Should Russel Wilson take Tom Brady like deal? (Times)

[knownone]

He will take on substantial risk if he attempts to play 4 years on what essentially amounts to one-year contracts.

And what if he doesn't see it that way?

How Wilson sees it is everything. Not "what's true even if Wilson doesn't see it".

One thing that constantly frustrates me is people assigning a rational 'non football player' motive to football players despite big differences in the circumstances from where they're pulling that rational motive model from and applying it to. Basically ignoring cool cats like Marshawn Lynch doing what they do, players hanging it up in their prime leaving 50 mil in earnings on the table, etc etc.

To me, superimposing what you would do or what people in your field do, is a faulty basis for prescribing what players should do. Key Example: People crapping on Okung for playing his own agent cause he was curious about what he could do there. Is it rational to explore your nascent curiosity at the expense of potential future earnings? Probably not, but given Okung's situation, stability, past earnings, what did he really have to lose from his perspective besides a marginal amount of money on top of past earnings? And what did he have to gain - satisfying a cognitive itch he always had that he may never get to scratch again outside of football.

I am going to talk some smack towards fellow posters here but some of you guys are so basic that you can't appreciate that football players are more complex individuals than you want them to be and give them credit for. Some of you don't even really hide that you want anonymous robotic grunts playing the game for your entertainment - you just articulate that desire in ways that dance around explicitly saying that by castigating any player who doesn't conform to that platonic ideal in your mind with hilarious little nitpicks.

So posters aren't complex individuals who are capable of having their own opinions on matters? Seriously, you are essentially castigating posters who don't conform to your platonic ideal.

Football is just a business, it's not as if these guys are topologists, specialing in triadic homotopy groups, that only people who do it professionally would understand. No, it's basic finance and negotiation, and just because some of us agree or disagree with a certain players stance does not mean we think they should be dehumanized or treated like automatons.

If players want to play with risk more power to them. If they want to retire and leave millions on the table, then they should absolutely do what is best for them. However, fans can also have an opinion and give their perspective on what they would do in those situations, otherwise... what the heck are we even doing here discussing these things.

 

[KARAVARUS]

I would tell Russell all the facts. The more you make, the less we have to support you. Then I would say—You bring us your contract and we’ll sign off on it.

Russell knows the facts, the fact is he like all players have a very limited window to make the most money possible, they have their life shortened by playing football and are susceptible to very serious long term medical risks like CTE.

We as fans would like players to be things like loyal, selfless and take one for the team..........when the reality is Russell's knee could explode on one play and his career is over. So I don't fault any player for getting as much money as possible before they get hurt and/or retire.

None of that changes my stance. Of course he knows the facts, but if you’re giving a guy carte blanche to write his own contract, it might behoove you to make sure you’re including those facts—reiterating without actually saying that you’re hoping to not be taken advantage of. And that you’re encouraging a way to pay and stay competitive.

 

[mrt144]

He will take on substantial risk if he attempts to play 4 years on what essentially amounts to one-year contracts.

And what if he doesn't see it that way?

How Wilson sees it is everything. Not "what's true even if Wilson doesn't see it".

One thing that constantly frustrates me is people assigning a rational 'non football player' motive to football players despite big differences in the circumstances from where they're pulling that rational motive model from and applying it to. Basically ignoring cool cats like Marshawn Lynch doing what they do, players hanging it up in their prime leaving 50 mil in earnings on the table, etc etc.

To me, superimposing what you would do or what people in your field do, is a faulty basis for prescribing what players should do. Key Example: People crapping on Okung for playing his own agent cause he was curious about what he could do there. Is it rational to explore your nascent curiosity at the expense of potential future earnings? Probably not, but given Okung's situation, stability, past earnings, what did he really have to lose from his perspective besides a marginal amount of money on top of past earnings? And what did he have to gain - satisfying a cognitive itch he always had that he may never get to scratch again outside of football.

I am going to talk some smack towards fellow posters here but some of you guys are so basic that you can't appreciate that football players are more complex individuals than you want them to be and give them credit for. Some of you don't even really hide that you want anonymous robotic grunts playing the game for your entertainment - you just articulate that desire in ways that dance around explicitly saying that by castigating any player who doesn't conform to that platonic ideal in your mind with hilarious little nitpicks.

So posters aren't complex individuals who are capable of having their own opinions on matters? Seriously, you are essentially castigating posters who don't conform to your platonic ideal.

Football is just a business, it's not as if these guys are topologists, specialing in triadic homotopy groups, that only people who do it professionally would understand. No, it's basic finance and negotiation, and just because some of us agree or disagree with a certain players stance does not mean we think they should be dehumanized or treated like automatons.

