The W
Views: 99010453
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
18.9.07 1449
The 7 - Football - Greedy Players
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
(719 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (20 total)
Franchise21
Weisswurst
Level: 11

Posts: 17/20
EXP: 5534
For next: 452

Since: 25.3.04

Since last post: 3797 days
Last activity: 3797 days
#1 Posted on 11.4.04 1316.02
Reposted on: 11.4.11 1316.23
Well looks like another player has been bitten with the greed bug:

Packers corner back Mike McKenzie, unhappy that he's in the middle six-year contract paying him $3.4 million a year, has requested a trade. That request was denied because of his value to the team. The Packers were willing to make some adjustments in his contract, but McKenzie has told the team he wants to be moved. Over the past month and a half, McKenzie has watched five corner backs get new contracts in excess of $4 million a year. McKenzie's average is $3.422 million, and he considers himself among the elite corner backs. There are de-escalator clauses in the final three years of his contract that could reduce his salary below the $2.95 million, $3.63 million and $4.3 million he is scheduled to make over the next three seasons. McKenzie has played well enough not to trigger those de-escalators. The team was willing to eliminate those de-escalators in a cap-relief contract, but McKenzie also was hoping for a salary increase. Now, he's telling friends his request to be traded isn't a money issue and he doesn't want to be with the team anymore. The Packers are hoping McKenzie's anger subsides and he reports to minicamps and training camps. McKenzie is known to be an intelligent player who can be stubborn if he believes in a position. For now, McKenzie remains a Packer.
Promote this thread!
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 648/2698
EXP: 8861272
For next: 127547

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 8 hours
#2 Posted on 11.4.04 1532.54
Reposted on: 11.4.11 1537.01
I know he should honor his contract and i agree with that. However, these guys end up crippled, don't live as long as most, and make the owners a ton of money. But he should honor his contract.
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 515/763
EXP: 1434918
For next: 51019

Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 546 days
Last activity: 162 days
AIM:  
#3 Posted on 11.4.04 2330.12
Reposted on: 11.4.11 2330.40
I believe in making a guy honor his contract too, but I can understand him requesting a trade. If hes not happy there anymore I dont think its unreasonable that they trade him. Alot of coaches dont like to keep unhappy ballplayers. I guess if he figures hes gotta be making less, its better to be underpaid in sunny Miami than cold Green Bay.
BigVitoMark
Lap cheong
Level: 76

Posts: 926/1509
EXP: 3898210
For next: 107869

Since: 10.8.02
From: Queen's University, Canada

Since last post: 3343 days
Last activity: 3252 days
ICQ:  
#4 Posted on 12.4.04 0135.27
Reposted on: 12.4.11 0135.28
Well, to be fair, if he's in Miami he's carrying Patrick Surtain's bags to the bus and not playing all that much football. He's not gonna wind up there.

My feeling is that if you have any integrity whatsoever you honor your contract, no matter how unfair you think the terms are. If you didn't think it was a good deal, you shouldn't have signed it in the first place, and I don't think you'd be in any hurry to give the money back if things had turned out the other way. Then again, if guys can manipulate the system to their advantage, it's hard to fault them for doing so. Just depends on which holds more importance for you: pride or the almighty $.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1514/3428
EXP: 13674934
For next: 284756

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 37 days
Last activity: 37 days
#5 Posted on 12.4.04 0618.29
Reposted on: 12.4.11 0620.50
    Originally posted by rockdotcom_2.0
    underpaid



Yeah, that's exactly the word I would use to describe a guy making over $3 million dolllars a year. Oh wait, no it's not, I would use something along the lines of "less overpaid."

I understand these players draw a ton of money for the owners of the teams they play for, and I understand they get hurt a lot, etc. But getting mad because you are getting a few hundred thousand less per year, or even a million less per year, than your contemporaries is petty, childish and greedy no matter how you look at it.
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 2225/3273
EXP: 12728664
For next: 362689

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 164 days
Last activity: 164 days
#6 Posted on 12.4.04 0853.21
Reposted on: 12.4.11 0853.22
But what reason does he have NOT to do it? If I was a high caliber player in the NFL there would be only two things that come before the amount of money when it comes to my contract. 1) Whether I liked the team I played for (or the town in played in), and 2) Whether I was looking for my best chance to be a part of a championship team. After that, why shouldn't I go for the biggest and best contracts I can get while I can still play? Personally, after one year of Champ Bailey's contract I would be set for life, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't have a use for the money my skills earned me. I could build a youth center. I could give away the money as scholarships. As a fan, I only mind the greed in the players when it leads them to shit on the team/town/fans in order to get more money (Ty Law, I'm looking at you!). Otherwise, if the NFL feels the player is worth it, somebody will spend the money on them. Then it comes down to what the player does with the money, if you really want to judge them as a person.

