(04-06-2023, 06:37 PM)George Cantstandya Wrote: I think we all agree that Burrow is a person of high character and wants to do good for the community.  But I think some are seriously undervaluing the business aspect of being a professional football player.    A career that could ended in a moment and cut short.  At the end of the day he's going to want to get paid what he's worth with guarantees to secure his future and I seriously doubt, "Hey pay me less but fund my charity" is anything he or his agent is even considering.  I could be wrong but I don't see that happening.  I think that would be a first and not even sure if diverting funds in such a way, even if it was for charity, would be within the rules.

Yes. There is not a single member of this board that'd take less than they're worth to make their company or whatever they work for better.

(04-06-2023, 06:40 PM)jason Wrote: Yes. There is not a single member of this board that'd take less than they're worth to make their company or whatever they work for better.

Agreed. It's not what you take but how you take it in this situation that I think determines how Joe is percieved. He can have the big numbers but hopefully is structured friendly in a way that allows us to manage the cap. 

I think it will be.

(04-06-2023, 06:40 PM)jason Wrote: Yes. There is not a single member of this board that'd take less than they're worth to make their company or whatever they work for better.

I don't think he cares about making the Bengals organization better just like we dont care about making our companies better. 

But if my company asked me to take a small paycut or structure my salary in a certain way (with the understanding that I'm basically already set for life with my salary) so they could keep some of my coworkers/friends who also make my job a lot easier vs needing to replace some of them with people I don't know who aren't as good at their jobs...I would probably say yes.

If you've never had a coworker/coworkers you'd take a little less money for so the company could keep both of you then I'm sad about your work experiences. Not you specifically but you the general public. 

(04-06-2023, 06:40 PM)jason Wrote: Yes. There is not a single member of this board that'd take less than they're worth to make their company or whatever they work for better.

I agree, and I also think Joe should maximize his value if that's what he wants.  He's earned it.

Still, as to your statement, not many on this board work in a business that can allow them to a create historic legacy that most of the country will remember 50 years into the future and possibly beyond.  All of that plus F.U. money on top of it.  

There's zero question that Burrow is going to make a metric shit-ton of money, team-friendly deal or not.  There's plenty of question of whether he'll retire with multiple or any titles.  It seems like it should happen, but as we all know it's much tougher than that.  Some all-time greats never do it.  Some scrape by with 1 title despite statistically insane careers.  Peyton Manning got 2, but was carried to the 2nd by a great defense.  Wilson looked primed for multiple, until he didn't. McNabb and Vick were huge names that left the league with squat.  Rivers had mega-stacked teams in several seasons with the Chargers and has none. Rodgers looked like he'd get multiple, now he's leaving Green Bay semi-disgraced. Brees is top 10 all time and has just 1. You can go on and on.

I don't think Joe is playing quarterback to be charitable to the Bengals or the city.  I DO, however, think that he's very conscious of what winning a title means to his legacy.  Taking a deal to "help" keep the cap manageable is just as much about helping his prospects of being an all-time great quarterback as it is about doing the Bengals a favor.  

The Bengals will spend the money, whether it's tied up in an insane contract to Joe and the toaster leavins of the league or it's Joe and some legit weapons and blockers plus a solid defense.  The decision is about whether he wants to help facilitate a better roster by giving up max money or take the bag and capitalize on what he's earned.  

I could be wrong, but if I had to guess, I'd say it wouldn't sit well with Joe, regardless of how loaded he was, to find himself sitting in his mansion at 45 years old and nothing but an AFC title to show for it.  I'd guess he'd do whatever it took to make sure he wasn't in that position.  As I said, I could be wrong.

(04-06-2023, 07:21 PM)TheFan Wrote: I don't think he cares about making the Bengals organization better just like we dont care about making our companies better. 

But if my company asked me to take a small paycut or structure my salary in a certain way (with the understanding that I'm basically already set for life with my salary) so they could keep some of my coworkers/friends who also make my job a lot easier vs needing to replace some of them with people I don't know who aren't as good at their jobs...I would probably say yes.

If you've never had a coworker/coworkers you'd take a little less money for so the company could keep both of you then I'm sad about your work experiences. Not you specifically but you the general public. 

Personally, if my company asked me to take a small pay cut to keep my friends on with us with the understanding that my career could end on any given play, I would answer with a flat "No." Now, the structuring, I would at minimum entertain. That could be something that ends with me still getting paid at market value while still allowing my friends to stay. In reality, you will see this from time-to-time in real life. Maybe you were promised a promotion and big raise, but it has to happen in the middle of the year in order to fit within budget constraints so other high performers can also get promoted and stay on. That's no big deal, everyone wins in the end.

A pay cut, though? No. It's a fun topic to talk about, though. Some people would be fine with taking less knowing that they are already making hundreds of millions. Some aren't. I can understand both, but I am in the latter category. 

