Disc Golf Contracts (Green Mountain drift)

[seedlings]

Think of it this way - without her contract, Kona wouldn't be the most talked about player on DGCR for every tournament.

 

[ray1970]

I think there's still a lot of upside for Kona. Putting is and has been her biggest issue. The same could also said for Evelina and Henna. While they tend to finish near the top of the field, imagine how many more wins they could have just by improving their putting.

As far as disc golf contracts in general, the big disc companies and the players are really still in the infancy stages of figuring it all out. I'm sure bad decisions are being made by all parties involved. Both sides, players and sponsors, are eventually going to figure out the art of contracts and negotiations but right now everyone is kind of winging it. I don't know how long it will take but eventually I think we'll see players being paid a fair amount for the value they bring to their sponsors and everything will sort itself out and we'll see the top players making the big money and the lesser players making less money.

 

[Countchunkula]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. No player in ANY sport gets PAID (aka the big contract) based upon what the owner thinks "you're gonna do[in the future]." You get PAID based upon what you have done[in the recent past]. Do they *hope* your play or media or whatever that got you there continues? -- sure they do. But that's not the basis of the big deal. It's what you have done that gets you the deal.


Now that being said, something tells me that Kristin's $125,000/year might seriously go up before the end of this contract. as well.

If what you are saying is true, it's only because they can't predict the future and are using past performance as a predictor of future success. Nobody is rewarding a player for what they've done in the past. They are banking on that level of play continuing or improving.

 

[Countchunkula]

She and her sponsor would have been better served letting her develop for another year or two before the big payday.

McCabe and Dynamic acted selfishly in just wanting to sign a name at all costs. If marketing and social media are her thing maybe they can find a spot in their offices somewhere.

Really not sure why you would describe signing someone to a contract as selfish.

Moving on from that point, you expect a for profit business to not act in it's self interest? Saying a for profit business is being selfish is like saying water's wet.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

As for Kona: can't blame anyone for grabbing an opportunity to make more money if/when it comes their way.

I'm sure she'd like to perform better on tournaments, but I've got nothing negative to say about either party. I'm sure they both signed this contract with the best of intentions and every belief it would work out well for both of them.

Nothing against Kona or DD, but I can safely say I've enjoyed watching FPO, regardless how Kona does.

 

[araytx]

Your point is true, but it's also true that they are getting paid in the hopes of future success (see athletes drafted out of high school, or 1-2 years of college).

I would say that the hope for future success is even more important.

Otherwise, why offer these big, multi-year contracts?

Hence where the criticism comes into play when an athlete gets the big payday after a great season and then can't reproduce after said big contract.

Hope, hope Hope. I think we're saying the same thing.

This isn't accurate though. If it were true, we wouldn't be seeing MAX rookie extensions in the NBA for guys who can't stay on the court during their rookie deal. Heck, if it was based on what you've done in recent past, Markelle Fultz wouldn't have gotten a 2nd deal. Zion Williamson wouldn't have a 5 year, potentially $231 million contract. Ben Simmons and Joel Embiid wouldn't have gotten big contracts after their rookie deals where they largely didn't even play. Those are ALL contracts based on anticipation, not performance. None of those guys got big deals because the teams thought "well we're going to pay them this much because they never play and this is what never playing is worth to us".

Heck, look at the NBA draft when high schoolers were allowed in. The entire draft was anticipatory in hoping to find a younger person who could BECOME a star, not about what they had actually accomplished.

If that were true you wouldn't see that every starting QB in the NFL gets a higher value contract than the last guy.

Players get big contracts for all kinds of reasons (again, looking to the NBA, Bradley Beal has a monstrous contract, and it certainly isn't because of what he's done, or what they anticipate him to do, it's because they have nobody else to pay and he's the best they can do).

Big contracts tend to come based on the timing of the contract more than any other factor. New contracts tend to be bigger, even for significantly worse players. As example...NFL quarterback average value...Patrick Mahomes is behind Kyler Murray...because Kyler got his contract after Patrick.

