A note on Brady's example list of high-character guys

[TBradyOwnsYou]

My beef is rookies who hold out midway through their first contract.

 

[upstater1]

Not personally, no.

But if you've been reading anything besides the sports pages, you'd know it's not like there's been any shortage of whistleblowers who were in the room, many of whom were talking to anyone who would listen to them in the years before the financial crisis, and were largely marginalized and ignored.

If you're interested in the subject, I think far and away the best book on the subject is Michael Lewis' (of Moneyball and The Blind Side fame) The Big Short, which manages to make a compelling read out of some very dense, esoteric material, without ever dumbing it down to the point of rhetoric. I'd also recommend Lewis' first book Liar's Poker, which tells the story of his disallusionment while working on Wall Street in the 80's -- the parallels between then and now are pretty frightening in terms of how badly we've failed to avoid repeating the same mistakes all over again.

BIG SHORT was great on information, but it drew the wrong conclusions. Lewis is still very much an insider. He just can't come to see the negative in people who screw things up badly--as long as they don't do anything illegal. That's when you cross his line. The problem is, laws haven't been invented to circumscribe the kind of behavior going on on Wall Street. Those guys are always ahead of the regulations, and it's only after the fact that we analyze and determine that people shouldn't be doing these things. Lewis actually seems to admire the people who can see through the regulations and do end arounds. Dr. Burry was exactly this type of guy. At the end, Burry wonders why none of his clients will give him the time of day. After all, he made hundreds of millions for them. I know the guy is OCD, but there's absolutely no remorse there for LEGALLY beating the system and causing havoc. While he made billions for people, he managed to fashion a derivative that lost trillions of dollars, destroyed lives, jobs, companies. Why doesn't anyone call him anymore?

 

[TriplecHamp]

???? Is this some kind of joke? Fans are behind most players who ask for more money. It is how a very few players go about it that some fans object to. Not all, but I don't recall many supporting Branch or Mangini back then. In fact, I can't think of any. Did you approve of Branch shooting his way out of town? Did you like the way he and Mangini violated the rules in a way that tampering couldn't proven (though BB did charge the Jets). Face it, if Branch spurned the Pats and signed with the Jets for a few dollars more, there would be no love fest for him here. He's been gone for four years and I have yet to see a single thread about what a great character guy Branch is, so let's not pretend we all admire his character now that he is a Patriot.

And you guys need to stop reading so much into the list Brady included and why he included them and why others were not included. If Law was so signifcant an inclusion, I guess leaving off Troy Brown, David Patten, and others means Brady thinks they are not character guys? He rattled off a few names. Don't over-analyze his choices.

You all sound like Mark Shlereth and Merril Hoge, telling us what players are thinking and drawing outlandish conclusions.

Who ever dogged Branch for his on field play? I can go back into almost every thread about a holdout and you will see the same group of people throwing out insults to players not knowing all of the details surrounding the holdout itself. The absence of a few players names on TB's list doesn't mean that the ones he included are BS.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

Not personally, no.

But if you've been reading anything besides the sports pages, you'd know it's not like there's been any shortage of whistleblowers who were in the room, many of whom were talking to anyone who would listen to them in the years before the financial crisis, and were largely marginalized and ignored.

If you're interested in the subject, I think far and away the best book on the subject is Michael Lewis' (of Moneyball and The Blind Side fame) The Big Short, which manages to make a compelling read out of some very dense, esoteric material, without ever dumbing it down to the point of rhetoric. I'd also recommend Lewis' first book Liar's Poker, which tells the story of his disallusionment while working on Wall Street in the 80's -- the parallels between then and now are pretty frightening in terms of how badly we've failed to avoid repeating the same mistakes all over again.

Thanks, I am a bit aware of what is going on and yes, I have read all his books and agree that they are compelling because they provide a glimpse into the inner workings of a few companies in the wild world of RMBS and CDOs.

But, having not been in the decision making process at AIG and then to accuse that the AIG executives were "busy investing people's retirement funds in debt-based derivatives he knew damn well were worthless at the time" based on your reading of Micheal Lewis book is a bit galling.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

...

