They had me. The Washington Redskins, my hometown team that I grew up cherishing and loved until my necessary allegiances to the Packers took over, had me impressed on their strategy and management this off-season.
They were resisting the previous urges they had show towards quick-fix free agent signings. They were demonstrating learned behavior from their past ways that included years in 2001 and 2002 where they seemed to put together an NFL all-star team – from 1996! The days of signing the likes of Bruce Smith, Deign Sanders, Mark Carrier, Jeremiah Trotter and other defensive players long past their prime seemed to be a thing of the past.
They seemed to be focused on building a young team with savvy draft choices, albeit precious few of them due to past trading of future for present. They seemed committed to growing the product with a young, ascending player, Jason Campbell, at the most critical position of quarterback. They drafted solid young receivers to grow with him and have the makings of a nice offense that is built to last.
They had grown their salary cap to a workable number, in the 10M range, after being the only team in the NFL with negative Cap flow prior to the start of the league year. 10M is hardly the neighborhood of the teams most flush with Cap room such as the Chiefs or Packers with over 30M, but a nice cushion and a far cry from where the Redskins have been with their regular scrambles to stay above the Mendoza line of ground zero on the available Cap room chart.
So much for all that. That 10M just went to a little more than 1M and that strategy of building and no quick fixes just became a previous strategy. A couple injuries on the defensive line on the first day of practice of training camp (the first day for any NFL team) and, after a relatively silent few months, the Dolphins’ phone lines were ringing about Jason Taylor. There is no doubt there were high-fives and fist bumps in Miami when they were able to unload 8M in salary (9M next year) and a 33 year-old player that did not want to be there (on a team that didn’t seem to want him there) for a second-round draft choice next year (and a sixth the following year).
I know the Redskins argument. The need was there and a player of the highest caliber was available; thus the trade was made. This was clearly not a trade they were interested in making but for the desperation of the injuries. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and those measures were taken.
Jason Taylor has been and may continue to be a productive player (and dancer). He may lead the Redskins in sacks and continue to be one of the league leaders. He may be in incredible physical shape and continue to show no signs of age. That is the best-case scenario. Then there is reality.
Jason Taylor is 33 with a load of wear and tear on his body (he has started every game for the past 8 seasons). Despite all the rhetoric about him being in great shape, he is 33 and he would readily admit – unless he is lying – that he is not the same player he was years ago. 33 year-old joints are not the same as 26 year-old joints, even in the most highly conditioned athletes such as Taylor. And he is moving to a new defense, a schematic change for someone who has been in that system for 11 years.
It is hard to come up with names of defensive players in their 30s who have made impacts with new teams, by virtue of trade or free agency. One reason for that is that there are not that many as teams, save for the Redskins of years ago, shy away from players with age for good reason.
The Redskins have mortgaged their second-round selection next year for a 33-year player with an 8M salary that says he will play two years, although there is nothing holding him to that statement. I suppose they can never get far from that statement of former coach George Allen some 35 years ago, “The Future is Now”. As with everything in life, time will tell.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
Precedence important for teams during NFL’s crying season
Recent Column in the Sports Business Journal
It’s the crying season in the National Football League. Players upset that contracts agreed to in the recent past are now outdated are posturing, protesting or withholding services in search of more money.
No NFL team is immune to this, and none should delude itself into thinking it is. It is predictable with human nature that these complications arise.
The free-agent market raised the bar at the top of the pay scale for each position and created long-term ramifications for players watching the marketplace race past the contracts they signed.
Moreover, the attention given to the contracts of top draft choices who have yet to play a down in the NFL further fans the flames of players who think they are underpaid.
To these players, highly competitive on the field and off, the equation is simple: “Player X got paid this. I am as good or better than Player X. Therefore, I deserve that or more.” The fact that the complainer has remaining years on his contract has little bearing in his mind.
Whispering crew
Even for the player with strong inner peace about his own worth, at the first news of a large contract extension for a similar player, there is often a cavalcade (his agent, competing agents, teammates, friends, family, media) whispering that he is underpaid and deserves more. He may even feel his contract is inherently fair, but constant banter from others takes its toll.
It is difficult to underestimate the effect of the whispering crew. While at the Packers, I always braced myself for the week after the Pro Bowl, when I routinely heard from agents and players about perceived salary inequities.
There are different kinds of private or public stands that a player can make to ratchet up the stakes with a team. Most players and their agents choose to handle the issue, at least initially, privately with the team.
There are those situations, however, that become public and wear on the team. Two that stand out are Terrell Owens with the Eagles a few years ago and Chad Johnson with the Bengals this year.
Due to the flamboyant nature of the players (wide receivers as the Hollywood divas of the NFL), their public demands for new contracts become much-needed fodder for offseason coverage. The NFL is the only major sport whose offseason is longer than its season. Thus, stories such as these in May, June and July are godsends to hungry NFL media.
Leveraging assets
What leverage does a player have under an existing contract? In many ways, that is dependent on how his team responds.
A player’s perceived leverage may be to hold out of organized team activities, voluntary offseason events or even mandatory offseason activities such as minicamp. He may even threaten to hold out of training camp.
As to fines for missed mandatory minicamp ($8,000) or daily fines ($15,000) for missing training camp, the amounts are minuscule compared with the potential bounty of a new contract.
