• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

The Butler Needs to Get Paid

Washington Taylor beat Panthers

Beans

The 1st Round Pick
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Suboptimal



Alfred Morris' contract is 4 years/2.2 Million...grossly underpaid. This is why the CBA is a crock of ****. Late rounders get screwed over, especially if they outplay their contract. He's stuck. Let's just hope he lasts longer than the average player's career (3 years). It doesn't help his cause that Shanahan will run him into the ground as long as he is money.

When it's all said and done, losers like Reggie Bush will have made more money just from their rookie signing bonus than a legit back like Butler will make in his career. This is why the ProBowl snub hurt him. That money counts for a sixth rounder.

The Skins should pay the man after he rushes for 2000 this year. He is the co-captain of the Pain Train. The cap penalty will be gone, and it will help foster a culture of taking care of your own homegrown talent as opposed to coveting others (free agents). What says you Skins' nation?
 

Beans

The 1st Round Pick
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Suboptimal


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...morris-does-not-count-against-the-salary-cap/

Read why he doesn't count against the cap. Most underpaid dude in football.

"But RGIII’s fellow rookie star, who rushed for 1,610 yards last season plus 80 more in the playoffs, is merely the 54th-highest paid Redskin. Running back Alfred Morris, who makes less (the minimum $480,000 plus a $30,775 bonus) than linebackers Roderick Muckelroy and Vic So’oto (555,000 each), technically doesn’t count against the salary cap right now."

Vic So'oto? Less than Vic So'oto? What a crock...that new CBA ****ed the rookies...
 

DieselPwr44

The Owner's Favorite
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
6,040
Reaction score
383
Points
163
Location
Sparta,NC


The rookie cap was a great thing to come out of the CBA. There's no way a wet behind the ears rookie should make more than a 5+ year vet starting out.

Alfred will get his but as in the real world, you got to pay your dues first.

Your very first job, did you start out making top dollar?
 

HOF44

The Starter
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
1,002
Reaction score
0
Points
0


The new CBA has a provision that is really bad for lower round players who outperform their contract. No renegotiations before you complete the third year of your rookie contract. Even if a team would be inclined to pay it is forbidden.
 

Beans

The 1st Round Pick
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Suboptimal


The rookie cap was a great thing to come out of the CBA. There's no way a wet behind the ears rookie should make more than a 5+ year vet starting out.

Alfred will get his but as in the real world, you got to pay your dues first.

Your very first job, did you start out making top dollar?
Dues? What kind of artificial crap is that. When are said dues paid? He's legit.
So, a backup free agent should get more than the 2nd best back in football last year? He should get paid what he's worth. The CBA enriched the owners and veterans at the expense of the rookies. DeSmith fails again.

We are talking about the Redskins' all time leading rusher...and if he only plays out his rookie contract due to some injury, he won't even be able to afford to live in downtown Alexandria, VA, or on my original stomping grounds, Kent Island.
 
Last edited:

fansince62

Guest
Dues? What kind of artificial crap is that. When are said dues paid? He's legit.
So, a backup free agent should get more than the 2nd best back in football last year? He should get paid what he's worth. The CBA enriched the owners and veterans at the expense of the rookies. DeSmith fails again.

We are talking about the Redskins' all time leading rusher...and if he only plays out his rookie contract due to some injury, he won't even be able to afford to live in downtown Alexandria, VA, or on my original stomping grounds, Kent Island.
soooo...if he underperforms this season his salary should be reduced?
 

Beans

The 1st Round Pick
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Suboptimal


soooo...if he underperforms this season his salary should be reduced?
He won't. He is in the Redskins' record books already. Watch some of his highlights. He is the best tackle breaking back in the league. Furthermore, he was grossly underpaid last year. The Dan owes him.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323874204578217832886427270.html

"Morris has used his unrefined running motion to break more tackles than any other player in the NFL this season, 22. That's seven more than the next-highest tackle-breaker."
 

fansince62

Guest
he'll get a nice extension whenever the CBA first allows that. just getting a feel for the principle in play here.
 

DieselPwr44

The Owner's Favorite
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
6,040
Reaction score
383
Points
163
Location
Sparta,NC


C'mon guys! You know dang well why this came about.

How many times over the years have we seen teams drafting high, draft a guy, he turns into a complete bust or worse, suffers a career ending injury, and the team is stuck with a contract that kills their cap for years??

Someone having to wait three years before they can renegotiate a deal? Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Plus it put an end to the vaunted, Rookie Holdout.

Remember Heath Shuler? He fits the above mentioned examples.....
 

DieselPwr44

The Owner's Favorite
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
6,040
Reaction score
383
Points
163
Location
Sparta,NC


Dues? What kind of artificial crap is that. When are said dues paid? He's legit
Ickey Woods had a great season once upon a time. He went on to become....

Just a guy selling programs outside the stadium on gameday.......

