An Open Letter to Jared Allen

[Hammock Parties]

http://chiefs.scout.com/2/635926.html

By John Viril
Warpaint Illustrated Columnist
Posted Apr 15, 2007

Dear Jared,

By now, most every Chiefs fan has heard about your problems negotiating a new contract. You've just finished your third year after vastly outperforming your rookie contract. But you have a little problem: you have two DUIs.

Another infraction will result in both criminal and league penalties that would take you off the field, making any large investment in you a risky proposition.

Your agent and Chiefs General Manager Carl Peterson can't get past this road block. You've become so frustrated there's talk you want a trade and will not play in Kansas City past 2007. You're refusing to sign your one-year tender until just before training camp, skipping the team's offseason program.

But you don't need me to tell you about your life. You're living it. I felt compelled to write you, however, because there's a fatal flaw with your strategy. Even if you play next season without an off-field incident, you still won't get your real value on the open market.

I'm sure you'd like to know why. The unvarnished truth is, even with a full year of good behavior under your belt, those DUIs are still hanging over your head. Any contract you get will come at a discount due to this risk. Also, if you play this season at your $2.5 million tender price, you're setting yourself up to lose everything you've earned with one catastrophic injury. But here's the kicker: you CAN get what you want. All you need is a little imagination.

I'm going to use Adalius Thomas' contract as a rough approximation for your true market value. His numbers over the last three seasons are very close to yours. Thomas got a reported $35 million contract, with a $17.5 million bonus, $20 million in guaranteed money and $24 million in the first three years. The only way you're going to come close to this kind of guaranteed money is if you are willing to gamble on your own behavior.

What you need to do is spread out guaranteed money over the length of a long contract. Now, this idea won't solve your problem by itself, because guaranteed money has the same impact as a signing bonus for cap purposes, but this is where the imagination comes in. You accept a clause that guarantees $2 million of each year's salary if you have not yet received your third DUI. In this way, you get your true market value and the Chiefs are protected. If you get your third strike, the Chiefs can cut you with no more cap impact than the guaranteed money you've earned up to that point.

Yes, I know the NFL's collective bargaining agreement (CBA) prohibits individually negotiated salary forfeitures related to the league's substance abuse policy. The argument here is that 1) you aren't giving up any salary, you're just risking a guarantee, and 2) that clause in the CBA only applies to signing bonuses, not guaranteed money. OK, those are legal arguments. I'll explain later why I think why this tactic will work. First, let’s get to the contract.

Here's a rough idea about how such an agreement would be structured. You take a signing bonus of $6 million. I know that's chump change compared to Thomas' bonus, but it's a heck of a lot better than getting paid less than Eric Hicks. You spread that bonus out over an eight-year contract, with veteran minimum in the first year and base salaries of $4 million, $5 million and $6 million in the next three years. Your second year is guaranteed at $3 million, with each of the subsequent six seasons giving $2 million in guaranteed money.

After three years, you will have earned $15 million. Sure, it's a lot less than Thomas' $24 million, but you will be due $10 million more in guaranteed money, raising your three-year take to $25 million. If the team trades you, cuts you or renegotiates your deal, the unpaid guaranteed money is due immediately as a bonus, at your option (as long as you haven't received a third DUI).

At the end of year four, however, you will likely want to be back on the open market. You will then be 29 years old and at the peak of your career. That's why the remaining four years of that contract are pegged at cap busting levels - call it $12, $13, $13 and $14 million. Here is where we apply some more creativity. If you have kept your nose clean for four years, all the remaining guaranteed money is due immediately as a bonus. In effect, your deal is a four-year, $28 million contract with $21 million guaranteed.

Furthermore, the eight-year number that will be reported in the media will be a very ego-inflating $72 million. Heck, you can make those last two years even bigger if you want to make a splash.

Of course, the league will approve contract clauses which promote good conduct off the field. The player's association, however, does not want front offices to turn into “big brother” so they can recapture money (and cap space) from erring players. Yet, the current forfeiture policy prevents a player such as yourself from getting his true value on the open market. There is common interest here that gives you room to work with the league and the NFLPA.

Instead of fighting with the front office, Jared, this is what you should be doing. You need to sit down with Chiefs' contract guru Denny Thum, the commissioner's office and the NFLPA and look for a way to address this issue. With the league's current crackdown on players like Pacman Jones and Chris Henry, your problem is hardly unique. If you can find a way to give a problem player a fair market contract, you can be a leader - not only for your team, but for the entire league. It's up to you.

