Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


It's Rosenhaus

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-30-2005, 04:21 PM   #16
Camp Scrub
 
aprius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Call it Frisco....I am originally from DC
Posts: 56
Talking Re: It's Rosenhaus

Suspend any player that does not live up to his contract for 1 year and see how much that hurts his pocket book and maybe he will start to listen to reason then. And suspend the Postons and Rosenhaus' privilege of being an agent for any player for one year. They might wise up too.
aprius is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 04-30-2005, 04:24 PM   #17
Pro Bowl
 
BigSKINBauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Age: 26
Posts: 5,637
Re: It's Rosenhaus

shouldn't we have talked to moss about the contract b4 the trade?

Taylor can't afford not to play if we fight back he won't sit out for 6 years. he will recognize that his career is on the line, i truly think if WE don't give in he will come back.
BigSKINBauer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2005, 05:03 PM   #18
Playmaker
 
cpayne5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,807
Re: It's Rosenhaus

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daseal
Rosenhaus has always dealt well with Snyder though. =/
Yeah, which kind of has me wondering why he would want to burn that bridge.
__________________
"It's not about what you've done, but what's been done for you."
cpayne5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2005, 05:22 PM   #19
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,579
Re: It's Rosenhaus

I think this salary cap thing limited the wrong aspect of the game.

I realize this idea isn't fool proof, but the salary cap should be placed on the player's contracts and not so much the spending of the team itself. If there was a way to place a decent cap on the contracts - a cap that would get the approval of the player's union, maybe these agents wouldn't have such a strangle hold on the NFL.

Then again, maybe every team should just say live with the contract or find some other line of work. Teams are going to lose superstars, but the flood gates have got to be closed or this is going to ruin the NFL further.
__________________
Not the same Skinsguy that posts on ES.
skinsguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2005, 09:04 PM   #20
MVP
 
mooby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NoVa
Age: 26
Posts: 12,013
Re: It's Rosenhaus

yeah. now there are gonna be more nfl players who think they deserve better deals. i like skinsguys idea about a cap on the player's contracts instead of on the teams. they need a limit, otherwise every team in the league pretty soon is gonna have maybe 5 or more guys who hold out. and drew rosenhaus needs to stop telling his clients holding out is the answer. they should suspend him from being an agent for a year.
mooby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2005, 10:35 PM   #21
The Starter
 
joecrisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Age: 38
Posts: 1,501
Re: It's Rosenhaus

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdlea
Nothing is guaranteed to the players in the NFL. It should be able to go both ways. I can see where the players are coming from on this one.
There is one thing that's guaranteed to these players, and that's signing bonus. The players and their agents know that going in, and they negotiate and hold out for as much signing bonus as they can get their hands on, knowing full well that is the key to their financial security.

I'm sorry, but if you negotiated a deal a year ago, you should have negotiated for enough signing bonus to keep you happy for the duration of the contract you agreed to. Otherwise, you should've signed a shorter deal or asked for more signing bonus-- a year ago, not a year after signing the contract.

The Collective Bargaining Agreement is a double-edged sword, and both sides (the players and the owners) have their checks and balances built into the symbiotic salary cap and free agency systems. This argument that players are essentially being exploited by the owners (due to the lack of guaranteed contracts) has no basis in reality. It's a delusional fantasy fabricated by the players and their agents for their own benefit. You can't blame them-- we live in a capitalist society, and everyone's out to get the biggest piece of the pie they can get-- but that doesn't mean the owners should have to bake a new pie every time a player starts crying, "more! more!"
joecrisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2005, 12:09 AM   #22
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,579
Re: It's Rosenhaus

I couldn't have said it better myself Joe! The mentality from the modern player is: I'm a business man first, football player second. If they want to treat football more like a business than a sport, go open a fruit stand. Give me the average joe football player who plays because he loves the sport rather than because he knows he can become an instant millionaire. Years ago, guys played the sport for little or no money....
__________________
Not the same Skinsguy that posts on ES.
skinsguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2005, 08:49 AM   #23
Puppy Kicker
 
Daseal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Age: 31
Posts: 8,222
Re: It's Rosenhaus

These guys are just making financial decesions and negotiations for themselves. Yes, they signed a contract. However, Sean Taylor is one play away from not having a job or half the physical talent he has now. What happened to Theisman, and to many other players whos careers ended prematurely could happen to anyone. We knew he wasn't happy with his deal right after he signed. He got somewhat shafted on his contract to begin with, and we can restructure it and keep him happy. I have a feeling players will be more willing (moreso than their agents, I assure you) to help a team out if the team helps them out.

