Honestly I think fans give them too much credit for the cap stuff as it's really not that hard to figure out especially if you just convert everything I to percentage, which some fans have done.
Fans complain contracts don't make sense, but if you then translation them into percentage of cap during the year that they signed and follow the actual cash instead of the cap accounting, usually top contracts make perfect sense.
It's just that teams and agents look at contracts a different (and I'd argue harder to get to but simpler to read and follow) than the media and fans do. Going based on percentage and cash, which dictates the cap accounting, but for some reason the media follows the odd accounting while refusing to follow the source items.
Also really we don't here about Agents trying to break CBA rules because most contracts are standard boiler plate same for each player... so basically you need to know 32 different ones (and probably less than that), there are probably 10 different ones.
And every so often we hear about players (not agents, but players) trying to get around the contract language, as Aaron Rodgers did, as he attempted to have the first percentage based deal instead of a strict set number.
The lawyers are needed for the non-boiler plate stuff, but 90% or more is boiler plate stuff.
n
I think the harder part of the job is recruiting players, keeping them happy and not doing stupid stuff.
And the hardest part being projection the markets both in terms are f what teams are willing to spend but also had w much are they willing to pay this player vs passing over and going to the next player.
Which DL Cullen Jenkins agent had trouble with, he was right the Redskins were willing to pay a lot... but their #2 DL choice was willing to take less, so they went with their #2 DL choice and Jenkins and his agent didn't have a good backup plan, went to the Eagles. But supposively for less money than both the Packers and Redskins offered him.
Originally Posted by: beast
In very broad strokes, you are not wrong. Yet, you are over simplifying this a lot:
1. Boilerplate is for really, really simple issues (governing law, criteria to make amendments to the contract binding, how to interpret headings, etc.) - and, in most cases, the boilerplate stuff would not take a whole lot of time anyways (i.e., it makes no sense for the Packers, a Wisconsin based team, to have New York law be governing). In the NFL context, boilerplate would include the dispute resolution mechanism that is mandated by the CBA, but that doesn't mean boilerplate is accepted "as is". And each team will have their own "form of" contract; there is no way there are only 10 types of contracts in the NFL.
For example, notice how none of the reports of Bakhtiari's deal mention he agreed to the restructuring -- I'm willing to bet that is because there was boilerplate language about the Packers having the right to convert roster bonus into signing bonus at their election without the consent of Bakhtiari. But what about Aaron Rodgers? That's where an agent is supposed to think through things and make judgments - do you make it so that the Packers have to get Rodgers consent to convert money like they did with Bakhtiari? Maybe your client is better served by having the option to reject a conversion so that forces the team to make a choice they'd otherwise not have to (i.e., if you want cap savings now, give Rodgers a contract extension in order to convert the money). These types of analysis won't be with every player, but is something worthy of thinking about for injury riddles (see Cam Newton, or Kirksey) that existing boilerplate doesn't mean much
and requires knowing such conversion rights are not mandated under the CBA.
My point is that even with boilerplate, there is a lot of careful thought and analysis required even if boilerplate is left untouched/unchanged. Having boilerplate doesn't actually mean less work is required, and certainly doesn't mean a less than masterful knowledge of the CBA is needed.
2. There is a flaw in your "turn into percentage and follow cash" strategy: contracts are always open and subject to renegotiation, and incentives will impact the cap charge based on likeliness to be earned/actual earning thereof. For example, conversion of roster bonus into signing bonus means same payment of money during a season, but the cap charge is really different. Similarly, the effect of likely to be earned incentives and
unlikely to be earned incentives into future cap charges is not something determined simply by following cash because the cap fluctuations it causes cannot be captured by cash payout alone (although, in some instances it definitely can). Additionally, particularly in the event of injuries, how does a roster bonus or game-day bonus get pro-rated or impact the cap charge if a player misses game(s) for injury? That can create discrepancies despite cash payout (or lack thereof).
3. Players, as clients of agents, have ultimate say on what goes but they can't propose or want something if it isn't kosher under the CBA. In other words, if Rodgers or anyone else talk about cap percentage or fully-guaranteed deals, it is only because their agents have confirmed this is permitted under the CBA. Also, as Bus Cook found out, you have to know ramifications of all your players' actions. What if BJ Raji decides to come out of retirement - how is that treated under the CBA? Or, what if Aaron Rodgers asks for a trade - how is that treated under the CBA? Is it a coincidence that Aaron Rodgers has not demanded a trade despite his public pouting about his long term outlook on finishing with the Packers, but there are credible rumblings (including from Rob Demovsky, no less) that Rodgers is angling for a new contract? That's because his agent knows and has advised Aaron on what is possible in terms of the Packers' options in light of the CBA.
Backward and forward knowledge of the CBA is a necessity, no matter the other aspects of an agent's job (and I agree with you that collecting players and keeping them happy is a tremendous effort/part of an agent's job). So, if agents are saying there are means to not reduce the cap significantly this year, it should hold merit and be something to look out for in the future. Particularly if it results in players getting more money, agents getting more commission, and teams that draw viewership (Chiefs, Steelers, Saints, and Packers) not diminishing the NFL's most-viewed product due to a cap crunch.
In other words, even if the article is based agents being sources - it is something to keep and eye on and what I'd consider to be a viable option that will gain steam (even if it is not, ultimately, implemented/done).
The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.