Your friend,

John.

P.S. Hire a full-time driver.

[Halfcan]

Jared is too drunk to read this right now-but maybe tommorrow when he sobers up.

[stlchiefs]

http://chiefs.scout.com/2/635926.html



P.S. Hire a full-time driver.

Don't use Yellow Trucking, there might be a cop hidden inside.

[Direckshun]

That was a pretty fascinating article. Hmmmm. Lots to think about.

Thanks.

[Hammock Parties]

That was a pretty fascinating article. Hmmmm. Lots to think about.

Thanks.

Thanks.

[Redrum_69]

Anyone who writes for WPI really needs to go back to grade school.

[CosmicPal]

Jared is too drunk to read this right now-but maybe tommorrow when he sobers up.

ROFL

[CosmicPal]

Anyone who writes for WPI really needs to go back to grade school.

No kidding...

:shake:

I had no idea Peterson was pulling duel duties as referenced by this sentence:

"Your agent and Chiefs General Manager Carl Peterson can't get past this road block."

[chappy]

VERY GOOD ARTICLE MAN

[Hammock Parties]

No kidding...

:shake:

I had no idea Peterson was pulling duel duties as referenced by this sentence:

"Your agent and Chiefs General Manager Carl Peterson can't get past this road block."

WTF? You're really reaching here.

[Eleazar]

How uninsightful and utterly useless.

[CosmicPal]

WTF? You're really reaching here.

How so?

Your agent is one person and Carl Peterson is another person, therefore when addressing them both, you need to divide them. The word "and" doesn't help in this case.

[Hammock Parties]

How uninsightful and utterly useless.

Really? I thought it was very interesting. I wonder if that contract is feasible.

[Hammock Parties]

How so?

Your agent is one person and Carl Peterson is another person, therefore when addressing them both, you need to divide them. The word "and" doesn't help in this case.

Nah. The sentence is fine.

[CosmicPal]

Nah. The sentence is fine.

No, it isn't.

My advice to you GC, particularly if you wish to be a sportswriter someday, is to pick up a copy of Strunk and White's "Elements of Style."

Should you actually take the time to read it, you'll then comprehend the basic rules of usage.

Again, in your sentence "Your agent" is a singular person, and "Carl Peterson" is a singular person as well. When you write it as you did- you make Carl Peterson BOTH the agent and Chiefs general manager. 'Cause in this case, the word "AND" conjoins the two.

To write it correctly, you should have said "Your agent, and Chiefs General Manager, Carl Peterson..."

But, it would have been better to say, "Your agent, whatever the fugg his name is, and Chiefs General Manager...."

Or "Your agent, as well as, Chiefs General Manager, Carl Peterson..."

[Hammock Parties]

No, it isn't.


Yeah, it's fine. Go ahead and continue criticizing WPI just because it's WPI.

And you can shove your "advice" up your ass.

[CosmicPal]

Yeah, it's fine. Go ahead and continue criticizing WPI just because it's WPI.

And you can shove your "advice" up your ass.

Wow. A little testy are we?

Just thought I'd offer a little grammar advice to you, but as usual, you take everything as a direct insult. Grow the fugg up.

[StcChief]

Very good article. How to think outside the box.

The driver deal should be in every players contract.

[Hammock Parties]

Wow. A little testy are we?

Just thought I'd offer a little grammar advice to you, but as usual, you take everything as a direct insult. Grow the fugg up.

Actually, no, your opinions are just completely worthless to me. Thanks. For nothing.

[chappy]

No, it isn't.

My advice to you GC, particularly if you wish to be a sportswriter someday, is to pick up a copy of Strunk and White's "Elements of Style."

Should you actually take the time to read it, you'll then comprehend the basic rules of usage.

Again, in your sentence "Your agent" is a singular person, and "Carl Peterson" is a singular person as well. When you write it as you did- you make Carl Peterson BOTH the agent and Chiefs general manager. 'Cause in this case, the word "AND" conjoins the two.

To write it correctly, you should have said "Your agent, and Chiefs General Manager, Carl Peterson..."

But, it would have been better to say, "Your agent, whatever the fugg his name is, and Chiefs General Manager...."

Or "Your agent, as well as, Chiefs General Manager, Carl Peterson..."