Johnson, who had said he would retirerather than play for the Bengals,has changed his tune.
Players are further emboldened due to recent arbitrations involving Ashley Lelie and Michael Vick that make forfeiture of previously received bonus money difficult for teams to recover. The player’s objective is to generate angst among management that eventually may lead to action.
The greater the swirl of discussion the player can create internally (coaches buzzing how much they need the player, teammates supporting the player getting what he can, management feeling some real or imagined pressure), the closer he is to his objective.
Once the team steps out and takes a stand, however, the player’s goal of creating tension that leads to action dissipates.
Case in point: Earlier this offseason, Johnson said that he would retire rather than continue playing for the Bengals. Coach Marvin Lewis responded by wishing Johnson luck in his retirement. Johnson recently conceded he will be back playing with the Bengals. End of story.
Resonating message
The team’s response is important in ways far beyond the specific player, as the message resonates within the locker room on how the team deals with the issue.
If a team rewards a player who has expressed public or even private dissatisfaction, his teammates will take note. In contrast, if the team takes a stand that it will not rework the contract of one of its best players, the rest of the players know to be careful about how they handle these situations.
Every player can make a case why he should be treated differently, but the most compelling argument a team can make is existing precedent.
The crying season is in full swing and will continue through training camp. Some players will be rewarded with new contracts, others will be stonewalled and some will reach a compromise.
With the market changing drastically due to free agency, a rising (and perhaps disappearing) salary cap and lush numbers given to players at the top of the draft, this byproduct of unhappy players is becoming an annual rite of spring and summer in the NFL.
Come September, however, it will be a shock if any of these players is not playing. Still crying perhaps, but playing nonetheless.
It’s the crying season in the National Football League. Players upset that contracts agreed to in the recent past are now outdated are posturing, protesting or withholding services in search of more money.
No NFL team is immune to this, and none should delude itself into thinking it is. It is predictable with human nature that these complications arise.
The free-agent market raised the bar at the top of the pay scale for each position and created long-term ramifications for players watching the marketplace race past the contracts they signed.
Moreover, the attention given to the contracts of top draft choices who have yet to play a down in the NFL further fans the flames of players who think they are underpaid.
To these players, highly competitive on the field and off, the equation is simple: “Player X got paid this. I am as good or better than Player X. Therefore, I deserve that or more.” The fact that the complainer has remaining years on his contract has little bearing in his mind.
Whispering crew
Even for the player with strong inner peace about his own worth, at the first news of a large contract extension for a similar player, there is often a cavalcade (his agent, competing agents, teammates, friends, family, media) whispering that he is underpaid and deserves more. He may even feel his contract is inherently fair, but constant banter from others takes its toll.
It is difficult to underestimate the effect of the whispering crew. While at the Packers, I always braced myself for the week after the Pro Bowl, when I routinely heard from agents and players about perceived salary inequities.
There are different kinds of private or public stands that a player can make to ratchet up the stakes with a team. Most players and their agents choose to handle the issue, at least initially, privately with the team.
There are those situations, however, that become public and wear on the team. Two that stand out are Terrell Owens with the Eagles a few years ago and Chad Johnson with the Bengals this year.
Due to the flamboyant nature of the players (wide receivers as the Hollywood divas of the NFL), their public demands for new contracts become much-needed fodder for offseason coverage. The NFL is the only major sport whose offseason is longer than its season. Thus, stories such as these in May, June and July are godsends to hungry NFL media.
Leveraging assets
What leverage does a player have under an existing contract? In many ways, that is dependent on how his team responds.
A player’s perceived leverage may be to hold out of organized team activities, voluntary offseason events or even mandatory offseason activities such as minicamp. He may even threaten to hold out of training camp.
As to fines for missed mandatory minicamp ($8,000) or daily fines ($15,000) for missing training camp, the amounts are minuscule compared with the potential bounty of a new contract.
Johnson, who had said he would retirerather than play for the Bengals,has changed his tune.
Players are further emboldened due to recent arbitrations involving Ashley Lelie and Michael Vick that make forfeiture of previously received bonus money difficult for teams to recover. The player’s objective is to generate angst among management that eventually may lead to action.
The greater the swirl of discussion the player can create internally (coaches buzzing how much they need the player, teammates supporting the player getting what he can, management feeling some real or imagined pressure), the closer he is to his objective.
Once the team steps out and takes a stand, however, the player’s goal of creating tension that leads to action dissipates.
Case in point: Earlier this offseason, Johnson said that he would retire rather than continue playing for the Bengals. Coach Marvin Lewis responded by wishing Johnson luck in his retirement. Johnson recently conceded he will be back playing with the Bengals. End of story.
Resonating message
The team’s response is important in ways far beyond the specific player, as the message resonates within the locker room on how the team deals with the issue.
If a team rewards a player who has expressed public or even private dissatisfaction, his teammates will take note. In contrast, if the team takes a stand that it will not rework the contract of one of its best players, the rest of the players know to be careful about how they handle these situations.
Every player can make a case why he should be treated differently, but the most compelling argument a team can make is existing precedent.
The crying season is in full swing and will continue through training camp. Some players will be rewarded with new contracts, others will be stonewalled and some will reach a compromise.
With the market changing drastically due to free agency, a rising (and perhaps disappearing) salary cap and lush numbers given to players at the top of the draft, this byproduct of unhappy players is becoming an annual rite of spring and summer in the NFL.
