I've been pondering this for some time, and have come to a conclusion that in Wilson, or Lynch, or any football player's case, there is a strong moral case for taking the maximum amount of free agency money possible:
Observe,
Maximizing a contract ensures that the market is properly set for other players who aren't as good as Russell Wilson. Owners may take his cheap, hometown discount deal as evidence to go cheap on their players. "You think you're worth $5 million guaranteed? That's ridiculous. Russ Wilson his ownself is only worth $10 million. Take it or leave it." This football salary cap is completely arbitrary, and is used as a way to keep the football players from fully sharing in the league's profits. No matter how profitable football becomes, only so much money will be made by players. The only way that players can fight against this, is if prominent, and not so prominent players hold out for maximum money. If every player demanded a maximum amount, the salary cap would have to be adjusted for teams to have a complete roster. It is the high turnover and lack of star power of players that got the players union into this weak bargaining position in the first place.
The pain from losing star players to the salary cap may cause outcry and reform in the system. Why is Payton Manning not a Colt? Why has his legacy been sullied by having to play for two teams? If enough of these hall of fame salary cap injustices occur, then the fans may require the system to be changed.
Football players put their lives on the line every play. There are any number of defensive backs who would love to put Russ Wilson in a wheel chair. If his brain and body are priceless, then why is he going cheap when risking these things? Does he not think his brain is worth $100,000,000?
If Russ Wilson has a chance to make $100 million, it allows him to do 50-100 lifetimes worth of charitable work. He could send thousands of kids to college, or feed orphans, or seek political reform in Haiti. The possibilities are endless, and many of them may be more important than keeping the band together in Seattle.
Wilson doesn't owe the league, the team or the fans anything. He has lived up to his contract and his draft, and he has played hard and focused since he arrived. Fans are greedy for success, and they shouldn't expect their favorite players to work below market value to achieve that. Put it this way: Fans don't deserve to have a good football team. They haven't worked for it. Russ Wilson deserves to be paid like a good football player. He has worked for it since his youth. In asking a star player for a hometown discount, the fans are asking him to forbear on something he does deserve to give them something that they don't deserve. Smeagol: "Give us that Deagol My love." Deagol: "Why?" Smeagol: "Because its my birthday and I wants it." Deagol had already given Smeagol a birthday present. It was manipulative of Smeagol to call Deagol's friendship into question because he wasn't turning over extra freebies. The fans, expecting Dangeruss to give them a discount, are acting like Smeagol. The message is: "If you loved us Russ, you would take a home town discount." Russ should rightly reply, "But I already got you a present. A Lombardi trophy(ies)."
I see the other side of it, but this is what I've been noodling on for a few weeks.
.
DaddyO sez,
When it comes to the physical tools and skills that involve passing, there are a number of quarterbacks better than he. And we've seen a number of games where his passing accuracy is just not there. With regard to leadership and "makeup," nobody exceeds him, and perhaps nobody is even his peer. He's off the charts. As Doc say, he's just winding up his third season, so he has more to learn in recognition, field vision, pocket skills, and decision-making, though he has progressed in those skills much farther and faster than expected. Then you have his running skills, which set him apart, even more so than what I remember from Fran Tarkenton (wait 'til his pocket skills improve!).
The real question to me is how good CAN he become as a pure passer? Have his passing skills been retarded or limited because the lack of pass rush protection has frequently been a real problem? Have they been retarded or limited because of a lack of front line receivers. A related question...is his passing skill potential such that, if needed, you could eventually, if meeded, build an offense around them?
To me, I think what Wilson brings to the game deserves great reward. But the highest? How would he do without Marshawn Lynch at RB? Granted that the QB position is more than just passing, are his other skills enough to merit being the highest paid quarterback?
I can't answer that, yet. If Lynch retires after this season, and we get some better receiving talent, I might be able to answer after next season. But not now. If it's me, I don't reward him with the #1 QB contract yet. I find some way to guarantee that to him if he demonstrates that his passing skills are better than he's shown so far, and that he can if need be sometimes carry the team with his passing, given adequate protection and better receivers.
What happens if you give him the best contract up front, and Lynch retires, and you strengthen his protection and receiving corps, but his passing skills don't progress as much as you hope? Don't you need to see them demonstrated first?
I don't know how you structure a contract that would achieve protecting both sides, but I think you need to accomplish that.
- See more at: http://seattlesportsinsider.com/comment/157746#comment-157746
.
Good stuff amigo :- )
I know guys who believe that Wilson is going to become a super-cross between Tom Brady and Joe Montana, who believe that he's going to become simply the best QB (and therefore the best football player, period) who ever lived.
I don't hold with that.
