Bakhtiari to Jets?

[Poppa San]

“Why should they pay an Employee 100% to not work? What’s the incentive to get back working”

Because that’s what the CONTRACT calls for. The employer wanted this employee SO bad that they not only offered more money than anyone else - they GUARANTEED a lot of it. So then yhe employee undertaks this hazardous job, gets hurt working for the employer, and now he’s supposed to give money back? That’s nuts. And they don’ pay 100% unless they WANT to. They could have/can release Bahk at any time and save contract money. They can release him tomorrow if they want.

How much do they save if they release him tomorrow and no one picks him up as opposed to releasing him 1 week after the super bowl?

 

[Half Empty]

How about this?

1. Player owes nothing back because it's in the contract.

2. Teams shouldn't agree to contracts like this.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

How about this?

1. Player owes nothing back because it's in the contract.

2. Teams shouldn't agree to contracts like this.

SPOT ON!

I would have to do some deep digging into the history of Sports Contracts, but at some point, contracts started to include guaranteed money and Player Unions started demanding full pay for injured players.

So while we can point the fingers at players like Bahk and say "You are a SOB, you're hurt, have been hurt, yet you are making MILLIONS!" Hell, I don't blame Bahk for taking the money, both sides agreed to it.

So how and why did all this happen? Simple, the top players were targeted by owners that REALLY wanted them and to do so, owners enticed them with guaranteed money. Pretty soon that was the only way to land a player and the guaranteed money, just like salaries got higher and higher.

So if anyone is to blame, it's not Bahk and other players that underperform their contracts, it is the owners themselves. While I complain about guaranteed money all the time and how it has ruined the game for me, I am well aware how it came about and who is to blame for their own "problem". The other thing that this "issue" makes clear to me, there is so much money being made in some of these sports, that the value of it is nothing but a figure on a balance sheet, that must add up each year to meet the cap, which is all they really care about.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Sure. There needs to be some failsafe if they don’t play. Similar to the Rodgers trade. Possibly reducing the Guaranteed by a % for each season they don’t play 51% snaps etc. This paying people across multiple years to not work gets a little ridiculous

Said it before and I will say it again. I really wish they would shift to base salaries + incentive pay. With the incentive pay making up most of the contract. You perform like a Pro Bowler, you get paid like one. You sit on the bench or don't dress, you get paid for only doing that.

I think this would serve to get the best out of each player, since their pay increases, the better that they play and by just playing they make more money. I know teams are very careful with injuries, but I always wonder, how many players "nurse" an injury longer than they need to, since they are getting paid either way. I realize their are guys that LOVE the sport, LOVE the game and will try to play at 110% anytime they can, but there are also guys that LOVE the money and are fine with just coasting to retirement with a big bank. If you don't believe that last observation, than lets talk about what some players do between games or during the offseason, for their love of the game and/or money.

 

[OldSchool101]

How about this?

1. Player owes nothing back because it's in the contract.

2. Teams shouldn't agree to contracts like this.

I 100% agree, but I simply gave an example of how a failsafe would apply monetarily going forward.

I was actually addressing Number 2 above for future deals, But several people are sore in here and act like I want to rewrite Terry Bradshaw’s contract and go to his front door to collect it

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Oh I actually 100% agree. I’m not talking about past contracts though. Those are 2 completely different arguments. I never said once to take away a players PAST earnings,
I simply used David as an example of how future contracts would apply if there was a failsafe for these type situations.

Yup.

Bahk, Rodgers and a thousand other players over the years, should serve as cautionary tales as to the pitfalls of guaranteed money. Sadly, like I said, teams are making so much damn money, they don't care. They view it as gambling a ton of money, sometimes it pays off and sometimes it doesn't. However, in the grand scheme of things its just a small side bet for them and at the end of the day, they will still make huge profits.

Who pays for it? The consumers of course. In increased ticket prices, costly concessions and the most hidden one of all, an increase in prices of anything you buy that pays directly or indirectly to advertise. Networks carrying Sports are just the middleman, they fix their prices to make a profit too.

 

[OldSchool101]

Said it before and I will say it again. I really wish they would shift to base salaries + incentive pay. With the incentive pay making up most of the contract. You perform like a Pro Bowler, you get paid like one. You sit on the bench or don't dress, you get paid for only doing that.