Come September, however, it will be a shock if any of these players is not playing. Still crying perhaps, but playing nonetheless.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Brett and the Packers: Too Close to Comment
I cannot walk a few steps these days without being asked about the Packers and Brett Favre. I left there at the end of January, a month before Brett retired. I know all the parties involved and all the confidences that have been discussed. I know Brett's side of the story and I know the Packers side. The bottom line for me is that, despite repeated requests to comment on the situation at any and all levels, I cannot. I am just too close to the situation and will not comment at this time.
The only reaction that I have is that any bystander of this war of words: why are these parties talking to the media and not to each other? My experience with the Packers would suggest that using the media as a means of communication has been discouraged at all costs, yet it seems to be in play at the moment
Like all conflict in life, this, too, shall pass and life will go on. Brett will play or not play, for the Packers or not the Packers, and even the most breathless fans and media of this drama will move on to the next topic.
Nothing from me on this now, though. It's just too close for comfort....
The only reaction that I have is that any bystander of this war of words: why are these parties talking to the media and not to each other? My experience with the Packers would suggest that using the media as a means of communication has been discouraged at all costs, yet it seems to be in play at the moment
Like all conflict in life, this, too, shall pass and life will go on. Brett will play or not play, for the Packers or not the Packers, and even the most breathless fans and media of this drama will move on to the next topic.
Nothing from me on this now, though. It's just too close for comfort....
Friday, July 11, 2008
Rafa and Roger: The Golden Age Is Upon Us
Recent Blog From The Huffington Post
I could not leave. My kids were promised the beach all morning and sat waiting patiently in their bathing suits, poised to hop in the car and hit the sand. I could not. What was happening live in England some 5,000 miles away was too riveting. Federer-Nadal in the final of Wimbledon, the undisputed top two tennis players alive slugging it out in a performance that was truly spellbinding.
As I watched this beautiful yet powerful display of tennis, I realized that, despite the protests of some old-timers, the golden age of sports is here and now. Yes, I grew up with Borg-McEnroe and Borg-Connors and Connors-Lendl and was a fan all of them (as a tennis player I emulated parts of all of their games). But unlike those who hold fast to their generational stars and memories, I am convinced that the guys I watched on Sunday are just better. That match left me with the overwhelming feeling that the glory days of tennis -- both with the men and women (see Williams, Venus and Serena) -- are upon us. It is here and now with Rafa and Roger, not a rose-colored memory of players we loved twenty years ago.
Rafael Nadal is a testament to fitness, power and grinding through points like someone breaking through asphalt with a sledgehammer. In contrast, Roger Federer is a wondrous player, elegantly stroking classic shots from all angles. This mesmerizing match did not allow viewers to possibly turn away. The golden age of men's tennis is right now.
The golden age of sports is not limited to tennis. Think of what we have had in this 2008 calendar year, of which we are only halfway through. In football, there were two wondrous games involving the New York Giants. They first defeated the Packers in Green Bay in late January (as vice president of the Packers at that time, it was the coldest I had been, or ever plan to ever be) in a frozen classic, followed by one of the great Super Bowl games and upsets in history, beating the Patriots in early February.
In college basketball, we witnessed an astounding overtime championship by Kansas over Memphis, full of game-tying and game-deciding shots. NBA basketball gave us the matchup everyone wanted, a classic between the Celtics and Lakers, culminating playoffs full of once-in-a-generation talents such as Kobe, Lebron, Chris Paul and others.
In golf, the recently-completed U.S. Open not only featured an epic performance by the most compelling athlete of our time, a now-injured Tiger Woods, but also the injection of the common man element into the equation, with folksy, everyman 45-year old Rocco Mediate blazing through the performance of a lifetime.
And then there was that final at Wimbledon, an instant classic that has even the most casual tennis fans talking tennis.
So sit back and enjoy the show. We have never been at a time in athletics where the performances are becoming as frequently compelling as they are. In the highlight-driven, SportsCenter moment society we live in, there is a natural desensitization to the spectacular, but we must resist that. Performances like Sunday's Wimbledon final are what makes sports the wonder that it is and what makes this time in our lives the golden age of sports. It is here right under our noses. While sentimentalists will hearken to the heroes of their childhood or other generational biases, the fact is that, as Carly Simon sings in Anticipation, "These are the good old days."
I could not leave. My kids were promised the beach all morning and sat waiting patiently in their bathing suits, poised to hop in the car and hit the sand. I could not. What was happening live in England some 5,000 miles away was too riveting. Federer-Nadal in the final of Wimbledon, the undisputed top two tennis players alive slugging it out in a performance that was truly spellbinding.
As I watched this beautiful yet powerful display of tennis, I realized that, despite the protests of some old-timers, the golden age of sports is here and now. Yes, I grew up with Borg-McEnroe and Borg-Connors and Connors-Lendl and was a fan all of them (as a tennis player I emulated parts of all of their games). But unlike those who hold fast to their generational stars and memories, I am convinced that the guys I watched on Sunday are just better. That match left me with the overwhelming feeling that the glory days of tennis -- both with the men and women (see Williams, Venus and Serena) -- are upon us. It is here and now with Rafa and Roger, not a rose-colored memory of players we loved twenty years ago.