(04-06-2023, 07:33 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Personally, if my company asked me to take a small pay cut to keep my friends on with us with the understanding that my career could end on any given play, I would answer with a flat "No." Now, the structuring, I would at minimum entertain. That could be something that ends with me still getting paid at market value while still allowing my friends to stay. In reality, you will see this from time-to-time in real life. Maybe you were promised a promotion and big raise, but it has to happen in the middle of the year in order to fit within budget constraints so other high performers can also get promoted and stay on. That's no big deal, everyone wins in the end.

A pay cut, though? No. It's a fun topic to talk about, though. Some people would be fine with taking less knowing that they are already making hundreds of millions. Some aren't. I can understand both, but I am in the latter category. 

I don't disagree with the bottom part and won't care regardless of the way Burrow decides to handle it. He should do whatever he thinks is in the best interest of himself and his family. 

I don't get why people keep saying his career could end on any play (how many QBs has that ever happened to?) or how it's relevant to his contract. I would imagine the guaranteed amount of money from the Bengals isn't going to change. So after he signs it, regardless he's going to get 200 million or whatever is agreed upon. Its not like if he has a career ending whatever after signing he loses everything.

So it comes down to does he want a higher base salary each year for higher total amount which will take away money from other players or not. Or he could do a mlre front loaded contract but that obviously has its own pros and cons. 

(04-06-2023, 06:40 PM)jason Wrote: Yes. There is not a single member of this board that'd take less than they're worth to make their company or whatever they work for better.

I suppose that's true if you just equate worth to a paycheck. There's a reason "all money ain't good money" is a saying. 

(04-06-2023, 08:25 PM)TheFan Wrote: I don't get why people keep saying his career could end on any play (how many QBs has that ever happened to?)

While it was later in their careers Alex Smith and Joe Theisman say hello.  Then in lesser examples RG3 and Andrew Luck are QBs that had their careers cut short by injuries.  

(04-06-2023, 08:35 PM)George Cantstandya Wrote: While it was later in their careers Alex Smith and Joe Theisman say hello.  Then in lesser examples RG3 and Andrew Luck are QBs that had their careers cut short by injuries.  

(04-06-2023, 06:40 PM)jason Wrote: Yes. There is not a single member of this board that'd take less than they're worth to make their company or whatever they work for better.

Wrong. I have my whole life. I even asked for a significant pay cut when the nonprofit that I am working for was having tough times in order to help the nonprofit (and I've had the pay cut since). But the nonprofit has survived as a result. I have a Ph.D. in both biology and education and yet have lived paycheck to paycheck my whole life because of working for nonprofits, including spending two years overseas doing volunteer work. I went into education and nonprofits because I love helping others and because I have an understanding wife and family. 

And there are many, many of us in the nonprofit world with the same attitude. In fact, I think almost everyone at some of the nonprofits that I've worked at.

Not everyone is motivated by money, Jason. 

(04-06-2023, 08:35 PM)George Cantstandya Wrote: While it was later in their careers Alex Smith and Joe Theisman say hello.  Then in lesser examples RG3 and Andrew Luck are QBs that had their careers cut short by injuries.  

Alex Smith came back to play, and yes, 15 years into his career. I'm not convinced RG3 was going to sustain success anyways once teams had a year of tape on him. Obviously the knee injury just expedited that so we'll never know. Lucks was on his own. 

Regardless, if RG3, Smith, or Theisman had a guaranteed part of their contract they would get that money no matter what injury happened. 

So it will come down to is he fine with the 200 mil guaranteed that he'll get no matter what, plus whatever he makes for the years he's still here. Or does he want an extra 5-10mil a year in addition to the 200 +  salary incase he's cut early. That's the difference between signing 1-2 good players but obviously is up to Burrow on what he wants to do. 

I won't fault him either way like I said. 

(04-06-2023, 09:35 PM)TheFan Wrote: Alex Smith came back to play, and yes, 15 years into his career. I'm not convinced RG3 was going to sustain success anyways once teams had a year of tape on him. Obviously the knee injury just expedited that so we'll never know. Lucks was on his own. 

Regardless, if RG3, Smith, or Theisman had a guaranteed part of their contract they would get that money no matter what injury happened. 

So it will come down to is he fine with the 200 mil guaranteed that he'll get no matter what, plus whatever he makes for the years he's still here. Or does he want an extra 5-10mil a year in addition to the 200 +  salary incase he's cut early. That's the difference between signing 1-2 good players but obviously is up to Burrow on what he wants to do. 

I won't fault him either way like I said. 

Alex Smith almost had to have his leg amputated and then he came back for part of one season two years later.  But that injury basically ended his career.  RG3 yeah you are guessing and Luck didn't injure himself to the point of retiring early.    NFL is a violent sport and the smart players know that they are one unlucky play away from never playing again or not being able to play at the same level due to injury.   You can devalue that all you want but for every player that had a 10 year career there many more that had their careers cut short due to injury. 

And as to the bold, that's exactly the point.   If they had a guaranteed part of their contract they would get paid no matter what injury happened.   That is  one reason why players want guarantees.  I mean, heck do people already forget Burrow already had his knee messed up in his first season and is still one of the most sacked QBs in the league.  I bet he and his agent have not forgotten.

