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...
 }})