-Jag
The Thrill
Banger
Level: 99

Posts: 1004/2781
EXP: 9880134
For next: 119901

Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI

Since last post: 154 days
Last activity: 23 hours
#7 Posted on 12.4.04 0950.51
Reposted on: 12.4.11 0953.08
Just f'n terrific. The weakest part of our ballclub might get even weaker...and I'm still now sure if Antuan Edwards going to Miami will hurt or help us.

As for McKenzie...first off, it'd leave the secondary unbalanced with only one pair of maniac dreds (Al Harris). Plus, that Milwaukee-based boat named "Cheesehead" they were on in NFL Network's "Tomorrow" might sink. :-)

Seriously...this sucks. McKenzie is more a play-for-the-INT guy, giving lots of receivers a 5-yard cushion right off the bat. Kinda like Terrell Buckley, but much less sucky.

Of course, Na'il Diggs made much the same noise last off-season, and that got worked out OK, so I've gotta cross my fingers and hope Sherman and the brain trust at 1265 Lombardi Ave. can smooth this one over. (Any tips, Red Sox/Nomar handlers?)
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1515/3428
EXP: 13674934
For next: 284756

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 37 days
Last activity: 37 days
#8 Posted on 12.4.04 1120.16
Reposted on: 12.4.11 1121.24
    Originally posted by Jaguar
    But what reason does he have NOT to do it?


He signed a contract.
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 130

Posts: 2038/5207
EXP: 25599554
For next: 131092

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#9 Posted on 12.4.04 1316.35
Reposted on: 12.4.11 1318.39
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      Originally posted by Jaguar
      But what reason does he have NOT to do it?


    He signed a contract.


So did Deon Sanders, and look how he fucked over the Skins a couple years back.
dMr
Andouille
Level: 89

Posts: 1218/2212
EXP: 6852160
For next: 63768

Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 1 day
#10 Posted on 12.4.04 1331.09
Reposted on: 12.4.11 1331.37
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    I understand these players draw a ton of money for the owners of the teams they play for, and I understand they get hurt a lot, etc. But getting mad because you are getting a few hundred thousand less per year, or even a million less per year, than your contemporaries is petty, childish and greedy no matter how you look at it.


But according to the report:

1. The Packers were willing to make some adjustments in his contract, but McKenzie has told the team he wants to be moved.

and more importantly

2. he's telling friends his request to be traded isn't a money issue and he doesn't want to be with the team anymore.

So it would appear that at best/worst money is but one of a number of reasons why he wants to be traded.

But even if it was the sole motivating factor, why would wanting an extra million be childish? It wouldn't matter to me if I was earning minimum wage for cleaning toilets or pulling 10 million a year as a football player. If I saw other people doing exactly the same job as me earning 25% more money then I'd damn well be wanting to know why.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to maximise your earnings no matter how rich you are. And there's certainly nothing wrong with wanting your employer to show he values you as highly as your contemporaries are valued. Quite frankly, if the market dictates that you're worth an extra X amount per year then you have a right to try to find someone who'll pay you that.

I'd laugh my ass off at any player who went into contract negotiations and said, 'you know what boss? I know you're paying me less than my abilities merit, but god damn it I'm way to rich already. You keep a hold of that money ye hear?'

As for the contract thing, he's still entitled to ask for a trade. As long as he's willing to be professional about things and keep doing his job if the Pack say no then I've got no problem with it.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1516/3428
EXP: 13674934
For next: 284756

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 37 days
Last activity: 37 days
#11 Posted on 13.4.04 0657.03
Reposted on: 13.4.11 0657.10
If he's not happy with 3 million, why do you think he would be happy with 4 million? And if you think money isn't the motivating factor here, than you're apparently much more willing than I am to believe pro athletes aren't the most greedy, self-absorbed people on the face of the Earth.

Also:

    Originally posted by dMr
    'you know what boss? I know you're paying me less than my abilities merit


I'm not sure anybody's abilities, in any profession, merit millions of dollars per year.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 651/2698
EXP: 8861272
For next: 127547

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 8 hours
#12 Posted on 13.4.04 0830.07
Reposted on: 13.4.11 0834.01
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    If he's not happy with 3 million, why do you think he would be happy with 4 million? And if you think money isn't the motivating factor here, than you're apparently much more willing than I am to believe pro athletes aren't the most greedy, self-absorbed people on the face of the Earth.

