The Case for Paying Aaron Jones

[swhitset]

We should just ask the government to nationalize our industries and decide what everyone deserves to be paid. It would be great!

We can have an opinion that someone is being paid more than they should for what they do without wanting government intervention. I don’t want this to become a political discussion (which is obviously the direction your statement is directed). Sometimes we can recognize a problem in a particular area without wanting the government to come in and fix it for us. I agree that players’ salaries have gotten out of control and because of that I, like Pokerbrat am a little bit amused that maybe they will be curtailed a bit in the short term. That being said, I believe in a free market, and understand the relationship between revenue and salaries.

 

[jon]

We should just ask the government to nationalize our industries and decide what everyone deserves to be paid. It would be great!

OK, Bernie.

 

[GleefulGary]

We can have an opinion that someone is being paid more than they should for what they do without wanting government intervention. I don’t want this to become a political discussion (which is obviously the direction your statement is directed). Sometimes we can recognize a problem in a particular area without wanting the government to come in and fix it for us. I agree that players’ salaries have gotten out of control and because of that I, like Pokerbrat am a little bit amused that maybe they will be curtailed a bit in the short term. That being said, I believe in a free market, and understand the relationship between revenue and salaries.

To keep the politics out of it, I just have a “simple” question for you and Poker. Where should the money go, if not the players?

Don’t get me wrong, I think the amount that athletes make is more than a little obscene, but should the owners pocket more of it so the players get less? I don’t think so. As consumers, we all collectively spend a lot of money on football. It has to go somewhere, might as well go to the players.

Seems to me the way to accomplish lower salaries is less consumption, and it seems most of us are unwilling to do that.

 

[swhitset]

I Think I said all I needed to in my original statement. I believe in a free market. That doesn’t mean it is perfect and that is why i’m not particularly upset that the market may be correcting itself in the short term. I am under no illusion that that will be a permanent situation.

 

[Dantés]

We can have an opinion that someone is being paid more than they should for what they do without wanting government intervention. I don’t want this to become a political discussion (which is obviously the direction your statement is directed). Sometimes we can recognize a problem in a particular area without wanting the government to come in and fix it for us. I agree that players’ salaries have gotten out of control and because of that I, like Pokerbrat am a little bit amused that maybe they will be curtailed a bit in the short term. That being said, I believe in a free market, and understand the relationship between revenue and salaries.

Sure, anyone can have whatever opinion they like.

But when one of those opinions is "X number of dollars is enough" for a particular line of work, that begs the question-- who decides what "enough" is?

Historically, there are two answers to that question-- the market, or the government.

So if someone doesn't want the market to decide what's enough, the alternative is obvious.

Now that's not the same thing as saying that you're OK with the salaries being reduced "organically" as a market reaction to Coronavirus. But I would say it's pretty perverse for someone to say that they "welcome" such a thing.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Sometimes we can recognize a problem in a particular area without wanting the government to come in and fix it for us. I agree that players’ salaries have gotten out of control and because of that I, like Pokerbrat am a little bit amused that maybe they will be curtailed a bit in the short term. That being said, I believe in a free market, and understand the relationship between revenue and salaries.

Pretty much the point I was trying to make without getting into a flow blown discussion of revenue streams/shares of, taxation, media coverage, ticket and merchandise sales, etc. We have done that in other threads. The most successful sports leagues have become billion dollar industries because consumers like myself helped to make them that way. Further, they have positioned themselves over time into a Monopoly type position, where it is almost impossible for anyone else to compete. Government regulation like utilities? A topic of discussion for another thread perhaps.

But yes, owners and players having much smaller pies to share in 2021 (and beyond), would make me very happy. The pie is already smaller this year for the owner, but normal size for players, 2021 (if normal) is just catching up for the owners to get more pie and some of the players to get less. But I highly doubt either party leaves the table all that hungry.

 

[thequick12]

I would be fine with the Packers signing Jones to a deal like the Chargers did with Ekeler. They shouldn't offer him more money though and definitely wait until after this season to make a move to have a chance to fairly evaluate the needs entering the 2021 offseason.



While I agree with that statement unfortunately that's not possible with a hard salary cap in place.

You know their is no chance that aaron jones would sign for what eckler got... offering that would be in poor taste.

And it is possible to keep the core intact despite the hard cap...

Packers core
Rodgers, Bakh, Adams, z smith, Alexander, Jones, Jenkins

They might even have to do something drastic like release preston smith to free up another 8 million but they 100% can keep all of their blue chip players together thru Rodgers contract. And that includes extensions for bakh and jones this off season, adams next off season and Alexander the following

 

[swhitset]

You know their is no chance that aaron jones would sign for what eckler got... offering that would be in poor taste.

