|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,449 Likes: 1
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,449 Likes: 1 |
Our 3rd and 7th round picks aren't signed yet? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,373 Likes: 880
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,373 Likes: 880 |
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
Quote:
The Browns should absolutely be ready to go all-in on the guy because he was a top 10 pick and top 10 picks are always guaranteed to stay with teams for 4 years and give great production on the field for those 4 years. Am I right? If a top 10 pick had been a bust in the past, I could understand their hesitation. But, I've never seen that happen before...
The admin went to great expense to include the purple font. Use it.
But, I'm going to disagree. Looking at our first round picks
2007 - Thomas (future HOF) and Quinn (bust)
2008
2009 - Mack (solid, but not great and still on roster after 4 years)
2010 - Haden (again, not great but still on roster in his 4th year)
2011 - Taylor (lots of potential, doubtful to cut within 4 years)
2012 - Richardson (very hopeful) and Weeden (????)
2013 - Mingo
The Browns have had one bust, and one ???? in the first round of the last 7 drafts. Only one guy not still on roster, not too bad. And even Quinn made it more than 4 years.
If you want to dance, you have to pay the band.
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,544
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,544 |
Quote:
Quote:
The Browns should absolutely be ready to go all-in on the guy because he was a top 10 pick and top 10 picks are always guaranteed to stay with teams for 4 years and give great production on the field for those 4 years. Am I right? If a top 10 pick had been a bust in the past, I could understand their hesitation. But, I've never seen that happen before...
The admin went to great expense to include the purple font. Use it.
But, I'm going to disagree. Looking at our first round picks
2007 - Thomas (future HOF) and Quinn (bust)
2008 - QUINN {BUST}
2009 - Mack (solid, but not great and still on roster after 4 years)
2010 - Haden (again, not great but still on roster in his 4th year)
2011 - Taylor (lots of potential, doubtful to cut within 4 years)
2012 - Richardson (very hopeful) and Weeden (????)
2013 - Mingo
The Browns have had one bust, and one ???? in the first round of the last 7 drafts. Only one guy not still on roster, not too bad. And even Quinn made it more than 4 years.
If you want to dance, you have to pay the band.
there fixed it for you. 
being a browns fan is like taking your dog to vet every week to be put down...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 Likes: 906
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 Likes: 906 |
Man, you salivate when there might be a reason to complain. It's comical. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 7,059 Likes: 80
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 7,059 Likes: 80 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The Browns should absolutely be ready to go all-in on the guy because he was a top 10 pick and top 10 picks are always guaranteed to stay with teams for 4 years and give great production on the field for those 4 years. Am I right? If a top 10 pick had been a bust in the past, I could understand their hesitation. But, I've never seen that happen before...
The admin went to great expense to include the purple font. Use it.
But, I'm going to disagree. Looking at our first round picks
2007 - Thomas (future HOF) and Quinn (bust)
2008 - QUINN {BUST}
2009 - Mack (solid, but not great and still on roster after 4 years)
2010 - Haden (again, not great but still on roster in his 4th year)
2011 - Taylor (lots of potential, doubtful to cut within 4 years)
2012 - Richardson (very hopeful) and Weeden (????)
2013 - Mingo
The Browns have had one bust, and one ???? in the first round of the last 7 drafts. Only one guy not still on roster, not too bad. And even Quinn made it more than 4 years.
If you want to dance, you have to pay the band.
there fixed it for you.
We did not have a 1st rd pick in 2008, nor a 2nd, nor a 3rd....no pick until the 4th rd. Are you implying something and it went over my head?
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers...Socrates
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,544
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,544 |
we had too give up our 2008 first round pick for brady Quinn. there is no secret about it. so I added him for 2008 bust too.