Anyway I get the impression that many people have created this vision of Burrow as this altruistic QB with little concern about money and some sort of Bengals saint.  I think he is a great player and love that he is the Bengals QB but I think people should temper their expectations sometimes.  

(04-06-2023, 10:03 PM)George Cantstandya Wrote: Alex Smith almost had to have his leg amputated and then he came back for part of one season two years later.  But that injury basically ended his career.  RG3 yeah you are guessing and Luck didn't injure himself to the point of retiring early.    NFL is a violent sport and the smart players know that they are one unlucky play away from never playing again or not being able to play at the same level due to injury.   You can devalue that all you want but for every player that had a 10 year career there many more that had their careers cut short due to injury. 

And as to the bold, that's exactly the point.   If they had a guaranteed part of their contract they would get paid no matter what injury happened.   That is  one reason why players want guarantees.  I mean, heck do people already forget Burrow already had his knee messed up in his first season and is still one of the most sacked QBs in the league.  I bet he and his agent have not forgotten.

Anyway I get the impression that many people have created this vision of Burrow as this altruistic QB with little concern about money and some sort of Bengals saint.  I think he is a great player and love that he is the Bengals QB but I think people should temper their expectations sometimes.  

I think everyone expects Burrow to get a very large part of his contract guaranteed. Maybe not Watson level but still a good chunk if change. 

(04-06-2023, 05:56 PM)Sled21 Wrote: If Burrow wants a shorter contract, and that's if..., it's because he's smart and knows the cap is about to go way up and he can cash in on bigger money in a couple of years. Nothing more than that. It's supposed to go up astronomically in the next couple of years. Signing a 10 year deal would be dumb.

Very true and agree 10 years is dumb on both sides, but it is a double edged sword in a dangerous business. On one side the salaries go up and a much bigger payday awaits, yet on the other side an injury could end his career and he is stuck with the 4 year deal with no more paydays at all at the end of the tunnel. 

Believe a 6 year deal is good for both sides with a promise that if the salaries skyrocket it will be renegotiated and extended after year 4 if both sides are still happy.  

Agree that most would not take less than their worth for their company, albeit there are always exceptions to all rules as Nepa has pointed out.

Now I believe Joe should get paid exactly what he is worth.

Although comparing Joe's check to ours is not in the same universe. Would think he will get guaranteed enough money for his family to be set for life for several generations. So he may be willing to budge some, but will not judge him if not budging and wanting every penny either.

(04-06-2023, 07:33 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Personally, if my company asked me to take a small pay cut to keep my friends on with us with the understanding that my career could end on any given play, I would answer with a flat "No." Now, the structuring, I would at minimum entertain. That could be something that ends with me still getting paid at market value while still allowing my friends to stay. In reality, you will see this from time-to-time in real life. Maybe you were promised a promotion and big raise, but it has to happen in the middle of the year in order to fit within budget constraints so other high performers can also get promoted and stay on. That's no big deal, everyone wins in the end.

A pay cut, though? No. It's a fun topic to talk about, though. Some people would be fine with taking less knowing that they are already making hundreds of millions. Some aren't. I can understand both, but I am in the latter category. 

I’m assuming you aren’t set for life after one year. Joe will be. Now I don’t begrudge a player making as much as they can, but there’s a point where you are going to make so much money no matter what, that other factors can come into consideration.

One thing that is different from comparing Joe getting paid to us common folks. Success in the NFL is ultimately measured by championships.

The greatest QB of all time, took discounts every year, and he is going down ad the GOAT. Brady was never the highest paid QB his entire career. There is an unmeasurable value to that.

Had Brees not taken up so much of the cap on a yearly basis he may have 2, or 3 superbowls.

Hard to say without knowing what motivates Joe.

(04-06-2023, 07:21 PM)TheFan Wrote:
I don't think he cares about making the Bengals organization better just like we dont care about making our companies better. 

But if my company asked me to take a small paycut or structure my salary in a certain way (with the understanding that I'm basically already set for life with my salary) so they could keep some of my coworkers/friends who also make my job a lot easier vs needing to replace some of them with people I don't know who aren't as good at their jobs...I would probably say yes.

If you've never had a coworker/coworkers you'd take a little less money for so the company could keep both of you then I'm sad about your work experiences. Not you specifically but you the general public. 

I whole heartedly disagree. He wants to turn the Bengals into a multiple Super Bowl winning organization. 

To your last statement, I would say "Exactly!"

(04-06-2023, 08:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote:

Not a good comparison at all. Joe is already a multi-millionaire, and could have a broadcasting job of his choice at the drop of a hat. Cook played in a time when he did not make much money and had no skills to carry him into life after football. Not to say Burrow shouldn't get what he can get, but the circumstances of where they are at in their careers and earnings is not even close.

Brad is one of the best at projecting this stuff. https://t.co/ipbZ3N2vz3

— Goodberry (@JoeGoodberry) April 7, 2023