I'd bet a dollar to a donut that Alfred has another big season this year, Shanny and Bruce will make sure he's taken care of.

Take a deep breath and count to ten my friend. :)
 

Goaldeje

The Legend
Staff member
BGO Ownership Group
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
18,417
Reaction score
63
Points
328
Location
Waynesboro, VA

James Madison

The pendulum has swung from too much in the players favor to too much in the owners' favor. It will swing back, but players today are getting hosed.
 

Lanky Livingston

Guest
I agree that Morris should have the opportunity to re-work his deal. Its fairly obvious to anyone paying attention that he outperformed his rookie deal. Maybe there should have been some sort of threshold for players that once they cross it, they are considered to be out-performing their rookie contract and can renegotiate? Alfred would surely qualify after becoming the franchise's leading rusher.

Beans is right, this was another DeMaurice Smith fail.
 

tshile

Guest
soooo...if he underperforms this season his salary should be reduced?
Yup - zero desire to consider giving him more money.

Athletes will sit out and not hold up to their end of a contract that they signed because they feel they 'out performed' it. However, when it becomes clear they 'under performed' they don't agree to reduce it. Those agreements only come when the team has the added leverage of saying "Hey... you're under performing so bad we'll just cut you, so you should take this restructure because you'll make more money" - in other words, the team only has any leverage in extreme circumstances.

Two way street.

Sucks morris is out performing his contract, but he's being paid based on what he did in college and where that got him drafted. If he wanted more he should have done better in college and be drafted higher.
 

tshile

Guest
The pendulum has swung from too much in the players favor to too much in the owners' favor. It will swing back, but players today are getting hosed.
well of course! the players are incredibly short sighted, as everyone expected. they couldn't afford to hold out, and they clearly could give a rat's you know what about other people.

all the owners wanted out of the last CBA was to curb the rise in salaries. so they asked the players to agree to do that, and in return they would give the players a little more money in certain areas.

the players were negotiating on behalf of people that weren't (at the time) in the union. the penalty was the rookie wage - something those players would never, ever be subject to again.

the owners laughed all the way to the bank. the average career of a player is 4 years. they got in place a rule that dictated that rookies have to sign low, 4 year deals. so for the average player the owners just got extremely cheap 'labor,' if you will. you know how much money the owners are going to save because of that? you know much money the players are going to collectively lose out on?

the players union is run by idiots.
 

tshile

Guest
but the players union got their 'bigger share of the pie'

most of them wont be around to get it because their career will end by the time their rookie contract is up, for any number of reasons.

idiots. they were tricked like a 5 year old is tricked by his grandpa that quarters really come out of his ear.
 

Lanky Livingston

Guest
soooo...if he underperforms this season his salary should be reduced?
There is already protection against this for NFL teams by virtue of non-guaranteed contracts; If he under performs, he'll likely be cut and his contract will be reduced by 100% of the remaining value. As a 6th-round pick, its highly unlikely he'll under-perform his draft position (bench, ST player) if he takes more than a couple snaps at RB this year.

Yup - zero desire to consider giving him more money.

Athletes will sit out and not hold up to their end of a contract that they signed because they feel they 'out performed' it. However, when it becomes clear they 'under performed' they don't agree to reduce it.

Two way street.

Sucks morris is out performing his contract, but he's being paid based on what he did in college and where that got him drafted. If he wanted more he should have done better in college and be drafted higher.
Its very hard to get drafted (or even make an NFL roster as a UDFA); there are roughly 300~350 opportunities for all the football players eligible in a given year. I have no idea what the total number of players eligible in a given year is, but I'm betting its much, much larger than 350. If you look at the number of high school players that played at the same time as Morris, the number goes up exponentially, and he's likely in the top 0.1% of all eligible players in his age bracket. Yet he should have done better?

Also, the idea of reducing one's salary if they under perform is a foreign notion to almost every industry out there except commission-based jobs. Are you suggesting NFL players should be hired on commission, and paid strictly for performance? What would you say if your boss came into your office later this afternoon and said "Hey T, you've been slacking a bit for the past 6 months, so we're going to go ahead and knock $10K off your annual salary for next year." I'd imagine you'd be beyond pissed and looking for a new job. Except that in the job world, just like in the NFL, if you under perform, you're just canned.
 

tshile

Guest
Are you suggesting NFL players should be hired on commission, and paid strictly for performance?
Nope, I'm not.

You, and everyone else suggesting Morris' contract should be restructured, are.

I'm just saying that if you're going to do that, then it should work both ways.

Contracts are signed for a reason. If you don't like that model then by all means, lets switch to a performance-based model.

But lets stop pretending that the players' interests are the only ones that should be considered.

