PDA

View Full Version : Player Cost!


pittbull
03-21-2005, 03:03 PM
Everyone keeps talking about the cost to sign this player or that player. The bottom line is, your gonna end up paying them at sometime anyway. Take for example Sharper. One the downside of a LB's career. Slower, doesn't like to hit anymore, and contract demands big dollars, release or trade him. Greenwood, younger, faster, and he's locked up in the prime of his career to a moderate contract compared to the elite LB's. If he pan's out, bargain, if not, release after the first two years of the contract and it only cost you a signing bonus and a smaller salary within the first couple of seasons. The Texans are actually doing a good job of playing the Salary Cap game. Remember we have a younger team and the name of the game is to keep a core group of guys together, and not hold on to older players, who will demand $$$, based on number of years in the league, not production. Even Glenn is going to beome a casualty, unless he decides he wants to become nickle/dime CB, and help younger players for a smaller salry. Lower production, slower, giving up bigger plays against the elite WR, equals release in the the New NFL! Sometimes you have to take a chance, to get production. Is anyone yelling about the chance on Babin? First round dollars and was a converted DE from college. At least Greenwood has played in the league, learned from Pro Bowlers, and has experience playing the position. Everything is a chance. I would rather the Texans spend money on experience, than spending more time and money on possible draft picks who may or may not pan out! Wong will become the MLB and team leader and we'll be fine! :thumbup

outofhnd
03-21-2005, 08:19 PM
Definately. This isnt the NFL most of us grew up with. We don't have players playing their careers on the same roster. Thanks Free Agency you leveled the playing field by changing the field of players every year.

texan279
03-21-2005, 08:24 PM
Thanks Free Agency you leveled the playing field by changing the field of players every year.

Yeah but free agency has made it to where I can't even remember who plays for who half of the time! :wacko: LOL

outofhnd
03-21-2005, 08:29 PM
Yea i meant it sarcastically.

Its a double edged sword. I can't fault the immediate impact Free Agents make, but it sucks that we cant root for 1 player for a decade.

rittenhouserobz
03-22-2005, 08:16 AM
Imagine if baseball had a salary cap to match their free agency. The Yankees and Red Sox would have to let go of half their teams if the salary cap was a whopping 100 million dollars. That is still more than the NFL's salary cap for 55 players. How many players are on a baseball team? Baseball players are overpaid and I can't stand the Yankees. Sorry for being offtopic.

The bottom line is that you have a pay a price that goes with having top tier talent. I think the real double edged sword is for the football players who are really great. Take Orlando Pace. He was 27 when they tagged him. He wanted to move on but they are holding on. His choices are sit out or take the 1-year deal and hope you are not injured.

edo783
03-22-2005, 11:25 AM
The franchise tag is a tough one. Personally, I think a team should only be able to use it twice and then if they can't reach agreement on a long term contract, the player is free and the team doesn't get ANY compensation when he signs elswhere. Gives the team some time to work things out and incentive to get it done, and gives the player an out after a reasonable amount of time. During the francise period the team would be required to carry a medical/job insurance policy that would pay the player for up to two years if injured. Covers the guy somewhat for injury. Just my thoughts.

TheOgre
03-22-2005, 11:43 AM
edo,

I'd take it a step further. I'd say a team cannot franchise the same player in consecutive years. This allows them one year to negotiate a contract with the player. After that, the player becomes a free agent (usually unrestricted).

J-Man
03-22-2005, 12:08 PM
I think that it is more equitable in the long run for the two year limit, let's not forget that the player in question is still getting paid the average salary of the top 5 guys at his position. I think if you went to the one year limit it would remove options from teams and give the a little too much space in the drivers seat.

That being said I think do agree that you shouldn't Franchise a guy for more than two years in a row, that starts limiting players too much. I don't have a problem with guys wanting to test the FA market...that's basic buisness.

The issue I see is that it is not uncommon for teams to be somewhat unreasonable in negotiations just like players. A two year limit on the tagging a guy (and the reimbursment that he receives for it) sound like the middle ground to me.