Report: Sheldon Brown Wants Trade

He's wants to renegotiate with 4 years left on a deal he signed?

Come on....

Brown had a 4-year contract as a rookie and he was greedy when the Eagles approached him about a long-term contract extension in the middle of his third season.

Back then he jumped at the $7.5 million signing bonus at the expense of signing an 8-year deal (who signs that long???) which changed his 2005-2012 salaries.

Now he's complaining becuase he's 30 years old and making $2.5 million.

What did he expect?

I'm all for talking to players with one year left on their contracts about keeping them or lowering cap hits. But Brown is complaining about a bad deal he and his agent agreed to back in 2004.

He made this bed now he's sleeping in it.

deljzc -- it's really simple and the fundamental problem with the entire NFL economic system. The NFL screws players so badly by not guaranteeing contracts (it's the only league where signing bonuses are the most important metric for a reason) that young players are suckered into long term deals.

Sheldon is a common NFL case of damned if you do, damned it you don't. If he doesn't accept the 8 year deal (and believe me the eagles applied immense pressure for him to accept) then he wouldn't get the bigger signing bonus.

On the other hand, he could take a smaller bonus with less years and on any given Sunday blow out his knee and end his career -- if that happened, the eagles would simply release him and owe him nothing more.

Why do you think NFL franchises are worth by far more than any other team in any other league? If a player gets hurt, you simply release them and don't pay them. Throw in a salary cap as well and you've got a beautiful system designed to screw players. Amazingly, it is also the only sport that does not guarantee contracts AND by a mile has the lowest life expectancy for players.

Bottom line -- The Eagles offer him a "long term" deal with a signing bonus large enough to provide family security. If Sheldon gets hurt, the eagles simply release him and pay nothing. If he doesn't perform, the eagles simply release him and pay nothing. If he DOES perform -- the Eagles just point to his contract. It's so lopsided and unfavorable. The NFL owners should be ashamed of themselves for not only ripping off the players, but the fans.

FACT: According to Forbes, the Detroit Lions are worth more than the New York Yankees. What's wrong with that picture? Everything I wrote above is what's wrong.

http://espn.go.com/sportsbusiness/s/forbes.html

Eaglestar - The NFL makes as much money as it does NOT because it holds back from its players, but BECAUSE it puts out a quality product. Ask any TV network which sport they would want to air so as to get the highest ratings? NFL. I mean, DirecTv paid, I think 1 BILLION dollars to secure the Sunday Ticket for something like 10 years. Incredible.

It's not like the Eagles came to Brown by himself and "suckered" him into anything. He has an agent. That's why the NFL requires agents (some have chosen to represent themselves, usually at a loss.) NOBODY signs 8 year deals, unless they're a superstar. And an agent who lets that happen without getting some kind of clause that allows for modifications, like when the cap rises, escape clauses after certain performance merits, etc., then the agent screwed him, not the team.

Even IF he got "screwed", you still have to PERFORM to get an increase. Last year, he had the lowest number of tackles since 2003, less than half the passes defensed in 2005, 1 sack, 1 int....and he thinks he needs MORE money? At $2.5 mil salary, that comes out to about $40k per positive play. And since they don't keep stats on negative plays, I don't know what he's COST the team. Yeah, the Eagles were 3rd in defensive yards per game, but they played against QB-less/WR-less teams like the Rams, Chicago, SF, Seattle, and the Bengals. And STILL didn't put up any stats.

Steven,

Actually I agree with you about the NFL putting out a quality product. They only play 16 games a year so each game is an event in and of itself and worth a lot of money.

But, do you think it's fair that the league with the best product has a salary cap that gives them the ability to pay players the least amount?

My point was less about Sheldon Brown's specific contract and more about the overall NFL economic system. No other sport has this problem -- no other sport has hold outs, contract disputes, trade demands and overall whining from players seemingly every other day.

Randy Moss makes what, $8 million a year? That is RIDICULOUS considering how much more value he brings than that to a franchise.

The problem is, you can't really compare it to the other leagues due to size/scope issues. With only 16 games, there's only a fraction of the ticket income compared to basketball/baseball (I know FB stadiums hold more people, but it's still not enough to make up for the relative number of games). Now take that income, and subtract 53 salaries (as opposed to 10-20 for the other sports), and all overhead for that many players (travel, trainers, coaches, equipment, etc.) And the owners still don't make even close to as much profit as the other other sports.

So, from the owners point of view, they could be saying "We don't make as much as owners in the other sports." Now, I know I'm not crying about their mere $10-20 mil in profit compared to much higher numbers in NBA/MLB, but, from a business point of view, it's a valid comparison.

So, long story short, I don't think you CAN compare the leagues due to the size issues. Also, the lack of guaranteed money ENSURES a quality product because you're playing for that money every game, because it could always be your last. Also, about your "no other league has this problem" comment. Well, it's not quite true. There are those problems, it's just you don't hear about as many, because there aren't as many. But if you look at it as a percentage of active players, it's probably about the same. If you consider the NFL has nearly 1700 players, NBA having about 450, there's a about a 4:1 ratio of players, therefore you would imagine a 4:1 ratio of contract issues/problems, etc.

I actually like the economic system of the NFL. I think it's a perfect balance of guaranteed money (signing bonus) and performance based salaries.

Isn't that what we want as fans? Why do I want a player to sign an A-Rod contract and do whatever he wants year-after-year knowing that money is guaranteed?

I understand during this time of year, everyone's complaining. So what? I don't care. It generates interesting trades. It makes the draft super entertaining.

I actually worry when the players aren't complaining. That's a bad thing.

There's definitely not a right or wrong answer. While I get the idea of performance based salaries, there are also a lot of things outside of a player's control in terms of injury. Fans pay money to see players. If a player gets hurt, they're just hung out to dry. I just don't like that concept at all. This is even more true for Tier 2 and below players -- guys who can't get signing bonuses that move the needle, but are critical for a team to be successful.

In terms of A-Rod (or Manny Ramirez), these guys put fans in seats and increase television ratings and drive merchandise. They proved HUGE value to a franchise. They continue to perform because they love the game -- they really don't just do whatever they want (even though they technically could).

I just think if NFL owners get a salary cap, the ability to dump players whenever they feel like it, and taxpayers to pay for their stadiums, it is unfair. Many people would say tough shit and argue that the owners invested in the team and if that means they get more money because NFL rules allow it then, well, that's capitalism.

I fully respect that position. I just don't agree with it.