I hate agents

by krytime on Jul 28, 2008 10:34 PM EDT

Jason Peters is one of the hot topics around here as of late. I for one am on the fence. On one hand, I will readily admit that Peters is one of the few pro athletes who indeed have outplayed their contract, and at less than halfway through the contract for that matter. On the other hand, I would like to see the Bills play hardball to an extent. For me, it’s six of one, half dozen of the other.

Shouldn’t our beef be with Eugene Parker? He has a history of holding out big time players, all the way back to Deion and Emmitt (who hurt me in the first two weeks of his holdout in my first FF league). The contract he got for Fitzgerald is going to hurt the Bills bottom line when it comes to getting Lee Evans resigned.

Guys like Parker, Rosehaus, and Condon have done nothing for the game of football. I seriously ask – what contributions have they made to the game itself? All they have done, in my opinion of course, is to help drive up the cost of attending a game. Now, you have suits in suites. I promise you this – Rich Stadium was a lot louder, and had a better “game” experience back when it was an 80,000 seater than it does now with seventy something and a whole bunch of luxury boxes.

This may be Utopian, but would it be really all that hard to eliminate these guys altogether? I like the NBA rookie scale, unlike Gene Upshaw. Institute that for the first contract of an NFLer. Make the second contract along the lines of a performance based scale. Bring in arbitrators to rule on intangibles. Get rid of the 3% agent fees, and distribute that money back to the players. Three percent may not sound like much, but when you’re talking about a multi-billion dollar business, it sure is.

Maybe even some of that money can go to retired players. Again, Upshaw wouldn’t like that either. They’re not dues paying members of the NFLPA, even though they built it. Set aside money to guys who just couldn’t make it, and help them transition to the real world. Give scholarships to the kids of guys who can’t work because their knees are gone, and can’t afford anything but the local community college. Has anyone ever heard of a story where an agent helped out an old client down on his luck? I can’t recall one.

Agents have robbed us over the years. Why do we allow them to exist?

This FanPost written by a registered user of Buffalo Rumblings.

0 recs | Comment 37 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I posted this in the first Peters thread of the week – players make the decision on whether or not to hold out, and Parker backs them up. So says Bears DT Tommie Harris, anyways. Agents are slime, but as far as we can tell, the initial decision to hold out is made by the player…

by Brian Galliford on Jul 29, 2008 6:31 AM EDT 0 recs

I think this case is an exception

I agree with you, Brian, if the agent had represented Peters in the original (first extension) contract. But, in this case, the agent replaced the old one, so I think Parker gets nothing at all for representing Peters. If he wants to get paid a penny for spending time negotiating and advising Peters, at least for up to 3 years, he needs to get Peters an extension. Parker was probably hired because he persuaded Peters that he was screwed in the old deal and that Parker would get him a big extension now.

by labill on Jul 29, 2008 11:46 AM EDT up 0 recs

It's been said

If a Nuclear bomb hit the US the only thing that would survive is cockroaches and Drew Rosenhaus.

The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.

by sireric on Jul 29, 2008 6:46 AM EDT 0 recs

actually

on Mythbusters they showed that the cockroaches myth is false. Flour beatles and fruitflies both survived longer than cockroaches in a nuclear environment. Drew Rosenhaus would of course survive too

by Kurupt on Jul 29, 2008 8:30 AM EDT up 0 recs

I would say cockaroaches.

Signed,
Tony Montoya

by Buffalonian on Jul 29, 2008 3:16 PM EDT up 0 recs

I hate agents too, but ....

Some little things first:
The Fitz contract won’t hurt the Bills. His cap number was going to be like 19 mil this year if they didn’t resign him. He had so much leverage in that negotiation that Evans doesn’t have. You can basically throw that contract out the window when it comes to future negotiations. Javon Walker and maybe Devin Hester are what might hurt the Bills.

The NFL isn’t the only league with luxury boxes. Sure it makes things a little less loud, but it also makes the team a little more competitive, so its a trade off I can live with.

The NBA rookie scale has its advantages, but it might have to be changed in the future. Teams are having trouble holding on to European and South American players because they can’t compete with European teams. The NBA is locked into certain dollar amounts and Euro teams are blowing those contracts out of the water. Those rules will eventually get changed so that the pay scale only covers lottery picks. The rest of the first round will be treated like 2nd round picks.