Whether Wilson is ever going to be capable of putting up Favre-, Luck-, Rodgers-style light shows, standing in the pocket and hurling the ball downfield 40 yards to rack up 400+ yard passing games ... for me that's not the goal.
.......
For me, the targets remain what they were at SSI after his first game: Fran Tarkenton and Drew Brees. It says here that it's completely realistic to ask Wilson to exceed Brees, to see the field as well as Brees does, but to do so from a more mobile launch point.
.......
We also argue about "Does he deserve absolutely the #1 salary?" For me this is like the argument about Mike Trout, Miguel Cabrera or Clayton Kershaw with the first roto pick :- ) ... fun but meaningless. You don't get to choose between those three, and even if you did, EVERY answer would be correct.
Wilson is a player the Seahawks just have to have. End of story. How much he costs, a shade the more or a shade the less, it's going to get washed out as other players exceed it. If he momentarily sets a new market, that's fine, but not very relevant (in my world).
........
One year ago today, Dr. D was axing --- > "Are any 49'er fans worried that their franchise player is a punk? Does that matter any more, or have sports evolved beyond that, where your team captain has to be disciplined and mature?"
Funny how that shook out ...
Russell Wilson's personality is worth paying for. If I would pay some other player $18M per year for exactly the same football skills, I would pay another $7M per year for Wilson's personality. I'll take [Wilson and his personality], over [Wilson-with-Kaep's-personality-plus-K.J.-Wright].
As with Edgar Martinez, Randy Johnson, Felix Hernandez, Ken Griffey Jr., and Robinson Cano -- but even more so -- I think it's hard to overstate this personality factor. The whole Jenga tower can, and does, come crumbling down when the narcissists infect the locker room. Almost happened with Percy Harvin.
By the way, one reason the Chuck Armstrong Mariners dumped Randy Johnson was because, in Chuck's words post-trade, "Randy is as high-maintenance as anybody in this league." They saw the Unit as a big locker room negative; the whole administration, fifteen years on, sees Felix as a big locker room positive. That's part of the reason that Felix and Cano are here on such long contracts. If you're going to get married, figure out the prenups. Sez they.
........
Since the rumor about Wilson setting the market, the sports agents have been arguing ferociously that there will be no hometown discount. Agents hate discounts because other agents then use the contract as a club against them in recruiting - most agents will tell you that they would resign before negotiating a below-max deal. Players hate it because it lowers the tide for all players.
The overwhelming sentiment is that Wilson will squeeze every penny, and must do so. The one person we haven't heard from is Wilson.
In baseball, it's not unusual for a Mark McGwire type to give a large hometown discount, whatever the MLBPA would prefer. Not sure what NFL precedents there would be for Russell Wilson making an anti-greed statement.
On the one hand, there is nothing your 2nd million dollars buys you, that does you any good as a human being. On the other hand, if I've got a $102 million business, I'll lawyer up and make a responsible transaction.
The middle ground arrives in attitude: Wilson and the Seahawks ought to be able to amicably and easily reach an agreement. I'd love for Wilson to say, $20M a year forever is plenty -- to say that. To use his own bully pulpit to argue against greed in our society. ... Whatever.
...........
In any case, you've got to have Russell Wilson. That's all. :: shrug :: There is no choice available here; you've simply got to struggle to contain the cost to whatever point you can, and then go from there.
My $0.02,
Dr D
Comments
Long is the list, on either side of the ledger, for-and-agin. As we expect, the bullet list above is compelling.
In the big picture there, they've got a $20B pie and the question is whether the players will get a good fraction, or whether the owners will keep it all. Generally speaking, we're in favor of the gladiators getting more and the plantation owners less.
As long as you got $10B sitting there, I'd just as soon the players get $5B of it rather than $1B of it.
.........
In the bigGEST picture, we have America's cultural fabric - how the current generation of youth is going to look at the world. In the 1950's and 1960's, the youth weren't mesmerized by the rock-star, movie-star culture, as much as they are now.
It goes to what youth expect out of life, and how much work they're willing to put into it. The sense of entitlement grows, the minimum acceptable lifestyle spirals out of control, and there's nobody arguing that we can be content with simple food, housing, and clothing. (Well, Dave Ramsey argues it. After the youth are $80k in debt, they start thinking about eating at home...)
Each new message on TV drives us toward craving ever more of the bounty - a decent life making $40,000 per year, staying out of trouble, enjoying the simple things in life, becomes ever less popular.
As Marilyn Vos Savant said, "TV shows us people we'll never meet, never look like, and never be like." :- )
..........
Of course, it's possible to be filthy rich AND well-adjusted. Russell Wilson looks like he's going to be one of 'em.
