JDM
New Member
For the record he also still had two years left on his rookie contract. Early money is often preferred to more money.
I don't think it's fair to ask him to trade all his money, but I think he'd be willing to trade a good chunk of it for a ring.
If he could have taken 20-25% less over his career and gotten a ring, I think he'd be cool with that.
I disagree here because Gronk has not yet won a ring and that's why you play the game.
I don't know about you, but I'd be willing to take less money to make the team better in order to get a shot at a ring. Now, once you get that ring - yeah, it's all about the money. That's the downside of what happened to Seattle this year. A lot of the players in that first contract are going to head for the money now that they have a SB win under their belts.
With the benefit of hindsight, yes. But what if you take less money and dont win one, or get hurt? Those are both much more likely than winning one.
You don't take less money on your first big money contract. That's the contract that is supposed to set your family up for generations to come. If you wait to go for the money...it may never come.
Now...if you've already cashed in on a couple of those contracts, then maybe winning rings starts to mean more.
I hear you....
Thing is....
At some point all that money is going to be spent? Yes? The money most of them live off during retirement is the money they get from investments and other ventures like speaking engagements and bars/restaurants.
I would rather be kicking myself for having made less money to which I was entitled than to kick myself for having taken more money knowing I could have had a better shot at a ring.
Double edged sword no doubt....damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Yeah, but who is to say that just because you take less the team is going to build a SB champ around you? If a player is settled in to a city and is a big part of the community and loves the locker room, then I can see him taking a little less to retain all that. But that's not the same as ring chasing.
You don't take less money on your first big money contract. That's the contract that is supposed to set your family up for generations to come. If you wait to go for the money...it may never come.
Now...if you've already cashed in on a couple of those contracts, then maybe winning rings starts to mean more.
But by that same token, it may already be to late at that point with most of your career in the rear view.
Yes, it may...but theoretically your family is financially set up for generations. Which is more important?
Now...JDM did bring up a good point about there being 2 years left on Gronk's rookie contract. It was the safe move to take a discount for guaranteed money.
There are no guarentee's but that being said, if a player takes less money it's because the team is trying to win a ring.
Are we ignoring that 55 mil on its own is enough to set your family up forever if you're not completely retarded with it?
Again, most of the money spent by players after retirement -ie, 'generations to come' is made from other investments and ventures, not what they made in the NFL.
What they made on the gridiron isn't enough to sustain them for the next 50 years or so.
He'll probably see 1/2 of that.
He was guaranteed 13, and the contract is structured for NE to move on before the last 2 years.
Actually...it's those other investments and ventures that ultimately end up depleting what they make in the NFL (in most cases).
What they make on the gridiron should sustain them for generations.
If they aren't investing it they're fucking retarded.
Investing it poorly is bad too. That doesn't mean every penny but living expenses shouldn't be invested.