Also, by your logic, the player's employer knew very well before signing a player to a contract that if the player out-performs it, it's as much in his rights to hold out as it is in the team's rights to cut him, so if they felt strongly about that, they should have either back-ended the contract to provide incentive to the player to play it out, or re-upped the player before it became an issue.

Clearly, that is the way Belichick sees it -- he clearly didn't hold Branch's holdout against him. He recognized the impasse Branch and the team were at, and made the most of it, and didn't look back.

IMO, a lot of these contract squabbles are needlessly brought about by the archaic institution of the NFL draft. It was necessary in the early days of football, when maintaining a playing field was a larger expenditure than talent. Nowadays, it actually punishes the teams it's supposedly trying to give a leg up, and causes automatic strife between the players and their teams as collateral damage. Giving both the players the freedom to negotiate who they play for and for how much during their rookie season, and the teams the freedom to allocate their cap space as they see fit is a win-win situation.

I am afraid I wasn't trying to convey that in my logic. If anything, I was alluding to the fact that the players have no rights and that the power belongs to the employer. The players do have a weapon though - which is holding out.

To your other point in the same paragraph, a vast majority of the contracts are torn up and redone based on the performance. So, it's not as if all teams are acting as evil empires out to swindle every player.

Fine points on the last para.

 

[Keegs]

So what about the Welkers, Wilforks, Ty Warrens or Mayos?

what about the Chungs? (Pat and Eugene)

 

[Dragda]

Rodney was a rabble-rouser after Milloy was cut, telling guys they had to watch out and get their money.

Not just in football, but in every area of my life I have to watch out and get my money. Life is negotiation. That's just reality. It is more pronounced in the NFL where careers are short and new, potentially cheaper talent is coming in every year.

I don't see that as rabble-rousing. It's just stating the obvious

 

[Synovia]

Just the same, where else do you get millionaires still under contract publicly stomping their feet and whining about being extended? Or, having their contracts torn up and re-done for many millions more? I know that's the standard course of behavior for NFL players, but it's ridiculous in real-world context.

Pretty much everywhere that you have millionaires. People don't get to be millionaires without knowing how to maximize their worth.

 

[lamafist]

Thanks, I am a bit aware of what is going on and yes, I have read all his books and agree that they are compelling because they provide a glimpse into the inner workings of a few companies in the wild world of RMBS and CDOs.

But, having not been in the decision making process at AIG and then to accuse that the AIG executives were "busy investing people's retirement funds in debt-based derivatives he knew damn well were worthless at the time" based on your reading of Micheal Lewis book is a bit galling.

Apologies if I came off condescending in my assumption that you weren't that informed on the financial crisis. And rest assured, I wasn't making assumptions about AIG executives based only on Lewis' book -- I was suggesting it merely as a jumping off point. I also didn't mean to implicate all of AIG's many executives -- my use of the singular was intended to posit the existence of at least one. Considering the amount of reportage around the federal fraud case and AIG's settlement of it, I don't think it's at all unfair to posit that at least one person at AIG knew what they were doing, and went ahead with it anyway.

To my mind, it would be even more galling to assume that all of the AIG execs were mind-numbingly ignorant, as opposed to merely mundanely scummy.

 

[lamafist]

I am afraid I wasn't trying to convey that in my logic. If anything, I was alluding to the fact that the players have no rights and that the power belongs to the employer. The players do have a weapon though - which is holding out.

To your other point in the same paragraph, a vast majority of the contracts are torn up and redone based on the performance. So, it's not as if all teams are acting as evil empires out to swindle every player.

Fine points on the last para.

I honestly can't tell where, if anywhere, we're in disagreement.

 

[NovaScotiaPatsFan]

On a strictly personal level I have no problem with guys going for money, what I have a problem with are guys who sign a contract in supposedly good faith and then hold out. Or guys who whine and complain about contract stuff in the middle of a season.

Hold outs, you gotta love them. Imagine if the situation were reversed and the player wasn't playing well so the team tried to say "Well, we know we signed a contract saying we'd pay you this much, but we expected you like to play like you did before, so we're only gonna pay you this much" The moon would explode and crash into the Earth! It would be the end of life as we know it.