If a team wants to constantly renegotiate contracts, then why shouldn't players, unhappy with their contract, at least get it looked at? Would we be happy at players (for instance Samuels last year) when we ask to renegotiate and he says "No thanks." He renogitated. Luckily for him he got a bigger SB, but Ramsey, Jansen, Wynn, and others all renegotiated their contracts for either the same amount or slightly more. Most importantly giving the skins cap relief.
__________________
Best. Player. Available.
Daseal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2005, 03:29 PM   #24
The Starter
 
joecrisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Age: 38
Posts: 1,501
Re: It's Rosenhaus

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daseal
These guys are just making financial decesions and negotiations for themselves. Yes, they signed a contract. However, Sean Taylor is one play away from not having a job or half the physical talent he has now. What happened to Theisman, and to many other players whos careers ended prematurely could happen to anyone. We knew he wasn't happy with his deal right after he signed. He got somewhat shafted on his contract to begin with, and we can restructure it and keep him happy. I have a feeling players will be more willing (moreso than their agents, I assure you) to help a team out if the team helps them out.

If a team wants to constantly renegotiate contracts, then why shouldn't players, unhappy with their contract, at least get it looked at? Would we be happy at players (for instance Samuels last year) when we ask to renegotiate and he says "No thanks." He renogitated. Luckily for him he got a bigger SB, but Ramsey, Jansen, Wynn, and others all renegotiated their contracts for either the same amount or slightly more. Most importantly giving the skins cap relief.
It's not the Redskins' fault Sean Taylor flip-flopped on his agents and then proceeded to sign a deal he wasn't happy with. Sure, he's young and stupid, but that doesn't mean he gets a do-over every time he screws up (oops, wait a minute, we're talking about pro athletes here, aren't we?). Regardless, if he plays to the level he's capable of playing, he makes a ton of money, based on the incentives built into his current contract. If he gets hurt and can't play anymore, then he needs to be responsible enough to make that rookie signing bonus last until he can find another source of income. It always goes back to the fact that these guys put their signature on the contract. If they knew going in they were going to want more money (which apparently was the case with Sean Taylor and Terrell Owens), then they shouldn't have agreed to the terms of the deal they signed to begin with. I thought the modus operandi was always to hold out until you get the terms you want. That's been standard operating procedure since free agency started. Where's Sean Taylor been the past 13 years?

So teams renegotiate contracts all the time-- that's true. But it's not like players don't benefit from that process. The main reason players agree to renegotiate (or "help out the team"), is because the team helps them out by giving them more guaranteed money, which is then prorated over the course of the contract for salary cap purposes. Generally, when players refuse to renegotiate (which is what Chris Samuels did prior to last season), it's because the team isn't offering them enough guaranteed money. You used Chris Samuels as an example of a player "helping out the team." Well, look at how much guaranteed money Samuels got for "helping out the team"-- just slightly less than what Seattle's Walter Jones received for signing a new long-term deal. The other guys you mentioned may have agreed to about the same amount of total money that was in their original deals, but I'm sure they got enough of that money guaranteed to make it worth their while to "help out the team". It's not like these guys are saints making some altruistic sacrifice to "help out the team" when the team asks them to renegotiate.

If players are going to refuse to play on the contracts they signed less than a year ago, then teams are going to simply have to let them sit, and let them lose game checks. Otherwise, Pandora's box will never be closed, and a new CBA will be even tougher to complete prior to the uncapped year in 2007. If the uncapped year comes to pass, the NFL will be on a slippery slope towards a labor lockout.
joecrisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2005, 05:32 PM   #25
Special Teams
 
SantanaMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 224
Re: It's Rosenhaus

Someone mentioned a cap on players contracts earlier - fine in theory, but you would still need a cap for total team salary, otherwise whats to stop one fo the richest teams signing 53 players at the max-contract salaries whilst a small market team could not keep up.
The salary cap is there to create parity amongst all the markets.
What I can see happening during negotiations for the new CBA is that contracts cannopt be reworked for 2, maybe 3 years from the date of signing - that way we will see less of these "one year wonders" holding out and players who have played well over those 2 or 3 years can then negotiate for better salaries. This would also mean teams could not decrease said salaries in those 2 or 3 years either.