OK, OK several ways to go:
1 – Everyone looking from that perspective has the falsely colored impression that players should get paid what they are worth. That isn't capitalism and that isn't how it works in a free market society and certainly not here. But let's start with that contrapositive and evidence that that it is not true.
• If "players were paid what they are worth," then why won't teams give outstanding rookies compensation when they out-performed their rookie deals. All across sports, Mahonmes, Prescott, Yordán Alvarez, Juan Soto, Luca Donĉiĉ, -- the list goes on – NONE got the $20+million their rookie-year performances equated to. Why? They were paid based upon the past.
• When a player has the opportunity to negotiate what does his/her agent spend more time on? What they've done or what they're going to do? If you believe it's what they are going to do then there is NO WAY peaking or past peaking veterans get the big deals. Again across all sports the list goes on and on – Pujols, Amari Cooper, Horford, etc. – DITTO
• The only exceptions are players whose deals are highly incentive laden, thus making it a play-for-what-you're-worth-contract. You mentioned Fultz, Embiid, and Simmons – well the NBA has some automatic triggers in their CBA; Simmons and Embiid hit those, YET both Embiid's and Fultz's deals have games payed incentives so the guaranteed money isn't' what you think it is. And again, those automatic triggers (like making the All-NBA team) are things they accomplished in the past before the big contract.

2 –Beal simple question. Are you saying there are others in the recent past that were similarly situation and available that the teams decided against in order to get Beal? Or was his recent past the best of what was available?


3 – lastly, let's go to the timing issue-- Well that one is simple because timing affects what the market will bear. There is no way Kirk Cousins is a better QB than Joe Montana – never will be. But the TIMING of when each got their deals is a factor because they are negotiated in different market conditions. Don't let the closeness of Kyler Murray and Patrick Mahonmes fool you. If both were negotiating at the same time, no doubt Mahonmes gets more. Why because he;'s done more in the PAST. Prime example if Christian Kirk, Devante Adams, Tyrerek Hill all negotiate in the same year … well there you go. Adams's and Hill's recent PAST outperformed Kirk's.

Let's see what Blomroos and Salinon get in their next contract. Two throwers even better than Panis (arguably), but also Innova players with putting issues.

(PS: did you read the article I linked above?)

Didn't really have to. I'm on Team Dynamic Discs and kinda know details to the entire situation. That's why I take issue with anyone on these threads continuing the narrative that "Kona demanded a contract like Kristin's." Even reading the article it's clear that is not how it went down. That being said, "we'll see" if players for other manufacturers say things like, "Kona Panis got X, so what can you do for me?" We'll see. (sarc). I just doubt that'll happen.

If what you are saying is true, it's only because they can't predict the future and are using past performance as a predictor of future success. Nobody is rewarding a player for what they've done in the past. They are banking on that level of play continuing or improving.

Correct. That past is what they are BASING it on. Banking is still just hope.

 

[Rastnav]

If contracts were based on what you had done in the past, rather than what an organization expects you to do in the future, Tom Brady would still be a Patriot.

Also, Ryan Leaf has entered the chat.

 

[dmoore1998]

"When a player has the opportunity to negotiate what does his/her agent spend more time on? What they've done or what they're going to do? If you believe it's what they are going to do then there is NO WAY peaking or past peaking veterans get the big deals. Again across all sports the list goes on and on – Pujols, Amari Cooper, Horford, etc. – DITTO"

They spend more time on whatever is in their client's best interest (for example, in the NBA specifically, tons of young players get contracts based on "he's only this old, he's going to grow into ABC". I didn't say everyone gets paid based on anticipation. YOU said EVERYONE gets paid on what they've done in the recent past. I said they get paid for various reasons. Sometimes the reason is past performance, sometimes the reason is future anticipated performance, sometimes the reason is the team has to spend the money and has no better options, sometimes the reason is the team wants to pay you in hopes that you'll simply draw in other folks to play for you as well.

 

[dmoore1998]

Hope, hope Hope. I think we're saying the same thing.



OK, OK several ways to go:
1 – Everyone looking from that perspective has the falsely colored impression that players should get paid what they are worth. That isn't capitalism and that isn't how it works in a free market society and certainly not here. But let's start with that contrapositive and evidence that that it is not true.
• If "players were paid what they are worth," then why won't teams give outstanding rookies compensation when they out-performed their rookie deals. All across sports, Mahonmes, Prescott, Yordán Alvarez, Juan Soto, Luca Donĉiĉ, -- the list goes on – NONE got the $20+million their rookie-year performances equated to. Why? They were paid based upon the past.
• When a player has the opportunity to negotiate what does his/her agent spend more time on? What they've done or what they're going to do? If you believe it's what they are going to do then there is NO WAY peaking or past peaking veterans get the big deals. Again across all sports the list goes on and on – Pujols, Amari Cooper, Horford, etc. – DITTO
• The only exceptions are players whose deals are highly incentive laden, thus making it a play-for-what-you're-worth-contract. You mentioned Fultz, Embiid, and Simmons – well the NBA has some automatic triggers in their CBA; Simmons and Embiid hit those, YET both Embiid's and Fultz's deals have games payed incentives so the guaranteed money isn't' what you think it is. And again, those automatic triggers (like making the All-NBA team) are things they accomplished in the past before the big contract.

