PDA

View Full Version : Harvin still unsigned - Loadholt signed 7/29



singersp
07-25-2009, 03:45 AM
Vikings' top two draft picks still unsigned (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/51632667.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUo8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

Wide receiver Percy Harvin and right tackle Phil Loadholt remain unsigned entering the final weekend of the offseason.

Last update: July 25, 2009 - 12:18 AM

startribune.com

erik5032
07-25-2009, 05:37 AM
Really not that big a deal, didn't Peterson not sign until the last week before training camp? Der's no doubt they will be signed this coming week.

Marrdro
07-25-2009, 07:50 AM
The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

I think I might be in a bit of a sarcastic mood lately.
Wonder why?

Prophet
07-25-2009, 08:21 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

I think I might be in a bit of a sarcastic mood lately.
Wonder why?


The sky is falling crowd fuels pp.o.

Zeus
07-25-2009, 08:37 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

I think I might be in a bit of a sarcastic mood lately.
Wonder why?


The sky is falling crowd fuels pp.o.


And the crotch-sniffers.
Don't forget them.

=Z=

NeoVikesTX
07-25-2009, 05:32 PM
I bet they're just waiting for Favre to sign first..........
;)

marstc09
07-25-2009, 05:39 PM
I bet it is Favres fault.

marstc09
07-25-2009, 05:42 PM
"singersp" wrote:


Vikings' top two draft picks still unsigned (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/51632667.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUo8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

Wide receiver Percy Harvin and right tackle Phil Loadholt remain unsigned entering the final weekend of the offseason.

Last update: July 25, 2009 - 12:18 AM

startribune.com


Not worried.


Last year, the Vikings signed safety Tyrell Johnson (second round), quarterback John David Booty (fifth) and center John Sullivan (sixth) hours before the team reported to training camp.

Articnv
07-25-2009, 05:43 PM
they wewre still at team
orginzed activities so
this is just soemhtign to write about on a slow news day

singersp
07-25-2009, 06:25 PM
"marstc09" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Vikings' top two draft picks still unsigned (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/51632667.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUo8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

Wide receiver Percy Harvin and right tackle Phil Loadholt remain unsigned entering the final weekend of the offseason.

Last update: July 25, 2009 - 12:18 AM

startribune.com


Not worried.


Last year, the Vikings signed safety Tyrell Johnson (second round), quarterback John David Booty (fifth) and center John Sullivan (sixth) hours before the team reported to training camp.


Won't they be busy signing Favre at that time?

marstc09
07-25-2009, 06:29 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Vikings' top two draft picks still unsigned (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/51632667.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUo8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

Wide receiver Percy Harvin and right tackle Phil Loadholt remain unsigned entering the final weekend of the offseason.

Last update: July 25, 2009 - 12:18 AM

startribune.com


Not worried.


Last year, the Vikings signed safety Tyrell Johnson (second round), quarterback John David Booty (fifth) and center John Sullivan (sixth) hours before the team reported to training camp.


Won't they be busy signing Favre at that time?


Doesn't take that long to sign on the dotted line. I am sure the contract is already written up.

Formo
07-25-2009, 06:49 PM
I'll worry about this when TC starts and still no Harvin/Loadholt.

Until then, it's not very uncommon to see this.

PurpleTide
07-26-2009, 10:01 AM
To coin a phrase from Larry the cable guy, "Get Er Done".

Purple Floyd
07-26-2009, 10:34 AM
They will sign this week. Now Winny is out of the way and I am sure bryzzy is working extra hard on these guys

jessejames09
07-26-2009, 10:36 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Vikings' top two draft picks still unsigned (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/51632667.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUo8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

Wide receiver Percy Harvin and right tackle Phil Loadholt remain unsigned entering the final weekend of the offseason.

Last update: July 25, 2009 - 12:18 AM

startribune.com


Not worried.


Last year, the Vikings signed safety Tyrell Johnson (second round), quarterback John David Booty (fifth) and center John Sullivan (sixth) hours before the team reported to training camp.


Won't they be busy signing Favre at that time?


We're not even going to play football this year. Favre will drive his tractor across the field and waving about like the fucking queen. By 2 O'clock on Sundays the dome will be a farm-show/beastiality convention. I don't know why we even resigned AW, maybe he wants to fist a donkey this year?

Garland Greene
07-26-2009, 11:02 AM
Even when Harvin does sign I am sure he will go home the next day sick

Tad7
07-26-2009, 11:09 AM
"jessejames09" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Vikings' top two draft picks still unsigned (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/51632667.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUo8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

Wide receiver Percy Harvin and right tackle Phil Loadholt remain unsigned entering the final weekend of the offseason.

Last update: July 25, 2009 - 12:18 AM

startribune.com


Not worried.


Last year, the Vikings signed safety Tyrell Johnson (second round), quarterback John David Booty (fifth) and center John Sullivan (sixth) hours before the team reported to training camp.


Won't they be busy signing Favre at that time?


We're not even going to play football this year. Favre will drive his tractor across the field and waving about like the fucking queen. By 2 O'clock on Sundays the dome will be a farm-show/beastiality convention. I don't know why we even resigned AW, maybe he wants to fist a donkey this year?



lmao

hav0x
07-27-2009, 03:38 AM
Well it looks like talks in Philly with Maclin have been heating up and he should have a contract soon. He was taken 3 spots ahead of Harvin and plays the same position so that will help negotiations with Harvin since the market will be set. If Maclin is signed sometime Monday we should have Harvin signed late Tuesday/Wednesday.

Marrdro
07-27-2009, 06:28 AM
"marstc09" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Vikings' top two draft picks still unsigned (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/51632667.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUo8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

Wide receiver Percy Harvin and right tackle Phil Loadholt remain unsigned entering the final weekend of the offseason.

Last update: July 25, 2009 - 12:18 AM

startribune.com


Not worried.


Last year, the Vikings signed safety Tyrell Johnson (second round), quarterback John David Booty (fifth) and center John Sullivan (sixth) hours before the team reported to training camp.


Won't they be busy signing Favre at that time?


Doesn't take that long to sign on the dotted line. I am sure the contract is already written up.

I bet it isn't.
Didn't someone on here post something along the lines that a deal was done and he would have to announce something within a 10 day window from that date?

He and his agent are working the figure, you know it and I know it. ;)

V4L
07-27-2009, 12:35 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Vikings' top two draft picks still unsigned (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/51632667.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUo8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

Wide receiver Percy Harvin and right tackle Phil Loadholt remain unsigned entering the final weekend of the offseason.