I think this would serve to get the best out of each player, since their pay increases, the better that they play and by just playing they make more money. I know teams are very careful with injuries, but I always wonder, how many players "nurse" an injury longer than they need to, since they are getting paid either way. I realize their are guys that LOVE the sport, LOVE the game and will try to play at 110% anytime they can, but there are also guys that LOVE the money and are fine with just coasting to retirement with a big bank. If you don't believe that last observation, than lets talk about what some players do between games or during the offseason, for their love of the game and/or money.

That would be capitalism and I had a relative tell me last weekend that we can’t have that in this Country. It’s unfair to lazy people.

 

[gopkrs]

Bahk, Rodgers and a thousand other players over the years, should serve as cautionary tales as to the pitfalls of guaranteed money. Sadly, like I said, teams are making so much damn money, they don't care. They view it as gambling a ton of money, sometimes it pays off and sometimes it doesn't. However, in the grand scheme of things its just a small side bet for them and at the end of the day, they will still make huge profits.

Yes, they seem more than willing and able to spend a lot of money. But they do so because they think they have to in order to win. With the salary cap, that is not the case if you spend too much on a couple of players. You can't just right it off. Especially if they get hurt. I think we may have figured out that sometimes you have to let players go. at least I hope so. Look at Daniel Jones and the Giants. He is not so good that he was worth the money they paid. But they were, I think, worried about what the fans would think if they had let him go. And now they are stuck. imho

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Yes, they seem more than willing and able to spend a lot of money. But they do so because they think they have to in order to win.

The thing is, I don't see teams losing money, even when they don't win. Now I am not saying that there are owners that don't care about winning, because of course they do. But as you mentioned, they can make HUGE mistakes and still turn a huge profit. The system was built to print money and they will continue to do so, until fans say "enough is enough".

 

[gopkrs]

The thing is, I don't see teams losing money, even when they don't win. Now I am not saying that there are owners that don't care about winning, because of course they do. But as you mentioned, they can make HUGE mistakes and still turn a huge profit. The system was built to print money and they will continue to do so, until fans say "enough is enough".

But again. There is a salary cap. It is more of not spending the money wisely. Each team seems to spend to the cap limit or just about.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

But again. There is a salary cap. It is more of not spending the money wisely. Each team seems to spend to the cap limit or just about.

Which is part of my point. I doubt that there is an NFL team not making enough to cover all their expenses. Thus, the salary cap somewhat shields those owners from blowing their *** and going belly up on a bunch of bad contracts.

 

[PikeBadger]

But again. There is a salary cap. It is more of not spending the money wisely. Each team seems to spend to the cap limit or just about.

Because they have to.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Because they have to.

Teams must spend at least 89% of the cap over a four-year period, while the NFL as a whole must spend at least 95% of the cap.

Begs the question, if one year the whole NFL is under 95%, what happens? Does it explode?

 

[Pkrjones]

Teams must spend at least 89% of the cap over a four-year period, while the NFL as a whole must spend at least 95% of the cap.

Begs the question, if one year the whole NFL is under 95%, what happens? Does it explode?

Think it's fair to say that at any given time 6-8 GM's think it is their year, break the bank, and put the team in cap hell so we'll never see that situation.

 

[OldSchool101]

“Why should they pay an Employee 100% to not work? What’s the incentive to get back working”

Because that’s what the CONTRACT calls for. The employer wanted this employee SO bad that they not only offered more money than anyone else - they GUARANTEED a lot of it. So then yhe employee undertaks this hazardous job, gets hurt working for the employer, and now he’s supposed to give money back? That’s nuts. And they don’ pay 100% unless they WANT to. They could have/can release Bahk at any time and save contract money. They can release him tomorrow if they want.

@AKCheese
Keep in mind we were discussing ways to alleviate this problem going forward. Nobody is trying to go backwards in time and steal money from Bakh’s bank account (or any player for that matter) We obviously can’t underpay a guaranteed NFL contract that’s basically impossible, so maybe I thought that was a given. Sorry about the confusion there buddy I promise I don’t want David’s guaranteed $.
Well… come to think of it? maybe a little if he’s agreeable. He wouldn’t even miss 500K cmon

 

[lambeaulambo]

My guess that Bakh will soon be a Jet is coming into focus.

