Few players at the outside linebacker position have been considered THE key to a team. Lawrence Taylor and Derrick Thomas are the exceptions that prove the rule. In general, the outside backers can have huge impacts, but their production tends to be highly related to their ability to fit in a system. Many big name OlBs have struggled to live up to their big free agent contracts (see Wilbur Marshall, Warrick Holdman, Chad Brown, etc.).
That said, the Bears are faced with a chioce on Pro Bowl OLB Lance Briggs, one of only 3 starters without a contract for next year. If he's not re-signed, Briggs will be one of the jewels of what is generally considered a weak free agent crop. He'd likely receive a deal in excess of $50 million. Moreover, the recent significant increase in the salary cap for 2007 means that several teams will have money to burn.
One flaw in the NFL system is the franchise tag. Originally intended to keep teams from losing their signature players, the franchise tag has become a tool with a much larger reach. Why you ask? First, the rule, a team may place its franchise tag on any one player. Once tagged, the player may not become a free agent but is guaranteed a salary equal to the average of the top players at his positions (top 5 in most cases). The catch is that the deal is just a one-year deal. In the Briggs case, that would mean about $7 million next season. But playing LB in the NFL is a risky proposition. While that $50+ million deal wouldn't be entirely guarenteed, at least the signing bonus would be. Taking the $7 million to play next year puts Briggs at risk never seeing his big payday. His only other option would be to sign a long-term deal with the Bears. But Briggs already took a big risking, turning down a ton of money last off-season to play out his contract. Now he could be faced with having to take that same risk again. And the real kicker is that the Bears will be getting him at a relative bargain because there just aren't many marquee linebackers available to push up that average salary.
In short, the Bears would be crazy not to franchise Briggs and they might be almost as crazy to negotiate against an inflated market for his services. In the end, Briggs will be the one taking the biggest risk, and that's why his agent won't be happy if he's tagged.
This process is failing to protect the player and may well be violating the spirit of it's original inclusion in the CBA - keeping those "franchise" guys where they belong.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Lawyers, Bonds, & Money
Yet another twist yesterday in the Barry Bonds contract saga. After the deal was announced, the commissioner's office voided based on some of the language in the deal. Officially, the commissioner's office had a problem with some language relating to personal appearances. The language in Bonds' deal contradicted that in the standard player contract which is included in the basic aggreement between the players union and the league.
This would have been a minor blip on the radar except that the Giants insisted on announcing that the deal also included language regarding cancellation if Bonds is indicted. This wouldn't have been a big deal except that Jeff Boras, Bonds' agent, decided to make a point of saying that the cancellation clause was unenforceable due to langue in the CBA. So what is it? Do contracts with language in violation of the CBA get voided or not?
Moreover, do sports really give a damn about what 3 lawyers think? Just tell of if this clown is going to play for the Giants or not. Let's not let Jeff Boras do his sales pitch for future clients through the media today.
This would have been a minor blip on the radar except that the Giants insisted on announcing that the deal also included language regarding cancellation if Bonds is indicted. This wouldn't have been a big deal except that Jeff Boras, Bonds' agent, decided to make a point of saying that the cancellation clause was unenforceable due to langue in the CBA. So what is it? Do contracts with language in violation of the CBA get voided or not?
Moreover, do sports really give a damn about what 3 lawyers think? Just tell of if this clown is going to play for the Giants or not. Let's not let Jeff Boras do his sales pitch for future clients through the media today.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Ah the silly, silly coaching-go-round
So after the Big Tuna left them high and dry by retiring (Tuna was nice enough to let us know that he's healthy - a real load off my mind), the Cowboys brought in Jason Garrett for an interview. Garrett, the former clipboard holder for Troy Aikman is currently the QB's coach for the Dolphins.
So, why is it that all these guys need to "get permission" before interviewing (Wade Phillips, the other rumor says he hasn't been contacted yet)? Well, assistant coaches, just like head coaches, sign contracts with their teams. In most cases, they're not allowed to coach elsewhere. That's right, if the Dolphins wanted to, they could say 'no' and force Garrett to come back as QB's coach even though he'll likely get offered a promotion by the 'Boys (to O-coordinator).