Arbitration is part of the reason that NHL salaries got so big, so fast after the lockout. Teams are now afraid to go to arbitration because anything can happen. I think it is a terrible system. Let the teams and the players decide what is fair.

And onto your main point:

Guys like Parker, Rosehaus, and Condon have done nothing for the game of football. I seriously ask – what contributions have they made to the game itself?

Well, that isn’t their job. What has the player’s union ever done for the league? What has any union ever done for any company? The job of the agents is to get the best for his client. It isn’t thier fault that tickets are expensive or that athletes seem overpaid. Here in America we have a free market and supply and demand determines prices. Going to an NFL game is expensive, but most teams still sell out every game, so I guess the American consumer thinks the prices are fair.

I think getting rid of agents is a ridiculous idea. I’m tired of paying 8 bucks to go see a movie, so I think Brad Pitt shouldn’t have an agent either. Maybe if he made 10 mil a movie instead of 20, ticket prices would lower. I think teachers make too much money and we should disband all teachers unions. I’m tired of paying 9 or 10 bucks for a 12 pack of beer too. Maybe if we cut all the salaries and wages of the labatt company’s employees by 10%, beer prices will seem more fair to me.

Agents have robbed us over the years. Why do we allow them to exist?

Because they perform a service and people in need of that service wil hire them. Sorry if they don’t do anything for you specifically.

by kaisertown on Jul 29, 2008 9:56 AM EDT 0 recs

Re: hate agents too, but ....

The Fitz contract will definitely hurt the Bills. It started the chain reaction that led to the Walker and Berrian contracts.

The luxury boxes I despise, but I can live with also. I’ve never been to a major college football game, but I’ve heard the experiences are priceless. Are there luxury boxes in major college ball? I really have no idea.

The only reason the NBA rookie scale has to be changed is because there is an alternative for guys to play bro ball. There is no option aside from the NFL. You want to play in that league, then you play by the rules that league sets up.

I completely agree with you about the NHL and their way of arbitrating. I love hockey, and that league is killing itself.

Getting rid of pro sports agents is not a ridiculous idea. They’ve done more harm to the game then they have done to help the game. They are hucksters, bamboozelers, and snake oil salesmen, all wrapped up in one. You know that and I know that. And you can’t compare movie prices and Brad Pitt to the NFL. Your very own government practically subsidizes your team. That is not the case with the big screen.

A system could be put in place to eliminate these guys. It would take concessions on both sides of course, but it could work. I mentioned the money (3%) going back to the players. I guess I failed to mention that the owners could get a piece of that pie as well. That could be an incentive to both sides to rid themselves of the alleged need for agents.

by krytime on Jul 29, 2008 6:40 PM EDT up 0 recs

The Fitz contract is irrelevant to the Bills. Walker and Berrian actually signed before FItz. His deal was signed on March 11th, while Berrian signed on the 1st and Walker on the 4th. There was so much wacky stuff going on in that negotiation that it can’t be used against other teams. His rookie contract was put together so poorly, that the Cards had no choice but to guarantee most of his contract. 10 mil a year for one of the best WRs in the league actually isn’t all that bad. The crazy part is that 30 mil of it was guaranteed. But that won’t matter because the Cards owed him like 18 mil this season. The deal saved AZ nine mil in cap space this season. Fitzgerald did Arizona a favor by signing that contract.

I don’t know about college luxury boxes. Football is a great source of income for the big-time schools, but they pay their players in food, equipment, education and trianing facilities and not with millions.

Great point about the NBA rookie pay scale.

Yeah, the NHL is a mess.

The job of agents isn’t to help the game of football. They are hired and payed by the players and it is their job to help the players. The league doesn’t have the right to tell players they can’t hire someone to advise them and negotiate their contracts. Getting rid of agents is as ridiculous as telling players they can’t hire personal trainers. Players can hire whoever they please to help them in any way they want.

by kaisertown on Jul 30, 2008 12:54 PM EDT up 0 recs

Simple guaranteed contracts = no agents

Why would a player kick 3% of the contract value over to an agent if he can read and digest the contract himself? I suspect that the league could mandate a simple and guaranteed contract structure for all teams to utilize. The league could use the salary cap to eliminate the shell games that are currently used (UTBE incentives), possibly with the help of the players’ union.

