Mahomes versus Trubisky

[mecha]

I'm sure the agents have a larger say in how much money players make. it makes them look better by some metric if they get someone more money. I don't know if the Patriots were ever in salary cap trouble the last 20 years. they do a lot of building players up and dealing them while they still have value to get shitloads of draft picks. I don't think they ever really splurged on FA players for offense, Moss was acquired in trade and Welker was FA. Brady for a lot of the time threw to no-names or built guys like Amendola or Edelman up over time. my point about teams that overspend in FA is they're usually always perpetually in salary cap hell which makes it more difficult to build a complete team.

Pace was good with the Bears during the Fox years, but when they hired Nagy the team went into a halfass win now mode and that's when the spending went to stupid levels on defense. older guys that commanded more money got new deals instead of younger guys. it's pretty wild how they went from one of the younger teams in the league a few years ago to one of the oldest so fast.

 

[remydat]

I surmised it, as I said, by saying it's unlikely he could spend the money he was making before even taking account of his wife's income - though I could and probably am wildly out, maybe the TB12 diet is super expensive or he has other shit he likes to buy. I don't know, as I'm just surmising on a fan message board and ave zero insight into his need for cash.

The point was more on have other players done the same - with or without a rich wife - to help them, and their team, get to a Super Bowl? Culturally it probably doesn't fit so well when income is such a metric for success in the States, and particularly in professional sports.

Pro sports salaries, for example, in soccer, are rarely disclosed (though transfer fees between clubs are). But as I said, it was more about the impact of the cap and how that defined a teams success and wether that could ever be manipulated

The point I was making is that for most of these guys who are the breadwinners of their family, football is first and foremost a job. Few people in any job are going to leave money on the table. I mean by your logic, the owners should just cancel the salary cap and pay the players more since they don't need the money. The only reason a salary cap exists is for billionaires to keep more of their money because a salary cap invariably ends up with the millionaire employees getting less than the billionaire owners. Otherwise, why not be like MLB and let teams spend what they want on players?

For Brady, football is less a job and more a hobby because he is not the breadwinner in his family. Giselle is. Hence my comment about him being a trophy husband. He has the luxury to just do things for shits and giggles because he doesn't have the burden of being a breadwinner. It is not like he is taking league minimum. He is taking like 25 million vs say 35 million and 10 million is not a huge deal when again your combined net worth with your spouse is 700-800 million with most of that coming from your spouse. 10 million though is a huge difference for say Mahomes who up until his new contract had a net worth of like what 20 million or so because he was still on his rookie contract and that is assuming endorsements. So you are talking about the difference between a guy forgoing less than 2% of his current net worth vs someone foregoing 50% of their current net worth. It would be like Mahomes deciding to give up 300k (2% of his 20 million net worth) in salary.

Messi's contract was leaked and he was paid $150 million a year so not just a US thing. Note the below is in GBP not US. This is what a world without an artificial cap looks like.

Lionel Messi's Barcelona contract got leaked, and it's bigger than Patrick Mahomes's $500 million deal

Lionel Messi's reported salary is bigger than the COMBINED salaries of LeBron James, Tom Brady, Mike Trout and Connor McDavid this year.

sports.yahoo.com

 

[run and shoot]

My thought is players should make as much money as they can. Look at how much owners make. Maybe owners should pry their pockets if they truly want "pursuit of winning the top prize in the game"

That's true in all sports where there isn't a salary cap - in the NFL the cap has a significant say in the personnel you can have on your roster. So, to a great extent, the owners are tied by how much they can open there pockets by the cap number.

Was just interested in why a group of super wealthy players haven't colluded to end up on the same roster by taking a pay cut - which to some extent I guess Brady did previously?

I hear ya on the salary cap. I just know, players have such a short "shelf-life".
I mean if I had a son playing pro ball, I'd advise him to get all, he could get, while he could get it. I'm sure you'd do the same if it were your son.....right? And then when ya look at our org. it's painfully obvious they don't rats about winning a SB.