Last update: July 25, 2009 - 12:18 AM

startribune.com


Not worried.


Last year, the Vikings signed safety Tyrell Johnson (second round), quarterback John David Booty (fifth) and center John Sullivan (sixth) hours before the team reported to training camp.


Won't they be busy signing Favre at that time?


Doesn't take that long to sign on the dotted line. I am sure the contract is already written up.

I bet it isn't.
Didn't someone on here post something along the lines that a deal was done and he would have to announce something within a 10 day window from that date?

He and his agent are working the figure, you know it and I know it. ;)



I agree

If they had a agreed in principle to a contract it would be announced

Mr Anderson
07-27-2009, 12:38 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Vikings' top two draft picks still unsigned (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/51632667.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUo8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

Wide receiver Percy Harvin and right tackle Phil Loadholt remain unsigned entering the final weekend of the offseason.

Last update: July 25, 2009 - 12:18 AM

startribune.com


Not worried.


Last year, the Vikings signed safety Tyrell Johnson (second round), quarterback John David Booty (fifth) and center John Sullivan (sixth) hours before the team reported to training camp.


Won't they be busy signing Favre at that time?


Doesn't take that long to sign on the dotted line. I am sure the contract is already written up.

I bet it isn't.
Didn't someone on here post something along the lines that a deal was done and he would have to announce something within a 10 day window from that date?

He and his agent are working the figure, you know it and I know it. ;)

I thought it was just Favre's decision and everything else is done at this point?

i_bleed_purple
07-27-2009, 12:41 PM
"Mr" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:




Vikings' top two draft picks still unsigned (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/51632667.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUo8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

Wide receiver Percy Harvin and right tackle Phil Loadholt remain unsigned entering the final weekend of the offseason.

Last update: July 25, 2009 - 12:18 AM

startribune.com


Not worried.


Last year, the Vikings signed safety Tyrell Johnson (second round), quarterback John David Booty (fifth) and center John Sullivan (sixth) hours before the team reported to training camp.


Won't they be busy signing Favre at that time?


Doesn't take that long to sign on the dotted line. I am sure the contract is already written up.

I bet it isn't.
Didn't someone on here post something along the lines that a deal was done and he would have to announce something within a 10 day window from that date?

He and his agent are working the figure, you know it and I know it. ;)

I thought it was just Favre's decision and everything else is done at this point?


I'm willing to bet thats the case.
Favre wouldn't have had surgery without knowing that the Vikings are willing to pay what he wants.
Otherwise we'd have the situation where Favre goes under the knife, then 9 weeks later, they can't come to an agreement on a contract.

Marrdro
07-29-2009, 05:31 AM
NFL draft signings slow at the top

http://min.scout.com/2/882597.html

Marrdro
07-29-2009, 05:33 AM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:






Vikings' top two draft picks still unsigned (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/51632667.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUo8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

Wide receiver Percy Harvin and right tackle Phil Loadholt remain unsigned entering the final weekend of the offseason.

Last update: July 25, 2009 - 12:18 AM

startribune.com


Not worried.


Last year, the Vikings signed safety Tyrell Johnson (second round), quarterback John David Booty (fifth) and center John Sullivan (sixth) hours before the team reported to training camp.


Won't they be busy signing Favre at that time?


Doesn't take that long to sign on the dotted line. I am sure the contract is already written up.

I bet it isn't.
Didn't someone on here post something along the lines that a deal was done and he would have to announce something within a 10 day window from that date?

He and his agent are working the figure, you know it and I know it. ;)

I thought it was just Favre's decision and everything else is done at this point?


I'm willing to bet thats the case.
Favre wouldn't have had surgery without knowing that the Vikings are willing to pay what he wants.
Otherwise we'd have the situation where Favre goes under the knife, then 9 weeks later, they can't come to an agreement on a contract.

Still wanna bet..... ;)

i_bleed_purple
07-29-2009, 06:57 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:








Vikings' top two draft picks still unsigned (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/51632667.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUo8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

Wide receiver Percy Harvin and right tackle Phil Loadholt remain unsigned entering the final weekend of the offseason.

Last update: July 25, 2009 - 12:18 AM

startribune.com


Not worried.


Last year, the Vikings signed safety Tyrell Johnson (second round), quarterback John David Booty (fifth) and center John Sullivan (sixth) hours before the team reported to training camp.


Won't they be busy signing Favre at that time?


Doesn't take that long to sign on the dotted line. I am sure the contract is already written up.

I bet it isn't.
Didn't someone on here post something along the lines that a deal was done and he would have to announce something within a 10 day window from that date?

He and his agent are working the figure, you know it and I know it. ;)

I thought it was just Favre's decision and everything else is done at this point?


I'm willing to bet thats the case.
Favre wouldn't have had surgery without knowing that the Vikings are willing to pay what he wants.
Otherwise we'd have the situation where Favre goes under the knife, then 9 weeks later, they can't come to an agreement on a contract.

Still wanna bet..... ;)


Actually, yes.
I'm still willing to bet they had some type of contract agreed upon.
That was never the issue, nor the reason why he said no.

Marrdro
07-29-2009, 10:23 AM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:










Vikings' top two draft picks still unsigned (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/51632667.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUo8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

Wide receiver Percy Harvin and right tackle Phil Loadholt remain unsigned entering the final weekend of the offseason.

Last update: July 25, 2009 - 12:18 AM

startribune.com


Not worried.


Last year, the Vikings signed safety Tyrell Johnson (second round), quarterback John David Booty (fifth) and center John Sullivan (sixth) hours before the team reported to training camp.


Won't they be busy signing Favre at that time?


Doesn't take that long to sign on the dotted line. I am sure the contract is already written up.

I bet it isn't.
Didn't someone on here post something along the lines that a deal was done and he would have to announce something within a 10 day window from that date?

He and his agent are working the figure, you know it and I know it. ;)

I thought it was just Favre's decision and everything else is done at this point?


I'm willing to bet thats the case.
Favre wouldn't have had surgery without knowing that the Vikings are willing to pay what he wants.
Otherwise we'd have the situation where Favre goes under the knife, then 9 weeks later, they can't come to an agreement on a contract.

Still wanna bet..... ;)


Actually, yes.
I'm still willing to bet they had some type of contract agreed upon.
That was never the issue, nor the reason why he said no.


LNAD - I don't think I can make it through a season.......
Vikes - We really would have liked to have him.............

You know what that really means........

LNAD - I want more money........
Vikes - We aren't gonna give you more.......
LNAD- I will stay retired then.......

pack93z
07-29-2009, 10:26 AM
Before you all start panicking... a quick look around the NFC north shows you aren't in foreign territory here.. slow across the league and division..