    Also:

      Originally posted by dMr
      'you know what boss? I know you're paying me less than my abilities merit


    I'm not sure anybody's abilities, in any profession, merit millions of dollars per year.


I am not sticking up for the guy but the reality is they are worth it based upon the money they make for their teams. teachers and others deserve alot more money but its apples and oranges. Look at what revenues the players generate for the owners and you'll see that they aren't overpaid.
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 140

Posts: 1280/6291
EXP: 32977413
For next: 309074

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 6 hours
#13 Posted on 13.4.04 1007.25
Reposted on: 13.4.11 1007.51
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Look at what revenues the players generate for the owners and you'll see that they aren't overpaid.


So, the guy taking your order at McDonalds should be making a few million a year too by this philosophy.

Three million dollars is about 2,600,000 more than I will make in my lifetime, if that isnt ENOUGH money, he should maybe look for another profession where he can afford to put food on his table.
dMr
Andouille
Level: 89

Posts: 1224/2212
EXP: 6852160
For next: 63768

Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 1 day
#14 Posted on 13.4.04 1056.45
Reposted on: 13.4.11 1058.17
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      Look at what revenues the players generate for the owners and you'll see that they aren't overpaid.


    So, the guy taking your order at McDonalds should be making a few million a year too by this philosophy.


The 2 are completely different scenarios. Its all about supply and demand, basic economics. Demand for guys who can play professional football far outweighs the supply of people who can actually have the talent do it at a sufficiently high level to make their team money. Conversely the supply of people who have the talents necessary to work in McDonalds far outweighs the demand for such people.

As a result Mickey D's can offer people low wages knowing full well that if the person knocks them back then there's plenty other fish in the sea. Owner's of football clubs however know full well that if they don't offer enough moola to a player, there options with regards to finding a replacement are comparitively miniscule. On top of which, the club will also know that the player has no need to accept a low offer because there's plenty other teams out there who will be willing to pay him what he wants.

At the end of the day, owners ain't signing over this money out of the goodness of their hearts. They're offering as little as possible to make sure they can secure the services of guys they want, just as is in the case in any business. The fact that these sums of money still have to be very high is neither here nor there. Welcome to capitalism.


    Three million dollars is about 2,600,000 more than I will make in my lifetime, if that isnt ENOUGH money, he should maybe look for another profession where he can afford to put food on his table.


Yeah, but the point isn't that he can't afford to put food on the table. Nor did he suggest he was unable to. The point is that he ain't getting paid what his talents merit as far as he's concerned. Similarly if you found out someone else in your company, or at a rival company, doing the same job as you was earning twice as much I'd imagine you'd be peeved. At the end of the day, if he's not being paid the going rate for a corner of his ability and he does nothing, then the owner will be making money of him which economics dictates should be his.

As far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter whether your earning $3000 or $3,000,000 a year, if you allow yourself to be paid less than the market will bear then you're letting yourself be taken for a ride. If you're saying $3m would be enough for you if you were in his position fine. But why not do your best to get the $4m you should be getting paid and give the extra million to charity? At least that way the money's going somewhere more productive than the pocket of an already very rich owner.

And no I'm not naive enough to think that he would give his money to charity, nor do I think he should. At the end of the day people should be entitled to spend their money as they please without being taken on a guilt trip. I'm just trying to illustrate that NOT trying to maximise your earnings in this case serves absolutely no purpose.


    I'm not sure anybody's abilities, in any profession, merit millions of dollars per year.


The money's there, like it or not. It either goes to the owners or the players. I've got no problem with the latter wanting their share.
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 140

Posts: 1281/6291
EXP: 32977413
For next: 309074

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 6 hours
#15 Posted on 13.4.04 1121.12
Reposted on: 13.4.11 1121.15
    Originally posted by dMr
    < At the end of the day people should be entitled to spend their money as they please without being taken on a guilt trip. I'm just trying to illustrate that NOT trying to maximise your earnings in this case serves absolutely no purpose.


    The money's there, like it or not. It either goes to the owners or the players. I've got no problem with the latter wanting their share.


But, if you AGREE to work for $3Million and you KNOW in the future people will give others $4million, that doesnt entitle you to that money, while you already have a working agreement. Perhaps not signing 4 or 5 or 6 year deals would be in the players best interests.