Last edited by pblack18707; 07/19/13 07:07 AM.
being a browns fan is like taking your dog to vet every week to be put down...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,803 Likes: 172
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,803 Likes: 172 |
Quote:
Quote:
This tells me that they may not be completely sold on his ability to make the conversion to OLB... which goes right back to "why the hell would you take him at 6 if you are not CERTAIN?". Pay him, because if he doesn't cut it, you deserve to pay a heavier price for taking the risk.
I really don't like the sound of this at all. I agree with your post and have no idea why they would take a guy at #6 and then try to get him to sign a deal out of line with those drafted above him and just below him.
I just hope situations like these don't become a trend.
You have to wonder, who in the Browns' front office would attempt to add such language to Mingo's contract?
...everyone knows the answer...JOE BANNER.
There are people who are not happy unless they are constantly creating some kind of turmoil or conflict. Some just thrive on using their power to screw with people...even when it isn't called for.
...in some, it is a mental sickness that would require professional help...some are beyond help.
.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,803 Likes: 172
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,803 Likes: 172 |
jc...
... the #1 priority of the SF 49ers...winning a Super Bowl.
...in Cleveland, not so much !
I would not be shocked if Mingo was the last 1st rounder signed or remains unsigned. If I'm Mingo, no way do I step on the field without a contract.
These agendas are discussed and established at league meetings by owners/CEO...some teams stick to the league wide agenda...some don't. It comes down to each franchises priority...winning or pinching pennies... Eric Reid rookie contract does not contain offset language, according to reports Jul 10 2013 Earlier this week, the San Francisco 49ers came to terms with Eric Reid on his rookie contract, completing their draft class contracts. Reid is signed to a four-year contract that has a club option for the fifth year. The deal is worth approximately $8.48 milion dollars, with a signing bonus of just over $4.5 million. His base salaries for the four years are $405,000, $790,489, $1.175 million and $1.561 million. The option year will be based on averages according to his position. The most notable part of the contract is that it does not include offset language. National Football Post's Joel Corry (former agent) described offset language: An offset clause allows a team to reduce the guaranteed money owed to a player when he is released by the amount of his new deal with another team. The player receives his salary from the team that released him in addition to the full salary from his new contract with another club when there isn't an offset. Practically speaking, the offset issue will only come into play in the latter years of rookie deals if the player is a disappointment. Rookie contracts have more or less settled into place with the new rookie wage scale in the collective bargaining agreement. We no longer have the monstrous deals providing huge amounts of guaranteed money to first round picks, and that means holdouts are no longer much of an issue. The 49ers deal with Reid was the second earliest top pick contract the 49ers negotiated in at least 20 years. While the contracts are fairly settled in terms of money, offset language is the one area where negotiations can still get at least a little bit contentious. Agents feel the rookies should not have offset language because of the sacrifices made with the rookie wage scale. Naturally, teams want to keep offset language so they can cover their butts to some extent if the player does not work out. When Eric Reid's deal became official, several folks reported that the deal did not include the offset language. I spoke briefly with Joel Corry about offset language. He said that in 2011, Cam Newton was the only player to have a contract with no offset language. In 2012, there was no offset language in contracts for the top seven picks, as well as picks No. 9, 14 and 23. Corry was not sure why the 49ers were not able to work in offset language. This is a team that has done a great job securing team friendly contracts. The 49ers are certainly hoping Reid is great and the offset language wouldn't come into play anyway, it is still interesting to see the team appear to lose a negotiation battle. Of course, we don't know what happened in the negotiating room. No offset language is a loss for the 49ers, but we don't know what they got in return, so we're left to speculate. I would imagine however that this is one reason the deal took a little longer than A.J. Jenkins' deal last year (a little under three weeks longer). web page
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461 |
I don't see why a player would push so hard to prevent offset language, unless they feel like they are going to be a bust themselves.