When it comes to NFL salaries, there are really two parts to it. The yearly salary numbers, and then you have the GUARANTEED money.
If Russell is willing to be get the most GUARANTEED money, he may accept a lot less per year... we just do not know... especially if the guaranteed money lasts for 10 years.
Guaranteed money is the name of the game. Settling for much less guaranteed money isn't really giving the team a discount, it is trading upside for certainty. Maybe this can still be a win-win situation.
We don't want our kids to act like Gordon Gecko. If they see a sense of altruism in their heroes, then maybe it will inspire them to live that way.
I guess you have to do it but I'll be far more nervous about it than y'all. When they do make the investment, I hope they put a high priority on finding him a go to receiver.
The Seahawks need Wilson, and should pay him any reasonable amount to keep him. Of course what is reasonable is up for negotiation and likely to vary depending on one's point of view. To me reasonable has to include the overall welfare of the team within the salary cap. If you get your "must have" quarterback and hamstring the team for a decade, that's not reasonable. If I'm the Hawks I factor in Dan Schneider's penchant for finding hidden gems in the draft.
Wilson is worth the huge contract for the reasons you outlined. My only point it that the Hawks need to protect themselves against the possibility, however much it may look unlikely now, that the loss of Marshawn Lynch requires Wilson to progress in other areas and he is unable to do so. Unlikely, but possible. It's possible that it's no coincidence that Wilson's fourth quarter wizardry blossoms at the same time that Lynch finally breaks opponents' wills and begins to run almost at will over, around, and through them.
It would be interesting to hear what contract Schneider would rather sign Russell to:
1. 5 year $120M - gradual climbing salary like $20M, $22M, 24M, $26M, $28M with 2 years / $42M guaranteed
2. 8 year $168M - flat $21M per year with 3 years / $63M guaranteed
3. 6 year $140M - has $20M upfront signing bonus, then flat $20M per year with 2 years / 60M guaranteed
4. 10 year $200M plus incentives and built in salary bumps on yearly performance (Pro Bowl, Play-offs) with 5 years / 90M guaranteed
What are we talking, the difference between $22M vs $16M in salary? $5M a year is one Brandon Mebane ... $7-9M a year is one linebacker. $5-7M a year is Unger or Okung. We play without them when they're hurt, right?
Can't imagine how a Mebane or Unger, plus a lesser quarterback, would ever be comparable to a Wilson, Brady, or Brees. Not sure how that one $7M player equates to hamstringing the team. The delta between Wilson and Jackson is more like 4 or 5 impact players at non-skill positions. In the NFL salary structure, quarterback costs seem well contained. A single franchise quarterback is comparable in value to the Mariners' 1-2-3 starting pitchers as a group.
Now, if you give the guy the $20M and commit to him and he turns out to be Cutler or Kaepernick, you got a whale of a problem ...
.........
I could be wrong, but I doubt it. There is approximately an 0% chance that the Seahawks' analysis differs ;- )
Keep it comin' TR.
.......
For me, the dominating variable is the salary cap. Paul Allen isn't hurting. Which of your scenarios allows the most space around Wilson?
.......
Unrelated question. In the Tom Brady thing, where he gives up guaranteed money to clear space ... is there any written or unwritten rule that keeps the owner from going, "You'll be back, Tom. Don't worry about it," and using a handshake?
You better not let Doug Baldwin hear you talk in' like that. :-)
That's not a decent life anymore, at least not in Seattle.
I pretty much agree with all of this. To me, the biggest issue is one of fairness. The NFL makes the most money of the three major sports, while the NFL players have the worst deal of the three major sports AND they take the most physical punishment. So in my mind, they should hold out for every last dollar (or something close to that).
I also don't understand why the NFL doesn't strike more often.
I highly doubt there is anything CURRENTLY preventing Paul Allen from using his influence / relationships to convince Microsoft to give Russell a lifetime contract to promote Microsoft products at millions of dollars per year... since I do not think Paul is anything more than a major stock holder at Microsoft anymore.
Now if Allen hires Russell directly to promote ticket master AFTER Russell retires, I do not see that being a problem at all... but I could see others having a problem with that.
Tell it to our friends in the Philippines, who take $30 a month as their ticket to grade B rice vs grade C ...
Most the folks I know (in the third world) who live on less than $100 per month, are happier than most the kids I know with three different video platforms.... that's the fact, Jack ...
http://www.dailydot.com/entertainment/chris-evans-chris-pratt-super-bowl...
Boy, Field Gulls is just a treasure of good stuff this week.
Starlord: "We both know there's only one Captain America, and his name is Russel Wilson".