My understanding is that the UTBE incentives are counted against the cap but if they aren’t paid that amount is added to the following year’s cap. So, while teams are required to pay a certain amount of real dollars every year (not cap dollars or Monopoly money) some teams could use UTBE incentives to drop below the salary cap floor.

Really, though, guaranteed contracts might help stave off things like the Peters holdout. One of the more popular refrains from those supporting Peters’ holdout is that teams are constantly failing to hold up their end of contracts. Right now that is absolutely true. For example, let’s say OBD decides to make my day by cutting Fowler (and signing a good center) tomorrow morning. Fowler has a contract in which he agrees to play for the Bills in 2008 and the Bills agree to pay him hundreds of thousands of dollars—if not more. If the Bills cut Fowler before the start of the season they just screw him out of that money. If Fowler’s contract was guaranteed he’d know that he was getting that money even if the team decided to cut him. Teams wouldn’t be able to whimsically screw players.

With that in place Peters (and others) would have substantially weaker cases. Yes, Peters could accurately point out that he’s underpaid….but he chose to sign the contract and contracts would have to be honored. The league could add a clause (union wouldn’t like it) enabling teams to pigeonhole hold outs without occupying roster spots. The team would be without the player’s services but the player would be giving up huge chunks of money and not putting the team in a bind in terms of the roster.

by Ron From NM on Jul 30, 2008 4:10 PM EDT up 0 recs

Why would a player kick 3% of the contract value over to an agent if he can read and digest the contract himself?

Because agents are experienced negotiaters. They spend time studying the ins and outs of free agency and understand how much their clients can make. I would bet that agents get their players at least 5-10% more money in negotiations than the players could get themselves. Negotiations are time consuming, frustrating and can probably get personal. I doubt players would rather keep that 3% then go through the hassle of negotiating their own contracts.

I suspect that the league could mandate a simple and guaranteed contract structure for all teams to utilize.

How? How could the league possibly tell owners to keep contracts simple? What would we define as simple? Where do you draw the line? MLB and the NHL both use guaranteed contracts and I bet they are just as complex as NFL contracts. Baseball and Hockey players have agents too.

by kaisertown on Jul 30, 2008 8:04 PM EDT up 0 recs

How do you do that red box thing?

by Joe P. on Jul 30, 2008 10:08 PM EDT up 0 recs

you hit the blockqoute button (the open paranthesis)

then you type or copy-paste and put in the text that you want

you hit the blockquote button again, but you have to put a backslash ( / ) between the < and the b.

did that make sense?

by kaisertown on Jul 30, 2008 11:22 PM EDT up 0 recs

Let's find out

did that make sense?

I think so. Thanks

by Joe P. on Jul 30, 2008 11:26 PM EDT up 0 recs

Yeah, the red box thing is cool

As it stands now, yes, plenty of players can’t understand all of the nuances of a contract. Much of that is due to the fact that the teams do everything possible to keep their screw-you options open. Without guaranteed contracts the players need someone to advise them.

The NFL can tie contract structure to the salary cap. Right now the cap rules encourage complicated contracts—particularly when it comes to teams who massage the cap. The league could mandate that contracts will be counted against the cap on a per-year average. For example, a 5 year $25,000,000 contract will be counted as $5,000,000 per year against the cap….not $2,000,000 this year, $5,000,000 and then next to nothing when the player is cut before the 3rd year of the contract.

by Ron From NM on Jul 30, 2008 10:24 PM EDT up 0 recs

I'll accept your points on Fitz, but...

Why do you staunchly defend the need for agents when you yourself acknowledge that you “hate them too?”

There is a way to rid the game from them. It would take a lot of work, and some thinking outside of the box (I hate that expression). But it could be done. And I really do believe that cutting out the middle man in this equation would make pro football better.

These guys should be given a choice – here’s a contract; play football in the NFL or don’t. It’s your call. And again, since most of these teams receive some sort of public financial assistance, we should all be outraged by allowing certain catalysts into the equations that drive up the price of attending a game.

by krytime on Jul 31, 2008 1:37 AM EDT up 0 recs

Some of us believe agents actually make the NFL better and run smoother. I believe agents have brought a lot of innovative thougth to the game and contract dealings that they have improved player and team security.

by Berg79 on Jul 31, 2008 10:46 AM EDT up 0 recs

To Berg79

Hey man – please feel free to expand on your prior comments. I’m interested to hear an example of how they have brought some innovative thought to the game. I can’t think of one myself; maybe I’m just not seeing it your way.