The player, essentially, wants to be paid more if the team has to cut him because he's not good enough to make their roster in year 4 of his contract. He wants to be able to "double dip" if another team wants to take a chance on him. I don't blame teams for going after that kind of protection with guaranteed contracts. I really don't blame players for wanting to fight it ...... but I don't think that it speaks very well of their confidence in their own abilities.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,973 Likes: 1611
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,973 Likes: 1611 |
Why would they prevent off-set language? That's easy-- guaranteed money in case they are injured and their career is over.
I guess it's the same reason teams want the language, coupled w/ the bust factor. I lean on what contracts in similar slots have gone for in prior years as well as contracts signed this year right around him. That should guide it IMO.
Teams got a nice deal regarding rookie contracts from the CBA. Give the top ten guys their figures and move on. If they bust out, it's the team's fault, eat the money, and move on.
At DT, context and meaning are a scarecrow kicking at moving goalposts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
I would not be shocked if Mingo was the last 1st rounder signed or remains unsigned. If I'm Mingo, no way do I step on the field without a contract.
but, would you be shocked to know that 7 of the top10 picks are still not signed?
or that Richardson wasn't signed until the eve of training camp last season?
this isn't a Banner thing (no matter how often you try to denigrate him), but just how the process goes. the agents and teams work right up to the gun. IMO, it's silly, but it's also standard.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,680 Likes: 1671
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,680 Likes: 1671 |
Quote:
Man, you salivate when there might be a reason to complain. It's comical.
I see. So when I give them credit for moves they make you ignore that?
I just don't see things from one side.
The players gave in for huge rookie contracts. They made huge concessions in that regard.
At this point, ownership simply wants to cover their own butts in case "they made a mistake on who they drafted". At some point, why is it they aren't accountable for who they selected in the draft?
They got their cake in rookie contract concessions. Now they want to eat it too so that if they messed up in who they selected, the person they selected has to pay for it.
Just because I don't always look at things from a singular point of view really seems to bother you. I don't have tunnel vision in either direction. I guess that's something you have a problem with and I'm really not concerned by it.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
j/c
I actually commend the FO for pushing for this language in the contract. Virtually every analyst said that Mingo was a boom or bust pick. Having this offset clause is smart as it helps protect the club.
Furthermore, its FAIR. My understanding is that it simply allows the club to avoid paying additional money to a player if they are picked up by another team- similar to if a player is picked up on waivers rather than FA. Its not saying the rookie hasnt already collected a large portion of the guaranteed money and, more so, if the player isn;t picked up, my understanding is that we are still on the hook for it. Hence the "protection from injury" point is moot.
Perhaps the FO ends up giving in on this but if they do, I'd bet that concessions are made elsewhere to make up for it. I think this is a good play by the FO to protect us from having dead money on the books.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Quote:
...in some, it is a mental sickness that would require professional help...some are beyond help.
ya mac, we know. 
just messing with you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461 |
Quote:
Why would they prevent off-set language? That's easy-- guaranteed money in case they are injured and their career is over.
I guess it's the same reason teams want the language, coupled w/ the bust factor. I lean on what contracts in similar slots have gone for in prior years as well as contracts signed this year right around him. That should guide it IMO.
Teams got a nice deal regarding rookie contracts from the CBA. Give the top ten guys their figures and move on. If they bust out, it's the team's fault, eat the money, and move on.
Offset language only comes into play if the player is cut by their original team and signed by another team. Injuries don't really come into play at all. On a fully guaranteed contract, the player is paid ... unless he does a Herdandez, or something similar.
Here's an example ......
Without offset language:
Player A signs a 4 years deal, with a 4th year salary of $4 million. He is cut before that final year's salary kicks in. His contract is fully guaranteed.
He receives his salary of $4 million from his original team.
He then signs a deal with another team for $1 million. Thus he pockets an extra $1 million for busting with his original team.
With offset language, his original team would be off the hook for whatever salary he receives from another team. If his guarantee is $4 million, and he signs elsewhere for $1 million, then his original team would be relieved of $1 million of their guarantee, and only be required to pay him $3 million.
