PFT PM: Jaylen Waddle to the Broncos; new NFL economics

0:00Welcome into this Tuesday edition of PFTPM, which may have been forgotten by me, but for the fact that a specific transaction occurred on Tuesday that prompted what would have been a mini PFTPM, and Kristen reminded me, hey, you want to do these on Tuesdays. It's like, you're right. I do. I'd forgotten. So we're going to do maybe 20 minutes, maybe 25, maybe 30, I don't know. It's pressing up against my lunch time, and I've got some very real rainman tendencies about eating my lunch as close to noon as possible. One item of old business, though, before we delve into why we're here today since I'm sitting here and I have the chance to ramble. I do want to add one little thing about some of the reporting we did over this weekend as it relates to the rams being engaged in trade talks for AJ Brown and what that would

1:03have meant for Devonte Adams, who is now staying with the rams, $6 million roster bonus earned on Sunday, $18 million base salary, but I need to address this because it ended up being somewhat controversial among Rams fans. If they had gotten AJ Brown, folks, what do you think they would have done? Do you think they would have paid Pukinakua market value? He's due for a new contract and he should not set foot on a practice field until he gets a market level deal, pay AJ Brown $29 million this year, and pay Devonte Adams $24 million this year. Do you really think they were going to do that? They're going to go three men, Pukinakua, AJ Brown and Devonte Adams, AJ Brown was replacing Devonte Adams. So it's not some crazy thought that as they were talking to the Eagles about trading for AJ Brown, they were talking to potential destinations for Devonte Adams.

2:05Once they tapped out of Brown, the Adams trade possibility becomes moot. So it's okay, it's okay. Not everything about your team that you don't like is fake. I know that that's kind of the vibe now in our modern age. Any news we don't like must be fake, why is it fake? Because I don't like it. But ask yourself the simple logical question, would the Rams have really gone forward with that much cash tied up in Pukinakua, AJ Brown and Devonte Adams, especially with Nakua earning and deserving a market level deal? Once upon a time, the deal that was signed by Jalen Waddle in Miami was right about market value. It wasn't far from the top. It was a surprising deal when it was done, four-year extension, 28.5 million in new money average, big deal at the time. Two years later, two seasons gone by, new regime in Miami, the dolphins trade Jalen Waddle

3:13to the Broncos for a package that includes Denver's first round pick. Now, it's a low pick, but it's a first round pick. The news comes exactly one month to the day after Waddle taking to Twitter with the cap emoji as to a very specific claim by someone I've never heard of. Oh, it's a parody account. So here's the problem with Twitter folks. The blue check doesn't mean jack shit anymore. So Waddle reacting to a parody account with a cap emoji. The claim was with Bradley Chubb and Tyree Kill released Jalen Waddle tells the dolphins me next. Well, he didn't get released, he got traded, and there'd been some reporting that dolphins wanted to keep him. We know how that game goes by now. Some of your best leverage to get maximum values to act like you want to keep a guy that maybe you want to move on from. You got a new GM, you got a new head coach, they're completely and totally aligned.

4:17Jeff Hathley explained that to us at the combine alignment. The time spent working together in Green Bay created a bond between John Erick Sullivan and Jeff Hathley that allows them to move as one. And I always say that the GM and the coach need to be like the contestants in the old three-legged race they do at the company picnic where they tie one guy's right leg to another guy's left leg and they got to they got to get to the finish line and not face plant. That's what the dolphins are trying to do. Too many teams don't have alignment between front office and coaching staff. So I don't know much, but I fairly certain that both John Erick Sullivan and Jeff Hathley concluded together that it was time to move on from Jalen Waddle and to get a first round pick. It's not a bad deal. So the two starting receivers from last year gone, the starting quarterback from last year gone. Big change is coming in Miami and for good reason. This is a team that hasn't won a playoff game in 26 years and counting. Remember that, that gimmick from two years ago, all the clocks were set 24 minutes ahead