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/07/25/signing-status-of-nfc-north-draft-picks/


Pack's two top picks are unsigned 3 days before camp.

Marrdro
07-29-2009, 10:30 AM
"pack93z" wrote:


Before you all start panicking... a quick look around the NFC north shows you aren't in foreign territory here.. slow across the league and division..

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/07/25/signing-status-of-nfc-north-draft-picks/


Pack's two top picks are unsigned 3 days before camp.

Give it up my friend.
I am almost convinced that 90% of the posters on this site don't watch any other games or look at any other teams stuff.

They only focus on the Vikings and what the ESPN chuckleheads confince them is reality.

i_bleed_purple
07-29-2009, 10:31 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"pack93z" wrote:


Before you all start panicking... a quick look around the NFC north shows you aren't in foreign territory here.. slow across the league and division..

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/07/25/signing-status-of-nfc-north-draft-picks/


Pack's two top picks are unsigned 3 days before camp.

Give it up my friend.
I am almost convinced that 90% of the posters on this site don't watch any other games or look at any other teams stuff.

They only focus on the Vikings and what the ESPN chuckleheads confince them is reality.


You mean other teams have offseasons too?

Zeus
07-29-2009, 10:39 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"pack93z" wrote:


Before you all start panicking... a quick look around the NFC north shows you aren't in foreign territory here.. slow across the league and division..

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/07/25/signing-status-of-nfc-north-draft-picks/


Pack's two top picks are unsigned 3 days before camp.


Give it up my friend.
I am almost convinced that 90% of the posters on this site don't watch any other games or look at any other teams stuff.

They only focus on the Vikings and what the ESPN chuckleheads confince them is reality.


I think you'd be surprised to know that not only do many of us pay attention to things outside of the Vikings (and football, for that matter) but that we know as much if not more than you.

=Z=

C Mac D
07-29-2009, 10:59 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"pack93z" wrote:


Before you all start panicking... a quick look around the NFC north shows you aren't in foreign territory here.. slow across the league and division..

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/07/25/signing-status-of-nfc-north-draft-picks/


Pack's two top picks are unsigned 3 days before camp.


Give it up my friend.
I am almost convinced that 90% of the posters on this site don't watch any other games or look at any other teams stuff.

They only focus on the Vikings and what the ESPN chuckleheads confince them is reality.


I think you'd be surprised to know that not only do many of us pay attention to things outside of the Vikings (and football, for that matter) but that we know as much if not more than you.

=Z=


Gettin' spicy...

Freya
07-29-2009, 11:11 AM
I agree with what one of the posters said on the startribune site that said that there should be a rookie cap. A standard rookie year pay, by position. End of problem.

pack93z
07-29-2009, 11:14 AM
"Freya" wrote:


I agree with what one of the posters said on the startribune site that said that there should be a rookie cap. A standard rookie year pay, by position. End of problem.


This is a good share of the reason that the owners opted out of the CBA as it stands today.. to address this very problem. And I think they have the veterans in that camp as well..

A slotted percentage of the overall cap for each draft position would end this issue and start to control costs a little in the rookie pool.. and divert more of the wage scale to veterans that have proven they can play in this league.

ThorSPL
07-29-2009, 11:24 AM
"pack93z" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


I agree with what one of the posters said on the startribune site that said that there should be a rookie cap. A standard rookie year pay, by position. End of problem.


This is a good share of the reason that the owners opted out of the CBA as it stands today.. to address this very problem. And I think they have the veterans in that camp as well..

A slotted percentage of the overall cap for each draft position would end this issue and start to control costs a little in the rookie pool.. and divert more of the wage scale to veterans that have proven they can play in this league.


Damn you for once again shedding light on the fact that not all of you Puker fans are dumb imbred sheep lovers!

You're not dumb at all. :)

i_bleed_purple
07-29-2009, 11:27 AM
"ThorSPL" wrote:


"pack93z" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


I agree with what one of the posters said on the startribune site that said that there should be a rookie cap. A standard rookie year pay, by position. End of problem.


This is a good share of the reason that the owners opted out of the CBA as it stands today.. to address this very problem. And I think they have the veterans in that camp as well..

A slotted percentage of the overall cap for each draft position would end this issue and start to control costs a little in the rookie pool.. and divert more of the wage scale to veterans that have proven they can play in this league.


Damn you for once again shedding light on the fact that not all of you Puker fans are dumb imbred sheep lovers!

You're not dumb at all. :)


Its because we all know he's a closet Vikings fan, he's just still trying to convince himself otherwise.
One of these days he'll realize the truth, and be much better off once he accepts it.

pack93z
07-29-2009, 11:31 AM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"ThorSPL" wrote:


"pack93z" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


I agree with what one of the posters said on the startribune site that said that there should be a rookie cap. A standard rookie year pay, by position. End of problem.


This is a good share of the reason that the owners opted out of the CBA as it stands today.. to address this very problem. And I think they have the veterans in that camp as well..

A slotted percentage of the overall cap for each draft position would end this issue and start to control costs a little in the rookie pool.. and divert more of the wage scale to veterans that have proven they can play in this league.


Damn you for once again shedding light on the fact that not all of you Puker fans are dumb imbred sheep lovers!

You're not dumb at all. :)


Its because we all know he's a closet Vikings fan, he's just still trying to convince himself otherwise.
One of these days he'll realize the truth, and be much better off once he accepts it.


LOL... nope just checked.. still bleeding Green and Gold.

i_bleed_purple
07-29-2009, 11:33 AM
"pack93z" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"ThorSPL" wrote:


"pack93z" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


I agree with what one of the posters said on the startribune site that said that there should be a rookie cap. A standard rookie year pay, by position. End of problem.


This is a good share of the reason that the owners opted out of the CBA as it stands today.. to address this very problem. And I think they have the veterans in that camp as well..

A slotted percentage of the overall cap for each draft position would end this issue and start to control costs a little in the rookie pool.. and divert more of the wage scale to veterans that have proven they can play in this league.


Damn you for once again shedding light on the fact that not all of you Puker fans are dumb imbred sheep lovers!

You're not dumb at all. :)


Its because we all know he's a closet Vikings fan, he's just still trying to convince himself otherwise.
One of these days he'll realize the truth, and be much better off once he accepts it.


LOL... nope just checked.. still sportin that Innie.




???

NodakPaul
07-29-2009, 11:41 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:












Vikings' top two draft picks still unsigned (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/51632667.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUo8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

Wide receiver Percy Harvin and right tackle Phil Loadholt remain unsigned entering the final weekend of the offseason.