Rafael Nadal is a testament to fitness, power and grinding through points like someone breaking through asphalt with a sledgehammer. In contrast, Roger Federer is a wondrous player, elegantly stroking classic shots from all angles. This mesmerizing match did not allow viewers to possibly turn away. The golden age of men's tennis is right now.
The golden age of sports is not limited to tennis. Think of what we have had in this 2008 calendar year, of which we are only halfway through. In football, there were two wondrous games involving the New York Giants. They first defeated the Packers in Green Bay in late January (as vice president of the Packers at that time, it was the coldest I had been, or ever plan to ever be) in a frozen classic, followed by one of the great Super Bowl games and upsets in history, beating the Patriots in early February.
In college basketball, we witnessed an astounding overtime championship by Kansas over Memphis, full of game-tying and game-deciding shots. NBA basketball gave us the matchup everyone wanted, a classic between the Celtics and Lakers, culminating playoffs full of once-in-a-generation talents such as Kobe, Lebron, Chris Paul and others.
In golf, the recently-completed U.S. Open not only featured an epic performance by the most compelling athlete of our time, a now-injured Tiger Woods, but also the injection of the common man element into the equation, with folksy, everyman 45-year old Rocco Mediate blazing through the performance of a lifetime.
And then there was that final at Wimbledon, an instant classic that has even the most casual tennis fans talking tennis.
So sit back and enjoy the show. We have never been at a time in athletics where the performances are becoming as frequently compelling as they are. In the highlight-driven, SportsCenter moment society we live in, there is a natural desensitization to the spectacular, but we must resist that. Performances like Sunday's Wimbledon final are what makes sports the wonder that it is and what makes this time in our lives the golden age of sports. It is here right under our noses. While sentimentalists will hearken to the heroes of their childhood or other generational biases, the fact is that, as Carly Simon sings in Anticipation, "These are the good old days."
Monday, July 7, 2008
Recent Blog from the Huffington Post
Venus and Serena: Last Name Not Needed
Venus and Serena. Serena and Venus. They are first-name only references, a status reserved for A-list celebrities, usually for entertainers, not athletes. For a decade, no discussion about women's tennis is complete without mentioning Venus and Serena Williams. While they have been inconsistent on and off the court, the two have dominated for stretches while driving conversations about the sport. With each in the Wimbledon semifinals on Thursday, they are poised to meet in Saturday's all-sister final.
Women's tennis needs Venus and Serena as much as any sport needs any two names. As the sport undergoes yet-another transformation at the top of the game, the Williams' sisters are still there and still dominant. The two top-ranked players in the world over the past two years -- Kim Clijsters and fellow Belgian Justine Henin -- have recently retired. Moreover, the two "it" girls of the present, Maria Sharapova -- tennis' reigning diva -- and Ana Ivanovic were ushered out of Wimbledon before the quarters. Thus, the path is clear for sisters who are one match each from their 16th career meeting and their seventh with a Grand Slam title on the line. They have been dominating lesser players this fortnight, not good news for their semifinal opponents.
The unorthodox nature of these sisters in confounding to many, frustrating to some yet refreshing to others. We live in an era in athletics where a laser like focus and discipline is constantly drummed into young athletes. The mantra in trying to reach "the next level" is to practice as much as possible; train as diligently as possible, lead a Spartan life of full of discipline and devoid of distraction.
Young athletes are shuttled through monk-like existences of training and more training with special schools, coaches, institutes, therapists, and assorted gurus to reach their goal to be the best. Balance in their lives be damned, their life is their sport.
Not so for Venus and Serena. Raised in tennis by their father, Richard, on the public courts of Compton, California, they have not taken the route followed my most of their counterparts on the tour. Richard confounded the tennis hierarchy by limiting his prodigies' schedules and time commitments. He maintains a presence around his daughters and tour, needling tour officials and management about real or perceived slights against his daughters (even in this Wimbledon, both Venus and Serena have been curiously assigned outer courts away from the main stages as they have progressed to the semis).
Venus and Serena have a lot of outside interests, as both are into fashion and design beyond the tennis clothes they wear to work. As their competitors focus their time and energy on the singular pursuit of excellence in their sport, the sisters come and go during the tour schedule, frustrating tour officials with their spotty schedules and last-minute pullouts. Despite their sporadic participation, however, they have and continue to display stretches of dominance, as we are seeing now at Wimbledon. Not the path the tennis elders would like to see taken, but successful nonetheless.
Their unwillingness to be tennis players and tennis players only may be maddening to some but has certainly not turned away the public or endorsers. Ratings, especially for the "Breakfast at Wimbledon" on Saturday, hinge dramatically on one -- or preferably both -- of them playing. When they met in the final of the U.S. Open in 2001, CBS changed their schedule to put them on prime time. They are simply compelling names and figures in the sport.
Madison Avenue has noticed as well. Some of Serena's endorsements include or have included: Puma, Nike, Avon, Wrigley, McDonald's and Close-Up. Venus has also endorsed Avon, Wrigley, and McDonald's along with the richest female endorsement deal with Reebok, Powerade and Wilson's leather, among others.
The sisters identifies by first-name only are thriving while having balance in their lives. As they dominate the biggest stage in tennis this week, they do so in a manner that is exasperating to some and flies in the face of the modern singularly focused athlete. Yet here they are, Venus and Serena, Serena and Venus. Once again.