If players want to play with risk more power to them. If they want to retire and leave millions on the table, then they should absolutely do what is best for them. However, fans can also have an opinion and give their perspective on what they would do in those situations, otherwise... what the heck are we even doing here discussing these things.

I think I love you for this response. I love a good, thoughtful pushback to my thoughts especially phrased how I would phrase it.

You're right, I am castigating other posters for not being nuanced, complex or dispassionate about various options for players...because I think it's within everyone's ability to at least make an effort to do that and I see that effort unfulfilled so often.

I guess I'd prefer to frame the discussion in another way which is "here are options A through Z, what do you guys think is more likely based on your perception of incentives for RW at this stage in his career, the team needs and relationship with RW." rather than "If RW cares about winning another SB he'll take a discount, if he doesn't he's not as much of a team player as we thought" or something to that effect.

 

[John63]

And what if he doesn't see it that way?

How Wilson sees it is everything. Not "what's true even if Wilson doesn't see it".

One thing that constantly frustrates me is people assigning a rational 'non football player' motive to football players despite big differences in the circumstances from where they're pulling that rational motive model from and applying it to. Basically ignoring cool cats like Marshawn Lynch doing what they do, players hanging it up in their prime leaving 50 mil in earnings on the table, etc etc.

To me, superimposing what you would do or what people in your field do, is a faulty basis for prescribing what players should do. Key Example: People crapping on Okung for playing his own agent cause he was curious about what he could do there. Is it rational to explore your nascent curiosity at the expense of potential future earnings? Probably not, but given Okung's situation, stability, past earnings, what did he really have to lose from his perspective besides a marginal amount of money on top of past earnings? And what did he have to gain - satisfying a cognitive itch he always had that he may never get to scratch again outside of football.

I am going to talk some smack towards fellow posters here but some of you guys are so basic that you can't appreciate that football players are more complex individuals than you want them to be and give them credit for. Some of you don't even really hide that you want anonymous robotic grunts playing the game for your entertainment - you just articulate that desire in ways that dance around explicitly saying that by castigating any player who doesn't conform to that platonic ideal in your mind with hilarious little nitpicks.

So posters aren't complex individuals who are capable of having their own opinions on matters? Seriously, you are essentially castigating posters who don't conform to your platonic ideal.

Football is just a business, it's not as if these guys are topologists, specialing in triadic homotopy groups, that only people who do it professionally would understand. No, it's basic finance and negotiation, and just because some of us agree or disagree with a certain players stance does not mean we think they should be dehumanized or treated like automatons.

If players want to play with risk more power to them. If they want to retire and leave millions on the table, then they should absolutely do what is best for them. However, fans can also have an opinion and give their perspective on what they would do in those situations, otherwise... what the heck are we even doing here discussing these things.

I think I love you for this response. I love a good, thoughtful pushback to my thoughts especially phrased how I would phrase it.

You're right, I am castigating other posters for not being nuanced, complex or dispassionate about various options for players...because I think it's within everyone's ability to at least make an effort to do that and I see that effort unfulfilled so often.

I guess I'd prefer to frame the discussion in another way which is "here are options A through Z, what do you guys think is more likely based on your perception of incentives for RW at this stage in his career, the team needs and relationship with RW." rather than "If RW cares about winning another SB he'll take a discount, if he doesn't he's not as much of a team player as we thought" or something to that effect.

One thing is this whole "If RW cares about winning another SB he'll take a discount, if he doesn't he's not as much of a team player as we thought" this works both ways. If the team does not resign Wilson they know they will take a step back and not be a SB team for several years, so are they committed to an SB? Or are they at the point they figure they can keep filling the seats for 5 years and make a lot of money. The idea that only the player is not being loyal is a huge mistake.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I would tell Russell all the facts. The more you make, the less we have to support you. Then I would say—You bring us your contract and we’ll sign off on it.

Russell knows the facts, the fact is he like all players have a very limited window to make the most money possible, they have their life shortened by playing football and are susceptible to very serious long term medical risks like CTE.

We as fans would like players to be things like loyal, selfless and take one for the team..........when the reality is Russell's knee could explode on one play and his career is over. So I don't fault any player for getting as much money as possible before they get hurt and/or retire.

None of that changes my stance. Of course he knows the facts, but if you’re giving a guy carte blanche to write his own contract, it might behoove you to make sure you’re including those facts—reiterating without actually saying that you’re hoping to not be taken advantage of. And that you’re encouraging a way to pay and stay competitive.

No player has carte blanche, the large majority of player extensions or contract negotiations, especially for the top 5-10% of NFL players follow a formula...........and that formula is that as the salary cap goes up, so do player contracts.

So why are you asking Russell to not earn what he's worth, which is being the next highest paid QB? You want him to earn less so that we may or may not be more competitive, none of which is guaranteed for Russell.