Last update: July 25, 2009 - 12:18 AM

startribune.com


Not worried.


Last year, the Vikings signed safety Tyrell Johnson (second round), quarterback John David Booty (fifth) and center John Sullivan (sixth) hours before the team reported to training camp.


Won't they be busy signing Favre at that time?


Doesn't take that long to sign on the dotted line. I am sure the contract is already written up.

I bet it isn't.
Didn't someone on here post something along the lines that a deal was done and he would have to announce something within a 10 day window from that date?

He and his agent are working the figure, you know it and I know it. ;)

I thought it was just Favre's decision and everything else is done at this point?


I'm willing to bet thats the case.
Favre wouldn't have had surgery without knowing that the Vikings are willing to pay what he wants.
Otherwise we'd have the situation where Favre goes under the knife, then 9 weeks later, they can't come to an agreement on a contract.

Still wanna bet..... ;)


Actually, yes.
I'm still willing to bet they had some type of contract agreed upon.
That was never the issue, nor the reason why he said no.


LNAD - I don't think I can make it through a season.......
Vikes - We really would have liked to have him.............

You know what that really means........

LNAD - I want more money........
Vikes - We aren't gonna give you more.......
LNAD- I will stay retired then.......


LMAO>
Marty, that's a bunch of bullsh!t and you know it. ;D

SharperImage
07-29-2009, 11:44 AM
LOADHOLT SIGNED!!!

http://www.vikings.com/news/article-1/vikings-sign-loadholt/9cca013e-73d8-41a8-8534-96530819d64e

i_bleed_purple
07-29-2009, 11:46 AM
sweet! now get on harvin!

SIUviking
07-29-2009, 11:50 AM
Loadholt!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m161/redheather_ca/steve-holt.jpg

jessejames09
07-29-2009, 12:27 PM
http://purplejesus.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/pl001.jpg
Loads a beast!

SIUviking
07-29-2009, 12:33 PM
Don't move. The Predator is standing right behind you.

VKG4LFE
07-29-2009, 12:45 PM
We just signed Loadholt today right??

ThorSPL
07-29-2009, 12:54 PM
"VKG4LFE" wrote:


We just signed Loadholt today right??


Yes

SharperImage
07-29-2009, 01:02 PM
"jessejames09" wrote:


http://purplejesus.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/pl001.jpg
Loads a beast!




Id fear for my life if i was that kid.

Zeus
07-29-2009, 01:06 PM
"pack93z" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


I agree with what one of the posters said on the startribune site that said that there should be a rookie cap. A standard rookie year pay, by position. End of problem.


This is a good share of the reason that the owners opted out of the CBA as it stands today.. to address this very problem. And I think they have the veterans in that camp as well..

A slotted percentage of the overall cap for each draft position would end this issue and start to control costs a little in the rookie pool.. and divert more of the wage scale to veterans that have proven they can play in this league.


Actually, what the NFLPA has said is (and I paraphrase):
"We don't make the owners pay these contracts.
They do it themselves.
Why should we help them when they can't help themselves?"

Okay - found the actual quotes:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-smithmeetings051809&prov=yhoo&type=lgns


On Monday, Smith countered that contention saying that veterans he has spoken with consider it a non-issue for them.

“You know what every veteran has said to me? When we talk about that issue, what they say is that [they] understand the business of football,” Smith said. “The one thing that becomes apparent is they know who signed the checks … they know who picked the players and they know who was involved in selecting what player for what team.

“So at the end of the day, when I talk to them about this issue of a rookie wage scale, the one core thing that underlies every part of that issue is, what player is involved in setting a salary for [another] player? None of them. Absolutely none of them. So if the owners don’t want to pay that price for that player, guess what? Don’t.”


=Z=

V4L
07-29-2009, 01:19 PM
Rookies should never get paid that much

Unreal

pack93z
07-29-2009, 01:57 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"pack93z" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


I agree with what one of the posters said on the startribune site that said that there should be a rookie cap. A standard rookie year pay, by position. End of problem.


This is a good share of the reason that the owners opted out of the CBA as it stands today.. to address this very problem. And I think they have the veterans in that camp as well..

A slotted percentage of the overall cap for each draft position would end this issue and start to control costs a little in the rookie pool.. and divert more of the wage scale to veterans that have proven they can play in this league.


Actually, what the NFLPA has said is (and I paraphrase):
"We don't make the owners pay these contracts.
They do it themselves.
Why should we help them when they can't help themselves?"

Okay - found the actual quotes:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-smithmeetings051809&prov=yhoo&type=lgns


On Monday, Smith countered that contention saying that veterans he has spoken with consider it a non-issue for them.

“You know what every veteran has said to me? When we talk about that issue, what they say is that [they] understand the business of football,” Smith said. “The one thing that becomes apparent is they know who signed the checks … they know who picked the players and they know who was involved in selecting what player for what team.

“So at the end of the day, when I talk to them about this issue of a rookie wage scale, the one core thing that underlies every part of that issue is, what player is involved in setting a salary for [another] player? None of them. Absolutely none of them. So if the owners don’t want to pay that price for that player, guess what? Don’t.”


=Z=


And here is just a slice of some random quotes from the veteran players.. not the NFLPA which of course isn't going to speak in favor of it publicly.. it lessens the value of the concession in negotiations.. they are going to want value in return for setting a scale on the rookies coming in..

I would wager that if you took a poll amongst veteran players league wide.. it would align with these type of quotes.


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/05/the-case-for-a-true-rookie-wage-scale.php


4.
The Current System Takes Money Away From Proven Players.

Every dollar paid to an unproven rookie is a dollar that won’t be available to be paid to players who have shown that they can perform at the NFL level.

And the more dollars paid to a player who has never earned a penny playing pro football is a slap in the face to the men who has given their all for peanuts in comparison.

As Vikings defensive end Jared Allen told the Minneapolis Star Tribune after the Lions gave that huge contract with $41.7 million guaranteed to quarterback Matthew Stafford, “It’s outrageous, absolutely outrageous.
The guy’s never taken a snap.
I’m happy for him, but we got guys in this league that have played 10, 12 years that earn their wages every day and they don’t see that kind of money.”

A year ago, when the Falcons paid quarterback Matt Ryan a deal worth $72 million over six years, one veteran player called the situation “a little disheartening.”

That player, Kevin Mawae, also is the president of the NFL Players Association.
Though he later tried to soften his stance, presumably after getting a lesson in the concept of leverage, the damage was done.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/43702482.html


"It's outrageous, absolutely outrageous," Allen said. "The guy's never taken a snap. I'm happy for him, but we got guys in this league that have played 10, 12 years that earn their wages every day and they don't see that kind of money."

