Comments on: DeMaurice Smith interview transcript, part two

By: jimphin

jimphin — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:40:08 +0000

Drama queen. I wish he would just answer the question. You chase him around the bush for an answer but all he does is focus on more questions.

One clear misrepresentation or lie (if you will) is that replacing two preseason games with two regular season games is the equivalent to “exponentially increases the amount of head to head trauma.” Well, it is the same exact amount of plays. It’s just the rookies (whom he represents) get to experience more head trauma.

I think I’ve just experienced head trauma by reading this guys skirting, smarmy, arogant non answers.

By: 44kyle

44kyle — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:15:06 +0000

This guy can say less with more words.

By: bunjy96

bunjy96 — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:43:36 +0000

Interesting that he mentions health insurance costs.

Last I remember, this is paid by the owners 100% and the owners submitted a proposal to drastically increase it. That has to come from the “pie” someplace.

Can anyone shed light on the “600″ that are being sued by the NFL and the general reasons. Thought it would be the other way around. Also, don’t these medical claims go to arbitration if not resolved by the league and the player? So what is he talking about?

Part2 was just as bad as part 1 for understanding the facts and his rhetoric. Disgusting.

More convinced than ever, the players are greedier, of the two sides.

By: nicksabansanahole

nicksabansanahole — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:57:05 +0000

Great interview. It all comes down to one thing. Greed. It is gonna ruin the NFL just like it has ruined most everything else. The NFL should pay heath care for every NFL player for the rest of their lives. The players and owners should take less to ensure this. Maybe players should think more about their education and financial planning than about gold plated rims and 25000 square foot houses. The owners should not need to build a new stadium every 20 years either. Damnit. Make it affordable for a family to go to the game instead of how much money can we squeeze out of everybody that walks through the damn door.

By: eagleswin

eagleswin — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:06:14 +0000

Here’s an interesting question, seeing that a large percentage of the players make less than $1,000,000 a year.

This has nothing to do with reducing the cap but rather as to how it’s distributed. What if the maximum annual salary was a percentage of the cap, such as 5%.

Say Peyton Manning, could only make $6.5 mill/yr on a $130,000,000/yr salary cap. That would free up money ($16.5 mill) from his contract so that other lower paid players could get increases as well. It would still allow him to be the highest paid player on his team but allow the wealth to be redistributed. He would still be paid plenty of money so he couldn’t claim hardship while the majority of the union benefits.

It would also benefit owners in that there would less “grass is greener on another team” sentiment as there is no other team that could pay them more.

The majority of the union benefit and the owners benefit and star players still make plenty of profit.

By: MichaelEdits

MichaelEdits — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 03:14:06 +0000

Baby got hat