That's how the league works, it's pretty much how it's always worked.

Now maybe if Russell's still rolling in his mid to late 30's, and he has another 100M in the bank? Then we can have this conversation where he desperately wants another ring and will do anything salary wise to make it happen.

But that's not now for him, now for him is to maximize his leverage for playing at a high level the entire length of his previous contract and become the highest paid QB in the league..........until the NEXT elite QB surpasses Russell.

 

[KARAVARUS]

I'm tired of explaining things that are clearly written. Of course no player has carte blanche, I never said that. What I said was, if it were up to me I would tell Wilson to tell me what he wants and I'll sign off. That I would let him know that's how much he means to our organization. Is it feasible that will happen? No. Just what I would do, MYSELF. Nothing more.

It has nothing to do with what else we can afford after him. I'm not suggesting that he should take less, as I've already stated I'm paying him what he asks for. At the same time, it would be irresponsible to not remind him that the more he takes, the less we have to spread around him.

Russell comes back with a figure. I say, "Is this what it will take to keep you in action green? DO we have any wiggle room?" If he comes down, win. If he doesn't, I'm signing it and saying thank you very much. This is 100% just a demonstration of the fact that letting Russell go would be a huge mistake for this franchise.

 

[mrt144]

I'm tired of explaining things that are clearly written. Of course no player has carte blanche, I never said that. What I said was, if it were up to me I would tell Wilson to tell me what he wants and I'll sign off. That I would let him know that's how much he means to our organization. Is it feasible that will happen? No. Just what I would do, MYSELF. Nothing more.

It has nothing to do with what else we can afford after him. I'm not suggesting that he should take less, as I've already stated I'm paying him what he asks for. At the same time, it would be irresponsible to not remind him that the more he takes, the less we have to spread around him.

Russell comes back with a figure. I say, "Is this what it will take to keep you in action green? DO we have any wiggle room?" If he comes down, win. If he doesn't, I'm signing it and saying thank you very much. This is 100% just a demonstration of the fact that letting Russell go would be a huge mistake for this franchise.

Can RW put some portion of his salary in a cap trust that can only be used for parts of the team that support him? Clawback provisions if the players accrued suck.

God, imagining JS going to some poor jamoke with hat in hand "Hey dude, so you really didn't play that well in support of RW so we're gonna need that money back". In the background RW is twirling a newfound mustache.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I'm tired of explaining things that are clearly written. Of course no player has carte blanche, I never said that.

That's exactly what you said.

Of course he knows the facts, but if you’re giving a guy carte blanche to write his own contract, it might behoove you to make sure you’re including those facts—reiterating witho

You also said "of course he knows the facts." Then you go on again that somehow you need to remind him that the more he makes the less we have to spend.

Russell's a top 5 NFL QB in year #7, he knows all of this, and more...........he's also a supremely self confident person that thinks he can still win while making 30M+ a year as the highest paid NFL QB after his next deal.

So no, Russell doesn't need reminding. He doesn't care, nor should he.

 

[chris98251]

Look at it this way, John and Pete are very cognizant about salary impact for the team and have an idea what they will pay, they also are confident in their ability to fill spots on the roster and they brought Hundley in for a reason last year, regardless of whether we think he can take over or not they made a trade for him.


Remember Schneider was in Green Bay when Farve was let go for Rodgers.


Wilson is under contract here and now, if they can't strike a deal to get a return for a top 7 QB you have to trade him this year or extend / renegotiate. They can restock draft picks, draft a reset QB and do the process over again.


That's the business end and based on how we have seen the Front Office work and their confidence in restocking players it's not as far a reach to think about as you may think.

 

[KARAVARUS]

You’re reading comprehension is poor. No player HAS carte blanche, we agree on that. And IF you knew how to read, you would not keep insisting I said that they do. I’m saying that I personally would give him that. As for the rest, I don’t know why you’re arguing—we’re making the same point. Only for some reason, you wouldn’t even mention to him, in my completely fictional scenario, that the more he takes, the less we have to spend, whether he knows that or not. If you wouldn’t bother, again, in this completly fictional scenario, so be it. I would, and I explained why already. It would be irresponsible to not mention it, again, whether he knows it or not.

Russell Wilson should not take a discount, but that doesn’t mean he should not also sign a reasonable contract. It is possible for him to get what he is worth, while also not demanding max dollars—something I’d love for him to consider, IF HE WERE EVER GIVEN CARTE BLANCHE, WHICH HE WONT BE BE AUSE THAT IS A FICTIONAL SCENARIO THAT I DEVISED TO SHOW THAT IF I WERE GM, I’D PROVE TO HIM, HIS PERCIEVED VALUE TO THE ORGNAIZATION. LOL