Free Agency Talk

[Englebretson 1st MRB]

All I have to say is 03 Playoffs game 7 nuff said

[Parker 1st MRB]

NBA: I fucking hate that Nash is going to LA instead of Toronto but it makes sense. LA wants to win another title and they need a good PG to do it. It'll be interesting to see what other pieces LA adds this summer to try and compete with the Thunder next year.

NHL: I think Steve Yzerman is gonna be an amazing GM for the Lightning, they just signed Matt Carle to beef up their defense. They've got scoring, they got D, the only question is goaltending. Will Lindback be enough? We'll see.

[Gardiner 1st MRB]

The thing about Nash is that he is like Stockton when it comes to being a Point Guard. You don't need any athletic ability what so ever and still be one of the top PGs in the league haha. Nash could play until he was 50 and still put up great numbers each night.

[Englebretson 1st MRB]

Oh and Ray Allen touche

[Gardiner 1st MRB]

Ray Allen to the Heat...and #unfair is trending on twitter.

[Parker 1st MRB]

Ray Allen to the Heat...and #unfair is trending on twitter.

I think my avatar is once again appropriate. #dynasty

[Gardiner 1st MRB]

I think my avatar is once again appropriate. #dynasty

Edited July 8, 2012 by Gardiner 1st MRB

[Englebretson 1st MRB]

and now brees has become a jew

[Parker 1st MRB]

Is anyone surprised he got that much?

[Mamora BAR]

saints are gonna suck this year anyways...aint gonna matter

[Gardiner 1st MRB]

Is anyone surprised he got that much?

Hell no, Brees is their franchise. Without him the team would be getting the 1st pick in the 2013 NFL draft. If you don't believe one player can impact a team that much, look at what happened to the Colts when Peyton was out.

[Pandalsson 1st MRB]

Brees:I'm surprised he got that much but is it overpayment? Probably not. He's still the engine that runs the offense. Right now, only 3 other QBs can do what Brees did in NO imo.

NFL: Big names with bigger questions marks - Welker, Luck, Newton, Chris Johnson, All-day...

NBA: Lin a Rocket. good for him. Rockets offense is going to run primarily pick-and-rolls. He should keep getting 21/9s regularly since he did it with guys like Shumpert, Fields, Jeffries, Novak. No superstars needed there. Just good old fashioned hustle.

NHL: It's going to be a weird weird locker room when Nash returns during training camp. He and Ryan should be twitter buddies.

[Gardiner 1st MRB]

NBA: Lin a Rocket. good for him. Rockets offense is going to run primarily pick-and-rolls. He should keep getting 21/9s regularly since he did it with guys like Shumpert, Fields, Jeffries, Novak. No superstars needed there. Just good old fashioned hustle.

Howard is going to be a Rocket.

[Parker 1st MRB]

Howard is going to be a Rocket.

I think you mean Laker.

[Gardiner 1st MRB]

I think you mean Laker.

Just wait...

[Parker 1st MRB]

So reports are that the Flyers have signed Shea Weber to a 14-year offer sheet worth upwards of $100 million. Basically this is a win-win for the Preds, they can either choose to match the offer and have Weber as a Predator for life OR they choose not to match and they either get 4 1st round draft picks or 2 first round draft picks/1 second round draft pick/1 third round draft pick. The Preds have 7 days to decide.

The insanity of these contracts in the NHL need to stop. It is seriously ruining the game, players are locked up forever and are given contracts to play hockey until they're 40. As much as I disagree with Burke sometimes, he is totally right when it comes to FA contracts - it should be no longer than 5 years.

[Mamora BAR]

why would you want short term conracts though? Wouldnt that be a big fuck you to the fans? All the people who spend money on named jerseys and 5 years later that player may leave or a better offer? hence why my jets jerseys are blank, but still.

Whats the big deal though? Why should contracts be short?

[Parker 1st MRB]

It's my opinion that I'd like them shorter because it's fair. If you lock up a player for the rest of his life he doesn't hit free agency...ever. The only way to get rid of him is either through trade or buying out his contract which is dumb. I doubt Weber, Parise, Suter are going to be playing when they're 40 years old but these contracts will be paying them until then. It is not fair to front load these contracts just to sign players, even owners agree it is outrageous but they are still doing it because if they don't someone else will. With this Weber deal he will be making 26 million dollars in one year, this is how you circumvent the CBA and this is why it needs to be fixed. I did state they should only be 5 years, but I'd be ok with a 7-8 year contract too, anything higher than that is crazy. Seeing all these contracts shows us that the players have the edge when negotiating contracts because they want to have long term security which I understand from a players perspective, but 14 years.... come on this needs to stop.