It's not just about a billionaire owner making a millionaire player. It's the risk of ruining a franchise's future by showering that kind of money on the wrong player.

"Congratulations to [Stafford], and I think he'll do a great job and, hopefully, he earns every penny," Rosenfels said. "But if he's not successful, it's really going to put that whole organization on hard times.

"To be honest with you, I wish there wasn't these crazy numbers for these top picks. If I were a team, I wouldn't want a top pick. I'd want the late first round or the second round, because there's a lot of good players going to be taken 20 to 32 and 32 through 50. In Houston last year, we got [1,000-yard rusher] Steve Slaton in the third round."

Zeus
07-29-2009, 02:01 PM
"pack93z" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"pack93z" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


I agree with what one of the posters said on the startribune site that said that there should be a rookie cap. A standard rookie year pay, by position. End of problem.


This is a good share of the reason that the owners opted out of the CBA as it stands today.. to address this very problem. And I think they have the veterans in that camp as well..

A slotted percentage of the overall cap for each draft position would end this issue and start to control costs a little in the rookie pool.. and divert more of the wage scale to veterans that have proven they can play in this league.


Actually, what the NFLPA has said is (and I paraphrase):
"We don't make the owners pay these contracts.
They do it themselves.
Why should we help them when they can't help themselves?"

Okay - found the actual quotes:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-smithmeetings051809&prov=yhoo&type=lgns


On Monday, Smith countered that contention saying that veterans he has spoken with consider it a non-issue for them.

“You know what every veteran has said to me? When we talk about that issue, what they say is that [they] understand the business of football,” Smith said. “The one thing that becomes apparent is they know who signed the checks … they know who picked the players and they know who was involved in selecting what player for what team.

“So at the end of the day, when I talk to them about this issue of a rookie wage scale, the one core thing that underlies every part of that issue is, what player is involved in setting a salary for [another] player? None of them. Absolutely none of them. So if the owners don’t want to pay that price for that player, guess what? Don’t.”


=Z=


And here is just a slice of some random quotes from the veteran players.. not the NFLPA which of course isn't going to speak in favor of it publicly.. it lessens the value of the concession in negotiations.. they are going to want value in return for setting a scale on the rookies coming in..

I would wager that if you took a poll amongst veteran players league wide.. it would align with these type of quotes.


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/05/the-case-for-a-true-rookie-wage-scale.php


4.
The Current System Takes Money Away From Proven Players.

Every dollar paid to an unproven rookie is a dollar that won’t be available to be paid to players who have shown that they can perform at the NFL level.

And the more dollars paid to a player who has never earned a penny playing pro football is a slap in the face to the men who has given their all for peanuts in comparison.

As Vikings defensive end Jared Allen told the Minneapolis Star Tribune after the Lions gave that huge contract with $41.7 million guaranteed to quarterback Matthew Stafford, “It’s outrageous, absolutely outrageous.
The guy’s never taken a snap.
I’m happy for him, but we got guys in this league that have played 10, 12 years that earn their wages every day and they don’t see that kind of money.”

A year ago, when the Falcons paid quarterback Matt Ryan a deal worth $72 million over six years, one veteran player called the situation “a little disheartening.”

That player, Kevin Mawae, also is the president of the NFL Players Association.
Though he later tried to soften his stance, presumably after getting a lesson in the concept of leverage, the damage was done.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/43702482.html


"It's outrageous, absolutely outrageous," Allen said. "The guy's never taken a snap. I'm happy for him, but we got guys in this league that have played 10, 12 years that earn their wages every day and they don't see that kind of money."

It's not just about a billionaire owner making a millionaire player. It's the risk of ruining a franchise's future by showering that kind of money on the wrong player.

"Congratulations to [Stafford], and I think he'll do a great job and, hopefully, he earns every penny," Rosenfels said. "But if he's not successful, it's really going to put that whole organization on hard times.

"To be honest with you, I wish there wasn't these crazy numbers for these top picks. If I were a team, I wouldn't want a top pick. I'd want the late first round or the second round, because there's a lot of good players going to be taken 20 to 32 and 32 through 50. In Houston last year, we got [1,000-yard rusher] Steve Slaton in the third round."


None of the quotes you offered say that those players believe the NFLPA should step in and fight for a rookie wage scale.
The quote I gave says - directly - that they won't.
The NFLPA isn't going to help the owners if they can't stop themselves from doing stupid things, especially if the owners refuse to open their books, which they continue to do.

=Z=

pack93z
07-29-2009, 02:03 PM
BTW.. damn it.. I had to do some actual research to find a couple of quotes.. ;)

thatjusthappened28
07-29-2009, 02:05 PM
we need to sign Harvin asap!

he has already missed some learning experiences from being sick on two occasions so he really can't afford to lose more time.

pack93z
07-29-2009, 02:11 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


None of the quotes you offered say that those players believe the NFLPA should step in and fight for a rookie wage scale.
The quote I gave says - directly - that they won't.
The NFLPA isn't going to help the owners if they can't stop themselves from doing stupid things, especially if the owners refuse to open their books, which they continue to do.

=Z=


Mawae, the head of the PA speaks volumes.. of course they aren't going to speak publicly against the Union..

You speak as if the owners have a choice in the matter.. the only choice they have is to let them hold out and return to the pool the following year.

I never said the NFLPA was agreeing, I stated that some of the players note that it is a problem, crazy and out of control.

I can't win this battle, because if a player stated he thinks the NFLPA should fight it, he better get ready to try on some concrete boots for his career..

I stated or meant to imply that they recognize it as an issue. I will wager that the next CBA has a rookie scale with some added contractual protections for veteran players. Regardless if the books are opened or not.

Overlord
07-29-2009, 02:23 PM
"Zeus" wrote:



None of the quotes you offered say that those players believe the NFLPA should step in and fight for a rookie wage scale.
The quote I gave says - directly - that they won't.
The NFLPA isn't going to help the owners if they can't stop themselves from doing stupid things, especially if the owners refuse to open their books, which they continue to do.

=Z=


I think you can find lots of quotes of players that don't like the pay rookies receive, which leads me to believe that the players are probably somewhat divided on this.

It makes sense for the Union to take a stand against a rookie pay scale because the owners are for it.
Even if the players can't really make up their minds either way, they can still use it as a bargaining chip in negotiations as long as the owners believe they are willing to fight to keep the current system.