As far as improved player and team security, I’m confused on that as well. As far as I know, isn’t it the job of the union to provide player security through the CBA? And team security, I totally disagree. But I’d be interested to hear your thoughts nonetheless…

by krytime on Jul 31, 2008 5:55 PM EDT up 0 recs

The Fitz thing was totally irrelevant to what we are talking about anyway.

Why do you staunchly defend the need for agents when you yourself acknowledge that you "hate them too?"

I don’t think I have done that at all. Nowhere have I said that football needs agents or that the game is better with them or anything similiar to that line of thought.

There is a way to rid the game from them.

This is where I really disagree with you. The players have a right to hire an agent.

I think there are 4 major things an agent does:
1) negotiate contracts
2) seek out endorsement oppurtunities
3) provide general career and financial advice
4) gives his client “peace of mind” by allowing them to focus on non-business things

I will go as far as saying that it is un-American to not allow players to hire someone who provides those services. What is the difference between not allowing players to hire an agent and telling players they can’t hire a personal trainer, or a diet/nutritional expert or a lawn mowing service or anybody who provides any legal service. you can’t do it, it doesn’t make any sense. It is completely ridiculous.

by kaisertown on Jul 31, 2008 6:46 PM EDT up 0 recs

Wow kaisertown - you and I are really butting heads on this one!

I was a little strong with the “staunchly” defend them comment. My bad…

Now to address some of your comments again:

1) negotiate contracts – In my Utopian world, a system “could” be set up where there wasn’t a need for an agent to negotiate contracts. By my thinking, this would free up revenues to be dispersed elsewhere.

2) seek out endorsement oppurtunities – I’ll give you this. And it wouldn’t bother me, as that would be additional income that would not interfere with the salary cap or any team/league structure for that matter.

3) provide general career and financial advice – I think this is irrelevant. A financial advisor can provide financial advice, again not interferring with the salary structure of the team/league. And general career advice could (and should) be given out by a well intentioned union, and not by someone who is possibly only concerned with their commision share.

4) gives his client "peace of mind" by allowing them to focus on non-business things – If a salary structure were in place, this would be unneccessary as well. A slotted player would receive a certain amount of money, and that’s that. If you don’t like it, play in another football league.

Hiring a personal trainer is a diifferent story. That’s apples and oranges. I would suggest a personal trainer (although a team provided trainer I think is better). In any case, a personal trainer would allow the player to possibly become “better.” And a better season by a player would result in moving up in the salary bracket in my world, w/o the need for an agent to negotiate that raise.

Agents aren’t “needed” my friend. They’ve finangled their way into our world, and like a wart, won’t go away.

by krytime on Jul 31, 2008 7:21 PM EDT up 0 recs

anytime you use the word “need” you are entirely missing my point. Players have the right to hire anyone they want to perform any service they want. If you think the NFL should set up a rookie slotting system that is a different discussion. So is guaranteed contracts. By saying players can’t hire agents you are taking away a right that nobody has the ability to do.

The trainer analogy may seem like apples to orages, but it really isn’t. They are both people who provide an independant service. The NFL doesn’t have the authority to tell their players that they can’t hire someone.

Here is another analogy. If you worked at a car insurance company, what would you think if your boss told you that you aren’t allowed to hire a personal injury attorney? It is the exact same concept. Attorneys have done nothing but hurt the auto insurance business and the business would definitely be better off without them. So my insurance company is going to have a simple policy, nobody can hire a lawyer. If you don’t like it that is too bad, you can work somewhere else.

by kaisertown on Jul 31, 2008 7:48 PM EDT up 0 recs

And maybe you're missing my point here...

I definitely wouldn’t tell a player he can’t hire an agent. Only in my “make believe” system, there would be no need for an agent, as every player, not just rookies, would have a slotted salary value, based on performance, position, draft, etc.

In my system, there might not be any holdouts like what is hapening now with Harvey, Peters, and even Quinn from last year. The money the agents ~~steal~~ earn could be redistributed to players, owners, or even (gasp) fans.