2 –Beal simple question. Are you saying there are others in the recent past that were similarly situation and available that the teams decided against in order to get Beal? Or was his recent past the best of what was available?


3 – lastly, let's go to the timing issue-- Well that one is simple because timing affects what the market will bear. There is no way Kirk Cousins is a better QB than Joe Montana – never will be. But the TIMING of when each got their deals is a factor because they are negotiated in different market conditions. Don't let the closeness of Kyler Murray and Patrick Mahonmes fool you. If both were negotiating at the same time, no doubt Mahonmes gets more. Why because he;'s done more in the PAST. Prime example if Christian Kirk, Devante Adams, Tyrerek Hill all negotiate in the same year … well there you go. Adams's and Hill's recent PAST outperformed Kirk's.



Didn't really have to. I'm on Team Dynamic Discs and kinda know details to the entire situation. That's why I take issue with anyone on these threads continuing the narrative that "Kona demanded a contract like Kristin's." Even reading the article it's clear that is not how it went down. That being said, "we'll see" if players for other manufacturers say things like, "Kona Panis got X, so what can you do for me?" We'll see. (sarc). I just doubt that'll happen.



Correct. That past is what they are BASING it on. Banking is still just hope.

It's actually the simplest thing to disprove. Does the person who did the most in college get the highest rookie contract in each sport? Does their prior year performance determine their next year's contract in a situation where we know they're all up for contract at the same time?

 

[R-Ogre]

So many of us worker bees get hung up on what we're "worth". The only thing any of us are worth in the business world is what we are able to negotiate. You know for darn sure the dudes in the C-Suites don't give a rip about what they are "worth" or "where is the money going to come from?" when they negotiate, only about getting every penny they can. If "worth" entered into the equation finance bros and flocks of middle managers would be holding bake sales for office supplies and janitors and school teachers would be driving Benzes. Kona was able to negotiate that contract, therefore that's what she's worth. That's not to say I'm not a little puzzled about the unusual confluence of events that gave her the leverage to negotiate that contract, or that I think those circumstances will continue for most disc golfers.

 

[foxdawg10]

Really not sure why you would describe signing someone to a contract as selfish.

Moving on from that point, you expect a for profit business to not act in it's self interest? Saying a for profit business is being selfish is like saying water's wet.

Where is the confusion? The signing was to bring attention to Dynamic Discs to draw attention away from the loss big stars, that is no secret.

My opinion, and just opinion of course, is that Kona was not ready for the huge contract or the attention and expectations it brought. For lack or a better word, it seems selfish to me in the sense that it was about Dynamic Discs.

I am confused about the italicized section. You substituted the word selfish for self promotion as if they are two different concepts.

 

[jenb]

Nobody read this.

Woj did but nobody counts him.

Don't mess with ARay. He's a big guy. Local native Americans call him "Putts from Tee." On a hole under 200 feet, he just leans over and drops in from the tee.

 

[roblee]

Don't mess with ARay. He's a big guy. Local native Americans call him "Putts from Tee." On a hole under 200 feet, he just leans over and drops in from the tee.

With Chuck Norris as his caddie.

 

[DatRedDude]

Hope, hope Hope. I think we're saying the same thing.




Didn't really have to. I'm on Team Dynamic Discs and kinda know details to the entire situation. That's why I take issue with anyone on these threads continuing the narrative that "Kona demanded a contract like Kristin's." Even reading the article it's clear that is not how it went down. That being said, "we'll see" if players for other manufacturers say things like, "Kona Panis got X, so what can you do for me?" We'll see. (sarc). I just doubt that'll happen.



Correct. That past is what they are BASING it on. Banking is still just hope.

This is where you lose me. They sure as hell will refer to Kona's contract as a means of negotiating they're own deal. Especially if Dynamic is the one making the offer. No way a player with more recent success doesn't use that as leverage as they should. Also this is exactly how the big contracts work in all pro sports. When a QB signs a max deal that is what all other QB's use as a basis for their deal. Same in all sports. Its domino's.

 

[Streets]

DD should just switch Kona's and Val M.'s contracts. KP can renegotiate when she starts having some top 50% finishes.

 

[The Mickstar]

She should be given a one year pass.
She has only thrown Innova up until this year. Some of those discs had to be in stages of wear that she knew exactly what to expect from them.
These DD discs that are currently in her bag do not yet have that "beat in" trust and knowledge.
To say she hadn't stunk it up this year would be a lie. If she is not top 10-15 next year, then DD made a mistake.
If a top 10ish player changes sponsors and then is missing cuts on the regular, the appearance is (could be) that it is the discs.
Plus she has posted that she is having mental health/psychological concerns. That could be caused by her performance.
Either way, don't judge the switch until mid way next year.