So I could see this as just the Union puffing their chest a bit on this one, rather than taking a firm stand.

However, with so many teams so far under the cap the past few years, rookie salaries aren't necessarily eating into veteran salaries.
In that case, their value as a floor for veterans might be something the Union and players really do care about.

pack93z
07-29-2009, 02:32 PM
"Overlord" wrote:


However, with so many teams so far under the cap the past few years, rookie salaries aren't necessarily eating into veteran salaries.
In that case, their value as a floor for veterans might be something the Union and players really do care about.


Too much of your post I agree, but I think the cap growing by great leaps the past three years has a huge impact to clubs being under.. once the salaries start to expire it will be back to tight caps again.

But look at the dead money left behind but "busted" out rookies and the amount of potential earnings that is chewing up for players is got to be a concern for veterans. When you have to commit a sizable portion of your cap space and revenue to players no longer there because they couldn't play in this league.. I would be in Allen, Mawae's camp as well..

Overlord
07-29-2009, 03:22 PM
"pack93z" wrote:


"Overlord" wrote:


However, with so many teams so far under the cap the past few years, rookie salaries aren't necessarily eating into veteran salaries.
In that case, their value as a floor for veterans might be something the Union and players really do care about.


Too much of your post I agree, but I think the cap growing by great leaps the past three years has a huge impact to clubs being under.. once the salaries start to expire it will be back to tight caps again.

But look at the dead money left behind but "busted" out rookies and the amount of potential earnings that is chewing up for players is got to be a concern for veterans. When you have to commit a sizable portion of your cap space and revenue to players no longer there because they couldn't play in this league.. I would be in Allen, Mawae's camp as well..


It will be interesting to see what happens with the cap in the next few years, but with the economy in the tank we might see teams continue to clamp down... not spending that extra $5 million to bring in another starter.
Depends on the new CBA as well.

As for the dead money, I don't think it's all that bad across the league.
The top pick is at what $10 million/year, then by the 10th pick we're down to about $3 million/year?
We're talking about say $60 million/year for these guys, and with picks after that the teams are really getting the better deal on the contracts.
Those early contracts are what, 5 years?
So maybe $300 million eaten up every year by these guys?
That's about 8% of the salary cap for each team.
And some of the guys (AD, Matt Ryan, etc.) are worth the pay.

It's a significant amount of cash, but when teams are $10-20 million under the cap it's not as big of an issue as when they're up against it.
At that point, the advantage of a player saying, hey, this rookie got $x and I'm a pro bowler, so I deserve more than that might be greater than freeing up half that 8%.

I don't know though, it was really just an off the top of the head thought.

delviking
07-29-2009, 03:47 PM
well the rookie scale would benefit the league and veteran players, i can see rookie contracts ending up like AWs contract being an escalator
descalator contract.
meaning he they become starter they get paid more and if they lose the job they get paid less.
its something that could be done without having to wait on the next CPA.

VKG4LFE
07-29-2009, 07:24 PM
"ThorSPL" wrote:


"VKG4LFE" wrote:


We just signed Loadholt today right??


Yes


ok good. Harvin time!

vegasvike
07-29-2009, 07:26 PM
what number is he??? I'mgetting his jersey all 5'7" 185 lbs of me in an O-lineman jersey hahahahaha

Mr Anderson
07-29-2009, 07:30 PM
"jessejames09" wrote:


http://purplejesus.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/pl001.jpg
Loads a beast!



Look at the size of his freakin' head... he looks like a pit bull.

vegasvike
07-29-2009, 07:34 PM
"Mr" wrote:


"jessejames09" wrote:


http://purplejesus.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/pl001.jpg
Loads a beast!



Look at the size of his freakin' head... he looks like a pit bull.


He's not that big.
He's what a foot taller and almost 150 lbs heavier?
come one hahahhahahahahahaha

marstc09
07-29-2009, 09:53 PM
Good to see him signed. I really think he is going to surprise people. Could be a huge upgrade over Cook.

hav0x
07-30-2009, 03:26 AM
Well it looks like the pick before him and after him have signed so this deal should be close to done sometime tomorrow.

Mark_The_Viking
07-30-2009, 05:22 AM
I hope so, not sure why rookies have such a hard time signing up to do what they love doing at the very top of their profession.

Marrdro
07-30-2009, 06:37 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"pack93z" wrote:


Before you all start panicking... a quick look around the NFC north shows you aren't in foreign territory here.. slow across the league and division..

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/07/25/signing-status-of-nfc-north-draft-picks/


Pack's two top picks are unsigned 3 days before camp.


Give it up My Sexy Little Pixie.
I am almost convinced that 90% of the posters on this site don't watch any other games or look at any other teams stuff.

They only focus on the Vikings and what the ESPN chuckleheads confince them is reality.


I think you'd be surprised to know that not only do many of us pay attention to things outside of the Vikings (and football, for that matter) but that we know as much if not more than you.

=Z=

Not many things suprise me in life any more my friend. As to your qualifications as one of the 10% I mentioned above, I will leave that open for interpretation.

Knowing more than me, who the hell cares.
I'm just a yutz with a keyboard and access to the internet.
No way in hell I put myself up on a pedastal like a select few around here seem to do.
;)

Marrdro
07-30-2009, 06:38 AM
"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"pack93z" wrote:


Before you all start panicking... a quick look around the NFC north shows you aren't in foreign territory here.. slow across the league and division..

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/07/25/signing-status-of-nfc-north-draft-picks/


Pack's two top picks are unsigned 3 days before camp.


Give it up My Sexy Little Pixie.
I am almost convinced that 90% of the posters on this site don't watch any other games or look at any other teams stuff.

They only focus on the Vikings and what the ESPN chuckleheads confince them is reality.


I think you'd be surprised to know that not only do many of us pay attention to things outside of the Vikings (and football, for that matter) but that we know as much if not more than you.

=Z=


Gettin' spicy...

LOL, about the best he has.
We all know Z is harmless. ;)

Johnson14
07-30-2009, 10:44 AM
Damn.. he is a big unit!!
:o

Glad he is on board and no doubt he will be joined by Harvin v soon.
8)

Prophet
07-30-2009, 10:48 AM
"Johnson14" wrote:


Damn.. he has a big unit!!
:o
...


:o

Johnson14
07-30-2009, 10:52 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


"Johnson14" wrote:


gol 'darnit.. he has a big unit!!
:o
...


:o


hahahahaha... yes.. very funny altering my quote in your post!
:D

NordicNed
07-30-2009, 11:13 AM
"vegasvike" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


"jessejames09" wrote:


http://purplejesus.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/pl001.jpg
Loads a beast!