The NFL has that program anyway where they pay bonus money to players who outperformed their contracts in a particular season.
SantanaMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2005, 05:53 PM   #26
The Starter
 
joecrisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Age: 38
Posts: 1,501
Re: It's Rosenhaus

That sounds like a viable solution, SantanaMan. Let's hope there's something like that in the next CBA. This is definitely a situation that needs to be addressed.
joecrisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2005, 06:03 PM   #27
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,579
Re: It's Rosenhaus

Quote:
Originally Posted by offiss
Personally I would have used cake, but that's just me.


LOL! With chocolate sprinkles!


Santanaman:

Never said the idea was fool proof, but at the sametime, why penalize the owners who have the money to pay the most to their players? It's the idea of having a free market. They way it stands now, to me, it's like a communist approach to the NFL.

By having the players' salary capped, the franchises aren't having to pay out such outlandish salaries while the players are still making a pretty darn good living.

This is where it would get sticky: finding a salary limit that all owners could deal with and that would get the approval of the players' union. In theory, this would be ideal and would still give all nfl franchises equal opportunity to attract players to their team, while loosening the stranglehold of the agents.
__________________
Not the same Skinsguy that posts on ES.
skinsguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2005, 06:07 PM   #28
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,579
Re: It's Rosenhaus

Quote:
Originally Posted by SantanaMan
What I can see happening during negotiations for the new CBA is that contracts cannot be reworked for 2, maybe 3 years from the date of signing - that way we will see less of these "one year wonders" holding out and players who have played well over those 2 or 3 years can then negotiate for better salaries. This would also mean teams could not decrease said salaries in those 2 or 3 years either.
This does sound good and something they should have considered sooner! I mean, you guys remember the days when a contract was actually a binding agreement?
__________________
Not the same Skinsguy that posts on ES.
skinsguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2005, 10:02 PM   #29
The Starter
 
joecrisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Age: 38
Posts: 1,501
Re: It's Rosenhaus

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy


LOL! With chocolate sprinkles!


Santanaman:

Never said the idea was fool proof, but at the sametime, why penalize the owners who have the money to pay the most to their players? It's the idea of having a free market. They way it stands now, to me, it's like a communist approach to the NFL.

By having the players' salary capped, the franchises aren't having to pay out such outlandish salaries while the players are still making a pretty darn good living.

This is where it would get sticky: finding a salary limit that all owners could deal with and that would get the approval of the players' union. In theory, this would be ideal and would still give all nfl franchises equal opportunity to attract players to their team, while loosening the stranglehold of the agents.
I think you're right about the sticking point: the NFLPA would never agree to a player salary cap, wherein individual player salaries would be limited to a maximum annual figure. With the NFLPA, you're talking about an organization that works hand-in-hand with the players' agents to ensure that players have unlimited compensation potential throughout their careers. Their raison d'etre is to maximize the players' income-- not limit it.

That's why the current team salary cap system is in place. It's the only system that both the owners and players could agree upon when the current CBA was negotiated.

You also have to keep in mind that the NFL has experienced unrivaled and unprecedented success among sports leagues worldwide, since this particular "communist approach" was implemented over a decade ago. This is because the CBA provides for a competitive market, by ensuring that the players and the teams they play for are competing on a level field (or, at least, a reasonable approximation of such).

Like you said, the idea isn't foolproof, but I don't think the current system is as communistic as you suggested. There's certainly a free market dynamic at play here, as free agency allows players to command salaries commensurate with their value on the open market. If teams want to curb the inflation of those values-- which are sure to soar if star players and one-year wonders are allowed to re-write their deals every year-- the first step teams need to take is to refuse to renegotiate contracts unless it will help their salary cap situation. Thus far, that's generally what teams have done. But this current assault on the system by Rosenhaus and his high-profile clients will certainly test the mettle of even the most fiscally-disciplined franchises.
joecrisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2005, 10:16 PM   #30
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,579
Re: It's Rosenhaus

I think refusing to renegotiate contracts is the only thing owners can do right now. It's kind of like playing chicken. Too bad the average Joe (not you Joe, lol) can't hire an agent to do the same in the workforce.
__________________
Not the same Skinsguy that posts on ES.
skinsguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.32479 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25