Venus and Serena. Serena and Venus. They are first-name only references, a status reserved for A-list celebrities, usually for entertainers, not athletes. For a decade, no discussion about women's tennis is complete without mentioning Venus and Serena Williams. While they have been inconsistent on and off the court, the two have dominated for stretches while driving conversations about the sport. With each in the Wimbledon semifinals on Thursday, they are poised to meet in Saturday's all-sister final.
Women's tennis needs Venus and Serena as much as any sport needs any two names. As the sport undergoes yet-another transformation at the top of the game, the Williams' sisters are still there and still dominant. The two top-ranked players in the world over the past two years -- Kim Clijsters and fellow Belgian Justine Henin -- have recently retired. Moreover, the two "it" girls of the present, Maria Sharapova -- tennis' reigning diva -- and Ana Ivanovic were ushered out of Wimbledon before the quarters. Thus, the path is clear for sisters who are one match each from their 16th career meeting and their seventh with a Grand Slam title on the line. They have been dominating lesser players this fortnight, not good news for their semifinal opponents.
The unorthodox nature of these sisters in confounding to many, frustrating to some yet refreshing to others. We live in an era in athletics where a laser like focus and discipline is constantly drummed into young athletes. The mantra in trying to reach "the next level" is to practice as much as possible; train as diligently as possible, lead a Spartan life of full of discipline and devoid of distraction.
Young athletes are shuttled through monk-like existences of training and more training with special schools, coaches, institutes, therapists, and assorted gurus to reach their goal to be the best. Balance in their lives be damned, their life is their sport.
Not so for Venus and Serena. Raised in tennis by their father, Richard, on the public courts of Compton, California, they have not taken the route followed my most of their counterparts on the tour. Richard confounded the tennis hierarchy by limiting his prodigies' schedules and time commitments. He maintains a presence around his daughters and tour, needling tour officials and management about real or perceived slights against his daughters (even in this Wimbledon, both Venus and Serena have been curiously assigned outer courts away from the main stages as they have progressed to the semis).
Venus and Serena have a lot of outside interests, as both are into fashion and design beyond the tennis clothes they wear to work. As their competitors focus their time and energy on the singular pursuit of excellence in their sport, the sisters come and go during the tour schedule, frustrating tour officials with their spotty schedules and last-minute pullouts. Despite their sporadic participation, however, they have and continue to display stretches of dominance, as we are seeing now at Wimbledon. Not the path the tennis elders would like to see taken, but successful nonetheless.
Their unwillingness to be tennis players and tennis players only may be maddening to some but has certainly not turned away the public or endorsers. Ratings, especially for the "Breakfast at Wimbledon" on Saturday, hinge dramatically on one -- or preferably both -- of them playing. When they met in the final of the U.S. Open in 2001, CBS changed their schedule to put them on prime time. They are simply compelling names and figures in the sport.
Madison Avenue has noticed as well. Some of Serena's endorsements include or have included: Puma, Nike, Avon, Wrigley, McDonald's and Close-Up. Venus has also endorsed Avon, Wrigley, and McDonald's along with the richest female endorsement deal with Reebok, Powerade and Wilson's leather, among others.
The sisters identifies by first-name only are thriving while having balance in their lives. As they dominate the biggest stage in tennis this week, they do so in a manner that is exasperating to some and flies in the face of the modern singularly focused athlete. Yet here they are, Venus and Serena, Serena and Venus. Once again.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Javon Walker: a move to a faster lane
The big story in the NFL this week was Javon Walker being found beaten and unconscious following a night of partying in Las Vegas. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3448362
I remember the day I met Javon and how impressed I was with him. It was a Sunday morning; the second day of the 2002 NFL Draft. On the previous day the Packers had traded a second round pick to move from the 28th to the 20th pick to select Javon as our first-round selection. Minutes after making the pick, at least three teams called that were directly behind us and told us we had taken their guy.
Javon flew in right away to meet the staff and the media, a customary routine for first-round picks. We were having breakfast the next morning, preparing for the selections ahead in rounds 4-7 when he walked in. He was tall, strapping, handsome and innocent as a kindergartener. He addressed everyone “Yes, sir” or “No, sir” and had a disarming yet glowing smile.
Our head coach and general manager, Mike Sherman, looked Javon in the eye that morning and said that he hoped for one thing in Javon’s career – that he would not change. Javon, of course, assured Mike that he would not.
Wishful thinking.
Javon, as we now know, became a wonderful player for the Packers, slowly separating himself from our other receivers in terms of strength, speed and ability to separate. And in his first couple of years on the team, he appeared to be that shy, innocent and just-happy-to-be-here kid we drafted. Soon enough, however, things would change.
Following the 2004 season and Javon's selection to Pro Bowl, with whispers was in his ear about how good he had become relative to other receivers in football, he fired his previous agent and hired Drew Rosenhaus, who proceeded to send an offer that would have made Javon the highest paid receiver in the NFL. We declined but discussed that we would address the contract at some point during the 2005 season. (A lot is made of Drew, but I always found him pleasant to deal with; you just have to be aware that, in many cases, he is playing to the media).