I disagree. She's playing (mostly) fine from tee to green. Her putting is just LEVELS below her competition (and that includes Ella, Evelina, Henna and others that are sometimes mentioned as "poor" putters). And, the putts she's missing, the actual putter she's using doesn't even matter.

The assumption would be that the mental health/psychological concerns are due to her poor performance. Unfortunately, those concerns are also likely driving her poor performance. It's a vicious cycle.

 

[txmxer]

TIME for…

Spoiler

 

[Three Putt]

Didn't really have to. I'm on Team Dynamic Discs and kinda know details to the entire situation. That's why I take issue with anyone on these threads continuing the narrative that "Kona demanded a contract like Kristin's." Even reading the article it's clear that is not how it went down. That being said, "we'll see" if players for other manufacturers say things like, "Kona Panis got X, so what can you do for me?" We'll see. (sarc). I just doubt that'll happen.

Yeah, kinda a weird thing in that the woman having the best year this year and a woman having an off year (she is currently 25th in the United States Tour Rankings) evidently have the same or very similar contracts. Any player who is #2-#24 who goes "I deserve more money than #25" is also saying "I deserve more money than #1". :\

So will Lat 64 give Tattar a raise? Maybe. Even if they do, she won't get Paige Pierce money. I mean it's sponsorship deals, it's not going to line up like payouts.

Actually payouts don't line up, either. We learned that last year with Missy Gannon. Gannon won $41,000 in prize money by throwing hot late ($5,000 for 2nd at match play, $6,000 for 1st at throw pink, $30,000 for 1st at DGPT Championship). That was around 60% of her record $67,029 winnings last year. We haven't even hit that stretch; if the payouts line up like last year, Tattar could wind up not wining the most money on tour despite how dominant she has been in this stretch. If the DGPT Championship continues to be a payout outlier, it's the event to win.

It's anything but a perfectly fair distribution of cash, but it is what it is.

So long as the manufacturers see value in players representing their brand, there will be sponsorships. How much that sponsorship is worth is going to depend on a lot a variables and is never really going to line up with "the best got the most". We spend an awful lot of time here debating about how we feel about how Dynamic spent their money, but I don't know their variables so I'm never really going to know enough to really evaluate that. If Panis bounces back next year, makes some lead cards and then pulls a late Missy Gannon act, it will be a lot of blather about nothing.

 

[araytx]

If contracts were based on what you had done in the past, rather than what an organization expects you to do in the future, Tom Brady would still be a Patriot.

Also, Ryan Leaf has entered the chat.

Only if all else were equal and players ONLY cared about $$. Two things wrong in the Brady analogy: A) he DIDN'T only care about money with a wife making more than him for a long time, and B) he DIDN'T want to be a Patriot any more so he could leave & get out from under Belichick's thumb.

"When a player has the opportunity to negotiate what does his/her agent spend more time on? What they've done or what they're going to do? If you believe it's what they are going to do then there is NO WAY peaking or past peaking veterans get the big deals. Again across all sports the list goes on and on – Pujols, Amari Cooper, Horford, etc. – DITTO"

They spend more time on whatever is in their client's best interest (for example, in the NBA specifically, tons of young players get contracts based on "he's only this old, he's going to grow into ABC". I didn't say everyone gets paid based on anticipation. YOU said EVERYONE gets paid on what they've done in the recent past. I said they get paid for various reasons. Sometimes the reason is past performance, sometimes the reason is future anticipated performance, sometimes the reason is the team has to spend the money and has no better options, sometimes the reason is the team wants to pay you in hopes that you'll simply draw in other folks to play for you as well.

NO, I didn't say EVERYONE gets paid based upon past performance. I said those who get the BIG MONEY deals get paid based upon recent past performance. Difference there. And yes, that agent always spends time on what's in their client's interests. However, most of the time it's about past performance to back up what they are negotiating for. I'm not guessing. I know a former prominent college administrator who had to do those negotiations (Moses) and I know an NBA GM who's done the same. (Buford)

It's actually the simplest thing to disprove. Does the person who did the most in college get the highest rookie contract in each sport? Does their prior year performance determine their next year's contract in a situation where we know they're all up for contract at the same time?

