Michael Bennett on rookies learning their place

[dogorama]

I honestly don't think that he thinks he'll get premium compensation at his age, that's just a negotiating ploy. I do, however, think he'll get 75% provided it is not long-term. If it were up to me I would extend him for one year and give him his first year in bonus money pro-rated over the length of the contract. That would keep the cap down this year, give us a top-notch rushing end for three years, and keep him very happy. Everyone wins!

I owuld agree that a contract like that is reasonable . . . but I don't get the feeling Bennett would be interested in that deal.

Why not? If he plays out his current contract he'll make 4 mil this year and 6 mil next year. At that time he will be 32 yrs old and nobody is going to give a 32 year-old DE a big or long contract. It is totally in his interest to compromise.

 

[McGruff]

I honestly don't think that he thinks he'll get premium compensation at his age, that's just a negotiating ploy. I do, however, think he'll get 75% provided it is not long-term. If it were up to me I would extend him for one year and give him his first year in bonus money pro-rated over the length of the contract. That would keep the cap down this year, give us a top-notch rushing end for three years, and keep him very happy. Everyone wins!

I owuld agree that a contract like that is reasonable . . . but I don't get the feeling Bennett would be interested in that deal.

Why not? If he plays out his current contract he'll make 4 mil this year and 6 mil next year. At that time he will be 32 yrs old and nobody is going to give a 32 year-old DE a big or long contract. It is totally in his interest to compromise.

I don't think Bennett thinks like you and I think.

 

[dogorama]

I honestly don't think that he thinks he'll get premium compensation at his age, that's just a negotiating ploy. I do, however, think he'll get 75% provided it is not long-term. If it were up to me I would extend him for one year and give him his first year in bonus money pro-rated over the length of the contract. That would keep the cap down this year, give us a top-notch rushing end for three years, and keep him very happy. Everyone wins!

I owuld agree that a contract like that is reasonable . . . but I don't get the feeling Bennett would be interested in that deal.

Why not? If he plays out his current contract he'll make 4 mil this year and 6 mil next year. At that time he will be 32 yrs old and nobody is going to give a 32 year-old DE a big or long contract. It is totally in his interest to compromise.

I don't think Bennett thinks like you and I think.

Trust me, he is just posturing, it's part of the dance.

Besides, he has an agent who will advise him on the realities of his situation.

 

[KiwiHawk]

Having guaranteed contracts is cool w/me as long as injured player's money isn't counted against the cap. Otherwise, NFL success will just be a measure of who's got the healthiest team.

One question: Brock mentioned that Bennett's agent met w/team and didn't get a new contract. Does that mean that's final? Probably no way to know.

The cap exists because the owners agreed to share X amount of revenue with the players, and the players agreed to it. Having guaranteed contracts that don't count against the cap means owners pay more than they agreed to.

I'm fine with players getting every cent they agreed to. I'm not fine with anyone on either side feeling entitled to more than they agreed to.

If the players don't like what they - as in their elected representatives - came up with and agreed to, then they can address that in the next collective bargaining agreement.

 

[dogorama]

Having guaranteed contracts is cool w/me as long as injured player's money isn't counted against the cap. Otherwise, NFL success will just be a measure of who's got the healthiest team.

One question: Brock mentioned that Bennett's agent met w/team and didn't get a new contract. Does that mean that's final? Probably no way to know.

The cap exists because the owners agreed to share X amount of revenue with the players, and the players agreed to it. Having guaranteed contracts that don't count against the cap means owners pay more than they agreed to.

I'm fine with players getting every cent they agreed to. I'm not fine with anyone on either side feeling entitled to more than they agreed to.

If the players don't like what they - as in their elected representatives - came up with and agreed to, then they can address that in the next collective bargaining agreement.

I think that is what Bennett was referring to, i.e. a formal agreement re guaranteed contracts. There is another point here and that is that revenue doesn't accurately reflect how much owners are making. Equity gain is not technically included in revenue, but it is a very real component of how much owners are making. One could make the argument that these are unrealized profits but they are still recognized as accumulated other comprehensive income.