Also, the idea of reducing one's salary if they under perform is a foreign notion to almost every industry out there except commission-based jobs.
Right, and so are contracts with large, guaranteed amounts of money attached to them with significant penalties to the companies ability to replace you if they fire you (salary cap and dead money.)
Private companies can easily raise someone's salary if their out performing their job, and then fire them when they start under performing, and bring in someone else. They have their own penalties in the forms of unemployment tax, and if the job was of a certain degree of 'eliteness' they may have to pay out severance and that sort of thing. But they aren't restricted, by some arbitrary rule, to the amount they can spend and have dead money count against it when they let someone go.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lanky Livingston

Guest
Nope, I'm not.

You, and everyone else suggesting Morris' contract should be restructured, are.
I think you are misunderstanding our standpoint - we are saying he should get a raise. Let's say I was in business, for example, and got hired on by a firm as an entry-level employee. If in my first year at that company I manage to bring the company 50-90% more money than anyone else hired at the same time, I would expect to get a raise (either by my original company or by a competitor) or a huge bonus. This is how the real world works; you generally get paid for performance.

I'm just saying that if you're going to do that, then it should work both ways.
It already does - if a 6th-round draft pick doesn't make the team, or gets injured or whatever, they are usually cut and get nothing.

But lets stop pretending that the players' interests are the only ones that should be considered.
Not sure what you're getting at here.

Right, and so are contracts with large, guaranteed amounts of money attached to them with significant penalties to the companies ability to replace you if they fire you (salary cap and dead money.)
Yes, but the CBA did away with that for the most part in rookie deals. They still get a large chunk of guaranteed money based on draft position, but its much more reasonable based on the rest of the NFL. Also, signing bonuses exist in the engineering world, not sure if they're around in other fields; they are a bit more rare these days, but they do exist. They can be fairly significant for sought-after employees. It used to be pretty common get a signing bonus that covered the down-payment on one's house when relocating.

Private companies can easily raise someone's salary if their out performing their job, and then fire them when they start under performing, and bring in someone else. They have their own penalties in the forms of unemployment tax, and if the job was of a certain degree of 'eliteness' they may have to pay out severance and that sort of thing. But they aren't restricted, by some arbitrary rule, to the amount they can spend and have dead money count against it when they let someone go.
Yes, but most NFL teams don't spend to their limit, and would prefer to spend below the salary floor if they could.
 

tshile

Guest
I think you are misunderstanding our standpoint - we are saying he should get a raise. Let's say I was in business, for example, and got hired on by a firm as an entry-level employee. If in my first year at that company I manage to bring the company 50-90% more money than anyone else hired at the same time, I would expect to get a raise (either by my original company or by a competitor) or a huge bonus. This is how the real world works; you generally get paid for performance.
No, I completely understand your position. Maybe you're misunderstanding mine?

Your analogy is great, except the NFL teams don't have any leverage if you get that new raise, then stop bringing in that money; or even worse, start costing money. In your analogy the company would let you go, and bring in someone else. The NFL isn't as flexible in that regard. That's my whole point - you want that, fine, but make it a little more flexible for the other side when things don't turn out so well with you.

You're only looking at one side of the picture - players out performing their contract.

I'm just asking you to look at the other side - players underperforming their contract.

It already does - if a 6th-round draft pick doesn't make the team, or gets injured or whatever, they are usually cut and get nothing.
What does that have to do with out performing contracts vs underperforming contracts?


Not sure what you're getting at here.
That it's really easy and fun to side with a player in Morris' position because it's a really simple, and easy case to make for a good guy. It just conveniently ignores/leaves out the majority of other cases where a guy is locked up in a long term deal and is underperforming.

Albert Haynesworth anyone?

It's give and take. They are contracts for a reason. Players want long term contracts with guaranteed money to hedge against injury and unexpected decline in performance and ability. Owners want to make those contracts with players good enough to live up to those expectations, while hoping they exceed them; players are investments for owners, this is very basic logic, investment 101.

You want one side of the contract situation to be able to demand the rules be changed, while the other side gets no additional leverage. I don't. I think a pay for performance model would be silly, but I'm not the one suggesting it, you guys are. So if that's the model you want, fine, but at least attempt to be fair about it.

Yes, but the CBA did away with that for the most part in rookie deals. They still get a large chunk of guaranteed money based on draft position, but its much more reasonable based on the rest of the NFL. Also, signing bonuses exist in the engineering world, not sure if they're around in other fields; they are a bit more rare these days, but they do exist. They can be fairly significant for sought-after employees. It used to be pretty common get a signing bonus that covered the down-payment on one's house when relocating.
Let me know when engineers are getting 40 million dollar signing bonuses then not showing up to work and the employer has no repercussions.

Yes, I know that was an extreme case, but I don't know how else to explain it at this point. Even your corner case that favors your side of the argument pales in comparison to the average case in the NFL. :)

Yes, but most NFL teams don't spend to their limit, and would prefer to spend below the salary floor if they could.
Except for the guy in question. His team spends to their limit each and every year... :)
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Private conversations
Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friend 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you Sandy ❤
    Top