And it is possible to keep the core intact despite the hard cap...

Packers core
Rodgers, Bakh, Adams, z smith, Alexander, Jones, Jenkins

They might even have to do something drastic like release preston smith to free up another 8 million but they 100% can keep all of their blue chip players together thru Rodgers contract. And that includes extensions for bakh and jones this off season, adams next off season and Alexander the following

I’m not going to keep arguing the Jones side of this .... others are doing fine in that department. I am going to say that you aren’t watching the games closely enough if you think Preston Smith is expendable. His role is definitely different this year, but he is a very important cog in that defense.

 

[thequick12]

I’m not going to keep arguing the Jones side of this .... others are doing fine in that department. I am going to say that you aren’t watching the games closely enough if you think Preston Smith is expendable. His role is definitely different this year, but he is a very important cog in that defense.

I said do something drastic, that implies I don't think he's expendable but I realize that he may have to be a casualty in order to retain the blue chip players. Of which, preston smith while a very very good player, certainly is not.

Gary still may develop into a blue chip player and is on the roster on a rookie deal for at least 2 more seasons...it's not a stretch to see the possible writing on the wall there

 

[swhitset]

I said do something drastic, that implies I don't think he's expendable but I realize that he may have to be a casualty in order to retain the blue chip players. Of which, preston smith while a very very good player, certainly is not.

Gary still may develop into a blue chip player and is on the roster on a rookie deal for at least 2 more seasons...it's not a stretch to see the possible writing on the wall there

I will just say I disagree and leave it at that.

 

[thequick12]

I will just say I disagree and leave it at that.

Haha good argument...not sure what you disagree with? But if you think preston smith is a blue chip player you'd be pretty lonely on that island assuming you value the opinion of nfl pro personnel scouts

 

[swhitset]

It’s more basic than that. With very few exceptions I don’t believe in the concept that you are proposing about “blue chip” players. For instance on the Packers... I would put Aaron Rodgers... David Bakhtiari, and maybe Kenny Clark in that category. You will notice I didn’t even put Davante Adams or Aaron Jones there. Not because they aren’t some of the best at their respective positions, but rather because of what their value vs. potential cost is. Anytime you start telling me we have to start giving up multiple Good players to retain one great one ... I am going to lean to the no. My few exceptions.... Aaron Rodgers is a future hall of Fame Quarterback and Bakhtiari protects his blind side. I’m stretching it to include Clark because of his age and his particular importance to this team... I might be convinced to include Adams for the same reason. You will never convince me to include a running back in that discussion... I don’t care if he is Barry Sanders. They are just to unpredictable. One year they lead the year in rushing. The next they are done.

 

[thequick12]

Oh yeah I totally forgot about clark...

I'm using the definition of blue chip player used by nfl talent evaluators. And Barry sanders was obviously a blue chip player not saying you said he wasn't, just saying for context.

I think our disagreement lies in that I believe great players (blue chip) win games and super bowls.

Id give up a jamal williams, a kirksey, and a dean lowry to retain one great player all day... because while those 3 are really good role players, good enough to be such on a super bowl team. They are not game changing players and thus can be more easily replaced than the great player even if his position is running back

 

[swhitset]

Our real disagreement is putting Preston Smith in the conversation with those other 3.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You know their is no chance that aaron jones would sign for what eckler got... offering that would be in poor taste.

You're probably right about Jones not signing a deal similar to Ekeler. In that case I'm fine with letting him walk away in free agency next offseason.

Haha good argument...not sure what you disagree with? But if you think preston smith is a blue chip player you'd be pretty lonely on that island assuming you value the opinion of nfl pro personnel scouts

The Packers signing Preston to a four-year, $52 million deal last offseason works as evidence that pro personnel has a vastly different opinion on him than you.

My few exceptions.... Aaron Rodgers is a future hall of Fame Quarterback and Bakhtiari protects his blind side.

There's no doubt Bakhtiari is an elite left tackle but the Packers shouldn't re-sign him under all circumstances with limited cap space available for next year.

And Barry sanders was obviously a blue chip player not saying you said he wasn't, just saying for context.

I think our disagreement lies in that I believe great players (blue chip) win games and super bowls.

Sanders didn't help the Lions win a Super Bowl though as they won only a single playoff game in his 10-year career.

 

[sschind]

Sure, anyone can have whatever opinion they like.

But when one of those opinions is "X number of dollars is enough" for a particular line of work, that begs the question-- who decides what "enough" is?

Historically, there are two answers to that question-- the market, or the government.

So if someone doesn't want the market to decide what's enough, the alternative is obvious.

Now that's not the same thing as saying that you're OK with the salaries being reduced "organically" as a market reaction to Coronavirus. But I would say it's pretty perverse for someone to say that they "welcome" such a thing.