Javon tore his knee in the first game of the 2005 season against the Lions, which turned out to be the end of his time in Green Bay (he had his surgery and did his rehab in Houston). He then once again changed agents, from Drew to Kennard McGuire, but the message became louder that he wanted out. As to why, we never really were given a clear answer. There were comments about being offended by Brett Favre speaking out against Javon’s contract demands, conflicts with other teammates, being disrespected by a hotel clerk in Milwaukee, etc. It did not matter. He wanted out in no uncertain terms, as Kennard expressed to me at the NFL Combine in February 2006 and Javon expressed to anyone who would listen soon thereafter.
These situations are never easy for a team, as we knew his teammates were watching as to whether we would accede to his trade wishes. In this case, however, things were made easier due to the extent of surgery and long-term prognosis of his knee. Thus, on the first day of the 2006 NFL draft, precisely four years from the day we selected him, we traded him to the Broncos for a high second-round pick (which we subsequently traded and ended up taking Greg Jennings later that round).
As the years went by with Javon, I noticed some changes. He took the two-hour drive to hang out in Milwaukee a lot -- hardly unusual for Packer players, yet his excursions were more frequent than most. And, of course, when time allowed, he went to Vegas. Also, the people that started hanging around him appeared to be a more fast-track crew than his usual post-game crew that was primarily family.
I also remember a curious call from a guy in New Jersey to let us know he had dragged Javon out of the water in Cancun where he was “pretty bloodied up” after a jet skiing accident. Although this was a strange call, the guy sounded legit so I called Kennard and found out that yes, Javon went to the hospital after falling out of a jet ski, though severity of the injury was downplayed. By now, however, the rumor mill about Javon's off-the-field life were hard to ignore.
I saw Javon last year when we played the Broncos in a Monday night game and we had a nice long visit. He was, unfortunately, in the same status when I saw him last with the Packers – in a sweat suit not playing due to a knee injury. He ironically said he missed Green Bay and later I even heard he wanted to come back and play for the Packers (which he considered this year before being offered 12M in guaranteed money from the Raiders).
I feel for Javon and his injuries in Las Vegas this week, although he is fortunate to apparently be all right. I am not shocked, however, that he put himself in a position for this to happen. Obviously, my heart bleeds for Javon to have witnessed the death of a close friend a year ago. Mostly, however, I feel sorry for Javon that there does not appear to be a driving moral compass in his life and there should be; he is too good a person for there not to be a person or persons guiding him. There is nothing wrong with a young wealthy single guy enjoying this time in life, but this was not the polite, shy and respectful young man that walked into our building on draft weekend in 2002.
I remember the day I met Javon and how impressed I was with him. It was a Sunday morning; the second day of the 2002 NFL Draft. On the previous day the Packers had traded a second round pick to move from the 28th to the 20th pick to select Javon as our first-round selection. Minutes after making the pick, at least three teams called that were directly behind us and told us we had taken their guy.
Javon flew in right away to meet the staff and the media, a customary routine for first-round picks. We were having breakfast the next morning, preparing for the selections ahead in rounds 4-7 when he walked in. He was tall, strapping, handsome and innocent as a kindergartener. He addressed everyone “Yes, sir” or “No, sir” and had a disarming yet glowing smile.
Our head coach and general manager, Mike Sherman, looked Javon in the eye that morning and said that he hoped for one thing in Javon’s career – that he would not change. Javon, of course, assured Mike that he would not.
Wishful thinking.
Javon, as we now know, became a wonderful player for the Packers, slowly separating himself from our other receivers in terms of strength, speed and ability to separate. And in his first couple of years on the team, he appeared to be that shy, innocent and just-happy-to-be-here kid we drafted. Soon enough, however, things would change.
Following the 2004 season and Javon's selection to Pro Bowl, with whispers was in his ear about how good he had become relative to other receivers in football, he fired his previous agent and hired Drew Rosenhaus, who proceeded to send an offer that would have made Javon the highest paid receiver in the NFL. We declined but discussed that we would address the contract at some point during the 2005 season. (A lot is made of Drew, but I always found him pleasant to deal with; you just have to be aware that, in many cases, he is playing to the media).
Javon tore his knee in the first game of the 2005 season against the Lions, which turned out to be the end of his time in Green Bay (he had his surgery and did his rehab in Houston). He then once again changed agents, from Drew to Kennard McGuire, but the message became louder that he wanted out. As to why, we never really were given a clear answer. There were comments about being offended by Brett Favre speaking out against Javon’s contract demands, conflicts with other teammates, being disrespected by a hotel clerk in Milwaukee, etc. It did not matter. He wanted out in no uncertain terms, as Kennard expressed to me at the NFL Combine in February 2006 and Javon expressed to anyone who would listen soon thereafter.
These situations are never easy for a team, as we knew his teammates were watching as to whether we would accede to his trade wishes. In this case, however, things were made easier due to the extent of surgery and long-term prognosis of his knee. Thus, on the first day of the 2006 NFL draft, precisely four years from the day we selected him, we traded him to the Broncos for a high second-round pick (which we subsequently traded and ended up taking Greg Jennings later that round).
As the years went by with Javon, I noticed some changes. He took the two-hour drive to hang out in Milwaukee a lot -- hardly unusual for Packer players, yet his excursions were more frequent than most. And, of course, when time allowed, he went to Vegas. Also, the people that started hanging around him appeared to be a more fast-track crew than his usual post-game crew that was primarily family.
