[lex24]

Love how he crowdsourced the exercise in finding the critics.  More respect to Jenna Gray, though, who saved this tweet THREE YEARS:

https://twitter.com/jennagray22/status/1...5631096835

She should have waited a couple more weeks until she collected the Honda Award.

BC

Sherman hit all of his incentives, but that doesn't mean he was right to negotiate the contract that way. It's a fascinating discussion, and I followed some of it last week, but it's mostly devoid of fact. I would love to see the contract offers that were on the table that were turned down instead of this incentive laden contract. And if you play out the past two seasons 100 times, how often would Sherman have ended up "winning" with his current structure?

In Managerial Decision Making class we often talked about not being fooled by "Good Process, Bad Outcome" or "Bad Process, Good Outcome" scenarios. You can't always look at the end result to know that the choices made should be relied on for the future. Will Sherman's positive outcome result in more players negotiating their own contracts and relying more on incentives for compensation? Is that a good thing for the players?

I thought this series of tweets from Joe Thomas provided some interesting color: https://twitter.com/joethomas73/status/1...8195691520

There's also a lot of revisionist history going on in which some critics are pointing to his relative low pay as evidence that he signed a bad deal while forgetting that at the time he was a 30 year old player coming off an Achilles rupture.

Personally, I think it was a smart deal. I mean, he'd already made enough money in his career to set him up for life. Instead of taking the lower, guaranteed money that would certainly build wealth but not really change any outcome, he rolled the die to see if he could really magnify his wealth. If it hadn't worked out, there's nothing lost. But if it worked out, there was some real money to be made but perhaps more important, building on his personal story/brand/self worth.

He wanted to step out  and show he was capable of doing more than locking down a wide out. Could have failed miserably. Had the guts to take the risk.  Used to be people applauded that.  Now, conform or else.

[lex24]

Love how he crowdsourced the exercise in finding the critics.  More respect to Jenna Gray, though, who saved this tweet THREE YEARS:

https://twitter.com/jennagray22/status/1...5631096835

She should have waited a couple more weeks until she collected the Honda Award.

BC

Sherman hit all of his incentives, but that doesn't mean he was right to negotiate the contract that way. It's a fascinating discussion, and I followed some of it last week, but it's mostly devoid of fact. I would love to see the contract offers that were on the table that were turned down instead of this incentive laden contract. And if you play out the past two seasons 100 times, how often would Sherman have ended up "winning" with his current structure?

In Managerial Decision Making class we often talked about not being fooled by "Good Process, Bad Outcome" or "Bad Process, Good Outcome" scenarios. You can't always look at the end result to know that the choices made should be relied on for the future. Will Sherman's positive outcome result in more players negotiating their own contracts and relying more on incentives for compensation? Is that a good thing for the players?

I thought this series of tweets from Joe Thomas provided some interesting color: https://twitter.com/joethomas73/status/1...8195691520

There's also a lot of revisionist history going on in which some critics are pointing to his relative low pay as evidence that he signed a bad deal while forgetting that at the time he was a 30 year old player coming off an Achilles rupture.

Personally, I think it was a smart deal. I mean, he'd already made enough money in his career to set him up for life. Instead of taking the lower, guaranteed money that would certainly build wealth but not really change any outcome, he rolled the die to see if he could really magnify his wealth. If it hadn't worked out, there's nothing lost. But if it worked out, there was some real money to be made but perhaps more important, building on his personal story/brand/self worth.

He wanted to step out  and show he was capable of doing more than locking down a wide out. Could have failed miserably. Had the guts to take the risk.  Used to be people applauded that.  Now, conform or else.