Most NFL players don't receive fully guaranteed contracts. If the are cut in the above scenario, then they simply get whatever their new team pays them, no matter what their old contract was. For example, if a player was signed for $20 million in the coming season on a non guaranteed deal, and he is cut and signs with a new team for the veteran's minimum, then that minimum is all he would receive. The $20 million is gone like ether.
Some premium free agents do receive a partial guarantee, but rarely do players, other than high draft picks, receive a fully guaranteed deal.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,847 Likes: 159
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,847 Likes: 159 |
Just clicking here.
A thought occurred to me a moment ago, I didn't read the entire thread so it may have been stated but I just missed it.
Are we Browns Fans First or Player Fans First?
I would venture a guess that it's a bit of both, but mostly, players come and go so I'd bet we are mostly Browns Fans first and foremost.
With that thought in mind, wouldn't it be smart to root for Browns to get guys under a contract that is best for the teams long term financial health?
again, I'm saying that I do think this is a little tacky. If you think enough of a guy to take him in the top 10, I don't think a team should demonstrate that faith by putting this stipulation in the contracts. I think it demonstrates just the opposite, kinda like what Purp was saying.
But I do believe that the overall financial health of the organization ends up leading to sustainable success on the field. Obviously, you need to build the right base of players (which we've not been very good at prior to Heckert) And then you need the financial where with all to retain them. That's where managing the money becomes very important to the long term success on and off the field.
Like I said, I think this is a bit tacky and cheap, but there is good reasoning for it.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
At this point, ownership simply wants to cover their own butts in case "they made a mistake on who they drafted".
We don't ever want to limit ourselves to the only one reason that we can see to be the real reason why something is done.
For instance, if you read my post on the previous page I have a different reason that is not protecting themselves from their own mistake of a bad draft pick. It is avoiding having to pay the player a "double dip" if they don't work hard enough and bust.
As I said before, either way, the player gets the full amount of his original contract. The difference is in who is paying it. He loses nothing. He will still get paid the full amount of his original contract. Without the offset language the Browns pay it all while the player gets paid again for playing for his new team.
In effect, he would be getting paid for playing for the Browns, which is isn't doing, and paid again for playing for his new team.
I'm leaning toward the player, if he signs elsewhere, getting paid the amount of his original contract but the instead of the Browns paying the entire original contract they would instead pay the difference between the original contract and the new, probably, lesser one.
With offset nobody gets hurt and the player loses nothing. Without the offset the Browns end up paying in full for a player who is not playing for them while he is playing for someone else and getting paid for that too.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
...wouldn't it be smart to root for Browns to get guys under a contract that is best for the teams long term financial health?
Yes, providing that the team doesn't screw a player out of his money. The offset language does not screw the player out of anything. It simply avoids the team from being screwed by the player by getting paid for playing for two teams when in reality he is only playing for one.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
j/c We're not the only team faced with this issue. It is NOT a Banner thing- its a league thing. see below. http://www.faniq.com/blog/Offset-languag...ions-Blog-68934Offset language stalling contract negotiations of several top-10 draft picks Yesterday in NFL | Matthew_Shovlin | 471 respect Due to the rookie wage scale in the NFL's most recent collective bargaining agreement, unsigned rookies are extremely less likely to hold out. The CBA puts a cap on the amount of money that teams can spend on their recently drafted rookies, which in turn leaves agents with very little wiggle room to demand bigger contracts for their players. As a result, the days of players like JaMarcus Russell and Michael Crabtree holding out before playing a single NFL snap are pretty much over. However, there is still something that remains in contract negotiations that has commonly held up talks between teams and their rookies - offset language. For those who don't know, I'll explain offset language as briefly and clearly as I can: Rookie contracts under the new CBA are fully guaranteed. If a player signs for four years and $20 million, he will have earned that full $20 million by the end of those four years, whether he remained on the team the entire time or was released mid-contract. With offset language, if a player is