I'd be a horrible GM because if anyone ever held out on me I'd be like "sure, we got you under contract for this long so you can sit and rot for every day of that contract and let your skills deteriorate while your short career window gets smaller." And no one would ever sign with me.

 

[lamafist]

Hold outs, you gotta love them. Imagine if the situation were reversed and the player wasn't playing well so the team tried to say "Well, we know we signed a contract saying we'd pay you this much, but we expected you like to play like you did before, so we're only gonna pay you this much" The moon would explode and crash into the Earth! It would be the end of life as we know it.

What are you talking about? This happens every season. When a player is underperforming his contract, the team gives him the option of accepting a more team-friendly, or being cut.

Heck, it just happened with the Pats and Deion Branch -- Deion's base salary for next season was just south of $6 million, and the Pats told him that if he didn't renegotiate it, they'd cut him at the end of the season. Branch agreed, and now next year, his salary maxes out at $4 mil, and even that amount is heavily dependent on incentives.

 

[Deus Irae]

On a strictly personal level I have no problem with guys going for money, what I have a problem with are guys who sign a contract in supposedly good faith and then hold out. Or guys who whine and complain about contract stuff in the middle of a season.

Hold outs, you gotta love them. Imagine if the situation were reversed and the player wasn't playing well so the team tried to say "Well, we know we signed a contract saying we'd pay you this much, but we expected you like to play like you did before, so we're only gonna pay you this much" The moon would explode and crash into the Earth! It would be the end of life as we know it.

I'd be a horrible GM because if anyone ever held out on me I'd be like "sure, we got you under contract for this long so you can sit and rot for every day of that contract and let your skills deteriorate while your short career window gets smaller." And no one would ever sign with me.

Players cannot just stop playing for the team and shop their services elsewhere, but they can be cut by the team at any moment. The Patriots used their leverage to force players like Branch and Watson into longer deals than they wanted. The Patriots used the uncapped year of the CBA to force Mankins to deal with a tender situation that wouldn't have existed had the owners not chosen to opt out of the CBA.

This stuff goes both ways. Each side has options, based upon the CBA and the labor laws.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

Apologies if I came off condescending in my assumption that you weren't that informed on the financial crisis. And rest assured, I wasn't making assumptions about AIG executives based only on Lewis' book -- I was suggesting it merely as a jumping off point. I also didn't mean to implicate all of AIG's many executives -- my use of the singular was intended to posit the existence of at least one. Considering the amount of reportage around the federal fraud case and AIG's settlement of it, I don't think it's at all unfair to posit that at least one person at AIG knew what they were doing, and went ahead with it anyway.

To my mind, it would be even more galling to assume that all of the AIG execs were mind-numbingly ignorant, as opposed to merely mundanely scummy.

Nah, no need for apologies. This is a football forum and we shouldn't be sidetracked.

My final thoughts on why I got irked reading your blanket accusation of AIG guys committing fraud:

- some savvy hedge funds and investors suspected the many of the RMBS new issuance was not worth those high ratings (that in turn depended on past performance and not-that-robust models) and so took bets that those securities will eventually underperform/fail.

- Most of the rest did not believe that that the risk was that bad and some didn't care because of the ratings; they were prepared for a loss but didn't expect the newly issued securities to collapse with pathetic recovery and people walking away from their home/debt.

- Based on my limited knowledge and experience, I can state with a high confidence that AIG and other mangagers would NOT have invested the pensions of others into securities that they knew were worthless. They might be guilty of poor investment decisions but not fraud.

 

[TriplecHamp]

On a strictly personal level I have no problem with guys going for money, what I have a problem with are guys who sign a contract in supposedly good faith and then hold out. Or guys who whine and complain about contract stuff in the middle of a season.

Hold outs, you gotta love them. Imagine if the situation were reversed and the player wasn't playing well so the team tried to say "Well, we know we signed a contract saying we'd pay you this much, but we expected you like to play like you did before, so we're only gonna pay you this much" The moon would explode and crash into the Earth! It would be the end of life as we know it.

I'd be a horrible GM because if anyone ever held out on me I'd be like "sure, we got you under contract for this long so you can sit and rot for every day of that contract and let your skills deteriorate while your short career window gets smaller." And no one would ever sign with me.

not sure if serious...