Saying that the money is there, so the players should get more is pretty retarded though. They are employees, just like you are an employee of whomever you work for, and I am an employee of my company. My company reported a 2.2 billion, yes BILLION dollar profit last year. Does that mean that I should get more than I do now, just because they made some money? No, it doesn't. That CAPITALISM thing you pointed out goes for the owners as well. Players are more than compensated for what they do. MORE than compensated. To claim otherwise is unrealistic. The average, AVERAGE salary last season was $1.26 million a year
for NFL players. And, to say that players should make more than the vast majority of the people in the country, just because thier employers make more money just isnt a valid argument.
Reverend J Shaft
Liverwurst
Level: 66

Posts: 116/1136
EXP: 2452607
For next: 9257

Since: 25.6.03
From: Home of The Big House

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#16 Posted on 13.4.04 1131.42
Reposted on: 13.4.11 1133.01
I agree with both sides of the issue. The market definitely dictates what athletes should be paid. Being overpaid or underpaid is relative since owners have to (or should) balance what they spend on players with what they charge fans. If fans as a whole decide that paying that much is worth going to the game, then the owner's decision to pay that much is justified. That said, don't give me the "athletes put asses in the stands" reasoning. As a group they certainly do, but the team is called the Green Bay Packers not Mike McKenzie's Whiny Bitches.

Also, and this is only half-joking, what the hell does a contract mean anymore? When I sign one, it means I've agreed to the terms of the contract for as long as the contract is valid. I guess it means something different in professional sports. For athletes, it must mean that the signer agrees to it until other players sign for more money and/or the new Escalade model comes out.

    Originally posted by dMr
    As far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter whether your earning $3000 or $3,000,000 a year, if you allow yourself to be paid less than the market will bear then you're letting yourself be taken for a ride.


I whole-heartedly agree. McKenzie signed for the amount under his current contract, so he let himself be taken for a ride. Perhaps he won't be such a dumbass when he signs his next one. Until then, he can shut his cakehole and play football. Or quit. I don't think many people really give a sh*t outside of Packer fans.

And that's the great thing about this.... As long as you work in an atmosphere where you know your opinions of teams can be made public (whether or not you intend them to be), you can expect fans to come out and speak their minds.




(edited by Reverend J Shaft on 13.4.04 1244)
dMr
Andouille
Level: 89

Posts: 1226/2212
EXP: 6852160
For next: 63768

Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 1 day
#17 Posted on 13.4.04 1144.44
Reposted on: 13.4.11 1149.39
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    But, if you AGREE to work for $3Million and you KNOW in the future people will give others $4million, that doesnt entitle you to that money, while you already have a working agreement. Perhaps not signing 4 or 5 or 6 year deals would be in the players best interests.


I can see your point on that one. However its pretty much standard practise that players (and owners) enter into contracts knowing full well that they'll probably be up for re-negotiation at some point. Just as owners would look for any way they could grab to dump a guy if his performance is sucky, the player's entitled to ask for more if his performance improves and/or the market changes such that players in his position become more valued.


    Saying that the money is there, so the players should get more is pretty retarded though.


If that had been the sole basis of my argument then yes it would be.


    They are employees, just like you are an employee of whomever you work for, and I am an employee of my company. My company reported a 2.2 billion, yes BILLION dollar profit last year. Does that mean that I should get more than I do now, just because they made some money? No, it doesn't.


And thats precisely because if you or I were to go and demand more money then the our respective employers would politely decline and suggest you find alternative employment. They can afford to do that because they know theres a number of other folks out there who can do our job.

When players demand more money however they are in a position of power. They know their club has relatively few options open to them other than to up the ante, and even if they refuse there will likely be other clubs out there willing to take them on on increased wages.


    That CAPITALISM thing you pointed out goes for the owners as well. Players are more than compensated for what they do. MORE than compensated. To claim otherwise is unrealistic. The average, AVERAGE salary last season was $1.26 million a year
    for NFL players. And, to say that players should make more than the vast majority of the people in the country, just because thier employers make more money just isnt a valid argument.


I didn't say that it was. The point is that

a) The employers make a lot of money

AND

b) The supply of suitable employees realtive to demand is such that players are in a position to demand their share of that money, and the owners have little option but to cave in.