released before his rookie contract is up and he signs with a new team, the team that drafted him only has to pay the difference in salary, rather than dish out the full amount of the original contract while the player simultaneously cashes in on his new deal. For example, let's say a player on a four-year, $20 million deal ($5 million per year) gets cut after two seasons, then signs on with a new team at two years, $5 million ($2.5 million per year). If his rookie deal had offset language, the team that drafted him would only have to pay him the difference in salary ($2.5 million per year) over the next two years. Without offset language, the player would get his new contract in addition to his rookie deal, meaning he would still receive $5 million per year from his old team with $2.5 million per year from his new team, essentially making $25 million over four years. Offset language has been a snag in the negotiations of about half of the top-10 picks of the 2013 draft. Dion Jordan (Dolphins, No. 3 pick), Lane Johnson (Eagles, No. 4 pick), Barkevious Mingo (Browns, No. 6 pick), and Chance Warmack (Titans, No. 10 pick) are all currently unsigned as a result of their teams' insistence of offset language being included in their contracts. Cardinals first-round pick Jonathan Cooper (No. 7 overall) is also looking for a contract excluding offset language, though it has not been reported that offset language is what has stalled negotiations thus far. Teams who view their first-round picks as risky selections are more likely to be insistent upon offset language, as they will feel that there is a higher chance that they will want to release the player before his contract is up. This makes complete sense for Jordan, Johnson, and Mingo, three players who have exceptional raw ability but are a long way from being fully developed. Cooper and Warmack, however, are viewed as pretty safe picks. When you think about it, the exclusion of offset language is unfair to the player who performs well and plays out his contract. A guy who dominates under his rookie deal will be stuck on a $20 million salary, while the player who gets cut and signs elsewhere could make $25 million. Offset language could be a topic of discussion during the next CBA negotiations, but for now it will continue to be one of the only considerations to cause snags in rookie contract negotiations.
Last edited by CanadaDawg; 07/19/13 12:20 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,544
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,544 |
Quote:
Quote:
Man, you salivate when there might be a reason to complain. It's comical.
I see. So when I give them credit for moves they make you ignore that?
I just don't see things from one side.
The players gave in for huge rookie contracts. They made huge concessions in that regard.
At this point, ownership simply wants to cover their own butts in case "they made a mistake on who they drafted". At some point, why is it they aren't accountable for who they selected in the draft?
They got their cake in rookie contract concessions. Now they want to eat it too so that if they messed up in who they selected, the person they selected has to pay for it.
Just because I don't always look at things from a singular point of view really seems to bother you. I don't have tunnel vision in either direction. I guess that's something you have a problem with and I'm really not concerned by it.
singular point? tunnel vision? maybe you are? you seam to forget that as far as mingo he is going to get paid something like 16 mil no matter what. most from the browns no matter what.
the rookie wage thing? everyone wanted that but the rookies. it shifted money to the vets and reduced the risk of the owners with draft picks.
I get both sides. the owners wanting to reduce risk.
the players only being in the nfl for x amount of years and trying to make the most of it.
this is just the ugly side of football.
one more thing though. not saying it happens but...
the top ten draft picks go to the worse teams in the nfl. with no offset what keeps players from the attitude of "if you don't like it cut me and I will get a raise" or just going through the motions so they will get cut or trade so they can make more?
not really saying you are wrong. just that I don't think there is a right or wrong in this. both sides are right and wrong.
being a browns fan is like taking your dog to vet every week to be put down...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
the top ten draft picks go to the worse teams in the nfl. with no offset what keeps players from the attitude of "if you don't like it cut me and I will get a raise" or just going through the motions so they will get cut or trade so they can make more?
I'd said it differently earlier, "incentive to fail". All a disgruntled rookie need do is cop an attitude toward his original team so he gets cut and then go on and cash in without the offset language.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
We're not the only team faced with this issue. It is NOT a Banner thing-
I did call it a "Banner thing", but what I meant by that is Banner looking out for the best interest of the team in negotiations. Not like he invented it or is the only one pushing for it.