Tsk...Tsk...

I am sure everyone knows what he means. Don't worry Gochiefs this was a great read.

[kcxiv]

So, that "letter" was telling Jared everything he already knows?

[Hammock Parties]

So, that "letter" was telling Jared everything he already knows?

No, not really. Read it again.

[kcxiv]

i did, and i still see the same?

[kcxiv]

More Mighty Mike and Nugent please. Oh wait, you gotta pay for their thoughts :(

[Hammock Parties]

i did, and i still see the same?

It's a pretty detailed contract proposal.

[StcChief]

This approach may not play in the "Agents" favor delaying their % commission.

so they may not wanna go this way or suggest it to "dumb jock". :rolleyes:

[Eleazar]

What I don't understand are the assumptions that (a) Carl plans to put on his Santa suit and give Allen a huge raise this year just to be nice, when he's going to play at most 12 games anyway. (If you believe Peter King, he could miss half the season) (b) that Carl plans to keep Allen around after this year anyway, and (c) that Allen wasn't really serious about his trade demands and does want to stay in KC, despite statements through his agent that seem clear to the contrary.

Even if Carl has Allen in our long-term plans, why would Carl pony up tons of cash before the season this year? Why wouldn't Carl just wait until the season starts and negotiate with Allen on a long-term deal that starts next year? Only the WPI brain trust knows for sure.

I wish we could just work out a trade with someone this week, add a few draft picks and send him on his way. He asked for a trade, let's give him one.

[Redrum_69]

Darth Hymen is quick to criticize others but cant take constructive criticism.

[StcChief]

If he "truely" doesn't want to play here.

or is this Agent double speak to try and get his name out and hopefully up is value. Missing 4 games....where will he be, better stay in shape, not with decreasing 12 oz curls.

[Hog's Gone Fishin]

Anybody that wants to send Allen on his way or let him walk is a DUMBASS!

I thought it was a good read and very creative. We are trying to build a defense here and we need Jared Allen. Maybe even a pissed Jared Allen!

[CosmicPal]

Actually, no, your opinions are just completely worthless to me. Thanks. For nothing.

They are, huh?

Well, I will add this- your article was thoughtful, insightful, and well-researched. You did a fine job, nonetheless. It's just the grammar got to me early.

But, apparently, my opinions are moot.

[Hammock Parties]

Well, I will add this- your article was thoughtful, insightful, and well-researched. You did a fine job, nonetheless. It's just the grammar got to me early.


It's not mine.

[Iowanian]

Dear Jared Allen,

You're acting like a Bengal or a raider. Please
stop being a dumbass.

fan on the fence,
iowanian.

[Skip Towne]

It appears to me that John Viril wrote that article, not GC.

[Iowanian]

That guy is also a member here if its who I believe it to be.

[JohnnyV13]

What I don't understand are the assumptions that (a) Carl plans to put on his Santa suit and give Allen a huge raise this year just to be nice, when he's going to play at most 12 games anyway. (If you believe Peter King, he could miss half the season) (b) that Carl plans to keep Allen around after this year anyway, and (c) that Allen wasn't really serious about his trade demands and does want to stay in KC, despite statements through his agent that seem clear to the contrary.

Even if Carl has Allen in our long-term plans, why would Carl pony up tons of cash before the season this year? Why wouldn't Carl just wait until the season starts and negotiate with Allen on a long-term deal that starts next year? Only the WPI brain trust knows for sure.

I wish we could just work out a trade with someone this week, add a few draft picks and send him on his way. He asked for a trade, let's give him one.



A) Any suspension Allen serves will cost him those game checks. Further, it is rather common practice to prevent successful players from hitting the open market. The Chiefs have behaved this way with Priest Holmes in 2003, with Derrick Thomas and other players. Around the league, this practice is even more common with examples like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Terrell Owens when he was traded to Philadelphia AND Dallas as examples. Are you simply too addle-brained to realize that NFL "market value" has sky-rocketed pretty much every year since 1993? Locking in a player at 2007's market value rather than 2008 is a good business move IF you believe the player will be a long term producer. If you doubt this assertion, look at this year's market value for above-average guards compared to 2006.

B) We can presume Allen is in the team's long-term plans due to 1) Age: Allen is 25, 2) the fact that the chiefs announced they were in long term contract talks with Allen and 3) his 3 year track record of good performance.

