The evolution and evaluation of Jamie Collins
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
That is absolutely a possibility. However, my hypothesis runs as follows:
1) It is a lot easier to live on a budget when you are spending what is in your checking account. Most folks can wrap their heads around that somewhat simply....and we always forget that these guys are 23, 24, 25 years old. Hell, I didn't think about much more broadly than "I can spend what is in my checking account" until I was about 28-30, and that was because I was married. I always had them take out max 401k and max taxes before I touched the check for that reason.
2) It is a HELL of a lot easier to turn down requests for money if you don't have it on you.
3) It is a lot easier to turn down a sleazeball who is looking to sell you a financial vehicle and then a shiny object, than just a guy trying to sell you a shiny object.
Yes, it is possible that these guys could still fall into problems. But right now the rate of bankruptcy for former players is horrifying, and it seems like one of the biggest issues is guys blowing their opening paycheck and signing bonus before they even play a down. In my model a guy could get up to $1MM in his first paycheck, and then the rest of the value of the contract goes into an annuity. I don't disagree that a guy should be able to buy some nice things for himself, his family, whatever, when he enters professional sports, but by spreading things out I think you provide a lot of benefits.
I sure seems like a reasonable contract. The LB market is undervalued at the moment (although a lot of guys are coming up for contracts soon. If Luke Keuchly gets healthy he could establish a new price point), but even with that said....he is the 4th highest paid player at the position right now.....and that doesn't seem insane given that the contract is fresh and a lot of guys will be above him within a year. I don't think even his biggest critics could argue that he won't be a top 10 LB during this contract.
I have little doubt that Mike Lombardi will make it happen.
The biggest obstacle to your annuity plan is the warlike relationship the NFL brass and the NFLPA have had over the last 7 years.
I'm not one to get ahead of myself, but you are correct for sure................
My stepfather is a financial planner or whatever it's called and was a pro athlete back in the day with a lot of connections in that field. He was working with - I believe Ernie Banks - on a sports management company premised around that idea, but the players hated it, understandably. If you're 22 and waiting your whole life for your first million dollar contract, you don't want a bunch of old dudes coming in and telling you how to spend your money. And, look, it's a bit of an uncomfortable idea because we don't tell the hedge fund whiz kid how to spend his millions at 25 (and yes I see all the many other differences).
I don't disagree. I think that the union would need to lead the charge on this.
Cant player voluntarily do this today if they wanted to, ,take their money and buy an annuity? Im pretty OK with the NFL counseling this is available as an option and working to (hopefully) guide players towards reputable financial providers. Id be super uncomfortable with requiring contracts to be structured this way.
Of course, back in the day, the amount of cash the player got immediately, while still saving for tomorrow, might not have been enough to live like the amounts being thrown around now. Pretty good players were still working off-season jobs in the late 60s and early 70s.
I have some qualms about that too. My hope was Bonilla and Ken Griffey junior would evangelize their contracts to the point that they would start having a beat the kids could dance to and would demand, but it didn't happen.
I think the keys are as follows:
1) You need to get some notable people endorsing the concept. Everyone from ex players who have been financially successful to ex players who have gone broke. You need folks who will become thought leaders on this. A day at the rookie seminar saying "Don't buy restaurants!" "Try not to get too expensive a car!!" isn't cutting it.
2) The league has to recognize that the way their players are doing after football is really, really bad. Yes, it is horrible that player X is in a ton of pain after retirement....but it wouldn't be as striking if he were in a decent McMansion in the suburbs, and wasn't using food stamps to pay for pain meds.
3) The union has to help. They can partner up with 1-2 different firms and say "Hey listen, if you guys will charge 0.5% for management fees instead of the usual "Football player premium" of 7%, we will throw at least half the business to your firm. We need to diversify for obvious reasons, but you will be rewarded for charging low fees."
4) I do think that putting 100% into an annuity wouldn't work. You need to give them some reward for the first 22 years of their life. Maybe that reward is 10% of their signing bonus or guaranteed money, the rest in the annuity. Maybe it is a round figure like $1MM. I am not sure. Let them go out and get a nice car, a decent house, a decent apartment for their mother and their sister, all of that.
5) I think the value prop of "lower taxes and you can't get screwed out of what you don't have." could work. Or alteratively, a lot of surgeons these days get pitched very, very boring investment concepts that are basically annuities or bond-heavy portfolios with low fees, with the sell of "you focus on what you do, and don't sweat the finances." It has, apparently, been pretty well received.
I don't know. I would just like to see every player get a Bianca Wilfork. Seriously. Vince Wilfork will never want for money for the rest of his life.....unless he divorces Bianca. From every story I have ever heard, she is like a pit bull when folks come with new investment concepts. Watching 70+ percent of these guys struggling is tough.