After all, it's not an unreasonable request. Perfectly fair to everyone.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,161 Likes: 844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,161 Likes: 844 |
Quote:
Quote:
the top ten draft picks go to the worse teams in the nfl. with no offset what keeps players from the attitude of "if you don't like it cut me and I will get a raise" or just going through the motions so they will get cut or trade so they can make more?
I'd said it differently earlier, "incentive to fail". All a disgruntled rookie need do is cop an attitude toward his original team so he gets cut and then go on and cash in without the offset language.
I didn't even consider that angle until just this moment. In light of this, and with all of the recent financial changes in the league....I have to change my stance. This language needs to be in there, so kudos to the FO on sticking to it.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Quote:
Quote:
We're not the only team faced with this issue. It is NOT a Banner thing-
I did call it a "Banner thing", but what I meant by that is Banner looking out for the best interest of the team in negotiations. Not like he invented it or is the only one pushing for it.
After all, it's not an unreasonable request. Perfectly fair to everyone.
Wasn;t really targeted to you ddubia....more the posters that are saying that this is evidence of Banner being a power hungry meglomaniac.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,544
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,544 |
being a browns fan is like taking your dog to vet every week to be put down...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,847 Likes: 159
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,847 Likes: 159 |
Quote:
Quote:
...wouldn't it be smart to root for Browns to get guys under a contract that is best for the teams long term financial health?
Yes, providing that the team doesn't screw a player out of his money. The offset language does not screw the player out of anything. It simply avoids the team from being screwed by the player by getting paid for playing for two teams when in reality he is only playing for one.
I guess it comes down to what constitutes screwing a player out of money.
there are contracts in place so I'd just assume that both parties are aware of what they signed.
if one party breaches that contract, why should they be paid if it's the player, or why should the player show up if he's getting cheated? sounds like legal matter.
but again, I'm going to lean more towards the franchise in this case because, like I said, players come and go, the team remains (unless the owner pulls a Modell that is)
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635 |
For sure, especially with the cocky and arrogant players that has been coming outta the draft (not saying I feel this way on Mingo. He seems to be a very humble spoken man) but it is what it is. Incentive to fail, excellent way of wording it. a Top ten rookies attitude shouldn't even mind this language. Where is Mingo's confidence? Or the likely situation, an "agent" thing? But yep, kudos for Banner for not giving in. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,680 Likes: 1671
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,680 Likes: 1671 |
j/c
Just a general response to all that responded to me.
I really don't see how a player "copping an attitude and not working hard" is going to further his career.
As it stands now, the rookie contracts are a fraction of what they were before this new agreement. I believe that was the right thing to do.
But under those same guidelines, his BIG PAYDAY, in terms of the football world, will be his next contract. So it's in a players best interest to shine during his rookie contract.
Owners however sometimes are the ones who take the gambles. ie... character issues, injury history and trying to switch players to different positions.
Many contract stipulations have been made to guard against those things in players contracts. With the exception of switching player positions.
While there are points to be made, unless someone has character issues coming into the league, or a problem with their work ethic, it's more than slightly doubtful that it will suddenly manifest itself when they become a pro.
At some point things in negotiations can't all go in one direction. And for those who have pointed out "this isn't a Banner thing", you are correct. It's "an owners thing".
In Mingo's case, I believe the biggest gamble may be he is raw and may not make the transition to the 3-4 well. It's a gamble this FO took when they drafted him #6 overall.
I feel if this happens to come to fruition, the failure would fall more on the shoulders of this FO than it does Mingo. Many times first round picks don't pan out. But at what point do we expect some dedication towards the players from the ownership just as we expect dedication from the players?
In the places I've worked in my lifetime, it's a much better working environment when the workers feel some sense of loyalty from their employers. There is a juncture where saving money interferes with the product.