 

[KennyH]

The point I was making is that for most of these guys who are the breadwinners of their family

The point I'm obviously failing to make is that if you have a multi million contract you're not really a 'breadwinner' per se, as you have more money than you can ever spend - hence I was wondering why some top players (having made more money than they or their families can spend) don't trade in excess dollars (money they will never spend) to help win the thing they probably want most (a Super Bowl ring).

The cap makes that a viable question - whereas in soccer and other sports, it has far less of an impact - though you do actually see some top players (not all that many) make a decision to go back to their home or childhood team to finish out their career - while you also see some try to eek out even more money in places like China and the Middle East.

I get that a lot of people want money over prestige, just the cap makes it an interesting dilemma (or maybe it actually doesn't!!)

 

[KennyH]

I hear ya on the salary cap. I just know, players have such a short "shelf-life".
I mean if I had a son playing pro ball, I'd advise him to get all, he could get, while he could get it. I'm sure you'd do the same if it were your son.....right? And then when ya look at our org. it's painfully obvious they don't rats about winning a SB.

I was really talking about the top players who had already made a fortune out of the game - the short 'shelf life' used to be true in all sports when an athlete took home a little bit more than the average Joe, but only had a few years of a professional career regardless of how good they were). But vastly inflated salaries for a lot of athletes in pro sports make that much less of an issue than it used to be.

So if I had a son playing pro ball (or actually in any profession) I would advise them to play (or work) somewhere they enjoyed for as long as they enjoyed it and to try to achieve what they wanted most in their life - if that was wealth then sure, they should go for it, if it was success at that given pursuit, I would certainly advise them to forego money in pursuit of that goal (if doing that helped reach it).

I changed profession at age 30 (which is now a long time ago) to do a job that paid a lot less, that allowed me to do something I truly valued and loved. Since making that change, I've rarely felt like what I do is work, I have more than enough money to have the home and lifestyle I want and I do something that makes a real and tangible difference (because that, and not making money, was my personal goal). Maybe that's why I don't understand someone with 200 million in the bank taking another 200 million that might ultimately be impeding them getting the thing they actually want most?

But we're starting to get a bit existential now. I think that you and Remydat have totally answered the question - that it's not really a thing that happens in the NFL - which was all I was really wondering!

 

[Rob219_CBMB]

Mahomes now has more Super Bowl losses than Trubisky. Pace may have been on to something. Discuss.

SIGN HIM!

 

[run and shoot]

I was really talking about the top players who had already made a fortune out of the game - the short 'shelf life' used to be true in all sports when an athlete took home a little bit more than the average Joe, but only had a few years of a professional career regardless of how good they were). But vastly inflated salaries for a lot of athletes in pro sports make that much less of an issue than it used to be.

So if I had a son playing pro ball (or actually in any profession) I would advise them to play (or work) somewhere they enjoyed for as long as they enjoyed it and to try to achieve what they wanted most in their life - if that was wealth then sure, they should go for it, if it was success at that given pursuit, I would certainly advise them to forego money in pursuit of that goal (if doing that helped reach it).

I changed profession at age 30 (which is now a long time ago) to do a job that paid a lot less, that allowed me to do something I truly valued and loved. Since making that change, I've rarely felt like what I do is work, I have more than enough money to have the home and lifestyle I want and I do something that makes a real and tangible difference (because that, and not making money, was my personal goal). Maybe that's why I don't understand someone with 200 million in the bank taking another 200 million that might ultimately be impeding them getting the thing they actually want most?

But we're starting to get a bit existential now. I think that you and Remydat have totally answered the question - that it's not really a thing that happens in the NFL - which was all I was really wondering!

I appreciate ur points. Here's thing a lotta of your "average Joe"....... pro athletes end up broke. So I care more about them than owners and "dream pursuit"