I’m not trying to take away a person’s rights to hire anyone they want to perform any service they want. That would be un-American. But I am proposing that there is an alternative to remove the middle man from this equation, which in my opinion, might be best move for pro football.

I’m sorry I don’t agree with the analogy above. Chances are, the buildings the car insurance companies operate in probably weren’t subsidized partially or completely with government funds, or at least nowhere near the extent that NFL teams recieve.

by krytime on Jul 31, 2008 8:09 PM EDT up 0 recs

Krytime

As I stated in some of my posts I believe that agents work out contracts and negotiate contracts that are in the best interest of the individual player. The problem with slotted contracts is that not all players have the same desires and whether we admit it or not the NFL is a football monopoly in the UNited States and therefore needs strict monitoring and fair negotiation practices. What other league can a player who is elite choose. If you dont like what coca cola offers because it is a take it or leave it offer and your are a talent who is desired you can negotiate with Pespi. NFL caliber players where are they going the Canadian FOootball league? Common, that is not comparing apples to apples. It is my opinion that agents give players security from the teams and NFL from pushing them around.

Agents provide players advice. Some players like Pacman and Henry dont listen to them, however I am sure many players listen to their agents suggestions when it comes to staying out of trouble and how to deal with the spot light and big city atmosphere.

Society progress’s so I am not oppose to change but I am not in favor of a simplistic salaray approach. Look at the internet for ex. To try to put contracts back to the way they were when player X makes 10 million over 5 years and therefore makes 2 million a season is like saying we should go back to dial up because it worked then. I truly believe agents help secure marginal players and injured players with creative contract structures that allows teams to take a chance on someone they might otherwise have let go. It was certainly the agents that thought about incentives and incorporating opt out clauses or roster bonus’s and things like that. I like as a fan reading about these quirky deals and trying to figure who will opt out of a contract and be available for free agency next year or whatever the issue is. It makes it fun for me as a fan.

I think the play for another league argument is a scary thought process. It is the old theory of my way or the highway. Many business do abide by this, however I personally dont believe that is the best way to run sports business with little to no comparable competititon. Where is the USFL, where is the XFL…no around anymore. I believe with the fan base and money involved there should be a degree of negotiation and comprimise.

Also, most times when coming out of college you are talking about young men who do not understand the nuiances of the NFL, nor how scrutinized there actions will be. Yes, they can hire a financial planner, an accountant, go to seminars with the union, but these guys feel comfortable going to one person who coordinates everything in there life for them and provides adivce you can trust…compare an agent to a wedding planner in that regard. If you are the one that believes he had convince a bride to be that a wedding planner is not necessary then you are a phenominal negotiator. Wedding planners like agents serve a purpose, however annoying that purpose is. When a player gets in trouble or is in a difficult situation at 3 am do you think they are calling the union? No the agent is answering his phone and providing the best advice on how the player should proceed. I am certain many players have made better decision late night by making a quick call to their agent.

Agents can a bad public rap and the problem with our media is they dont like to report the good as much as the bad because our society likes to hear about the bad. Therefore, when agents do good things for the game we dont hear about them unless you go out of your way to look for it.

by Berg79 on Aug 1, 2008 10:38 AM EDT up 0 recs

Agents

They are a necessary evil. It would be very easy for teams to manipulate provisions into contracts that would take advantage of players if they didn’t have agents. Agents provide a service by protecting players and generally negotatiating the best deals based on a players particular desires. Agents provide balance to the system.

Further, agents understand the legality of the contract provision and negotiation process and further usually go above and beyond the call of duty by assisting these players when they get in trouble not to mention the small price for peace of mind that the player doesnt have to spend the time working on contract language and guaranteed money wording.

Why do we allow agents to exist? We dont…players do. If a player doesn’t want an agent they can negotiate like donte culpeppar (spelling?).

Also, my gut says the players who have Rosenhaus (and otherse) as an agent like and respect Rosenhaus otherwise he wouldn’t constantly have new big talent clients.

by Berg79 on Jul 29, 2008 10:45 AM EDT 0 recs

Re: Agents

“It would be very easy for teams to manipulate provisions into contracts that would take advantage of players if they didn’t have agents”

The union couldn’t protect the players from this? Isn’t that one of the jobs of a union?

by krytime on Jul 29, 2008 6:42 PM EDT up 0 recs

Hard to see the 'necessary' part...