Really??? What a red herring. Nobody gets paid based upon what they did in a different arena in a different sport (such a college, juco, high school, or overseas), when every pro sport now has a rookie cap or salary slotting process negotiated as part of their CBA. They big contracts are based upon their recent performance in the same league. And again, you're mixing market conditions into the discussion which is a totally different topic.

So many of us worker bees get hung up on what we're "worth". The only thing any of us are worth in the business world is what we are able to negotiate. You know for darn sure the dudes in the C-Suites don't give a rip about what they are "worth" or "where is the money going to come from?" when they negotiate, only about getting every penny they can. If "worth" entered into the equation finance bros and flocks of middle managers would be holding bake sales for office supplies and janitors and school teachers would be driving Benzes. Kona was able to negotiate that contract, therefore that's what she's worth. That's not to say I'm not a little puzzled about the unusual confluence of events that gave her the leverage to negotiate that contract, or that I think those circumstances will continue for most disc golfers.

Precisely. It's a negotiation. One clearly many don't like or don't understand or feel the need to criticize. But put all of them in a similar situation and the likelihood is they'd do the exact same.

Don't mess with ARay. He's a big guy. Local native Americans call him "Putts from Tee." On a hole under 200 feet, he just leans over and drops in from the tee.

With Chuck Norris as his caddie.

I wish I had more emojis. I'll just leave it at :rofl

This is where you lose me. They sure as hell will refer to Kona's contract as a means of negotiating they're own deal. Especially if Dynamic is the one making the offer. No way a player with more recent success doesn't use that as leverage as they should. Also this is exactly how the big contracts work in all pro sports. When a QB signs a max deal that is what all other QB's use as a basis for their deal. Same in all sports. Its domino's.

The only ones who can remotely try are those in the same fold or those who were similarly approached before contract season by EMac. Don't know anything about that second part, but the 1st part only includes V. Mandujano (#5), Handley (14), Velediaz (16) and R.Cox (23). The last two don't tour full time, so take them off the list. Val M -- maybe. Don't know if Holbatross can do that but we'll see.

I ALSO do not see Henna or any Innova player saying "______ got _____ over at DD, will you do the same for me?" Kona's negotiation was with someone who'd previously talked to her about coming over and then Kona asking if they'd do similar compensation to what another female got from another family manufacturer. I don't think the same works crossings manufacturer families. This could very well be a statement a out valuing FPO in general.

DD should just switch Kona's and Val M.'s contracts. KP can renegotiate when she starts having some top 50% finishes.

It don't go down.

Yeah, kinda a weird thing in that the woman having the best year this year and a woman having an off year (she is currently 25th in the United States Tour Rankings) evidently have the same or very similar contracts. Any player who is #2-#24 who goes "I deserve more money than #25" is also saying "I deserve more money than #1". :\

So will Lat 64 give Tattar a raise? Maybe. Even if they do, she won't get Paige Pierce money. I mean it's sponsorship deals, it's not going to line up like payouts.

Actually payouts don't line up, either. We learned that last year with Missy Gannon. Gannon won $41,000 in prize money by throwing hot late ($5,000 for 2nd at match play, $6,000 for 1st at throw pink, $30,000 for 1st at DGPT Championship). That was around 60% of her record $67,029 winnings last year. We haven't even hit that stretch; if the payouts line up like last year, Tattar could wind up not wining the most money on tour despite how dominant she has been in this stretch. If the DGPT Championship continues to be a payout outlier, it's the event to win.

It's anything but a perfectly fair distribution of cash, but it is what it is.

So long as the manufacturers see value in players representing their brand, there will be sponsorships. How much that sponsorship is worth is going to depend on a lot a variables and is never really going to line up with "the best got the most". We spend an awful lot of time here debating about how we feel about how Dynamic spent their money, but I don't know their variables so I'm never really going to know enough to really evaluate that. If Panis bounces back next year, makes some lead cards and then pulls a late Missy Gannon act, it will be a lot of blather about nothing.

Yep. A lot to agree with there.


The only ? I have is why not PP money? Remember it's not only the US. I'd bet those KT WC Grand Orbit Graces FLY off the shelves over there, with still good sales over here.

 

[dmoore1998]

"Really??? What a red herring. Nobody gets paid based upon what they did in a different arena in a different sport (such a college, juco, high school, or overseas), when every pro sport now has a rookie cap or salary slotting process negotiated as part of their CBA. They big contracts are based upon their recent performance in the same league. And again, you're mixing market conditions into the discussion which is a totally different topic."

So what was LeBron James' Nike deal based on when he hadn't played a single game in the NBA but got 7 years and $90 million? It can't have been his NBA performance since he hadn't played. You're saying it can't have been his high school career. What was it based on?