Beason - what would make him a guinea pig?

He's still under contract, if he's cut prior to that bonus no he misses out, but its a second year bonus. If that's the argument if he get hurt this year (career ending) he misses out.

 

I don't see him for being an asshole agent for expecting the same thing for his client as every other agent gets. He would be a bad agent if he let Beason get less than the standard contract parameters.

 

He rehab's like everyone else, and tries a comeback in year three. But this is an area where they can compromise and add language to give Beason some protection in an event such as that. But since we only have the agents version of what's going on, and he's trying to spin it in his clients favor, we don't really have any way of knowing if something like this has even been proposed or not.

I don't think the Panthers are trying to screw anyone, they are just trying to protect themselves now and with future players...and yes, they do need to set a precedent for future negotiations. And to be honest, no matter what was done this year, I believe you will see more teams falling in line with what the Panthers are doing...in fact, I believe it is the exact same thing holding up the Russell contract with the Raiders (and maybe some of the others, but I'm not sure).

 

It exposes the player to more risk than any other first rounder is accepting. By the same reasoning, the only way the Panthers get screwed by a second year option bonus is if he has a career ending injury or wants to stop playing football. I obviously want the best for the Panthers, but it's also obvious that they're the ones being unreasonable here. Base salaries are already not guaranteed. It makes no sense to give the teams even more leverage in terms of not giving you part of your contract if they decide they don't want you anymore. I sure as hell wouldn't sign if I were in his situation.

That's asinine. Everyone but the Panthers is willing to do it now, but next year they'll decide that they don't want to include them anymore? Hurney is just being a dick, and if we stick to our guns on this, we're going to have this same episode played out every single year with our first round picks. There is absolutely nothing wrong with giving a player the option bonus, so we need to stop being stupid and start concentrating on getting our players on the field.

Also, Russell's contract is being held up because of the guaranteed money.

 

Is the type of bonus in question the same type of guaranteed bonus that we paid Keyshawn right before we cut him?

 

Yes, they are basically roster bonuses. Techinically, no, they may not have to be paid, but it is unlikely that a first round pick would be cut prior to say, Febuary 1, when these things are paid out. Dwight Freeney's signing bonus was only 15 million. He gets another 15 million roster bonus next February.

 

I hope that Beason eventually comes in and dominates, because all I keep reading is about how great Posluszny looks in Buffalo.

 

Actually, there was some talk that this could be an issue when the judge ruled in favor of Lelie. So in truth, it's asinine to call it asinine. Disagreeing is one thing since it's only my opinion based on talk I have heard. However, I've been around long enough to know that you have no actual knowledge of what teams are thinking, so for you to dismiss it out of hand is just ridiculous...and naive.

And despite of what you think you know, this is something that teams are concerned with. Lelie along with the new behavior policy have scared teams with this because it can burn significant cap space without any return. And because of the high likelihood of a holdout by whomever was the first to push the issue, teams wanted to wait and see how it plays out. So yes, if the Panthers do eventually set the precedent by getting what they want, you will see more teams adopt this tactic. How many, who knows, but it surely will happen.

As for the idea that the Raiders are not doing the same thing, here is a something from PFT. Take it for what its worth (which is about nil to you, I realize), but it is out there that this is an issue for more teams than just us. And since none of us has any real idea about what the holdup is for them, we only have reports that we read and see to go by. So to insinuate it’s anything but speculation is pretty much just blowing smoke.

"RUSSELL, RAIDERS NOT FIGHTING OVER MONEY

A league source tells us that the primary roadblock to the negotiation of a contract between the No.1 overall pick in the 2007 draft and the team that drafted him is not money. Instead, the delay in a deal between JaMarcus Russell and the Oakland Raiders is due to the structure of the deal.

Per the source, a tentative agreement has been reached regarding the total amount of guaranteed money, and that if the deal is finalized pursuant to those terms Russell will realize more guaranteed money than was paid in 2006 to defensive end Mario Williams of the Texans, the No. 1 selection.

The snag, we're told, is the allocation of guaranteed money to an option bonus. Because of the Ashley Lelie ruling, option bonus money is not subject to forfeiture if a player holds out or gets suspended. But Russell's camp wants most of the guaranteed money to be paid out with that device, which could prompt skeptics to wonder whether there are concerns that Russell might be inclined to at some point hold out and/or do something that will get him suspended."

 

No, it is asinine. Every team knows about the Lelie ruling and yet they're all still giving out option bonuses this year. The idea that they would be ok with giving them now but would suddenly change their minds and refuse them later on makes no rational sense. If they believed it was that much of a problem, they'd be refusing to do them along with the Panthers, but they aren't.

Heh, and you accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about? You're pretending like you know what the 31 other teams are thinking, as if you have some kind of inside knowledge that they're all waiting to see how things transpire with the Panthers. Let me clue you in, junior. Everyone already assumes that Carolina will win its contest of wills with Beason because draftees have so little leverage. But the 31 other teams feel like the slightly increased risk from option bonuses is not worth the headache and disruption of prolonged holdouts.

No, it won't. As stated, if they were as scared of option bonuses as you pretend, more would be taking this stance. Instead, they aren't, and you pretending that they're all waiting to see what happens with Beason is just evidence of you not having any idea what you're talking about and yet play-acting as if you have some kind of pertinent knowledge. It's nonsensical.

I haven't disputed the idea that teams are bothered by the Lelie ruling, but even in Oakland's case they are not denying Russell an option bonus. If what PFT reports is true (and obviously that's a big if), then the sticking point is still the amount of money being distributed in which fashion. It's not that Oakland is doing what we're doing and insisting that no option bonuses be offered.


So as stated:
* Every other team but ours is doing this.
* NFL salaries are not guaranteed, so it makes no sense for the players to assume even more financial risk.
* It makes no sense to say that other organizations are ok with doing option bonuses now, but will change their minds if the Panthers are successful (as they undoubtedly will be if they insist on being stubborn).

 

Roster bonuses are not guaranteed money. Remember that 10 mill roster bonus in the last Moose-Panther contract? It sounds like Huggy bear (or whatever the hell his name is) wants this money guaranteed and paid year 2 more like a deferred signing bonus payment, but without the proration and without the team being able to recover it IF the player does something stupid like shoot a stripper or beat a dog to death (Lelie ruling). No, 1st round picks don't normally get cut immediately following their first season but they have been known to do some pretty stupid shit.