The league could largely make agents irrelevant if it would both simplify contracts and guarantee them. ‘Player X will receive y amount of dollars for z years of service.’ No, it wouldn’t be quite that simple of a contract but, with guaranteed contracts, a lot of the complicating nuances could be eliminated. While some players are clearly idiots, many-if not most-are reasonably bright guys who can digest a relatively legalese free contract.

by Ron From NM on Jul 29, 2008 12:10 PM EDT 0 recs

Power

Without agent a balance of power would shift from an even discussion to league and team control.

The beauty of the NFL and negotiations is that there is a fairly even power struggle btw player and teams. Sometimes the teams have control such as the Peters or Chad Johnson situation other times the player has control such as when they are free agents or when they have one year remaining and mean a lot to the team or the team owes them a lot ex fitz/hester/urlacher/S. Jax. Giving the League and Teams the power shifts this balance.

Also, if you decided to have simplified contracts it would make incentive clauses difficult to negoation and I personally believe that incentive clauses are good for both sides and not unfair to the game. Things such as roster bonus’s, % of downs played etc can benefit both parties yet are tough to negotiate and work out fair details.

The NFL’s contract complexity has been a progression due to the benefits it provides to players and teams. It creates opportunities where there might not be for certain players. For ex a player coming off an injury might have a hard time getting a job if he cant sign with a team for the minimum but receive a large roster bonus if he makes the team which would mean the team accepts he has recovered. Other provisions such as security if a player is injured or cut are incorporated into the original contracts. So much detail in each of these deals and I just wouldn’t want to put that solely in the leagues hands.

by Berg79 on Jul 29, 2008 1:14 PM EDT 0 recs

Right...no incentive clauses

...y amount of guaranteed dollars for z years—no incentives or bonuses….

Contracts have become complicated precisely because the team and the player each try to screw the other. Throw in the salary cap gesticulations and, yes, you need someone whose full time job is the study of contract minutia. Players don’t want to give up on a lot of the incentives (some of which everyone involved knows will never be earned—-doesn’t Schobel have a special teams incentive even though he doesn’t play on special teams?) and teams don’t want to guarantee all contracts.

by Ron From NM on Jul 29, 2008 5:46 PM EDT up 0 recs

Re: Power

“Without agent a balance of power would shift from an even discussion to league and team control.”

Isn’t that how maybe it should be? This is considering the fact that very few teams do business without getting corporate welfare.

by krytime on Jul 29, 2008 6:45 PM EDT up 0 recs

Basketball

I read about a comparison to Basketball. Basketball can not be compared to Football because a team has 12 or so players so there are a lot less players/contracts and rookie contracts than football and thus the league does not need the same amount of resources. We are comparing maybe 15 players trying to make a 12 man roster as oppose to 80 something trying to make a 53.

Union: First, the NFL players union does not have the man power or resources to protect every player when it comes to contracts. If they had to go out and hire people to protect the players take a wild guess who they would hire…agents.

Incentive clauses were created because they actually can help both sides. The purpose of the contract is to satisfy each party. If a team is hesitant on a players health yet the player knows he is healthy and ready to go then incentive clauses work fantastically for both parties.

Ron: I agree some incentive clauses are odd and probably meaningless but generally they have some reason. Maybe Schobel told his agent he wants extra if the team ever decided to use him on Special teams b/c he didn’t want to play special teams. The Bills never intend to use Schobel on special teams so an incentive clause is easy to implement to satisfy both in case the coaches believe Schobel needs to be on the field w. the STs. I am not saying this is the case but I have a feeling there is a reason behind it.

Players have different desires when it comes to a contract, some want more money up front some want larger contracts over time, some want to be in warm weather or a certain city, some want to play for a prestigious organization, some want a chance to start and the agent directly suits the needs of the individual. The league would not be able to do that and neither would the players union.

Kry: Do I think agent manipulate and can create problems…sure, of course they do. But they actively engage in trying to get the best deal for their client. As a fan is it frustrating…yes it is, but the players who put themselves out for serious injury deserves the protection from an expert. The players union just doesn’t have the resources to protect each NFL athlete without hiring a ton of agents/lawyers (The NFL union is not set up currently to read each player contract) and the NFL has there own best interests which would inevitably create a conflict of interest.

by Berg79 on Jul 30, 2008 9:49 AM EDT 0 recs

Unlikely To Be Earned incentives

They seem to do two things. For the player they make the contract number seem bigger than it is. Schobel won’t ever get that money but his deal seems bigger than someone else’s which makes him happy. The team may be able to finagle salary cap numbers with Likely To Be Earned vs Unlikely To Be Earned incentives. It’s a shell game, and not a good one.

by Ron From NM on Jul 30, 2008 10:21 AM EDT up 0 recs

I wondered about that.

In years past the Redskins never had a problem signing all the free agents Dan Snyder wanted (this year they seemed unusually quiet). Same with Jerry Jones in Dallas. If they wanted a player, they just seemed to go get him, no problem. Whereas Ralph is frequently using the small-market poverty card. There have to be multiple ways to circumvent the salary cap if you really like a guy.

by Defensewinsgames on Jul 30, 2008 10:44 AM EDT up 0 recs

Rivers and Harvey are being screwed by their agents

PFT has a story up about Rivers’ agent (Dunn) not wanting to let him sign a deal until Harvey does. It doesn’t take much of a leap to deduce that Harvey’s agent (Condon—who famously screwed Quinn out of an opportunity to start last year) is waiting for Rivers to sign. Each of the agents is worried about looking better than the other to better position himself to represent top talent in the 2009 draft.

Meanwhile Rivers and Harvey are missing out on their respective training camps. When they do eventually report they’ll be well behind the curve. Like Quinn last season, they’re pretty much doomed to riding the pine while they get up to speed. That’s bad for the players and bad for the teams that drafted them.

Dunn and Condon (in this case) are the only winners….and really only one of them will ‘win’. Two players, two teams and one agent will be losers so one agent can glom onto the next big draftee…and maybe screw him, too. It’s just awful.

by Ron From NM on Jul 31, 2008 7:19 PM EDT 0 recs

I just read that too...

Let me ask rhetorically here – how are these agents helping their clients, or football for that matter? If you ask me, Rivers and Harvery (and Quinn) would’ve been better off if there was a slotting system, and they got a contract based on where they were drafted. They’d be in camp, and have a much better chance at having a productive rookie year, getting them closer to having a better 2nd contract.

Agents – yuch.

by krytime on Jul 31, 2008 7:25 PM EDT up 0 recs

The pendulum has swung the other way

from the 1960’s, when players were expected to show up to camp, sign their one year contract for only about twice the salary the average person made, and that was that. If players tried to ask for a raise, they usually got browbeat back into submission. Hence the motivation to hire a player agent, which was important for the marquee players who wanted to make sure they weren’t underpaid. Vince Lombardi would actually trade players to another team instead of dealing with an agent. Just take a look at some of the players from 30 years ago to see badly they were underpaid.

Now the agents have not only made up for lost ground, their clients make more in one year than most of us make in a career. I don’t like it either, but I also believe it would be most definitely un-American to ban agents from doing business. The economy may eventually bring balance back to this situation, but I think I’d prefer to live with the way things are now…

Get the Bills back to the big game!

by Blitz on Aug 1, 2008 1:54 PM EDT 0 recs

It's not the money, it's the system

I’m just fine with players getting 70% of the revenue the NFL brings in every year. The NFL and players union can hammer out whatever percentage they think is fair—though I think it should only involve revenue shared by the teams and not things like naming rights as that tends to hurt small market teams.

Right now the system has real problems. Players aren’t guaranteed that they will get the amount of money they are promised in the contracts. Teams aren’t guaranteed that the players will actually show up for work once they’ve gotten a contract. Agents have a financial interest in throwing wrenches into the works (as with the Rivers and Harvey situation, and also a newly hired agent won’t get a dime without getting a new contract for a player) instead of doing what is right for the player or the sport.

By all means give the players piles of cash. Just do it in a way that doesn’t cause guys to miss training camp or games. Ideally, do it in a way that rewards people who have demonstrated they are legit NFL players and not soon-to-be high draft pick flame outs.

by Ron From NM on Aug 1, 2008 3:04 PM EDT up 0 recs