In practice though, teams will almost always grant permission as long as the opportunity represents a promotion. Not doing so would certainly anger assistants, not to mention making coaching searches next to impossible. So, it's basically understood that you allow permissoin if it's a promotion. In the case of a lateral move, teams can and might say 'no' but they'll usually just force the counterparty to offer compensation in the form of a draft pick. This happens in other sports as well.
One goofy little off-shoot of this practice are titles like "Assistant Head Coach". This role didn't exist 10 years ago. By labeling someone an assistant head coach, you protect them from being hired away unless it's for a head coaching job. Russ Grimm, for example, was the AHC for Pittsburgh even though he functioned mostly as an O-line coach. This kept a competitor from "stealing" Grimm to be a coordinator, which is generally considered to be a step up from the o-line coach. Of course, the Steelers didn't exactly follow up on the implied promise that Grimm would be their head coach, instead hiring Mike Nolan. Grimm has since left to join Arizona's staff as, you guessed it, Assistant Head Coach / Offensive Line Coach.
So, why is it that all these guys need to "get permission" before interviewing (Wade Phillips, the other rumor says he hasn't been contacted yet)? Well, assistant coaches, just like head coaches, sign contracts with their teams. In most cases, they're not allowed to coach elsewhere. That's right, if the Dolphins wanted to, they could say 'no' and force Garrett to come back as QB's coach even though he'll likely get offered a promotion by the 'Boys (to O-coordinator).
In practice though, teams will almost always grant permission as long as the opportunity represents a promotion. Not doing so would certainly anger assistants, not to mention making coaching searches next to impossible. So, it's basically understood that you allow permissoin if it's a promotion. In the case of a lateral move, teams can and might say 'no' but they'll usually just force the counterparty to offer compensation in the form of a draft pick. This happens in other sports as well.
One goofy little off-shoot of this practice are titles like "Assistant Head Coach". This role didn't exist 10 years ago. By labeling someone an assistant head coach, you protect them from being hired away unless it's for a head coaching job. Russ Grimm, for example, was the AHC for Pittsburgh even though he functioned mostly as an O-line coach. This kept a competitor from "stealing" Grimm to be a coordinator, which is generally considered to be a step up from the o-line coach. Of course, the Steelers didn't exactly follow up on the implied promise that Grimm would be their head coach, instead hiring Mike Nolan. Grimm has since left to join Arizona's staff as, you guessed it, Assistant Head Coach / Offensive Line Coach.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
MLB DirecTV
Rumor has it that Major League Baseball and DirecTV are close to a deal that will make DirecTV the exclusive provider of the MLB Season Pass. See http://thesportsbizblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/mlb-joining-nfl-exclusively-on-direct.html
for additional details.
This is not great news for baseball fans. It means that if you want to follow your team live and don't happen to live in its home market, you'll have to get DirecTV or use the subscribe on MLB.com for streaming internet coverage.
The reasons for the deal are clear. MLB is cashing in on this package now, possibly sacrificing total viewers for the cash now. It's hard to argue their business case one way or the other until the figures are in, but it's not hard to see that they're putting money ahead of the fans.
The other party to the deal, DirecTV is placing another bet on content in its race for subscribers with the Dish Network. Each company's valuation has fluctuated with it's ability to sign up new subscribers (not unlike the satellite radio duel). The question is, will the money lost on the rights fees (minus the revenues from selling the package) be offset by these new subscribers. Well that remains to be seen. MLB's online subscription is actually quite good, offering a ton of features like custom highlights and express games (full game in 20 minutes) if you're willing to watch on your computer.
Comcast and the other cable providers are the clear losers if this deal comes off as they lost a potentially valuable add-on sale to their digital cable packages. Maybe at least DirecTV will actually offer every game unlike the Comcast package that liked to randomly omit games.
for additional details.
This is not great news for baseball fans. It means that if you want to follow your team live and don't happen to live in its home market, you'll have to get DirecTV or use the subscribe on MLB.com for streaming internet coverage.
