I was referring to people here, specifically Miami Dolphins fans. If you're not a Dolphins fan, then yeah you don't' care if the Dolphins are spending money they're not required to.
Why should they care at all? Don't get me wrong I agree with you to an extent, I'm just being existential.
Because the Dolphins end up spending more money in that scenario. Is it the end of the world? No. But if you're asking which I prefer as a Dolphins fan, its having the offset language in there. EDIT: also another benefit here is that the Dolphins are one of the few teams pushing for this. This type of thing doesn't go unnoticed among other owners, and definitely helps the perception among the rest of the league front offices.
The point about Dolphins fans caring only that the team spends less money than it should is a good one to bring up but it's also an incomplete picture. Dolphins fans care what's good for the team. Or at least in theory they should. What we have here is a set of negotiations with leverage on both sides. Last year with Ryan Tannehill he only missed 4 practices because of this leverage. This year I personally believe it could be worse because Jordan is a higher pick than Tannehill and he's not a quarterback, all of which will make both sides less likely to budge on their stance. So wanting what's good for the Dolphins is a matter of preference. What do *I* believe is best for the Dolphins? I believe what is best for the Dolphins is just to NOT risk a camp holdout for a potentially important player over something as trivial as this, given the league-wide leverage that has been established on this particular issue. That is what *I* believe is best for the Miami Dolphins football team.
Oh the joys of the offseason. 5 page discussion on something that hasn't happened yet, that isn't a problem yet, and is unfortunately one of the most interesting topics. August can't get here soon enough.
i think the pressure to win now shifts to philbin and away from Ireland. Even if there is a snafu getting Jordan signed, the onus is on philbin to mmake it happen....
I know this isn't a big issue because the amount of money potentially saved by the team is rather insignificant but I respect the FO position on principal. It just doesn't sit right with me that without the offset clause, a player could actually end up making more money by being cut then by playing well and sticking on the team.
That's an interesting point you bring up. In theory, I agree it would be a disturbing set of incentives if that's where it ultimately led. But in practice, I don't think the system of incentives works out the way you fear. If a player's contract is fully guaranteed then the only way a player can "double dip" would be to be such an awful player or such a problem child that he's not even worth a 53 man roster spot. The team is paying the same amount of money regardless, so to them the cost-benefit is only related to the 53 man roster. Going back to examples given, the Colts are on the hook for $3.4 million of compensation to Andrew Luck in 2015 whethere he's on roster or not. So, you might as well keep him on roster. The only reason you would not do that would be if there's a 54th man out there you would rather have on your 53 man roster than Andrew Luck. We're talking about the Quinten Lawrences and Kyle Millers of the NFL. You may be saying, "who?" Exactly. So the question becomes would a former 1st round pick like Andrew Luck or Dion Jordan ever feel incentivized to willingly destroy their own value to the extent that the team that drafted them would rather have a CB Quinten Lawrence, TE Kyle Miller or OT Patrick Brown? The answer to that should be an obvious "no". No player would willingly do that, because even if in the short run he's now able to "double dip", in the long run he has absolutely destroyed his NFL value and ability to earn a lot of money in the future.
I do appreciate that you're thinking in terms of incentive structure though. Not enough folks appreciate that this stuff is one big game of Mouse Trap and if you have the marbles set up the right way and the plastic diver positioned just right, then the trap falls on the mouse every time.
Thank you, that helped a lot w/ my understanding of the issue. It is interesting that essentially you are talking not about how much a player can make, but about how much the original team is on the hook. It doesn't make sense to me unless a player thinks he is going to suck.
Actually applaud the Dolphins front office for how they handled the Ryan Tannehill negotiations last year. It's easy to say that now after the what two day holdout, last July didn't affect his full season body of work. They insisted on the offset language, they got the offset language. I believe he was the highest draft pick to have it in the contract. So they stuck to their guns. Contrast that to the year before, only Cam Newton and Robert Quinn (1st and 12th picked in the first round) DID NOT have the offset language in their rookie contracts. Everybody else did. That's a huge trend shift from one year to the next under relatively new CBA rules. This year, you have so far the closest pick in Ansah agreeing to a contract without the language. Certainly a boom or bust guy at a similar position. The precedent is there. If the Dolphins are insisting on the language, Jordan won't be signed before July's training camp, I can guarantee you that. And really, what does it matter for a him to be here before then anyway? He can't attend the OTA's before he graduates in June anyway, even if he were to sign now. As a fan, I'd rather the team insist on the language because of the salary cap ramifications. Although, if a player is holding out and it's going to affect his 16 game regular season body of work, then I'll cave But if my team has decided to cut a former high draft pick, after he's busted, and they are still on the hook for that cap wise, I'd rather not have that obviously because that's cap that can be used to obtain a new player. Of course, the regime that drafted said bust hopefully isn't making the decisions at that point but that's neither here no there
The incredibly minor, insignificant salary cap ramifications that are more than outweighed by a guy missing training camp and damaging his first year performance level?