The obvious answer is that I get to decide. I don't see how anyone can come to any other conclusion.

 

[Dantés]

The obvious answer is that I get to decide. I don't see how anyone can come to any other conclusion.

You’re stealing @GleefulGary jokes.

 

[GleefulGary]

You’re stealing @GleefulGary jokes.

Only you’re allowed to do that.

Sorry, I don’t make the rules. Or do I?

 

[gopkrs]

To keep the politics out of it, I just have a “simple” question for you and Poker. Where should the money go, if not the players?

Don’t get me wrong, I think the amount that athletes make is more than a little obscene, but should the owners pocket more of it so the players get less? I don’t think so. As consumers, we all collectively spend a lot of money on football. It has to go somewhere, might as well go to the players.

Seems to me the way to accomplish lower salaries is less consumption, and it seems most of us are unwilling to do that.

How much of all that we buy and watch is determined by the computers watching our every move and click on twitter, face etc., probably even here. That is the new capitalism. Just moving the herd in directions to consume more.

 

[gopkrs]

Haha good argument...not sure what you disagree with? But if you think preston smith is a blue chip player you'd be pretty lonely on that island assuming you value the opinion of nfl pro personnel scouts

To be and to remain a good team you don't just have blue chip players. But you definitely need good football players. Right now we have a good team. I would try not to mess with that formula. It is a bit of a different way of looking at it.

 

[jon]

How much of all that we buy and watch is determined by the computers watching our every move and click on twitter, face etc., probably even here. That is the new capitalism. Just moving the herd in directions to consume more.

Another communist heard from. "New capitalism", indeed. In truth, though, FWIW, I share the increasing concern about data and privacy. Don't get me started on <strike>evil incarnate</strike> google.

That aside, the salary issue in the NFL is a fascinating one if you're into economics. The cap is an interesting case of collusion by the buyers of labor (team owners) and agreement or at least acceptance by the sellers (players). I wouldn't doubt if a book has been written on this subject.

It would take more than one book to explain the way the money is allocated among positions on the team. The buyers have each independently concluded that an elite QB is worth, what is it, ~20% of all available funds? And a #2 CB is worth ~x% and a punter ~y% and so on through 53 prices.

This structure is a consensus among proven experts on the relative value of each position-- remarkable in itself-- and then applied to individual cases in an imperfectly competitive market and constrained by a byzantine set of rules which requires an experienced expert to understand and resulting in a system which is inflexible and predictable and, thus, stable.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Another communist heard from. "New capitalism", indeed. In truth, though, FWIW, I share the increasing concern about data and privacy. Don't get me started on <strike>evil incarnate</strike> google.

That aside, the salary issue in the NFL is a fascinating one if you're into economics. The cap is an interesting case of collusion by the buyers of labor (team owners) and agreement or at least acceptance by the sellers (players). I wouldn't doubt if a book has been written on this subject.

It would take more than one book to explain the way the money is allocated among positions on the team. The buyers have each independently concluded that an elite QB is worth, what is it, ~20% of all available funds? And a #2 CB is worth ~x% and a punter ~y% and so on through 53 prices.

This structure is a consensus among proven experts on the relative value of each position-- remarkable in itself-- and then applied to individual cases in an imperfectly competitive market and constrained by a byzantine set of rules which requires an experienced expert to understand and resulting in a system which is inflexible and predictable and, thus, stable.

You had me until you threw the word "byzantine" in there!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

To be and to remain a good team you don't just have blue chip players. But you definitely need good football players. Right now we have a good team. I would try not to mess with that formula. It is a bit of a different way of looking at it.

The salary cap being reduced for next season will definitely force the Packers to lose some players for next season though.

 

[GleefulGary]

The salary cap being reduced for next season will definitely force the Packers to lose some players for next season though.

It’s going to be a very interesting off-season. I imagine quite a few teams will be in the same situation, and I don’t think the top tier players like Bakh are going to take a discount bc if it. This would mean your middle class players, i.e. Billy Turner, Lane Taylor, Jamaal Williams, will be taking drastic cuts from what they normally would get. And yes, I know Turner isn’t scheduled to be a FA, just using him as an example of the level of player.

I think it was PokerBrat who said it, but I completely agree, I bet we see a lot of one year deals. That actually works to GB’s favor, imo.

 

[PackerDNA]

I think it was PokerBrat who said it, but I completely agree, I bet we see a lot of one year deals. That actually works to GB’s favor, imo.

Wouldn't be a bit surprised about the one-year deals, even though it's a pretty big risk for a top player to take. There was a lot of talk this off season about players taking three year deals. Why three years? Because that's when the new TV deal will come up and there's expected to be a huge jump in the cap.