Re the Gronk contract situation. Didn't the Pats bump Vollmer once?

[RayClay]

Gronk tweeted about a paycut and Rosenhaus dodged a question about whether he was unhappy. Gronk was injured before, and early, in his career, so guaranteed money was an issue

but...

Everything's negotiable in this life. Who wants an unhappy Gronk? Back to Vollmer, do I misremember, or did they sweeten his deal when they didn't have to? If so, shouldn't they with Gronk, especially now that the got a big time tight end?

My opinion...there's only one gronk, a replacement cannot be built.

Thoughts?

 

[Gronkowski123]

demand a raise...nobody should want to take a paycut for our jellyfish owner kraft. **** him

 

[Sciz]

Yes, they made Vollmer's incentives max out at 80% of the offensive snaps instead of the previous 90%. He ended up at 88.9% that year but got the full $2 million incentive. They also sweetened Ninkovich's contract a year ago, perhaps as a direct response to the Sheard signing.

That said, this is weird timing for all this talk about Gronk considering that he has made $15 million since August, including $6 million in roughly the last week. As far as I can tell, the actual cash flow on his contract was $9 million in 2015 thanks to the advancement on part of his bonus, then will be $9 million again this year, $5M in 2017, $9M in 2018, and $10M in 2019. One of those years is not like the others, and it's not this year. I think it makes a lot more sense to wait a year to address his lower 2017 earnings.

 

[rexxar]

No. He took a risk when he signed the extension but so did the Patriots.

 

[Huckleberry1]

I have mixed feelings on contract issues. The NFL treats all contracts as one year deals so it's hard not to sympathize with players who want to renegotiate their deals. Some players get significant money up front so it's hard to sympathize when they want to renegotiate. I have very mixed feelings when it comes to Gronk because he is clearly the very best at his position however the Patriots stuck by him when he went through his injury issues and he was well paid during that time. In this case I think the best approach is to signal to Rosenhaus that they really value Gronk and are willing to look at options for restructuring his deal going forward but like Brady it needs to be done through guarantees and not by breaking the bank and creating major cap issues.

 

[captain insano]

screw gronk. he shouldn't have signed the contract he has now. nothing pisses me off more than rich people crying about there contract.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

You don't (or shouldn't, anyway) get to sign a contract early to protect from an injury history then, when that "insurance" is over decide you should get market value when the team took the risk early

See Stephon Curry also; still there's no actual evidence he's unhappy.

 

[JMC00]

No. He took a risk when he signed the extension but so did the Patriots.

Not to mention he agreed to that contract after 2011, which was the greatest season by a TE ever.....

 

[deters]

Gronk was ****ing joking around. No problem. How are people misreading his tweet. He essentially stated he does it for his love of working out and football, not money.

 

[fnordcircle]

Contracts only are a contract when we're talking about the player. The team can cut him any moment they want but the player has to 'live up to the contract he signed' and 'be true to his word'.

It's such ********. If Gronk wants more money he's worth it, even if it hampers our plans this year or next.

 

[JMC00]

Gronk was ****ing joking around. No problem. How are people misreading his tweet. He essentially stated he does it for his love of working out and football, not money.

Well the problem is the media is going with the notion that there is some truth to it even if he was joking and now that Rosenhaus had a chance to say there are no problems and instead gave a "no comment", coupled with Pats trading for a #1 TE will only make the mediots think they have something with the "Gronk is not happy with his contract" stuff

 

[RobertWeathers]

You don't (or shouldn't, anyway) get to sign a contract early to protect from an injury history then, when that "insurance" is over decide you should get market value when the team took the risk early

See Stephon Curry also; still there's no actual evidence he's unhappy.

Where is this insurance thing come from? Pats saw an opportunity to lockup an All-Pro early at a discount. Thats cost certainty and having a valuable, highly productive asset under control is good business.

Gronk did the deal because at the time it felt right to him. He may or may not have misgivings over it (I think he is but thats irrelevant).

If he wants to play hardball with the Pats and demand to be paid #1 at his position then he can. If the Pats tell him to take a walk they can too.

Leverage and intestinal fortitude is everything.

 

[AvocadoIceCream]

demand a raise...nobody should want to take a paycut for our jellyfish owner kraft. **** him

LOL at your weird hate

How about all that money Gronk made sitting out w injuries? **** that

 

[zipster9]

I think a bonus award of $$ would be acceptable. This is not a raise, rather a merit.

IMO

 

[JMC00]

btw here is the cash total Gronk has received over his career

'10- $2m
'11- $1.2m
'12- $8.5m
'13- $660k
'14- $3.7m
-15- $9m

Future cash

'16- $9m (was paid $6m on March 8th as a part of splitting his $10m bonus option. He got $4m at the beginning of training camp in '15 )
'17- $5m
'18- $9m
'19- $10m


So between Aug '15-March '16 Pats paid Gronk $15m in the span of 7 months.

 

[deters]

Well the problem is the media is going with the notion that there is some truth to it even if he was joking and now that Rosenhaus had a chance to say there are no problems and instead gave a "no comment", coupled with Pats trading for a #1 TE will only make the mediots think they have something with the "Gronk is not happy with his contract" stuff

So ignore the lie spinning media? Problem solved.

 

[Huckleberry1]

btw here is the cash total Gronk has received over his career

'10- $2m
'11- $1.2m
'12- $8.5m
'13- $660k
'14- $3.7m
-15- $9m

Future cash

'16- $9m (was paid $6m on March 8th as a part of splitting his $10m bonus option. He got $4m at the beginning of training camp in '15 )
'17- $5m
'18- $9m
'19- $10m

Good money but I can understand him getting frustrated when he sees average players making much much more. Recent contracts and free agency periods have exploded expectations and really complicate future deals. I don't see why agents would tell players to sign for good deal's when there it's outrageous money to be had.

 

[fnordcircle]

Based on how things have gone in this league if you ever find yourself rooting for the owners instead of a player, when it comes to a contract negotiation, you're on the side of the super villains.

**** this league's owners, they're the real bad guys in deflategate, imo.

 

[AtomicDawg]

Gronk was ****ing joking around. No problem. How are people misreading his tweet. He essentially stated he does it for his love of working out and football, not money.

Exactly. I've said this here before. People assume 2+2= 73646363 when it only equals 4. Meaning people see a Tweet or something and then see an article written by an attention grabbing "sports writer" and automatically assume the worst. If there was is a frigging "contract issue" then I expect Gronk to be totally outside of character this season and dog it out, be lazy, run wrong routes and miss key blocks (all things that have for the most part NEVER been a problem for him.)

And BTW, the smartest thing Rosenhaus did was say nothing. He plays the game as well as any agent out there. He was the "next question" guy with T.O.; he's not going to give anyone an inch of nothing.

 

[reflexblue]

screw gronk. he shouldn't have signed the contract he has now. nothing pisses me off more than rich people crying about there contract.

But its not about the money