to defend my home". Legally, that person is correct. Same as the Cards. But morally, you know youre wrong. Yea you're being overly dramatic (Zazramic?). It's not even in the universe in terms of something that is comparable. DJ is being paid millions right now to perform. He's a millionare. He can feed his family very well. Of course it might be in the best interests of the Cards to rework his contract if they can gain a year or pay him less (but way more then he makes). Let them work it out. |
|
biggs
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1,076
|
Post by biggs on Jul 18, 2018 12:08:28 GMT -7
You have a responsibility to do what is right for the team both fiscally and competitively, that's it. Everything else is just window dressing and DJ has a very, very long way to go before you can start talking what is right and wrong about signing him on a moral level. Fitz is the example of when you can consider morals in regards to a business decision about contacts and DJ ain't no Fitz and even then it's a small part of the equation. Totally agree. You can look at this another way. If DJ was a crappy player the Cardinals would cut him and he wouldn't get paid. DJ is a really good player and if he holds out he won't get paid. If he doesn't want to play how is he violating the contract? Nothing moral on either side. The tag is the worst result for both parties. There is no pressure on the Cardinals to do anything other than what's in the Cardinals best interest. The same is true for DJ. There's no moral obligation by either party but in this case the Cardinals have a little more leverage should the team choose to renegotiate to avoid tagging him next year. I agree about Fitz. He has earned special treatment by giving special treatment to the team over years. DJ hasn't come close to doing that yet. |
|
biggs
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1,076
|
Post by biggs on Jul 18, 2018 12:17:50 GMT -7
The cardinals are acting in good faith by honoring an existing contract I disagree. Its not good faith to actively leverage legality over someones head, when morally you know what the right thing to do is. Overly dramatic example would be: A kid is playing on your lawn and you kick them in the face. You can throw up your hands and say "Hey, I was within my legal right. That was a trespasser and I am allowed to defend my home". Legally, that person is correct. Same as the Cards. But morally, you know youre wrong. If DJ doesn't want to play for what he's getting paid he doesn't have to. Nobody is forcing him to earn his living playing football for the Cardinals. What's the problem? What's the right thing to do? Easy answer in a vacuum but when you have a salary cap you may well take care of DJ and someone else on the roster, a good loyal player who is also putting his health on the line may have their contract renegotiated or cut. At the end of the day there is a salary cap and a large roster. The Cardinals aren't negotiating just DJ's contract like DJ is. They are taking money from a pool that is spread out among everyone. Some will be overpaid and some underpaid based on actual performance. The guys who are overpaid didn't do anything morally wrong anymore than the team did. Same is true for those that are underpaid. None of it is fair or unfair necessarily. You're mistaking morality for fairness in a complete vacuum. If you want fairness get rid of the draft and the salary cap and let everyone negotiate their real worth in the market. That's not the system. |
|