[Pandalsson 1st MRB]

All contracts have to be approved by the league. If the league is ok with the long contracts then I'd like to think they have an idea of where they want to go. I'm not saying that it's a good place to go, but the onus should be on the league to say no to these shenanigans not the GMs or the players.

Personally, I think it's silly to limit contracts to 5-6 years just because teams are bending the rules of the payouts. A better approach would be to say that contracts get averaged normally. If you give 100 mill over 10 years, that's 10/yr (for both salary AND cap hit). Problem fixed.

[Parker 1st MRB]

Personally, I think it's silly to limit contracts to 5-6 years just because teams are bending the rules of the payouts. A better approach would be to say that contracts get averaged normally. If you give 100 mill over 10 years, that's 10/yr (for both salary AND cap hit). Problem fixed.

I'd be ok with this. I should clarify that front loading contracts is what I don't agree with at all.

[Pandalsson 1st MRB]

True enough.

Of course, then teams might go with front-loaded "performance bonuses" with really easy to meet criteria.

I'm sure there are always ways around things since that's what GMs hire teams of lawyers to do.

But I guess it would be a lot easier to see those kinds of shenanigans.

[Englebretson 1st MRB]

If you want to own a sports franchise you have to have money to begin with. If you take over a franchise that is in a slump of sorts and dont see any immediate turn around dont act surprised. I hate hearing how all these owners cant afford to own their team b/c of one stupid thing or another. If you think you can skate by doing the absolute minimum dont be surprised if thats what you get in return. I get that a lot of professional teams are not going to be big money makers for w/e reason and I can understand when those owners voice their problems. I also know that most of these owners are going to make more money even in an off year than most people will make in a lifetime. Someone needs to head down to every major league office and stab some sense into all these greedy faggot cunt suckers before every sport is ruined.

[Gooderham 1st MRB]

All contracts have to be approved by the league. If the league is ok with the long contracts then I'd like to think they have an idea of where they want to go. I'm not saying that it's a good place to go, but the onus should be on the league to say no to these shenanigans not the GMs or the players.

Personally, I think it's silly to limit contracts to 5-6 years just because teams are bending the rules of the payouts. A better approach would be to say that contracts get averaged normally. If you give 100 mill over 10 years, that's 10/yr (for both salary AND cap hit). Problem fixed.

That is how it works though. The issue is a team front loading the contract so that the payout is massive to start and then the last few years are "retirement seasons".

What you have a problem with is the caphit being at 10mil/yr but the payout looking like this:

20, 20, 20, 10, 10, 5, 5, 5, 2.5, 2.5

[Pandalsson 1st MRB]

That is how it works though. The issue is a team front loading the contract so that the payout is massive to start and then the last few years are "retirement seasons".

What you have a problem with is the caphit being at 10mil/yr but the payout looking like this:

20, 20, 20, 10, 10, 5, 5, 5, 2.5, 2.5

Actually it doesn't work as a normal contract should (if I understand the reference in your first sentence correctly). It penalizes the player's total earnings and indirectly affects a team because players will sign with other teams who are willing to give out the $ and take the proportional cap hit.

It's not at all like the 10mill/yr contract because the player loses out on the money by retiring 2 years before the end of the contract (95 mill paid instead of 80 mill at the same cap hit).

While it's true that it takes into account "retirement seasons" there are 2 primary functions of a front loaded contract:

1) get around salary cap issue (the biggest reason of course) and still give the desired contract sum to the player in question

Let's say you take the example of the 10 mill/yr contract. The purpose is to give the player 95 mill over, say, 8 years without getting the 12 salary cap hit (the actual totals talked about with the agent), you get 95 mill over 8 years @ 10 mill cap hit.

2) team pays less than full contract

So now that the team and the agent have agreed to the actual payout (95 mill) the contract is structured so that when the player retires 2 years before, the team won't have to pay the extra sum nor get a cap hit because it doesn't trigger the "35-and-old" clause.

In the end, the front-loaded contract pays the player what he wants and the teams don't get strapped with the associated cap hits.

But doing away with the front-load, players have to either accept less money or teams have to accept higher cap hits. Either way, it complicates finding a middle-ground for teams already stacked with large contracts (hence the "levelling the playing field" intention).

[Gooderham 1st MRB]

Are we agreeing with each other or arguing the same point?