When you look at the size of Krugers contract, do you honestly feel that rookies in their right mind wouldn't work hard to achieve such monitary gains when their rookie contract was less than half that amount? Is that a possibility? Yes, but I feel it's a very slight one.
I see it as more times than not a way out for FO's that made poor decisions on draft day.
I'm not too worried. Picks before and after Mingo got the clause removed. That sets a precident for Mingo in negotiations. Under those guidelines, if I were Mingo, the odds of me having a poor attitude would happen if this FO ignored the other contracts and tried to force this upon me.
This really isn't a Browns issue, it's a league wide issue. I just don't see how people expect dedication to be a one way street in favor of the owners across the league.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,803 Likes: 172
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,803 Likes: 172 |
Quote:
Quote:
...in some, it is a mental sickness that would require professional help...some are beyond help.
ya mac, we know.
just messing with you.
canada...when Haslam and Banner claim it's not about the MONEY...it IS ABOUT THE MONEY...
I give Pilot Flying J as a great example of the priorities of the Browns management...
...just messing with ya..  .
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
At the end of the day, its still a business mac.... people aren;t playing for free, FO needs money to resign people, make moves etc.
And its not just Banner and the Browns....its a league wide issue as per the article I posted.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
the top ten draft picks go to the worse teams in the nfl. with no offset what keeps players from the attitude of "if you don't like it cut me and I will get a raise" or just going through the motions so they will get cut or trade so they can make more?
I'd said it differently earlier, "incentive to fail". All a disgruntled rookie need do is cop an attitude toward his original team so he gets cut and then go on and cash in without the offset language.
I didn't even consider that angle until just this moment. In light of this, and with all of the recent financial changes in the league....I have to change my stance. This language needs to be in there, so kudos to the FO on sticking to it.
Again, I'm going to disagree. I don't see any player saying "Hey, I'm gonna go out and intentionally suck, be a head case, not work hard, or practice. Every other team will want me and I'll collect two paychecks. Ka-ching!"
First round early picks should be around for a minimum of 4 years. If not, don't blame the players. You need to look elsewhere.
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
the top ten draft picks go to the worse teams in the nfl. with no offset what keeps players from the attitude of "if you don't like it cut me and I will get a raise" or just going through the motions so they will get cut or trade so they can make more?
I'd said it differently earlier, "incentive to fail". All a disgruntled rookie need do is cop an attitude toward his original team so he gets cut and then go on and cash in without the offset language.
I didn't even consider that angle until just this moment. In light of this, and with all of the recent financial changes in the league....I have to change my stance. This language needs to be in there, so kudos to the FO on sticking to it.
Again, I'm going to disagree. I don't see any player saying "Hey, I'm gonna go out and intentionally suck, be a head case, not work hard, or practice. Every other team will want me and I'll collect two paychecks. Ka-ching!"
First round early picks should be around for a minimum of 4 years. If not, don't blame the players. You need to look elsewhere.
Why not blame the players? They are the ones not performing. Yeah, the FO picked them and bear the responsibility for that but its up to the players to perform. They are the ones earning their money.
Was it the Browns fault that DA never learned how to throw a short pass?
Was it the Browns fault that Winslow tried to be Evel Knievel?
Was it the Browns fault that Charlie Frye completely self destructed?
No. The fault is the players.
Yes, the FO has an influence by not giving them tools to maximize their chances of success and they are held accountable for it by their jobs. Don't believe me?....how many GMs have we had since the return?
Offset is a smart business move and jsut ensures that if the team decides to go a different direction and someone else wants to pick up their investment, that the Browns are let off part of the hook.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
Quote:
Was it the Browns fault that DA never learned how to throw a short pass?
Was it the Browns fault that Winslow tried to be Evel Knievel?
Was it the Browns fault that Charlie Frye completely self destructed?
No. The fault is the players.
Yes, the FO has an influence by not giving them tools to maximize their chances of success and they are held accountable for it by their jobs. Don't believe me?....how many GMs have we had since the return?
