- 02/20/2009, 10:37PM ET
Bear likes this DEFENSE said 02/20, 10:37 PM
The article says that Asomugha's new deal "wrecks the league".
Apparently these guys never took an economics 101 class.
His salary...like any salary...is based on 2 things.
 What the team was willing to pay him
 What he was willing to sign for.
The NFL has a salary cap. If they pay this guy $ x then they have to pay someone else less. All teams do this. You pay the big stud OT X $ and you have to pay someone else less. Its supply and demand at its best. Its tradeoffs and opportunity cost. These are even taught in high school economics classes.
What hurts the NFL WORSE is the guarenteed contracts to rookies who have not earned anything. The Ryan Leafs and Todd Marinovichs hurt teams worse than paying big bucks to a proven commodity like Asomugha.
C-C-C said 02/20, 11:19 PM
Well, the article quotes the ever popular "unnamed executive" as saying it 'wrecks the league' it doesn't take that stance on it's face. There is no "these guys" involved here. Who the hell knows who the source of said quote is? Could be the V.P. of janitorial supplies purchasing for all we know.
With that out of the way it's a completely absurd contract that wouldn't have been offered by ANY other team so throw out your econ 101 supply and demand argument. Al Davis is senile. He wants a player and he'll give that player whatever they want to become a Raider. Nothing he does makes football sense.
The same article explains how he also paid Lechler almost double what any punter...PUNTER in history has ever made.
Salary cap or not, these kinds of deals are indeed HORRIBLE for the league. It sets a precedent for agents and players to demand far more than they ever could in the past. It establishes a market value for all other free agent players at the position and makes negotiating that much more difficult.
Let's say you are a F.A. punter who is better than Lechler...are you now going to accept a deal that pays you half as much as he makes? Nope.
Bear likes this DEFENSE said 02/21, 01:40 AM
? It doesnt matter which executive said it...my TD just says its wrong.
You say it wouldnt happen w/ any other team. And that is right...but also stupid! All you need is 1 buyer for 1 product! In the labor market you sell your services (be it a defensive back, a dishwasher, a lawyer, etc...) to the highest bidder. When someone sells a Wii on ebay for $500 around xmas time it is the same principle. Supply/demand.
All Asomugha needed was 1 team to make that offer.
It costs NIKE more money to buy Tiger's endorsement (100 million over 5 years) than it pays for the slave labor in Asia to actually make the shoe! Yet enough people are willing & able to pay $100 for those shoes.
The punter is the same deal. When Al Davis spends money on 1 player then he has to cut back on another. All teams have to allocated their resources the best way they see fit.
Im not arguing Davis made a good call...just that his call in no way "wrecks the league"
His team...maybe. but not the league.
As to your last sentence... a free agent punter has to apply the same supply/demand rules. He may want a fat contract...but he only gets it if there is a buyer.
C-C-C said 02/21, 02:24 AM
See, this is where you show that you never got past Econ 101 and graduated to Econ 102.
Supply and demand only applies to a product being sold. That would be ticket sales, suites, beer, hot dogs, etc. Players don't fit that demographic.
Econ 102 would tell you that paying the talent to make you successful means being competitive salary wise and that precedent is set based on what your competitor pays comparable talent.
The market determines the price and by the Raiders WAY overpaying a couple of players the market for those positions just went way up. From now on NO top CB or top P is going to accept anything less than 'market value' for their services. Al Davis set the market value for those positions with his recklessness. It has nothing to do with supply and demand, we aren't talking about commodities anymore, we are talking about talent. And NONE of the talent is going to undersell themselves on the open market.
The market value of those type players is now set and every negotiation for every comparable player will now start at that number. By the Raiders paying so much, it now sets those positions as 'worth' what they paid.
Yes those deals hurt the league.
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia