Chris Johnson can't play for $550K

[2bikemike]

Titans running back Chris Johnson is one of the best players in the NFL, and he can't stand the fact that he isn't paid like one of the best players in the NFL.

"I can't play for $550,000,'' Johnson told Jim Wyatt of the Tennessean, referring to what he's scheduled to make this season. "The money that I am playing for, I am getting paid less than the [other] starting 11 [players on the Titans' offense] and I'm one of the lowest paid starting running backs in the league.''

Johnson, who has three more years on the five-year, $12 million deal he signed after the Titans drafted him in 2008, said he'll hold out of training camp if he has to.

"Right now, I am not sure what is going to happen," Johnson said. "I just hope they pay me, but I don't know.''

The Titans don't seem inclined to give Johnson a new deal, noting that they've still got Johnson locked up for three more years, and that the "30 percent rule" would make it tough for them to dramatically increase Johnson's salary. And the Titans have a lot of leverage if Johnson holds out, because if Johnson doesn't report within 30 days of the start of the regular season, he could lose a year of credit toward free agency.

The truth is, if the Titans refuse to play ball with Johnson, he ultimately will play for $550,000. And if he gets fined for holding out, he'll play for even less than that.



So if he signed a 5 year 12 Million dollar deal isn't he in effect making 2.4 Million being paid in advance for his efforts?

Sorry Chris but no sympathy here.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Wrong.

If he sits out, that's leverage.

Bud Adams image would take a dump and the team wouldn't likely win 4 games without Johnson.

He won't sit out this year with 2011 being in limbo. However I will say that from a competitive standpoint he does have some leverage.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

I think 2 years into a 5 year deal is not reasonable to tear it up. Had Johnson underperformed and was cut the team would be out $7MM and a wasted 1st round pick. That's not chump change. There is risk on both sides.

Is he underpaid? Yea he is a bargain so far. That's how it works and he has NO leverage except to hold out this year when there may not be football in 2011 so that's not much of an option.

Like I said, give him a one time bonus for 2009 or 2010 ala Kurt Warner. I am not saying he doesn't deserve to be rewarded but I don't see the Titans making him one of the highest paid RB in the league after 2 seasons when he isn't close to fulfilling his contract time. His draft status does not warrant that. That's the system.

I can't think of a similar situation to compare it too either even though I am sure has been one.

He does have leverage. He can hold out and while the team doesn't have to pay him, think about how much money they lose in disgruntled fans pissed off at the team for not paying him.

And again, just because "that's the system" doesn't make it a good one. And your example of Jamarcus is a classic example. You shouldn't be rewarded by your draft status. Once you're in this league, you should be rewarded by play on the field. And the fact that Jamarcus has sweet incentives that makes him difficult to cut while Johnson can be cut today pretty much for free tells you how broken the system is.

If you're talking about Albert Haynesworth, fine. He had a chance to negotiate a fair contract and he's not living up to it. If you're talking about a rookie who was slotted clearly incorrectly, that's a different story. And I'm not just talking dollars. I'm talking about guaranteeing his contract even if he gets injured. What union would EVER let an employer back out of a contract for an injury experienced ON THE JOB?

And by the way, the Titans didn't waste $7M in bonus. They got MVP-level play for 2 seasons. That's an enormous bargain.

[Hootie]

I don't know...

I'm thinking the only way rookie slotting is possible is if every rookie in the first three rounds gets some sort of arbitration option after there 1st or 2nd year...

Needs a baseball type system...all players are restricted to their drafting team for the first five years of their professional careers...

The first 96 picks have a set salary slot and the first 32 are arbitration eligible after the first year...and the next 64 after their 2nd season...

That means the #1 pick would make X amount of dollars like they do in the NBA...and if they burst on to the scene like Matt Ryan, or Adrian Peterson...they can opt for arbitration like they do in baseball...they can propose the contract they want, the team can argue the contract they want...the arbitrator will listen and then make a decision...

Then the team in question can either accept the contract...or have 30 days to either trade the player to a team for some sort of compensation (if they don't want to pay the player) or release the player into free agency...

and these 1st rounders don't have to do the arbitration EVER if they want...they have their 5 year rookie contracts slotted that are GUARANTEED...so if they bust a la JeMarcus the team can cut them loose whenever and just own them their money...or if they have a breakout 3rd season they can choose arbitration in that offseason etc. etc. etc.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by The Meat Dragon

I don't know...

I'm thinking the only way rookie slotting is possible is if every rookie in the first three rounds gets some sort of arbitration option after there 1st or 2nd year...

Needs a baseball type system...all players are restricted to their drafting team for the first five years of their professional careers...

The first 96 picks have a set salary slot and the first 32 are arbitration eligible after the first year...and the next 64 after their 2nd season...