C) Are you really this naive? Do you look under your pillow for visits from the Tooth Fairy? Are you still sitting up on Christmas Eve hoping to catch a glimpse of Santa Claus? HELLO, with certain rare exceptions, a player's primary concern is getting paid. PERIOD.

If you were listening, you also would have heard that Allen said he "loved" his teammates and doesn't have any problems with the fans. His problem with staying in KC is with the front office.

[plbrdude]

Anybody that wants to send Allen on his way or let him walk is a DUMBASS!

I thought it was a good read and very creative. We are trying to build a defense here and we need Jared Allen. Maybe even a pissed Jared Allen!


angry larry johnson+sober jared allen

[Eleazar]

A) Any suspension Allen serves will cost him those game checks. Further, it is rather common practice to prevent successful players from hitting the open market. The Chiefs have behaved this way with Priest Holmes in 2003, with Derrick Thomas and other players. Around the league, this practice is even more common with examples like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Terrell Owens when he was traded to Philadelphia AND Dallas as examples. Are you simply too addle-brained to realize that NFL "market value" has sky-rocketed pretty much every year since 1993? Locking in a player at 2007's market value rather than 2008 is a good business move IF you believe the player will be a long term producer. If you doubt this assertion, look at this year's market value for above-average guards compared to 2006.

This in no way explains why the Chiefs would be motivated to do it before the season began. Why?


B) We can presume Allen is in the team's long-term plans due to 1) Age: Allen is 25, 2) the fact that the chiefs announced they were in long term contract talks with Allen and 3) his 3 year track record of good performance.


Good performing players are often not in a team's long-term plans. Due to monetary issues, off-the-field problems, you know... all the things Allen brings to the table. We cannot, in fact, "assume that he is in the team's long term plans because he performs on the field" (sic). Ass-u-me.


C) Are you really this naive? Do you look under your pillow for visits from the Tooth Fairy? Are you still sitting up on Christmas Eve hoping to catch a glimpse of Santa Claus? HELLO, with certain rare exceptions, a player's primary concern is getting paid. PERIOD.

I didn't say he shouldn't care about getting paid, but good work on the straw man.

If he were really a team player, he wouldn't be negotiating in the media, demanding a trade, and threatening to sit out until the last possible day and show up to camp out of shape and hurt the team's chances that way. If he cared about winning the Super Bowl before anything else, he wouldn't be doing his Gary Sheffield impersonation.

He can stuff sunshine in your panties all he wants about how much he loves KC and how much he cares about the team and teammates, but if he really cared much about being here, he wouldn't purposefully be becoming a distraction - and asking to be traded. You don't request a trade if you want to be somewhere. You request a trade when you want out of there. I thought that was self explanatory.

Sorry that I thought the overdone "open letter" concept was bland, and that the basis of this entire item was fundamentally flawed. And even if it weren't, is it really that creative to suggest an incentive laden contract? People here have been doing that since the moments after he demanded a trade.

Anyway, I'll let the kids at WPI get back to playing the Sportswriter home game. LMAO

[Mecca]

Arrogant, I'm better than you, GoChiefs is sorta funny.

[Hammock Parties]

Arrogant, I'm better than you, GoChiefs is sorta funny.

The minute you agree with Redrum69 you lose all credibility.

[Mecca]

The minute you agree with Redrum69 you lose all credibility.

I'm not agreeing with RedRum but that is how you come off in this thread..........and anyway it's funny.

[JohnnyV13]

This in no way explains why the Chiefs would be motivated to do it before the season began. Why?



Oh please. Are you being intentionally obtuse? Market value in 2007 is VERY likely to be lower than market value in 2008. This year, the franchise tag for defensive ends is around 8 million. To hold Allen's rights after this season, the Chiefs will likely have to allocate more than 8 million. Allen's second year cap number will be less than 8 million under the numbers suggested in the article. I will also note that teams have repeatedly extended/renegotiated contracts before their final season with Priest Holmes in 2003 as a local example. If you recall, Holmes signed his extension during the PRE SEASON.


Good performing players are often not in a team's long-term plans. Due to monetary issues, off-the-field problems, you know... all the things Allen brings to the table. We cannot, in fact, "assume that he is in the team's long term plans because he performs on the field" (sic). Ass-u-me.




I am rather nauseated you chose to include your ass, me and you in the same phrase. I won't speculate on the reasons you chose to make this association, other than to comment on its repulsive nature.