The reasons for the deal are clear. MLB is cashing in on this package now, possibly sacrificing total viewers for the cash now. It's hard to argue their business case one way or the other until the figures are in, but it's not hard to see that they're putting money ahead of the fans.
The other party to the deal, DirecTV is placing another bet on content in its race for subscribers with the Dish Network. Each company's valuation has fluctuated with it's ability to sign up new subscribers (not unlike the satellite radio duel). The question is, will the money lost on the rights fees (minus the revenues from selling the package) be offset by these new subscribers. Well that remains to be seen. MLB's online subscription is actually quite good, offering a ton of features like custom highlights and express games (full game in 20 minutes) if you're willing to watch on your computer.
Comcast and the other cable providers are the clear losers if this deal comes off as they lost a potentially valuable add-on sale to their digital cable packages. Maybe at least DirecTV will actually offer every game unlike the Comcast package that liked to randomly omit games.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Red Sox Trick?
The Red Sox have outbid the rest of the MLB to acquire the right to negotiate a contract with Daisuke Matsuzaka, a 25-year old pitcher from Japan. The Red Sox bid of $51.1 million dollars for the exclusive right to negotiate with Matsuzaka. The team has 30 days to come to an agreement with Scott Boras client. If they fail to reach an agreement, Matsuzaka stays with his current team in Japan and the Red Sox keep their $51.1 million.
This raises some interesting circumstances. First, the Red Sox have actually paid nothing (so far) for the ability to keep Matsuzaka from their toughest rivals. The Mets are rumored to have been the runner up at $39 million. Even if the Red Sox fail to sign the player, he can't be re-posted (more on that later) for another year. The Seibu Lions, Matsuzaka's Japanese team, only get the $51.1 million if he signs with the Red Sox. In fact, because he has 8 years of service, Matsuzaka would be a free agent after just two more years in the Japanese league. At that point, he would no longer be subject to the posting system.
As it is, his only choices are to sign with Boston, or return to his contract with Seibu. I'm hearing that he's paid less than $5 million per season there, but I haven't been able to dig up the info yet. If so, he's forced to make the choice between 2 more seasons in Japan before a giant payday in the States (he could go for $18-$20 million per season as a true free agent).
The Red Sox on the other hand, would need to be getting a fair deal for the total price. That means, if he's really a $15 million pitcher and he's only willing to sign a 3-year deal with an out-clause (meaning he could be a free agent after the 2009 season), then they should be willing to go as high as an additional $9 million over three years. That won't come close to Boras' expectations.
But, what will he settle for? Assuming that he gets out clause allowing him to be a free agent in 3 years, Matsuzaka will be better off only if he makes more in those three years by signing with Boston. The question is, will the Red Sox make it worth his while, or are they just keeping him from the Yankees and Mets?
This raises some interesting circumstances. First, the Red Sox have actually paid nothing (so far) for the ability to keep Matsuzaka from their toughest rivals. The Mets are rumored to have been the runner up at $39 million. Even if the Red Sox fail to sign the player, he can't be re-posted (more on that later) for another year. The Seibu Lions, Matsuzaka's Japanese team, only get the $51.1 million if he signs with the Red Sox. In fact, because he has 8 years of service, Matsuzaka would be a free agent after just two more years in the Japanese league. At that point, he would no longer be subject to the posting system.
As it is, his only choices are to sign with Boston, or return to his contract with Seibu. I'm hearing that he's paid less than $5 million per season there, but I haven't been able to dig up the info yet. If so, he's forced to make the choice between 2 more seasons in Japan before a giant payday in the States (he could go for $18-$20 million per season as a true free agent).
The Red Sox on the other hand, would need to be getting a fair deal for the total price. That means, if he's really a $15 million pitcher and he's only willing to sign a 3-year deal with an out-clause (meaning he could be a free agent after the 2009 season), then they should be willing to go as high as an additional $9 million over three years. That won't come close to Boras' expectations.
But, what will he settle for? Assuming that he gets out clause allowing him to be a free agent in 3 years, Matsuzaka will be better off only if he makes more in those three years by signing with Boston. The question is, will the Red Sox make it worth his while, or are they just keeping him from the Yankees and Mets?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)