 

[longtimefan]

My guess that Bakh will soon be a Jet is coming into focus.

Of course it is. This thread it's mentioned numerous times

 

[AKCheese]

How about this?

1. Player owes nothing back because it's in the contract.

2. Teams shouldn't agree to contracts like this.

Then they will never sign a free agent of any significance (or resign/extend any of their own players that other teams are interested in).That is certainly an option but not one that would make us very competitive.

 

[AKCheese]

That would be capitalism and I had a relative tell me last weekend that we can’t have that in this Country. It’s unfair to lazy people.

Actually that would be nowhere close to capitalism. Capitalism would be players totally free to sell their services to the highest bidder with no salary cap constraint, perhaps no rank order draft - just bid on players as they come out of college (or don’t). Green Bay without a billionaire owner - would not be able to compete.

 

[JK64]

My guess that Bakh will soon be a Jet is coming into focus.

Who cares. The guy is a washed up money collecting bum.

 

[ARPackFan]

Teams must spend at least 89% of the cap over a four-year period, while the NFL as a whole must spend at least 95% of the cap.

Begs the question, if one year the whole NFL is under 95%, what happens? Does it explode?

If the NFL fails meet the 95% league wide threshold they are required to directly pay the shortfall directly to the players. The NFLPA determines the allocation of said pay. I would guess it would be equally shared.

The basic rule applies to any team that cannot maintain the 89% over four years.

Personally, I think they should sell the NFL team owners luxury yachts at auction (no bid too low) and give the proceeds to the players.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Who cares. The guy is a washed up money collecting bum.

While I would agree that I think Bahk's career might be over, I would hardly call him a "bum" for taking the money that the Packers agreed to pay him via a contract. While it would be "nice", if Bahk said "you know what, I didn't earn all this money, you guys keep half." He won't, nor would 99% of the population.

If you want to be mad at someone, you probably should be mad at the Packers for giving him all that guaranteed money, months before his old contract was even up.

 

[Half Empty]

Then they will never sign a free agent of any significance (or resign/extend any of their own players that other teams are interested in).That is certainly an option but not one that would make us very competitive.

Well, the option they chose hasn't made the team very competitive, either.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Well, the option they chose hasn't made the team very competitive, either.

Agree, with a caveat.

Now it's easy to say "The Packers screwed up and never should have resigned Bahk." Since with hindsight, we know what happened. I fully acknowledge that had Bahk not suffered what appears to possibly be a career ending knee injury, he may have played like a Pro Bowler during that contract. My biggest beef with the contract was too early and too much guaranteed money.


Unfortunately, the NFL has shifted to giving out lots of guaranteed money to coveted players. So unless that changes, signing top players at their positions, is probably going to require a team to do just that or take their chances on continuing to develop young prospects.

Currently, the only way around these type of contracts blowing up in your face is to lace it with a ton of incentive pay. For instance Bahk's contract:

Deal he got: $92M-4 year, including a $30M signing bonus, $61.M guaranteed, and an average annual salary of $23 M

Alternative: $100M-4 year, including a $25M signing bonus, $25M guaranteed and $25M/season+ $1M bonus for Pro Bowl and $1M bonus for playing a minimum of 16 games.

Now I am pretty certain if a player were offered a choice between the 2, the player would take Deal #1. However, if teams STOPPED offering those deals and switched to something like the Alternative Deal, then the risk of what has happened with Bahk's deal decreases. The upside for a player is that if he performs, without getting injured, he earns more.

 

[SudsMcBucky]

Now I am pretty certain if a player were offered a choice between the 2, the player would take Deal #1. However, if teams STOPPED offering those deals and switched to something like the Alternative Deal, then the risk of what has happened with Bahk's deal decreases. The upside for a player is that if he performs, without getting injured, he earns more.

That sounds great in theory, but you'd basically be asking all 32 owners/GM's to collude and all agree to NOT offer these types of contracts. There's always at least 1 or 2 stupid ones that can't resist. But something like you're asking will never be agreed upon by the players to be in the bargaining agreement for type of contract.