5:24or something like that. There was something about 24 minutes that was aimed at reminding everyone. It's been 24 years since they last won a playoff game. It's not been 26. If it goes all the way to 60, then you can say every clock is what do we do? Spring forward, fall back, perpetually, regardless. Here's what the Broncos are getting by way of cash obligation. Waddle's due to make about 17.2 million in 2026. Again, it was a 28 and a half million APY new money. He may want some sort of a sweetener, some sort of an adjustment. Then again, the production over the past two years may put him in a position where it's a tough argument to make to be paid closer to market value at 744 receiving yards in 24, 910 in 2025. The two seasons before he got his contract yet, 1356, that was his second year in the NFL and a thousand and 14 in 23, both of those years featured Tyree Kill on the roster.

6:28In Denver, the roster needed something at the past catching position. Cortland Sutton was the number one receiver, the other is Troy Franklin, Marvin Mims, Bull Jordan Humphrey. Now, Jellin Waddle steps into the starting lineup and it's another weapon as Sean Peyton moves into his fourth year with the Broncos and Bonix starts year number three of his career. And Waddle was, and this is, you know, I've mentioned after to a tongue of aloa was cut that when you considered they owe him 54 million this year, minus the 1.3 million homemade in Atlanta, they should fire Chris Greer again. Here's another reason to fire Chris Greer, all due respect to Chris Greer. Waddle was the sixth overall pick in the 2021 draft. One guy taken after Jamar Chase on the board and drafted within the next six spots after Jellin Waddle or Penne Sule Patrick Sertain, who will now be a waddle teammate and Michael Parsons.

7:34And I did some quick research here because you've got to a gone. He was the fifth overall pick in 2021. Waddle's now gone. He was one of two first round picks into it. I may have mispoken. Two of his first round pick in 2020. Waddle was a first round pick in 21. Also taken in round one, Jellin Phillips, who was traded during his final season in Miami to the Eagles for a third round pick. So at least they got something out of it. But prior to 2024, Chop Robinson, he's still on the roster. The only first round pick still with the dolphins. Pre-2024 is Tackle Austin Tucker, Austin Jackson. Excuse me, he was one of three first round picks the dolphins had in 2020. It was Jellin, or not Jellin. It was two at Tonga by Loa, Austin Jackson, and no Igg binogany, who recently signed with the Seahawks. I believe. So Broncos get something they needed. Dolphins move on from a player that their new management decided they don't want to keep.

8:37And it's a win-win. What Waddle wants financially is to be determined. But he can ask for a new contract whether he gets one or not is going to be up to the Denver Broncos. They hold his rights this year and into the future. As of the dolphins, I was surprised by this. We didn't get to an on PFT Live today. I was asked about it on the score in Chicago. When news emerged that Troy Ackman was going to consult with the dolphins in their search for a new GM, it created a mild shrug. Now, Tom Brady has taken the NFL across the Rubicon of blatant conflicts of interest for broadcasters and people who are working for or associated with in a financial capacity, one of the 32 teams. It's a clear conflict of interest. I think we've all come to accept that. For some reason, there were people who were pushing back against, I guess the FoxPR people were working very hard to get some folks in sports media to see it their way.

9:42There is no way to see it other than as a clear conflict of interest. Tom Brady is in the cat bird's seat of calling games for all 32 teams. He partially owns one of them. The NFL put up clear guardrails at first. They've softened them a little bit, but still to this day, Brady can't go into the facility of another team and he can't attend practice. They now let him do production meetings. And he was always able to call whoever he wanted, whenever he wanted, wherever he wanted. It is an advantage as it relates to his unique ability as an owner of a team to monitor the league at large and to get a peek behind the curtain every week at two teams as they're warming up as people are talking. People, he doesn't have to sidle up to anyone. They sidle up to him because he's Tom Brady. They start telling him things and he files those away as he should. He's got to fiduciary duty to the Raiders. That's where the conflict comes from. I don't know, Brady got a little, got a little pissy about it in his newsletter that,