If you're in a situation where ONLY 'a' or 'b' apply then tough titty. You ain't in a position to make more money. BUT, if you happen to be in a position where 'a' AND 'b' hold then hallelujah! You can go get yourself a pay rise cause your boss is in a corner. Thats what I meant when I said this was basic economics.

At the end of the day though, even if you disagree with the economic stuff, why in the name of the wee man do you think owners are signing these contracts. Because they feel sorry for the players? Because they're inately generous? You think they wouldn't be offering guys infinitely less if they thought there was a chance they would still get them?

Uh uh. They give exactly what they need to to get the guy they want to work for them. Same as any other line of business. Yeah it sucks that wages aren't more related to endeavour, but hey, thats life.
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 2231/3273
EXP: 12728664
For next: 362689

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 164 days
Last activity: 164 days
#18 Posted on 13.4.04 1525.21
Reposted on: 13.4.11 1529.01
You also have to remember that the NFL lies outside the realm of the real world. There are no "No-Compete" clauses in NFL player contracts. If they decide to cut you from the team, they still have to pay out the remainder of your contract whether you had a bad attitude or not.

Basically, if you can make it into the NFL, it's one of the greatest jobs in the world.

-Jag
kazhayashi81
Potato korv
Level: 54

Posts: 575/677
EXP: 1178491
For next: 55386

Since: 17.6.02
From: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Since last post: 2667 days
Last activity: 2617 days
AIM:  
#19 Posted on 13.4.04 2206.49
Reposted on: 13.4.11 2209.39
    Originally posted by dMr
    >When players demand more money however they are in a position of power. They know their club has relatively few options open to them other than to up the ante, and even if they refuse there will likely be other clubs out there willing to take them on on increased wages.


That's the thing though. McKenzie is NOT in a position of power. He's under a contract, and since the team looks like they're not going to budge, he has one of two options, he can either play, or he can sit out. If he sits out, he hurts his chances when his contract does expire.

I think this offseason will be a turning table in the negotiations between players and owners. Between Law(with the team not budging), Northcutt(as of yet the team hasn't budged), and McKenzie(who knows how this will turn out), the owners are showing more power. They're showing that they'll let the players throw fits like 3 year olds. Then they'll move on to the next day.

And as far as taking as much money as you can, the NFL, with it's cap, it means that if you take one million more dollars, that means that a developing role player that might help you win a SuperBowl will now leave for that million somewhere else. The cap doesn't allow every player to maximize their income, because then you have to put the team second to some asshole.
dMr
Andouille
Level: 89

Posts: 1232/2212
EXP: 6852160
For next: 63768

Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 1 day
#20 Posted on 14.4.04 1250.47
Reposted on: 14.4.11 1251.26
    Originally posted by kazhayashi81
      Originally posted by dMr
      >When players demand more money however they are in a position of power. They know their club has relatively few options open to them other than to up the ante, and even if they refuse there will likely be other clubs out there willing to take them on on increased wages.


    That's the thing though. McKenzie is NOT in a position of power. He's under a contract, and since the team looks like they're not going to budge, he has one of two options, he can either play, or he can sit out. If he sits out, he hurts his chances when his contract does expire.


I was referring more there to free agents negotiating contracts, but assuming McKenzie has no power, why the fuss? He believes he deserves more money. His team are at least initially saying that they would rather pay him to do nothing than give into his demands. Thats all part of business negotiations and I dount the current situation will be the end result.

As it is I'd fancy its more a case of posturing on the part of the Packers and they'll probably end up trading him rather than take up wages and a roster place with a guy whose unwilling to play. THAT'S the power contracted players have. They can quite easily 'work to rule' knowing that they can do enough to avoid breach of contract without the team risking playing them. The club can attempt to counteract that by benching the player and harming his future value. History however suggests that this rarely happens.

Again, the article specifically states that money is NOT the issue for McKenzie. Even if it were however I fail to see the problem with McKenzie trying to get his share of the huge money teams have recently started handing out to CB's, even if he is under contract. Heck if I sign a year long contract and then something better comes along after 6 months I'd do my damndest to either wangle or pay rise or jump ship. If that makes me heartless and money-grabbing in some people's eyes so be it.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: 2004 NFL Schedule
Next thread: GUYS IN THE NFL OLDER THAN DEAN
Previous thread: NYG - SD trade?
(719 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Related threads: Green Bay interested in buying a used Couch? - Packers cut DT Gilbert Brown, and re-sign OL Chad Clifton... - Slide rules and protractors determine Packers' playoff potential - More...
The 7 - Football - Greedy PlayersRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.4 seconds.