Raiders give Martavis Bryant the same per-week pay he was slated to make

Getty Images

The strange saga of Martavis Bryant coming and going and coming back to Oakland includes another strange detail: The Raiders have decided to sign Bryant to make the same pay he was going to make before they cut him.

Bryant will make $112,176 a week for the Raiders this season, according to Tom Pelissero of NFL Network. That’s the same base pay as the $1.907 million salary he was slated to make before the Raiders cut him, on the contract Bryant originally signed as a rookie with the Steelers. Bryant won’t get paid for Week One, because he wasn’t on the roster, but he’ll get paid the same going forward as he would have if he had stayed on the team.

That’s a little surprising because there were no reports of any other teams having any interest in Bryant. If Bryant had no other options, why wouldn’t the Raiders squeeze him into accepting a league-minimum salary, which would have saved the team more than $1 million?

There have been reports that Bryant is facing a potential NFL suspension under the substance-abuse policy. Such a suspension would be unpaid. But as long as Bryant is playing, he’ll be making the salary he was going to make if he had never been cut.

24 responses to “Raiders give Martavis Bryant the same per-week pay he was slated to make

  1. It’s interesting how the media wonders why the Raiders wouldn’t try to “squeeze” this player to take less after criticizing the team for not paying another more. So is the media determining the value of players?

  2. .
    The Raiders gave up a 3rd rounder to acquire Bryant. The Steelers used that pick on QB Mason Rudolph. Oakland should hope that he doesn’t turn into another Aaron Rogers.

  3. The Raiders look like a dumpster fire right now. This was a team that looked to be on the rise in the AFC with a good nucleus led by a good young QB. then they decide to hire Gruden who seems to be making moves to try to keep his job. Bryant has always had talent but he is a head case and a cancer to a locker room.

  4. I wonder if the Pats did some fact finding on him and looked into it. Is picking up Corey Coleman that different? Bryant has more issues, but seemingly more talent as well.

  5. Because if they kept him on the roster before Week 1 his salary would be guaranteed. This way, he’s literally going paycheck to paycheck. If they cut him after one week, they owe him nothing.

  6. Bryant provides a blatant indication that he’s going to be a risky sign. Raiders turn around and incentivize it by bringing him back at his original rate (after saying they were going to reduce his pay, which people lauded as being a great financial decision despite the marginal impact on their cap situation). Just makes more and more sense as it goes along, doesn’t it?

  7. I’d guess it’s in part to keep him motivated. I doubt he’d be happy playing at the league minimum. Also, if he is suspended at some point during this season, he get’s nothing once that happens. Really it’s not a big deal, I’m not sure why anyone would make it out to be, other than piling on the Raiders.

  8. Not on the roster week 1, the salary is not guaranteed. So they can cut him at any point. Veteran’s salaries become guaranteed if they are on the roster week one, so it makes decent business sense. But the Raiders .

  9. Why is this odd ? The Raiders had traded for a guy who I’m sure verbally committed to the Raiders he would stay clean, when he did not the Raiders cut him under a verbal agreement yet again that he would stay clean and to cover themselves they waited until week 2 so that if he does not stay clean his salary wont be guaranteed because he was not on the roster week one …..hence you play you get paid….simple

  10. Getting signed after week 1 means his salary isn’t guaranteed which is important because of the rumors of the suspensions. After getting cut he stayed in Oakland for a few weeks. They probably made a deal with him that they’d give him the same salary after week 1 if he didn’t sign anywhere else.

  11. Abe says: Nailed it. I will always root for this guy and hope he can have an NFL career. Weed should not be a lifetime NFL ban. That is completely ridiculous and should something the NFLPA fights against. Seriously.

  12. Raiders wanted K Miller in the draft. They moved down, still got their player and took a risk on Bryant with the “free pick”. Now that he’s back with team and we didn’t “give away a 3rd round pick” I wonder if he has a good year we’ll hear about how stupid all the other teams were?

  13. Salary becomes guaranteed for year if on opening day roster. Now it is week to week. Not that complicated.
    Umm, kiss your third round draft choice goodbye, along with your second going to the Bears for the Mack trade. These are high Capitol draft assests.

  14. I guess some people have very short memories, so please let me remind you once again. The Raiders have had one winning season in 15 years. Let me repeat that. The Raiders have had one winning season in 15 years. The last time the Raiders were an AFC powerhouse, Jon Gruden was running the show. Now he’s back, and it’s not business as usual, or how it has been these last 15 years. Do you want to win or do you want to lose? Gruden is a winner. Look at his ring ginger.

  15. @charliecharger Yes lets talk about memories, first long term lets talk charger history, if it can be called that. One of the more unrecognizable NFL teams, could it be their rich history of winning football? Nope, no Superbowls, unless you want to be proud of that Superbowl loss. The chargers are not like other teams that measure success by championships. The chargers a team of obscurity. No other team has done less with good talent as they have had. Now lets talk short term. First short because as everyone knows the chargers are short of fans or even a real home town. In SD, in LA, in California. They don’t even have a stadium, they…. rent. Why because the rich winning traditions of the chargers just keeps fans away right? There are few teams that can rightfully say they have better history than the Raiders but the fact is the orphan Chargers are not one of those teams. And… it’s not even close. I’m sorry if I have angered any of the 16 charger fans out there.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!