LOL
I never imagined that Thailand rice standards would end up as the topic of discussion at SSI. Had to Google this one. Apparently, Grade A rice is the rice that you see in the grocery store. It all looks the same, and has been uniformly milled without husks. Rice that is not uniform or standard is Grade B. Rotten rice that is unfit for human consumption is Grade C. What is disturbing about this, is that if you can't even afford Grade B rice, then you certainly can't afford protein, vitamins, or fruits and vegetables. That is, if children just ate rice, even Grade A rice, they would still be classified as starving and suffer bone and brain deformities from malnourishment, even if they weren't starving enough to die from it. If all a guy ate was Grade B rice, he would be expected to live somewhere around the ripe old age of 35. Plus, he really wouldn't have the mental or physical faculties to get anything going for his future, as he would be too malnourished to work or make complicated plans. Plus, he would be starving his children through their mother's pregnancy and formative years, and perpetuating the cycle of starvation.
What is the life expectancy of a Grade C rice guy?
This sort of problem is completely foreign as the only starving or malnourished people in the United States are the children of drug addicts.
Thanks for the reality check. It is easy to forget how good you have it.
Food for thought: Haiti often ranks No. 1 on the world starvation index, and nothing ever seems to be done about that country. It is a sobering thought that the poorest place in the world is not somewhere in Africa, but is in our own backyard.
Haiti ranks very high every year (even prior to the recent earthquakes) in charitable contributions from Americans. The problem is not simply just $, it is corruption, etc.
C to B, and other times they wax ecstatic that we've sent them enough to buy grade A. I'll be able to use your summary there in fundraising in the future. Like we sez, a DOV launch will include a dab of funds towards that relief effort.
Haiti? Yeah, I wonder what the problem would be with getting them a few dollars? It doesn't cost much to attend to the rice problem.
Thanks Mojo.
We know a couple of specific individuals in the Philippines and are able to Western Union them their funds. But if we tried to use their mail system to get it to them, no way Jose.
If you don't have a contact in the area, I have no idea how you successfully get funds to them.
The meandering path conversations can take on this site is quite refreshing isn't it? I enjoy that Doc is ever willing to throw a third world contrast into the face of entitled American belly aching. It can be stunning just how uninformed some are as to life outside of America's borders.
Here's a quick look at aid given to Haiti
http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/countryprofile/haiti
Haiti is one of those places so fundamentally broken that there is no way for the money given to be put to use. In my personal opinion the best way to literally save untold thousands, if not millions, of lives there would be for an external force to establish a form of colonial government. However that is the one thing that is impossible in today's political climate.
I can comment a little on the living conditions of most people here. And let me tell you, I come down HARD on Doc's side of the argument w/r/t superstar cultural impact precisely because I've sat here and seen what Hollywood culture on 24/7 exposure does to people who are genuinely fighting to survive month-to-month.
I"m not going to go deep into it, because doing so will cause my blood pressure to go up, but they have a few hand-picked media darlings here (Kris Aquino being the worst) who eat up 90% of all the spotlight time across this country's entire media network. The people here see her with Guess bags and branded sandals and they run en masse to the mall to Be Like Kris. The result, unfortunately, is that many of these people (primary among them: young women) will debase themselves in order to 'keep up' with the rest of their peers in not falling behind the gadget/fashion curve. I literally cannot count how many times I've seen this phenomenon play out just among the people I've actually met.
And the worst part? The parents were, largely, raised on the same TV culture. So they not only see very little wrong with their children behaving like this, but in so many instances that I get sick just thinking about it, the parents tacitly encourage their kids to go do things they shouldn't be doing just so they can feel....whatever it is that they feel when sporting a $50 pair of sandals paid for with ill-gotten gains.
Generation after generation the march goes deeper into depravity, until you're left with a culture that really has no direction, no character, no morals, and no soul. Ferdinand Marcos had his problems, but read that man's first State of the Nation address given ~fifty years ago and he says exactly the same things. Under his leadership this country became the world's top exporter of rice and coconut, and the national wealth quadrupled during his first two presidencies while the poor were lifted up by a path-to-property-ownership system he instigated that allowed workers to sue for outright ownership of lands they had diligently worked, but were not fairly paid for (and by 'fairly' I mean: were unable to sustain themselves in a reasonable fashion with low-quality food) by their multi-millionaire landlords.
So, yeah, I'm dead set against the whole 'Greed is Good' when it comes to our public icons. When it comes to business practices, competing against outside interests like foreign nations, or even your own government on occasion, I'm all for Greed is Good. But when it comes to the moral character of a nation...that stuff isn't just made-up sentiment that means nothing at the most fundamental levels. It's a real problem to lack character - as the Industrialized World is discovering with no small amount of pain involved.