[Bette]

David White, of the San Francisco Chronicle, reports Oakland Raiders RB Darren McFadden will command a six-year contract worth at least $50 million with no less than $20 million in guarantees.

KFFL - Darren McFadden, RB, Oakland Raiders

[KnockShot]

interesting.....

[Dusty]

This is usually where the Raiders fall on their faces.

[bears9]

Can you say hold out?

[Bryan88]

Remind anyone of Jamarcus Russell???

[Seahawker 562]

Lets see what hes got b4 we give him the big money

[bears9]

Originally Posted by Seahawker 562

Lets see what hes got b4 we give him the big money

If they don't give him the big money deal, then they'll never see what he has, top 5 picks (especially skill positions) want big bucks.

[azrael492]

This is why they need a rookie salary structure. He is already demanding a huge payday and hasn't even played a down yet. Make them sign to a rookie contract for 2 years then let them get the big money.

[Bette]

Originally Posted by azrael492

This is why they need a rookie salary structure. He is already demanding a huge payday and hasn't even played a down yet. Make them sign to a rookie contract for 2 years then let them get the big money.

we went around and about on this subject in another thread. I am totally in agreement with you on this.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by azrael492

This is why they need a rookie salary structure. He is already demanding a huge payday and hasn't even played a down yet. Make them sign to a rookie contract for 2 years then let them get the big money.

Why?...why does someone need to protect owners from themselves???...free market economy...you pay too much system collapses and regulates itself.

[Lefty Noob]

Originally Posted by Gotham Dark Knight

Why?...why does someone need to protect owners from themselves???...free market economy...you pay too much system collapses and regulates itself.

Maybe some owners need to be protected from other owners, hmm? One deep-pocketed owner overspends for a rookie, and the next year, highly drafted players want contracts based off that deal, and like it or not, the other owners will have to pony up if they want to improve their team. Why do we lump all owners together here? Maybe it's just one or two bad apples spoiling it for everyone, with the others forced to play catch-up?

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

Maybe some owners need to be protected from other owners, hmm? One deep-pocketed owner overspends for a rookie, and the next year, highly drafted players want contracts based off that deal, and like it or not, the other owners will have to pony up if they want to improve their team. Why do we lump all owners together here? Maybe it's just one or two bad apples spoiling it for everyone, with the others forced to play catch-up?

Parity = crappy sports

If you have it and you want to spend it...go for it...if you ruin it for other teams ...good...no other team has to follow...they really don't...I am sure that a guy that buys the Dallas Cowboys will pay more for that team then say the Chiefs...so why should he not get to spend more on a player to help recover his investment in the team?

[Bette]

Originally Posted by Bette

we went around and about on this subject in another thread. I am totally in agreement with you on this.

it would appear we are going to go around and around in this one too with the same characters appearing in the the same roles

Originally Posted by Gotham Dark Knight

Parity = crappy sports

If you have it and you want to spend it...go for it...if you ruin it for other teams ...good...no other team has to follow...they really don't...I am sure that a guy that buys the Dallas Cowboys will pay more for that team then say the Chiefs...so why should he not get to spend more on a player to help recover his investment in the team?

Goth, why do you keep calling this parity? It has nothing to do with parity or keeping things the same. The kid does not deserve that much money. He gets it because of the "get all you can get and anything goes" rule. If a wildfire is out of control, you try to stop it. Rookie salaries are out of control.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Bette

it would appear we are going to go around and around in this one too with the same characters appearing in the the same roles



Goth, why do you keep calling this parity? It has nothing to do with parity or keeping things the same. The kid does not deserve that much money. He gets it because of the "get all you can get and anything goes" rule. If a wildfire is out of control, you try to stop it. Rookie salaries are out of control.

I am tired of arguing this point...last I looked it was still America...what someone gets paid should be between them and their employer and nobody else's business...in America, businesses that get out of control die...and that's life...if the owners kill the NFL...its okay...whatever surfaces afterwards will be stronger for it...

and it is parity because you are trying to level a playing field that has no business being leveled...

And who is to say what I player is worth?...NFL players have shorter life span than regular folks...how much value should we place on 1 year of life?...2 years?...5 years?

[azrael492]

Originally Posted by Gotham Dark Knight

I am tired of arguing this point...last I looked it was still America...what someone gets paid should be between them and their employer and nobody else's business...in America, businesses that get out of control die...and that's life...if the owners kill the NFL...its okay...whatever surfaces afterwards will be stronger for it...

and it is parity because you are trying to level a playing field that has no business being leveled...

And who is to say what I player is worth?...NFL players have shorter life span than regular folks...how much value should we place on 1 year of life?...2 years?...5 years?

If an owner wants to spend his fortune on a player through free agency, I don't have a problem with it. A rookies salary should be controlled. If they pan out, take the owner to the cleaners...I don't care, but I hate when the #7 draft pick holds out until the #1 signs to see how much he should get. Assign a certain amount to the draft pick if they want to reward the top players, but they should not be making more than all pro vets just because they got picked.

It is not parity because I am not calling for the owners to spend less. I don't care how much of a payroll they have. If they didn't have to spend a quarter of it on new recruits, they could spend more on free agency...players that have proven themselves.