A significant portion of projected first- and second-round picks (among others) in the 2017 NFL Draft have already received several hundred thousand dollar advances of their future earnings. They aren't voting for union representation who will defer any of their earnings.*
* Not that I disagree with any of the arguments made in here about the wisdom of the annuity concept.
* Not that I disagree with any of the arguments made in here about the wisdom of the annuity concept.
It doesn't have to be a requirement, but if it were turn into a more common, templated, contract structure, where guys could sign the "regular plan" or the "long term" plan I think it would run a lot better.
I agree, especially with Point 1, which is what Ernie was trying to do. But, hey, human nature is pretty set in the "it won't happen to me" mode. That's why people drink and drive and cheat on taxes and spouses and do drugs and a number of other things that can have horrible consequences. You can trot out all the Joe Louises and Antoine Walkers you want; nobody's looking at those dudes thinking, "oh shit, that could be me!"
Obviously not in football, where the union sucks, but maybe forcing more money into the pensions would help? Obviously, it'd take money from owners or current players, but there's so much cash there, I can't imagine it'd be that onerous to put anyone who spent X amount of time in the league and earned less than Y be entitled to 100k a year.
It ain't just pro athletes, either, to perhaps say the obvious. Just human nature. Which is why I agree with Yammer that it should be Union-led. I particularly like the idea of two contracts: Long-term, or "Classic". Make them make a choice to turn down the "long-term security" option. Enough of them would get nervous at that prospect that they'll go for the long-term one. Maybe not a majority, but some of the people who would otherwise be dead broke at age 40.
This is exactly it. Get some smart guys to structure the payments so that they reduce tax burdens and minimize fees and run with it. Hell, let a league sponsor like Prudential or something get some pub for it.
I worked in a bank in the late 70's/early 1980's and we had 2 Boston Celtics who'd come in on pay day to cash their checks.
Fair enough I guess, and Im all for the NFL doing a better job educating their players about finances. The long-term plan also comes its own risks, so I wouldnt feel comfortable about anything that required this sort of structure (or probably even with heavy pressure to go into this sort of structure) even if we ignore the paternalism issues.
Hope he has learned to invest well, he's only got 18 more years left on that contract.
Can we get back to talking about Jamie Collins? I wouldn't call myself a Collins critic - I think he's a good player. I don't think he's a top 10 linebacker in the NFL right now (do even his biggest boosters think he's a top 10 LB right now?). And I don't know how to judge how likely he is to improve to get into the top 10.
Listening to Podcasts offseason, I think the Ringer guys had him #2 and the MMQB guys had him #3. PFF called him "the best linebacker in the AFC" entering the season. That's just among off-ball linebackers - so no Von Millers or Justin Houstons - but that's still impressive. I imagine after this most recent campaign he'll have fallen off a little while some guys like Bobby Wagner would have moved up, but I'd still imagine he's widely considered a top 10 off-ball LB.
Greg Bedard said on F&M that Collins came into camp out of shape and that did not sit well with BB.
That's preseason, I would imagine that's changed quite a bit. Limiting to off-the-line LB helps him, for sure.
I have no idea how to evaluate Jamie Collins play this season. He started in New England, didn't play well, and the linebackers and defense played much better after he left. Then he went to play in a new scheme for a tire fire team midseason. The Browns liked him enough for give him a big contract but they're also terrible and a billion dollars under the cap and his numbers were middling. PFF graded him as the 44th best linebacker. Who knows. He's a talented guy we'll see how it plays out.
I don't either but I thought Belichick's comments in the press conference after the AFCCG provided some good insight into how the team has adapted since the trade (and remarkably it was kind of unprompted):
http://www.patriots.com/news/2017/01/22/new-england-patriots-postgame-transcripts-122
Probably gives you another idea of what is going on in Jamie Collins' head and why New England let him go.
http://patriotswire.usatoday.com/2017/06/27/jamie-collins-acting-like-a-diva-with-browns/
'Do your job' doesn't seem like it took with him.
http://patriotswire.usatoday.com/2017/06/27/jamie-collins-acting-like-a-diva-with-browns/
'Do your job' doesn't seem like it took with him.
It's not even hot. I think it happened more than 2 weeks ago on minicamp "fun day."
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2017/06/athletic_lb_jamie_collins_begg.html
Seriously. Is this any different than Edelman "begging" BB to play QB / throw passes, or Brady saying he is the best punter on the team (circa 2003)?
No kidding. What was the purpose of that piece of garbage? Collins got himself paid, the Pats won the SB, they freed up enough money to re-sign Hightower. Win-win for everyone involved.
It's June and the guy from USA Today needed a hot take, so he found a Gregg Williams quote and extrapolated a bunch of things from it.