Look at the size of his freakin' head... he looks like a pit bull.


He's not that big.
He's what a foot taller and almost 150 lbs heavier?
come one hahahhahahahahahaha

Who's to say that the two standing in front, aren't midgets?
;D

seaniemck7
07-30-2009, 11:19 AM
"Mark_The_Viking" wrote:


I hope so, not sure why rookies have such a hard time signing up to do what they love doing at the very top of their profession.




Its not the rookies, its the agents (usually).

hav0x
07-30-2009, 02:36 PM
"seaniemck7" wrote:


"Mark_The_Viking" wrote:


I hope so, not sure why rookies have such a hard time signing up to do what they love doing at the very top of their profession.




Its not the rookies, its the agents (usually).

It's always the rookies. They could take less money and be in camp the first day if they truly wanted to.

i_bleed_purple
07-30-2009, 02:39 PM
"hav0x" wrote:


"seaniemck7" wrote:


"Mark_The_Viking" wrote:


I hope so, not sure why rookies have such a hard time signing up to do what they love doing at the very top of their profession.




Its not the rookies, its the agents (usually).

It's always the rookies. They could take less money and be in camp the first day if they truly wanted to.


yes, but the agents will say "just wait, you're worth more, make them pay you what you're worth", and the players, having never dealt with an agent before, will likely go with what he says.

jmcdon00
07-30-2009, 03:03 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"hav0x" wrote:


"seaniemck7" wrote:


"Mark_The_Viking" wrote:


I hope so, not sure why rookies have such a hard time signing up to do what they love doing at the very top of their profession.




Its not the rookies, its the agents (usually).

It's always the rookies. They could take less money and be in camp the first day if they truly wanted to.


yes, but the agents will say "just wait, you're worth more, make them pay you what you're worth", and the players, having never dealt with an agent before, will likely go with what he says.


And the agents are right, these players may never get another payday, I wouldn't settle for less than my market value. Get everything you can. It goes both ways too, the team could just as easily pay the money and get them signed(NFL owners have more money than NFL rookies). If a team thinks a player will sign just to get to camp on time then they will low ball them, players have to be willing to miss camp or it will cost them money.
Always remember this is a business first and a game second.

NodakPaul
07-30-2009, 03:06 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"hav0x" wrote:


"seaniemck7" wrote:


"Mark_The_Viking" wrote:


I hope so, not sure why rookies have such a hard time signing up to do what they love doing at the very top of their profession.




Its not the rookies, its the agents (usually).

It's always the rookies. They could take less money and be in camp the first day if they truly wanted to.


yes, but the agents will say "just wait, you're worth more, make them pay you what you're worth", and the players, having never dealt with an agent before, will likely go with what he says.


And the agents are right, these players may never get another payday, I wouldn't settle for less than my market value. Get everything you can. It goes both ways too, the team could just as easily pay the money and get them signed(NFL owners have more money than NFL rookies). If a team thinks a player will sign just to get to camp on time then they will low ball them, players have to be willing to miss camp or it will cost them money.
Always remember this is a business first and a game second.


That is why there should be a rookie pay scale in place, to avoid this kind of problem.
The agents have driven the price up so high that first round draft picks make considerably more than their veteran peers.
Which in turn drives up the veteran market values, which in turn drives up the rookie contracts, etc.
A rookie pay scale would keep salaries from growing exponentially the way that they are now.

jmcdon00
07-30-2009, 03:24 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"hav0x" wrote:


"seaniemck7" wrote:




I hope so, not sure why rookies have such a hard time signing up to do what they love doing at the very top of their profession.




Its not the rookies, its the agents (usually).

It's always the rookies. They could take less money and be in camp the first day if they truly wanted to.


yes, but the agents will say "just wait, you're worth more, make them pay you what you're worth", and the players, having never dealt with an agent before, will likely go with what he says.


And the agents are right, these players may never get another payday, I wouldn't settle for less than my market value. Get everything you can. It goes both ways too, the team could just as easily pay the money and get them signed(NFL owners have more money than NFL rookies). If a team thinks a player will sign just to get to camp on time then they will low ball them, players have to be willing to miss camp or it will cost them money.
Always remember this is a business first and a game second.


That is why there should be a rookie pay scale in place, to avoid this kind of problem.
The agents have driven the price up so high that first round draft picks make considerably more than their veteran peers.
Which in turn drives up the veteran market values, which in turn drives up the rookie contracts, etc.
A rookie pay scale would keep salaries from growing exponentially the way that they are now.

I disagree, each team has the same salary cap, let them spend it however they want. If rookies are too expensive trade the picks for vets(or draft less expensive positions). If vets are too expensive build through the draft. Nfl careers are too short to limit what a player can make in his first contract.

i_bleed_purple
07-30-2009, 03:26 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"hav0x" wrote:






I hope so, not sure why rookies have such a hard time signing up to do what they love doing at the very top of their profession.




Its not the rookies, its the agents (usually).

It's always the rookies. They could take less money and be in camp the first day if they truly wanted to.


yes, but the agents will say "just wait, you're worth more, make them pay you what you're worth", and the players, having never dealt with an agent before, will likely go with what he says.


And the agents are right, these players may never get another payday, I wouldn't settle for less than my market value. Get everything you can. It goes both ways too, the team could just as easily pay the money and get them signed(NFL owners have more money than NFL rookies). If a team thinks a player will sign just to get to camp on time then they will low ball them, players have to be willing to miss camp or it will cost them money.
Always remember this is a business first and a game second.


That is why there should be a rookie pay scale in place, to avoid this kind of problem.
The agents have driven the price up so high that first round draft picks make considerably more than their veteran peers.
Which in turn drives up the veteran market values, which in turn drives up the rookie contracts, etc.
A rookie pay scale would keep salaries from growing exponentially the way that they are now.

I disagree, each team has the same salary cap, let them spend it however they want. If rookies are too expensive trade the picks for vets(or draft less expensive positions). If vets are too expensive build through the draft. Nfl careers are too short to limit what a player can make in his first contract.


I disagree completely.
teams that finish last in the nfl get first pick, and more often than not get screwed over.

why?
Well, look at it this way, why are they playing like crap?
Often becasue they don't have cap room for good players.
does adding a 40 mil signing bonus help?
No.
Nobody will trade with them due to the price tag involved with the player, not the pick.. IMO there needs to be a rookie salary cap, or this will jsut grow exponentially out of control.

NodakPaul
07-30-2009, 03:26 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"hav0x" wrote:






I hope so, not sure why rookies have such a hard time signing up to do what they love doing at the very top of their profession.