What are your assumptions about what this may be costing an NFL that operates with a salary cap and salary floor structure that is pegged at certain percentages of revenue? Do you view league-wide "double dipping" as a means of somehow getting player compensation to exceed the agreed-upon cap?
You have too much faith in players, there are all kinds of nut cases out there. Titus Young intentionaly ran wrong routes cause he was pissed at his coach. Just think what he would do if he was rewarded for doing it with more money.
Collectively, my guess would be ~$75-100M every ten years or so. What exactly does it cost Dion Jordan to include the language? No, I view the campaign against double-dipping to be an effort to get closer to the salary floor.
You can't account for stupid. He would not in fact be rewarded for doing that. He would be destroying his own value, which he'd have done anyway.
So your estimate of $75 to $100 million further away from the salary floor than the league would normally be over a 10 year period represents approximately 0.2% of the salary cap. Do you think this offset language is going to cost Dion Jordan less than 0.2% of his expected NFL earnings over an average NFL career? I'm going with the "over" on that.
Hear, hear. Is there no middle ground? Someone commented on PFT that language can be added pursuant to eliminating the franchise tender. That seems fair. I'm not trying to be a clown but is it possible to offset the offset language? If Dion Jordan produces "x" amount in the " y" category, the offset condition becomes null and void. In any case, King's got the right motion. The guarantee is an advance based upon potential. We will agree to guarantee Jordan's contract based on a Jordan check presumably steep in ability funds. If the check bounces, we simply want our advance returned. We're not even going to bust his balls on a vigorish. Seems right to me. Now, I also believe that if he is earning that guarantee but goes down due to a freak injury or some unfortunate situation of the sort and is cut as a result of said bad luck, "Pey heem. Pey dat man hees money."
Well, in Richardon's case (comparing to a 3rd pick) did we agree on the $3.2m amount being the difference in year 4's cap charge if released that year? If yes... If he isn't picked up by another team, it's the full $3.2m. If he does sign a deal at say $1m, $2.2m is nothing to say incredibly minor, insignificant. Maybe I'm missing something in the math?
In your example, if Trent Richardson had offset language (which he doesn't) and is released by the Browns in 2015, then signs a deal for $1 million, the amount of relief that the Browns would receive from the offset language would be $1 million. Not $2.2 million. And yeah when you factor in the chances of Trent Richardson being a complete bust like that, and then you factor in what $1 million means to a team that has a $125 million salary cap...I think it's pretty minor and insignificant. Whereas from Trent Richardson's standpoint let's say he IS a bust, maybe because of injuries or whatever, and by 2015 the Browns are cutting him because they just want the 53 man roster spot for someone else, even knowing they're paying him $3.2 million regardless. Then if he is able to get hired in 2015, that amount of the "double dip" (let's call it again about a million bucks) represents upwards of 5% of his career earnings potential. So in that case it would indeed mean a lot more to him. It would mean approximately 5x more to Richardson in that scenario than it does to the Browns.
well, one of us is confused, it could be me... but I thought, going back to the Richardson example, that $3.2m is guaranteed in year 4 (the $3.2m is the base salary for year four that is guaranteed). If there's offset language, and he's one of the final cuts in August/Sep before the regular season starts, that $3.2m comes off the books if he doesn't make another team's roster. Because the Browns aren't responsible for it any more. If he does sign with someone else, the offset of whatever that contract is lowers the $3.2m cap relief amount. The $3.2m is the max relief number. EDIT... apparently I have it wrong... lolz... http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...-for-top-picks-getting-signed-offset-language
I can buy that it's not in the best interest of the team to fight the battle for what is probably a minimum salary vs. losing camp time and the bad publicity/bad feelings that could follow. But I'm not going to cry a river if a player signs a guaranteed contract but sucks so much that he can't make the team and then subsequently can't double dip and make the guaranteed money plus what whatever the next sucker team is willing to pay him.
Dawn Aponte at it again with offset language. Threatening to lose tannehill to the 2013 draft over offset language was incredibly stupid. Shes either terrible at negotiating or honestly thought offset language is more important than getting our rookie qb in camp.
We were never going to let ryan re-enter the draft over offset language and saying that was not really believable.
It was a bluff. Both sides had a lot to lose. Ryan Tannehill knew he had a unique opportunity playing for his own coaches in Miami and he wanted to be the starter immediately which made it imperative he not miss any time. And obviously Miami had no intention of letting him re-enter the 2013 NFL Draft over offset language. It came down to a staredown and when Miami offered a token morsel in the negotiations, Tannehill had his people take it.
Not sure why you are sticking with this. Same thing will happen with Dion Jordan and he will be on the footbal field.