That means the #1 pick would make X amount of dollars like they do in the NBA...and if they burst on to the scene like Matt Ryan, or Adrian Peterson...they can opt for arbitration like they do in baseball...they can propose the contract they want, the team can argue the contract they want...the arbitrator will listen and then make a decision...

Then the team in question can either accept the contract...or have 30 days to either trade the player to a team for some sort of compensation (if they don't want to pay the player) or release the player into free agency...

and these 1st rounders don't have to do the arbitration EVER if they want...they have their 5 year rookie contracts slotted that are GUARANTEED...so if they bust a la JeMarcus the team can cut them loose whenever and just own them their money...or if they have a breakout 3rd season they can choose arbitration in that offseason etc. etc. etc.

I completely agree with the idea of arbitration. And the thing about it in baseball is that 1) the arbitration is done independently; 2) it usually doesn't amount to outlandish settlements. Now, it does affect some things differently because of the cap, but a move to that system makes a lot more sense. If not, rookies MUST be able to opt out of their contracts after 3 years and a team should be able to too, regardless of the bonus structure. Just my opinion.

[Hootie]

it's just tougher because baseball careers are so much longer on average than football careers and football generates so much more revenue...

Arbitration seems like the best option...

If a rookie plays X amount of snaps...or a 2nd year guy...etc. etc. etc.

As soon as you hit that magic snap number you should be arbitration eligible and your salary for the next season should be determined by an arbitrator...

for 5 years a rookie should be restricted to the drafting team...

and the tags stay...

Gotta keep control of your superstars even in small markets or football will just turn into the NBA or the MLB...and no one wants that.

[Hootie]

I also think EVERY DOLLAR a team doesn't spend under the salary cap should go into some sort of fund that takes care of the older players...the guys that can't take care of themselves and have nothing to show for because of all the wear and tear the NFL does...

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

He does have leverage. He can hold out and while the team doesn't have to pay him, think about how much money they lose in disgruntled fans pissed off at the team for not paying him.

And again, just because "that's the system" doesn't make it a good one. And your example of Jamarcus is a classic example. You shouldn't be rewarded by your draft status. Once you're in this league, you should be rewarded by play on the field. And the fact that Jamarcus has sweet incentives that makes him difficult to cut while Johnson can be cut today pretty much for free tells you how broken the system is.

If you're talking about Albert Haynesworth, fine. He had a chance to negotiate a fair contract and he's not living up to it. If you're talking about a rookie who was slotted clearly incorrectly, that's a different story. And I'm not just talking dollars. I'm talking about guaranteeing his contract even if he gets injured. What union would EVER let an employer back out of a contract for an injury experienced ON THE JOB?

And by the way, the Titans didn't waste $7M in bonus. They got MVP-level play for 2 seasons. That's an enormous bargain.

I agree change is warranted but it can't be one sided.

Teams should have the ability to make all rookie contracts incentive based regardless of pick. You suck you make less. You excel you make more.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

I agree change is warranted but it can't be one sided.

Teams should have the ability to make all rookie contracts incentive based regardless of pick. You suck you make less. You excel you make more.

That would make it next to impossible to manage a salary cap (if there is a salary cap).

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

That would make it next to impossible to manage a salary cap (if there is a salary cap).

Yea I thought about that.You have to be under the "base" cap number at the beginning of the year and if young players (still under rookie contract) excel you pay them more at the end like a bonus.

[Hog's Gone Fishin]

Ok. In the real world like most of us live in. So f I take a job and in the interview I am told what my starting salary is x and that if I perform at a high level I will get a substantial raise after five years and agree with it I would be shown the door if I didn't show up for work because I think I deserve more after two years.

**** him!

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Hog Farmer

Ok. In the real world like most of us live in. So f I take a job and in the interview I am told what my starting salary is x and that if I perform at a high level I will get a substantial raise after five years and agree with it I would be shown the door if I didn't show up for work because I think I deserve more after two years.

**** him!

again, tell me a job where you can get canned ON THE JOB for an injury experiended during your job.

[Chiefshrink]

Dumbass Agent and Dumbass Johnson for signing that type of contract. Kudos to the GM.

F'n honor your contract you F'n Primadonna.

[BossChief]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

I agree change is warranted but it can't be one sided.

Teams should have the ability to make all rookie contracts incentive based regardless of pick. You suck you make less. You excel you make more.

That would likely breed a league of TOs and it would make head coaches jobs very difficult.

I think the way the system is right now works pretty well, with the exception of the cost of top 15 draft picks.

[Hootie]

you paying by production is a system that would simply fail

no doubt about that

[Ebolapox]

Originally Posted by sportsshrink

Dumbass Agent and Dumbass Johnson for signing that type of contract. Kudos to the GM.

F'n honor your contract you F'n Primadonna.

there's a good reason you don't post in the lounge...

it was a rookie contract. guys don't have much of an option, as these things are roughly slotted. late first rounder? you're not going to break the bank.