Why trading for Antonio Brown makes sense for Packers

[FlaPack]

Yes, he wanted out of Pitt, but don't kid yourself, his main focus was trying to not get hurt in an attempt to secure a large payday with max guaranteed money (that Pitt most likely would not offer). The only way he "wins" in this scenario is if he does get hurt and the guaranteed money comes into play; otherwise he's not going to be able to recover what he gave up in 2018. Yes, it was a business decision that players understand - they like it when someone else takes that gamble - however, even his ex-teammates were not happy with his behavior. It's primarily about winning, yes, but sports is entertainment and he's certainly lost a large number of fans over this.
Relative to what has been reported on what he is expecting - $16-$17M per year, $40M guaranteed; most reports I've read says that is unrealistic. Most likely less than $15M per year (most likely only $12-13M), and maybe $25-$30M guaranteed (double the yearly average). He would already have been the highest paid RB in the league at $14.5M for the year (Gurley now at $15M). He's only 27 . . . but he's had a lot of touches early in his career, not good for the longevity of an RB.

I really don't think he cares about losing fans, and I can lump 90% of players into that category. As to his teammates yeah there were some that were not publicly pleased, and honestly I think that was a bit unfair but that's a different debate. As to reports I take them with a grain of salt at best. It only takes one team and with the obscene amount of cap space out there so I think the gamble will pay off.

One side note, I hate the franchise tag. The player signs a contract and plays out that deal but the team still can basically force the guy to extend for 2 more years. OK I get the money part but maybe the player wants out of city, or not a fan of the staff. And don't get me started on loyalty. A player can sign a 4-5 years deal but gets cut in year 2 because of cap issues or some other BS. See Matt Bryant in Atlanta. Ownership in the NFL has shown they have no loyalty, its business but for the player it's different? Rant over

 

[GBP4EVER]

I really don't think he cares about losing fans, and I can lump 90% of players into that category. As to his teammates yeah there were some that were not publicly pleased, and honestly I think that was a bit unfair but that's a different debate. As to reports I take them with a grain of salt at best. It only takes one team and with the obscene amount of cap space out there so I think the gamble will pay off.

One side note, I hate the franchise tag. The player signs a contract and plays out that deal but the team still can basically force the guy to extend for 2 more years. OK I get the money part but maybe the player wants out of city, or not a fan of the staff. And don't get me started on loyalty. A player can sign a 4-5 years deal but gets cut in year 2 because of cap issues or some other BS. See Matt Bryant in Atlanta. Ownership in the NFL has shown they have no loyalty, its business but for the player it's different? Rant over

Thing though with what's happening with Brown right now players are so happy and eager to take the big SB and up front money but then bitch when all that money is paid out and no guaranteed money is left and that they are underpaid and want a new deal and hold out.

 

[FlaPack]

Thing though with what's happening with Brown right now players are so happy and eager to take the big SB and up front money but then bitch when all that money is paid out and no guaranteed money is left and that they are underpaid and want a new deal and hold out.

1 player...Brown, that was not the case with Bell. I go back to loyalty, owners are not, players know its a business. I don't think they look at guarantee money gone, they look at AAV and see how it compares to their deal

 

[HowardK4]

I really don't think he cares about losing fans, and I can lump 90% of players into that category. As to his teammates yeah there were some that were not publicly pleased, and honestly I think that was a bit unfair but that's a different debate. As to reports I take them with a grain of salt at best. It only takes one team and with the obscene amount of cap space out there so I think the gamble will pay off.

One side note, I hate the franchise tag. The player signs a contract and plays out that deal but the team still can basically force the guy to extend for 2 more years. OK I get the money part but maybe the player wants out of city, or not a fan of the staff. And don't get me started on loyalty. A player can sign a 4-5 years deal but gets cut in year 2 because of cap issues or some other BS. See Matt Bryant in Atlanta. Ownership in the NFL has shown they have no loyalty, its business but for the player it's different? Rant over

I get the rant, and understand what you're saying. However, this is still a business. If my company determines that I am no longer performing at the level at which they are paying me, I'll be let go; same thing with sports - if you sign a contract, and your performance doesn't live up to expectations, you get cut. You can't hold out for more money when you outperform a contract, but then get mad when you're cut for lack of performance - can't have it both ways. As for loyalty - that works both ways my friend. The players and the NFL BOTH have shown little loyalty - you said it yourself, Bell and most players don't give a crap about the fans - to most of them it's a job and they are only looking out for #1.
And you're right, all it takes is 1 team to do it for Bell. We've seen a number of contracts over the last few years made by desperate teams and overpaying the player - but is it smart to gamble on that actually happening? Every player, every employee, believe they are worth more than what they have now; sometimes it works out, but usually not.

 

[GBP4EVER]

1 player...Brown, that was not the case with Bell. I go back to loyalty, owners are not, players know its a business. I don't think they look at guarantee money gone, they look at AAV and see how it compares to their deal

That's why then I think maybe these players should be smarter instead of taking these 5 year deals with large SB but not guaranteed on back end more guys should look towards Cousins did take 2-3 year deals get them fully guaranteed and become a FA again when you think your value could still be high and salary cap has went up.

 

[FlaPack]

I get the rant, and understand what you're saying. However, this is still a business. If my company determines that I am no longer performing at the level at which they are paying me, I'll be let go; same thing with sports - if you sign a contract, and your performance doesn't live up to expectations, you get cut. You can't hold out for more money when you outperform a contract, but then get mad when you're cut for lack of performance - can't have it both ways. As for loyalty - that works both ways my friend. The players and the NFL BOTH have shown little loyalty - you said it yourself, Bell and most players don't give a crap about the fans - to most of them it's a job and they are only looking out for #1.
And you're right, all it takes is 1 team to do it for Bell. We've seen a number of contracts over the last few years made by desperate teams and overpaying the player - but is it smart to gamble on that actually happening? Every player, every employee, believe they are worth more than what they have now; sometimes it works out, but usually not.

Unless your contract has performance clauses built in then you are correct but they dont. A contract should be a binding agreement, but the CBA allows ownership to break that contract without cause of player (cap space , age)

 

[FlaPack]

That's why then I think maybe these players should be smarter instead of taking these 5 year deals with large SB but not guaranteed on back end more guys should look towards Cousins did take 2-3 year deals get them fully guaranteed and become a FA again when you think your value could still be high and salary cap has went up.

dont use Cousins as a comp. He plays the most premium position in the league. The reason they do 5 years is for cap purposed and pro rate SB, and ownership does not want 2 or 3 year deals, no flexibility

 

[HowardK4]

Unless your contract has performance clauses built in then you are correct but they dont. A contract should be a binding agreement, but the CBA allows ownership to break that contract without cause of player (cap space , age)

Then the players shouldn't hold out for new contracts either before they play out their current ones. I'm all for once you sign a contract, that it be binding, as both sides agreed to the terms/conditions; but then both sides also need to honor it.

 

[FlaPack]

Then the players shouldn't hold out for new contracts either before they play out their current ones. I'm all for once you sign a contract, that it be binding, as both sides agreed to the terms/conditions; but then both sides also need to honor it.

and I agree with that but holding out has been the exception for a few years now, really can't think of one off top of my head. But then if you hold out you don't get paid and cannot void your contract either.

 

[Terranimal]

Holding out? Heck Sterling did that, signed and then had career ending injury and he wasn't the first to hold out either