Its not the rookies, its the agents (usually).

It's always the rookies. They could take less money and be in camp the first day if they truly wanted to.


yes, but the agents will say "just wait, you're worth more, make them pay you what you're worth", and the players, having never dealt with an agent before, will likely go with what he says.


And the agents are right, these players may never get another payday, I wouldn't settle for less than my market value. Get everything you can. It goes both ways too, the team could just as easily pay the money and get them signed(NFL owners have more money than NFL rookies). If a team thinks a player will sign just to get to camp on time then they will low ball them, players have to be willing to miss camp or it will cost them money.
Always remember this is a business first and a game second.


That is why there should be a rookie pay scale in place, to avoid this kind of problem.
The agents have driven the price up so high that first round draft picks make considerably more than their veteran peers.
Which in turn drives up the veteran market values, which in turn drives up the rookie contracts, etc.
A rookie pay scale would keep salaries from growing exponentially the way that they are now.

I disagree, each team has the same salary cap, let them spend it however they want. If rookies are too expensive trade the picks for vets(or draft less expensive positions). If vets are too expensive build through the draft. Nfl careers are too short to limit what a player can make in his first contract.


That would be fine if the rookie market wasn't already inflated.
But it is - badly.
And having teams collectively changed the market is impossible because there will always be the one team who doesn't give a shit about the market and overpays a player because they can.
A rookie pay scale is needed to balance the rookie versus veteran contracts again.

AngloVike
07-30-2009, 03:30 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"hav0x" wrote:


"seaniemck7" wrote:


"Mark_The_Viking" wrote:


I hope so, not sure why rookies have such a hard time signing up to do what they love doing at the very top of their profession.




Its not the rookies, its the agents (usually).

It's always the rookies. They could take less money and be in camp the first day if they truly wanted to.


yes, but the agents will say "just wait, you're worth more, make them pay you what you're worth", and the players, having never dealt with an agent before, will likely go with what he says.


And the agents are right, these players may never get another payday, I wouldn't settle for less than my market value. Get everything you can. It goes both ways too, the team could just as easily pay the money and get them signed(NFL owners have more money than NFL rookies). If a team thinks a player will sign just to get to camp on time then they will low ball them, players have to be willing to miss camp or it will cost them money.
Always remember this is a business first and a game second.

and many players have an inflated opinion of their worth -look at McKinnie and all the messing around there was with him. I wouldn't have minded if he had finally turned up with the team in some sort of half decent condition. Instead the fat yutz was that out of shape that he spent the first games working out of a two point stance. So the Vikes ended up paying the 'market value' for a player that clearly wasn't that bothered to stay in shape and be an immediate asset to the team.

Marrdro
07-30-2009, 03:33 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:








I hope so, not sure why rookies have such a hard time signing up to do what they love doing at the very top of their profession.




Its not the rookies, its the agents (usually).

It's always the rookies. They could take less money and be in camp the first day if they truly wanted to.


yes, but the agents will say "just wait, you're worth more, make them pay you what you're worth", and the players, having never dealt with an agent before, will likely go with what he says.


And the agents are right, these players may never get another payday, I wouldn't settle for less than my market value. Get everything you can. It goes both ways too, the team could just as easily pay the money and get them signed(NFL owners have more money than NFL rookies). If a team thinks a player will sign just to get to camp on time then they will low ball them, players have to be willing to miss camp or it will cost them money.
Always remember this is a business first and a game second.


That is why there should be a rookie pay scale in place, to avoid this kind of problem.
The agents have driven the price up so high that first round draft picks make considerably more than their veteran peers.
Which in turn drives up the veteran market values, which in turn drives up the rookie contracts, etc.
A rookie pay scale would keep salaries from growing exponentially the way that they are now.

I disagree, each team has the same salary cap, let them spend it however they want. If rookies are too expensive trade the picks for vets(or draft less expensive positions). If vets are too expensive build through the draft. Nfl careers are too short to limit what a player can make in his first contract.


I disagree completely.
teams that finish last in the nfl get first pick, and more often than not get screwed over.

why?
Well, look at it this way, why are they playing like crap?
Often becasue they don't have cap room for good players.
does adding a 40 mil signing bonus help?
No.
Nobody will trade with them due to the price tag involved with the player, not the pick.. IMO there needs to be a rookie salary cap, or this will jsut grow exponentially out of control.

They play like crap cause thier FO pukes make poor decisions in the personnel departments.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Overlord
07-30-2009, 04:02 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"hav0x" wrote:


"seaniemck7" wrote:


"Mark_The_Viking" wrote:


I hope so, not sure why rookies have such a hard time signing up to do what they love doing at the very top of their profession.




Its not the rookies, its the agents (usually).

It's always the rookies. They could take less money and be in camp the first day if they truly wanted to.


yes, but the agents will say "just wait, you're worth more, make them pay you what you're worth", and the players, having never dealt with an agent before, will likely go with what he says.


And the agents are right, these players may never get another payday, I wouldn't settle for less than my market value. Get everything you can. It goes both ways too, the team could just as easily pay the money and get them signed(NFL owners have more money than NFL rookies). If a team thinks a player will sign just to get to camp on time then they will low ball them, players have to be willing to miss camp or it will cost them money.
Always remember this is a business first and a game second.


Your point is correct, but there is another issue here.

The agent is paid by the player to be his representative.
The agent is duty bound to act in the best interest of that client only.
Not in the agent's best interest in being able to recruit players next year.
Not in the best interest of the agent's other players.
Not in the best interest of the other rookies around the league.

Once you get past about pick #10, the money value that a contract might change is relatively small.
So, for example, Brady Quinn held out for quite awhile and still ended up with a five-year contract worth $9.25 million (link (http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=NFL&id=4149)).
That was pretty much right on what the slot called for.
The player right before Quinn (Reggie Nelson) got a five-year $9.55 million contract (link (http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=NFL&id=4164)), and the player after him (Dwayne Bowe) got a five-year $9 million dollar contract (link (http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=NFL&id=4164)).


The range there is about 5% of the value of the contract.
There's no reason to believe that holding out really helped Quinn at all, and certainly no more than a few hundred grand over five years.


On the other hand, missing all that camp time cost him the inside shot at the starting job, which has severely limited his playing time over the past couple years and could really hurt him when it comes time to sign his next contract.

I haven't seen any scientific study, but I think there are a lot of people (myself included) that think missing significant camp time hurts the individual player more than they gain anything from holding out.

The exception in my mind is those top ten players, where the range might be closer to $5 million that they are actually arguing over.