Offset is a smart business move and jsut ensures that if the team decides to go a different direction and someone else wants to pick up their investment, that the Browns are let off part of the hook.
Uh, No, No, and No. And you're wrong.
Charlie Frye and Derek Anderson (not drafted by Browns) were not high first round picks, I think sixth and third round - Not near a really good negotiating position for either guy, and neither had a remote chance at offset. Winslow was a solid, maybe premier, TE. Sorry he was stupid, but a really good player and not a bad pick.
The Browns haven't been stupid in the first round for years. I believe a top 10 pick deserves a little somethin, somethin. It's only 4 years, and rookies don't get what they used to get. Let him have a chance to put some ink on a contract.
The Mingo selection is another discussion. I'm not fond of a guy that might not start Game 1.
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,544
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,544 |
j/c Browns sign DE Armonty Bryant to four-year contract Jul 19, 2013 -- 3:46pm By Tony Grossi Browns seventh-round draft pick Armonty Bryant, who already has two strikes against him, signed a four-year contract on the day rookies were scheduled to report. Bryant is the defensive end from East Central (OK) University who sold marijuana to an undercover police officer on campus grounds before the draft, and then was arrested on a DUI charge a week after the draft. He is now under a zero tolerance policy with the club. Bryant, 6-4 and 265 pounds, had 27.5 sacks in 30 career games for East Central, a Division II school. He was the 217th overall choice of the 2013 draft. The only remaining unsigned players of the Browns' thin, five-player draft are the top two picks -- linebacker Barkevious Mingo and cornerback Leon McFadden. http://espncleveland.com/common/more.php?m=49&post_id=20011
being a browns fan is like taking your dog to vet every week to be put down...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461 |
Of course it's about the money, as in the salary cap.
Look, a couple million isn't a huge chunk of change to a guy like Haslam, but when you have a salary cap, that extra $2 million could be an additional role player that you may, or may not, be able to sign under the cap. If you have a player who busts, it makes sense to minimize the "double bust" impact to the team .... of having the player unable to do what the team needs him to do, and maybe being financially hamstrung to the extent where they cannot sign a player to replace him. That is salt into an open wound, when the wound if bad enough all by itself.
That's why it makes sense for a team to insist on this kind of language. Plus, why reward a player who doesn't do what you need him to do? It makes no sense to pay a player who performs at a super high level for you $20 million under his rookie deal, while the next guy, who busts completely, goes to another team and makes a total of $22 million by exercising his guarantee, plug signing a deal with his new team.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276 |
I was goong to type a long sarcastic ramble but only mac to my knowledge thinks this situation needs to be explained. This is like saying it snowed in december or my coffee is hot. Contract negotiations always happen this way and we dont nees to worry until a player misses significant time. Side note..the article also mentioned McFadden isnt signed. No one is up in arms about why that is happening because we know signings just work this way.
The offseason is just fluff and needless worry stories.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,450 Likes: 816
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,450 Likes: 816 |
I said it before and I'll say it again.
Mingo can hold out for all I care, he's not expected to start/we're going to phase him in anyways.
I'm worried about McFadden. That guy needs to get in here and get every rep possible. There's a lot more riding on him relative to the performance of the defense than Mingo.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 7,059 Likes: 80
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 7,059 Likes: 80 |
Quote:
I'm worried about McFadden... There's a lot more riding on him relative to the performance of the defense than Mingo.
Maybe Sheldon Brown will be a late cut! I feel we're going to seriously miss that guy.
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers...Socrates
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 7,059 Likes: 80
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 7,059 Likes: 80 |
Quote:
First round early picks should be around for a minimum of 4 years. If not, don't blame the players.
Depends on the circumstances behind the poor play. But in reality, the 'blame' should fall on the PersonnelScouting departments...
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers...Socrates
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Cleveland Browns' Barkevious
Mingo, due to report Friday, still
unsigned
|
|