I also remember a curious call from a guy in New Jersey to let us know he had dragged Javon out of the water in Cancun where he was “pretty bloodied up” after a jet skiing accident. Although this was a strange call, the guy sounded legit so I called Kennard and found out that yes, Javon went to the hospital after falling out of a jet ski, though severity of the injury was downplayed. By now, however, the rumor mill about Javon's off-the-field life were hard to ignore.
I saw Javon last year when we played the Broncos in a Monday night game and we had a nice long visit. He was, unfortunately, in the same status when I saw him last with the Packers – in a sweat suit not playing due to a knee injury. He ironically said he missed Green Bay and later I even heard he wanted to come back and play for the Packers (which he considered this year before being offered 12M in guaranteed money from the Raiders).
I feel for Javon and his injuries in Las Vegas this week, although he is fortunate to apparently be all right. I am not shocked, however, that he put himself in a position for this to happen. Obviously, my heart bleeds for Javon to have witnessed the death of a close friend a year ago. Mostly, however, I feel sorry for Javon that there does not appear to be a driving moral compass in his life and there should be; he is too good a person for there not to be a person or persons guiding him. There is nothing wrong with a young wealthy single guy enjoying this time in life, but this was not the polite, shy and respectful young man that walked into our building on draft weekend in 2002.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Recent Column in Sports Business Journal
Numbers at the top blow rookie pay issue out of proportion
Published June 02, 2008
This time every year, the outcry about NFL rookies’ pay emanates: How can players who have not played a snap in the NFL make more than proven veterans?
That argument makes perfect sense, although it is fallacious. Compensation to rookies is doing exactly what it is intended to do: moving money to veterans.
Consider the following: The average NFL player earns approximately $1.7 million. Of the 252 players who are part of the 2008 rookie class, approximately 225 of them will average less than that.
This hardly appears to be a major problem. The misperception about rookie salaries is largely due to the top of the draft.
When the Miami Dolphins came to terms with the No. 1 overall pick, Jake Long, the media and industry focus was less on Long’s signing his contract three months before his first padded practice and more about the terms of the contract. The headlines blared: five years, $57 million with $30 million guaranteed!
A couple of weeks later, even more stark numbers were announced with the Atlanta Falcons’ signing of the No. 3 overall pick, Matt Ryan: six years, $72 million with $34.75 million guaranteed!
With those attention-grabbing numbers, the debate began anew about rookie salaries, inequity to veterans, etc.
True numbers
The reality is that these are true numbers only if everything goes swimmingly with the player’s career. That is, if he plays injury-free, makes a Pro Bowl or two or three and has impressive statistical performance. Then, and only then, will he make the total contract numbers that were trumpeted upon the signing of his rookie contract.
And if the player is achieving that kind of performance early in the contract, he will certainly have an upgraded veteran contract in place of those later years, making it highly unlikely that the player will ever receive those rookie contract figures.
The guaranteed portion of the contract is largely received in the early years of the contract, lessening the long-term risk for the team. If these players — these extraordinarily valuable top draft pick currencies — cannot make the team in their first few years, guaranteed money is hardly the teams’ biggest concern.
The reality of compensation to NFL rookies is that it is disproportionately skewed toward the top overall picks, creating the perception of an inequity being foisted upon veterans.
Having usually dealt with picks late in the first round due to the success of the Green Bay Packers in each of the previous seasons, I had a rude awakening when we picked fifth in 2006 without the relative financial comfort of the late first round.
Although the player we selected, Ohio State linebacker A.J. Hawk, and his representative were a pleasure to work with and the contract was completed prior to training camp, the market for a pick that high in the draft was — and continues to be — a shock to the system, as the numbers radically escalate toward the top of the draft.
Rookie cap
The staggering numbers of the Long and Ryan contracts rekindled the debate of a rookie salary cap, although there has been a virtual one in place since the advent of the system in 1993. The NFL allocates an amount of cap room (the rookie pool) to a team to sign its rookies.
Contracts like QB Matt Ryan’s in Atlanta createthe perception of inequity toward veterans.
The NFL teams’ operation of this rookie cap has created the perception of a problem, as teams have allocated a highly disproportionate amount to their first pick and, to a lesser extent, their second pick, leaving the lower picks to divide what is left.
Approximately 55 percent of the teams’ rookie allocations have been spent on their first pick, leaving 45 percent of their cap to be divvied up among the rest, whether that group represents a few or many more players.
Why does this occur? The simple answer is that it does because it did last year, the year before, and so on.
When the CBA was last modified in March of 2006, there were some term limits put on rookie contracts. But any discussion of rookie compensation did not result in appreciable changes.
Those contracts, to conform to rules designed to limit cap room for rookies, are now reaching epic lengths of 50 pages and more.
Money paid to top picks has become so financially disproportionate that the pure football value of these selections has been diminished. No longer gemstones that teams would mortgage their futures to acquire, they may even soon see a day when a team trades a top pick and something else to move back in the draft, rather than vice versa.
NBA model
That is a concept familiar to the NBA, where teams trade players and rights to (retired) players and other valuable assets merely to purge themselves of such financial burdens.
Perhaps it is an NBA model that many desire for the NFL, setting cash limits per pick and taking negotiations out of the process. (Top NBA picks sign within days of being drafted.) This model makes sense and simplifies the process but would, of course, require collective bargaining.
