NFL's Attitude Towards players Compared to Other Sports | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

NFL's Attitude Towards players Compared to Other Sports

phinphan896

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
0
Location
The 305
The NFL has to work on its attitude towards players. They should honor contracts and shouldnt go cutting players left and right. Baseball and basketball dont have problems with veteran players holding out because they want more money. Its not fair for players to get cut because they get hurt. If the NFL doesnt change its attitude towards its players its gonna come back and bite them. The players association lets the commissioner and owners do whatever they want. Rookie contracts arent much better either because rookies want as much up front as they can get and i dont blame them because they dont know when they are going to get cut. You dont see the money and holdout problems in other sports because owners dont treat their players like caca in other sports. Its gonna have to change or young athletes are going to go into other sports.
 
Its called guaranteed contracts in other sports. So you think its right for the team when say Jamal Mashburn or someone cant honor the last 3 years of his deal and the team is handcuffed because the salary cap says they can only spend so much? That woud be a disaaster in football. You simply cannot have guaranteed contracts in the NFl with all the injuries that occur. As it is some players dog it and it would only get worse.

And as far as the NFl treating their players poorly, they happen to have a very strong retirement plan and they are one of the few places you can get a pension.

These are just a couple of reasons the NFL is, by far, the most profitable sports league in north america.
 
Boik14 said:
Its called guaranteed contracts in other sports. So you think its right for the team when say Jamal Mashburn or someone cant honor the last 3 years of his deal and the team is handcuffed because the salary cap says they can only spend so much? That woud be a disaaster in football. You simply cannot have guaranteed contracts in the NFl with all the injuries that occur. As it is some players dog it and it would only get worse.

And as far as the NFl treating their players poorly, they happen to have a very strong retirement plan and they are one of the few places you can get a pension.

These are just a couple of reasons the NFL is, by far, the most profitable sports league in north america.
If the owners honored their contracts and finished paying the players im sure they could manage with their retirement
 
23Ronnie23 said:
If the owners honored their contracts and finished paying the players im sure they could manage with their retirement
Thats the thing theyre more then managing with their retirements. The players who arent good enough to earn enough are still able to invest. The NFL encourages numerous continuing education programs, savings programs and assorted other benefits. Honoring contracts in a salary cap era is not something thats do-able in such a injury prone sport like football.
 
I've watched soccer pretty much my whole life and the biggest problem with the game is 2 fold

1. Guaranteed contracts
2. Clubs having more power than the league

the nfl has neither and should be damn thankful for it, any sports where the clubs have more power than the league will always suffer for it, the only reason the nfl can maintain balanced competition is because it holds all the cards so unless you want a baseball/soccer scenario where then same handfull of rich clubs always win i wouldnt complain too much.
 
The NFL is America's best sports league by far because of contract flexibility, and because of revenue sharing. Franchises aren't crippled for several years because of a bad contract or two. Look at how long it took the Rockies to get out from under the twin disasters of Mike Hampton and Denny Neagle, for example. Look at how long the Knicks have been, and will continue to be, crippled by lousy contracts. There's no cure for ordinary stupidity, of course, but in the NFL, there is a limit to it.
 
So you're saying that if we just signed say someone like reggie howard again to a huge 7 year contract and he sucked it up like he did before that we should continue to overpay him for lousy play? No garenteed contracts makes the sport more competitive and makes them actually have to try and compete instead of kicking back and relaxing then having an amazing contract year because they want to get paid the big free agent bucks.
 
So I should pay a guy 2.3 million dollars because I think he is a nice guy and I should honor his contract while he hurts my team?

Great idea, become a coach and you shall be the next Wanny
 
unifiedtheory said:
:sidelol::sidelol::sidelol::sidelol:

You must be a fan of a "big market" team.

Not unless you consider the Marlins 14 Million Dollar Pay Roll big market
 
On the topic at hand, I think the NFL does it right.

They basically have a pay for performance system. You play well and keep playing well you get fairly compensated.

You play poorly you get your *** cut, your contract is terminated and you are out looking for work.

It is like the real world. If I begin to **** the bed at my job they will replace me. I'm not gonna get paid for the next three years, I have to go out there and get another job. This is the way it should be in all sports.

Guarenteed contracts in the NFL would never work anyway...too many injuries. Guys get their guarenteed money up front in the form of a signing bonus after that they have to bust their ***** for their next big payday...exactly the way it should be.
 
unifiedtheory said:
On the topic at hand, I think the NFL does it right.

They basically have a pay for performance system. You play well and keep playing well you get fairly compensated.

You play poorly you get your *** cut, your contract is terminated and you are out looking for work.

It is like the real world. If I begin to **** the bed at my job they will replace me. I'm not gonna get paid for the next three years, I have to go out there and get another job. This is the way it should be in all sports.

Guarenteed contracts in the NFL would never work anyway...too many injuries. Guys get their guarenteed money up front in the form of a signing bonus after that they have to bust their ***** for their next big payday...exactly the way it should be.

Agree 100%

Like I said why should I pay a guy 2.3 million dollars a year for under achieving when I can spend the money somewhere else and improve my team
 
Alex44 said:
Not unless you consider the Marlins 14 Million Dollar Pay Roll big market
Your'e a Marlins fan and you don't think MLB needs a salary cap?

So, you think it is fair that MLB has, basically, four leagues within the same league?

I know there are reasons for the MASSIVE disparity in MLB payrolls. The Yankees are an industry all by themselves, so to are the Red Sox to a lesser extent.

That being said, a salary cap AND a salary FLOOR would do a LOT for baseball. It would'nt allow teams like the Yankees to spend their way out of problems because they can afford it BUT it would also stop a team like the Marlins from gutting their rosters to save money and cash in on what revenue sharing there is in baseball.

I don't know about you but when I see a league have one team (the Yankees) having a 200 million dollar payroll while my team (The Athletics) has a 63 million dollar payroll, a 137 million dollar difference, there is a problem there.

The only way for teams in the middle to compete is draft VERY well, get lucky with cheap free agents and have no injuries. If one of those things does not happen, you're a .500 team, if two of those things don't happen your'e doomed.

Even if everything goes right for you as a middle of the pack payroll team, you still lose your free agents every year and have no margine for error when it comes to signing free agents.

I think MLB needs a cap....as well as a minimum...it would make it a better game in my opinion.
 
Back
Top Bottom