This thread is a whole different language to me. As much as I love the game, I've never understood nor really cared about the language within contracts and salary caps. I mean, I understand the basics and all, but it stops there. As long as Jordan is in camp and working to get his share of playing time, I'm good.
Calm down, Bevo...this is what they refer to as negotiating. I doubt that it ever would have come to letting Tanny re-enter the draft. That would have been stupid. I think the setup they have in this organization, and we've heard this in the media, is sort of a good cop/bad cop with Apponte playing the bad cop role... The offset language is the last real bargaining chip teams have with rookies and a protection against the bust factor...I mean, look at Vernon Gholdston or Aaron Curry...top 5 picks that completely busted out within their rookie contracts...it can happen. I don't think it's time to worry about Jordan not being in a position for us. I will say that, as has been mentioned above, it's also in Jordan's best interest not to miss any TC since he's going to miss most of the rest of the offseason, so there is reason for Irish and co. to ensure he's in TC on time as well as there is reason for Jordan to ensure he's in camp on time...
You have to hand it to agents. Can you image trying to negotiate this clause; "This is not negotiatable, we can't have offset language in the contract. If my client sucks he needs the ability to make more money than you are currently offering now on the basis that he is going to be good." Only a lawyer (or maybe a politician) could make that sound reasonable.
Actually, you put it too elegantly. It's worse: "If my client busts, and you have to cut him, he needs to have an opportunity to double-dip. After you've cut him, he needs to get the guaranteed money for the rest of his contract from you, PLUS he needs to get whatever he gets paid for the same period of time from the other team that signs him." Say what you will about lawyers ;-), but if this was a claim for lost earnings, I can't think of a lawyer who wouldn't argue that what the claimant earns from the second employer should be set off against the claim for lost earnings. If I'm the owners, I keep pushing for this offset language until it becomes standard in player contracts. I'm not into rewards for failure.
Agreed Vmanus and Cdz...that's why the option was negotiated in the CBA...If the owners let it go, it's gone forever...
Someone should do a study of drafts from three plus years ago, first round picks, to see if/when they were released from their contract before expiring. How often does it even happen?
The same thing COULD happen. But this situation is a lot more levered toward a holdout than the Tannehill situation. For reasons I've already stated. A) Jordan was taken higher. The higher you were taken the less likely it is you have offset language in your contract. Back when Tannehill did it, at least the agent could satisfy himself that there were guys within about 3 to 5 picks of Tannehill that also had offset language. With Jordan that will be different. Ezekiel Ansah has already signed a deal at #5 that includes no offset. The #1, #2 and #4 picks will likely do the same. B) Jordan will feel less urgent about missing time because he's not a quarterback. Everyone feels urgent about getting into camp. The key is whether you feel urgent enough to wrestle control of the situation AWAY from the professionals that you're paying to handle it (your agents) and mandate they do something they don't want to do and don't think is in your best interests. About 95% of players "let the agents handle the business side of it" when it comes to this stuff. Given Tannehill's closeness to Sherman and Zac Taylor, and given his being a quarterback and the way those guys are all wired, it's not surprising Tannehill would be one of the small minority to wrest control of the situation away from the agents. I'm not sure if there's evidence or rationale that Jordan will, as well. C) The team itself won't feel as urgent about making compromises. They key thing that happened last year that resulted in the ability for Tannehill and his agents to relent while still saving face, was that Miami tossed Tannehill's side an extra bone as a compromise for the offset language. This is because Miami felt very urgent themselves about getting Tannehill in camp. They knew he might be the starter immediately as a rookie, and a quarterback can't miss time. It takes so many reps to build up chemistry, he can't miss time. That's less urgent with a pass rusher. To some extent, if you streamline the pass rusher's duties, you can just plug a pass rusher in and tell him to get the quarterback and he still could be effective. Nobody WANTS their player to miss time, they all feel urgent about getting their guys into camp, but they're not going to feel urgent enough to relent. So yes there is reason to be worried here. You have to remember that last year they botched this one up so well that Ryan Tannehill even with him relenting was still one of maybe only two or three total players out of the entire rookie class to actually miss training camp time. Tannehill missed four practices. That NEVER should have happened. History alone tells you it could easily happen again, even if you don't buy my logic for why the Jordan situation could be harder to resolve.
This is all about positioning. In reality the agent is saying, you're paying $20.4 million in guaranteed money to my client and in exchange you own his rights for up to four years, five years if you exercise the fifth year option. If you choose to relinquish my client's rights prior to the four years, if you choose to break the agreement we make in this room today, you still owe my client $20.4 million. That is the agreement we will make here today and it is the agreement that most other teams in the NFL are making with their first round rookies. It is the agreement every single other team picking in the top five have made with their rookies and it is the agreement that the overwhelming majority of teams picking in the top fifteen have made with their clients over the last two years.