Moreover, top NFL agents rely on these contracts — and the headline numbers — as badges of honor when recruiting the next class.
There is need for a change in the rookie compensation system, but not due to a misplaced focus on the very few. The vast majority of NFL rookies represent a fixed, efficient and reasonably compensated labor cost for the teams to offset the uncertain and expensive cost of the other method to upgrade talent: veteran free agency.
Long, Ryan and their cohorts perched atop the draft are the fortunate beneficiaries of a system skewed to their benefit. Most of their 2008 draft classmates will fall into the category of receiving what is left after the first picks get their share.
Perception about the chosen few has become false reality about the entire group.
Published June 02, 2008
This time every year, the outcry about NFL rookies’ pay emanates: How can players who have not played a snap in the NFL make more than proven veterans?
That argument makes perfect sense, although it is fallacious. Compensation to rookies is doing exactly what it is intended to do: moving money to veterans.
Consider the following: The average NFL player earns approximately $1.7 million. Of the 252 players who are part of the 2008 rookie class, approximately 225 of them will average less than that.
This hardly appears to be a major problem. The misperception about rookie salaries is largely due to the top of the draft.
When the Miami Dolphins came to terms with the No. 1 overall pick, Jake Long, the media and industry focus was less on Long’s signing his contract three months before his first padded practice and more about the terms of the contract. The headlines blared: five years, $57 million with $30 million guaranteed!
A couple of weeks later, even more stark numbers were announced with the Atlanta Falcons’ signing of the No. 3 overall pick, Matt Ryan: six years, $72 million with $34.75 million guaranteed!
With those attention-grabbing numbers, the debate began anew about rookie salaries, inequity to veterans, etc.
True numbers
The reality is that these are true numbers only if everything goes swimmingly with the player’s career. That is, if he plays injury-free, makes a Pro Bowl or two or three and has impressive statistical performance. Then, and only then, will he make the total contract numbers that were trumpeted upon the signing of his rookie contract.
And if the player is achieving that kind of performance early in the contract, he will certainly have an upgraded veteran contract in place of those later years, making it highly unlikely that the player will ever receive those rookie contract figures.
The guaranteed portion of the contract is largely received in the early years of the contract, lessening the long-term risk for the team. If these players — these extraordinarily valuable top draft pick currencies — cannot make the team in their first few years, guaranteed money is hardly the teams’ biggest concern.
The reality of compensation to NFL rookies is that it is disproportionately skewed toward the top overall picks, creating the perception of an inequity being foisted upon veterans.
Having usually dealt with picks late in the first round due to the success of the Green Bay Packers in each of the previous seasons, I had a rude awakening when we picked fifth in 2006 without the relative financial comfort of the late first round.
Although the player we selected, Ohio State linebacker A.J. Hawk, and his representative were a pleasure to work with and the contract was completed prior to training camp, the market for a pick that high in the draft was — and continues to be — a shock to the system, as the numbers radically escalate toward the top of the draft.
Rookie cap
The staggering numbers of the Long and Ryan contracts rekindled the debate of a rookie salary cap, although there has been a virtual one in place since the advent of the system in 1993. The NFL allocates an amount of cap room (the rookie pool) to a team to sign its rookies.
Contracts like QB Matt Ryan’s in Atlanta createthe perception of inequity toward veterans.
The NFL teams’ operation of this rookie cap has created the perception of a problem, as teams have allocated a highly disproportionate amount to their first pick and, to a lesser extent, their second pick, leaving the lower picks to divide what is left.
Approximately 55 percent of the teams’ rookie allocations have been spent on their first pick, leaving 45 percent of their cap to be divvied up among the rest, whether that group represents a few or many more players.
Why does this occur? The simple answer is that it does because it did last year, the year before, and so on.
When the CBA was last modified in March of 2006, there were some term limits put on rookie contracts. But any discussion of rookie compensation did not result in appreciable changes.
Those contracts, to conform to rules designed to limit cap room for rookies, are now reaching epic lengths of 50 pages and more.
Money paid to top picks has become so financially disproportionate that the pure football value of these selections has been diminished. No longer gemstones that teams would mortgage their futures to acquire, they may even soon see a day when a team trades a top pick and something else to move back in the draft, rather than vice versa.
NBA model
That is a concept familiar to the NBA, where teams trade players and rights to (retired) players and other valuable assets merely to purge themselves of such financial burdens.
Perhaps it is an NBA model that many desire for the NFL, setting cash limits per pick and taking negotiations out of the process. (Top NBA picks sign within days of being drafted.) This model makes sense and simplifies the process but would, of course, require collective bargaining.
Moreover, top NFL agents rely on these contracts — and the headline numbers — as badges of honor when recruiting the next class.
There is need for a change in the rookie compensation system, but not due to a misplaced focus on the very few. The vast majority of NFL rookies represent a fixed, efficient and reasonably compensated labor cost for the teams to offset the uncertain and expensive cost of the other method to upgrade talent: veteran free agency.
Long, Ryan and their cohorts perched atop the draft are the fortunate beneficiaries of a system skewed to their benefit. Most of their 2008 draft classmates will fall into the category of receiving what is left after the first picks get their share.
Perception about the chosen few has become false reality about the entire group.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