If you again insist on being obtuse, I'll expand on your point to say that good performing players are not wanted back for four basic reasons: 1) age, 2) cap impact, 3) off-field behavior, and 4) team chemistry impacts.

Why would the Chiefs be talking about a long term contract if they don't have Allen in their long term plans? Allen's age and performance are also positive indications why they would retain him. There aren't any ndications of bad team chemistry other than his contract squabbles. If you want to can him for that, you will also have to cut Tony G. The entire point of the article is to address off-field concerns.


I didn't say he shouldn't care about getting paid, but good work on the straw man.

If he were really a team player, he wouldn't be negotiating in the media, demanding a trade, and threatening to sit out until the last possible day and show up to camp out of shape and hurt the team's chances that way. If he cared about winning the Super Bowl before anything else, he wouldn't be doing his Gary Sheffield impersonation.


I'm sorry that I gave you credit for being able to understand an argument by simply giving the key point rather than spelling out the entire chain of reasoning.

Any sports fan over the age of 12 knows that trade demands are usually a negotiation ploy to get fans to pressure the front office in the player's favor. Amazingly, once the contract numbers are right, all the hurt feelings seem to fade away. Your argument on this point is based upon the notion that Allen would rather leave than get paid. I think its ridiculous reasoning.

I couldn't care less about Allen's professions of love for me or Kansas City. Such statements are "media speak". I hope I don't have to explain that such statements support the idea that Allen's beef is with the front office and is mostly concerned with income.

Furthermore, if you want to throw around logical fallacies, I submit to you that my Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus statements very concisely attack the underpinnings of your reasoning. I am pointing out you are very naive to believe that Allen wants to leave more than he wants to get paid. While there is a certain surface resemblance to the straw man fallacy, my tactic is more accurately characterized as an ad hominem attack. Of course, if you objected on those grounds, you'd run into a hypocracy problem.



I'm sorry that I thought the overdone "open letter" concept was bland, and that the basis of this entire item was fundamentally flawed. And even if it weren't, is it really that creative to suggest an incentive laden contract? People here have been doing that since the moments after he demanded a trade.



I'm sorry that you are too stupid to recognize the difference between what I outlined and an incentive laden contract. An incentive laden contract would not protect Allen against the risk of career-ending injury.

The reason is quite simply that Allen would not be able to reach the incentives if he's injured. Accepting such a deal would not be giving Allen his market value. Furthermore, the problem is complicated by the clause in the CBA that prohibits individually negotiated salary forfeitures related to the NFL's substance abuse program.

WIthout going into a lot of tedious analysis of the CBA, I'll even let you in on a little secret: all those legal arguments are really moot. What it actually comes down to is whether the NFLPA and the Commissioner's office are willing to sign off on such a clause. Why? Because the CBA requires that any modification to the standard player contract has both league and NFLPA approval. If the league and the NFLPA really want to, they can construct a way around this problem or stop it in its tracks.

The creativity in this approach is in recognizing that the NFLPA's stand on salary forfeitures puts them in the position of damaging the interests of some players in their membership. You use that tenuous position as leverage to get them to accept a legal construction on this issue that addresses their concerns.

The NFLPA will not allow behavior clauses to be routinely inserted in the standard player contract. They actually have a good reason. If front offices could recapture money and cap space by catching bad behavior, they might load up contracts with so many behavior clauses that the pope would violate them. Young players and marginal players would be very vulnerable to this kind of exploitation. To do this kind of deal, you're going to need to sit down with all the interested parties and persuade them its within their interest to get it done. You will also have to address their legitimate concerns and put in the requisite legal work.

FInally, the whole point was to CRITICIZE his negotiation strategy. Consequently, all your objections about Allen not being a "team player" and "if he wanted to win a super bowl" really aren't on point. I'm telling him he helps himself by changing that behavior. You're asserting he won't do it because by holding out and fighting with the front office, he is not a team player. Congratulations. You have just discovered circular reasoning. Now you have another logical fallacy to assert incorrectly.





.

.

[Hammock Parties]

God. I know who I want to represent ME in court someday. LMAO

[Hog's Gone Fishin]

HMMMMM!

[Rausch]

I'm sorry that I gave you credit for being able to understand an argument by simply giving the key point rather than spelling out the entire chain of reasoning.
.

LMAO