10:48well, how dare you attack my, to anybody that would question me about this. They're just telling on themselves, that's the way they think, no, no, no, no. There was a time when things like this mattered. They don't matter anymore and they clearly don't matter the NFL. So that makes it easier for Tarekman. So when he becomes a consultant for the GM job, no big deal. They hire a GM. Now he's a consultant for the coach. Okay, no big deal. Seasons over for ESPN. It's not going to be an issue. It's not going to be a problem. Well, Aikman recently on a podcast, I think it's rodeo time, rodeo's in the name rodeo something rodeo something rodeo something podcast. He said that he's going to continue working for the dolphins in some capacity, very casually, very casually, no big deal. Like it's not even an issue. So week four, Bill's dolphins Monday night football. What's he going to do? Is he going to Bill's practice? Is he going into the Bill's facility?

11:49Any team the dolphins play? Any team that plays on Monday night football that's on the dolphin schedule? It's the same issues. This Tom Brady has. It's different. Aikman doesn't have equity, but he's getting paid by the dolphins to work for them in some capacity. We know what that means. I've asked the league, and you know how the league deals with me. There's three responses I get from the league. Well, there's three types of communications with the league. One, I ask them a question they answer it. Two, I ask them a question they don't answer, and they hope that I'll forget about it, which I have. I'll ask them again. They'll hope I'll forget about it again. Usually it takes three before I get a, we decline comment. So I need to remember, I need to tie a finger around my string like Uncle Billy, and it's a wonderful life to remind myself to ask the NFL again. Instead of them just telling me out of the gates, no comment. The third type of communication is when they want me to know something that I'll then share with the audience. That comes, not for me, that comes from them.

12:50So this falls into category two, they don't want to mess with it. They want me to forget about it and leave them alone. What are the guardrails for Tory Aikman? Nowadays working for the dolphins in some capacity. Will he be like Tom Brady, prevented from attending practice? Will he be like Tom Brady, prevented from entering team facilities? Other than the dolphins. I don't like it, but Tom Brady's normalized it. I think Tory Aikman's looking at it very pragmatically. If Tom can do it, why can't I? Which means there'll be someone else who says, if Tom and Troy can do it, why can't I? And then someone else, if Tom, Troy and third person can do it, why can't I? And at some point, hey, have all of them are doing it? Why can't I? Well, I know why I can't. Nobody's reached out for me to be a consultant. But, if it happens, I still won't do it. I won't do it. No way. I've already... Well, you've already backed yourself into the corner here.

13:50There's no way you can do it. But I willingly backed myself into the corner. You've got to pick a lane. You're going to work for a team or you're going to work for a network. You can't do both. You're either going to own a team or you're going to work for a network. You can't do both. And when the NFL allowed Tom Brady to do both, that stretched the rubber band to a point where others will stretch it maybe not quite as far. But you know how rubber band goes? Once you get it really far, it always goes back to that point very easily. So this is on the league and it's on Brady. Brady shouldn't want to do both. And as I've predicted, and maybe we'll get to this point, who knows? It's been a long time. But if the Raiders are ever consistent contenders, there will be the same kind of push against Brady doing both jobs as there was against the Tush push. Why is there no push against the Tush push now? Because the Eagles didn't get past the wildcard round of the playoffs. If the Eagles had won another Super Bowl,

14:51there'd be another proposal to get rid of the Tush push guaranteed. So the minute the Raiders are vying for Super Bowl, I don't know, 83. I'm kidding. How the Raiders could be high end contenders as soon as this year. We don't know. Look how crazy the NFL is. We don't know. Fernando Mendoza could come in and be superstar. Max Crosby's still there and they added all these other guys. They could be great. The minute they become a consistent contender, that's when people who had been asleep at the switch were suddenly going to wake up and say, this can't continue. Tom Brady can't continue to leverage his unique knowledge as someone who is broadcasting all games to help the interests of the Raiders. And again, he's got a fiduciary responsibility to help the Raiders. He's supposed to be looking for things that can help the Raiders. No one should be put in that position. Recently, Dolphin's owner, Steven Ross carved off one percent of the team.

15:56And he sold it at a valuation of $12.5 billion. Now, to those of you who need a little help walking through the weeds and may think that I'm suggesting that 1% of the dolphins was sold for $12.4 billion, $12.5 billion. That's the valuation. If you've watched Shark Tank even once, you understand the difference. If you've got a 1% stake at a $12.5 billion valuation, that means you divide that number by 100 and you get $125 million. So there are plenty of owners out there who paid closer to $125, then $12.5 billion for their teams. Jerry Jones paid $131.40 for the Cowboys in 1989. So Steven Ross raising $125 million for 1% of the dolphins. That's relevant to the only team that can't sell a portion of the franchise to anyone. Individuals, private equity, whatever, can't sell a non-controlling interest and raise

16:58a bunch of free money for now, you'd also be sharing the profits with the person who buys the team, a portion of the team. But that prompt at policy, he still knew, he's still in his first year on the job, President and CEO of the Packers and an interview with Ben Fisher of Sports Business Journal to point out, as the NFL economics change, it's going to be harder for the Packers to compete because the Packers don't have the ability to raise a whole lot of money with a little bit of equity and they don't have the ability, they don't have access to the kind of ultra-rich bond villain, I'll do respect, that is lining up to buy teams. And I'm not suggesting any of the ultra-rich or buying teams or bond villains, but I'll leave it to them to prove that they're not. Behind every great fortune there is a crime, that's the first line of the Godfather.

18:03You could say in front of every great fortune there's a crime too, regardless Packers can't tap into that. So what it means is they may have to sell the naming rights to Lambo Field, they may have to increase the prices. When you got a hundred thousand person plus waiting list, you got to supply and demand issue. Your price points too low, you got to set the price is higher. They're already reselling the tickets at whatever the market will bear and the Packers are huffing and puffing about taking the season ticket rights back from people who sell too many of their individual tickets that they buy with their season ticket rights. You need more money, you want to survive in the smallest market, you may have to raise ticket prices. If there's that many people that are waiting in line to go to a game, you raise the price and you will eventually, the goal for anything, for anything.

19:06You want to set a price that sells every last bit of your inventory. And if you have people who still want to buy it at that price, price is too low. If you have people who don't want to buy it, not enough to fill the stadium price is too high. The right price, you get exactly the number of people to fill the stadium. So they're going to have to raise money and that's what Ed policy was saying. Of course, the other thing they could do, yeah, they can't sell 1% for 125 million, but they can do another run of their stock that has no value. You can't be traded. You get a certificate that you frame and you put on the wall next to your cheesehead. But you get to a certain point where you've exhausted the number of Packers fans that will do that because once they have their certificate, there's no reason to buy another one. I already got my stock certificate. I don't need another one. That's the challenge because that's all you really get.

20:08And you can say you're an owner, you're really not an owner. You're not getting a dividend check. It's a ceremonial piece of memorabilia that the Packers used from time to time to raise money. But if that was the silver bullet to the problem, they'd already be doing it. And I wonder whether the Packers are going to be exhibited when the league and the union sit down and negotiate the next collective bargaining agreement. And the league says, you know what, you know what, the current salary cap model isn't working. 5050 split isn't working. We bear all the expenses of the business and our expenses are going up. They're already starting to say that. And that's the one piece of connective tissue between when the commissioner last May made this gratuitous reference to all the time the owner spent during the quarterly meetings talking about the salary cap system and is it working and are the expenses too high? Something that policy said, expenses rising.

21:10That's going to be the message to the union. Our expenses are going up. You get your 50 and you keep it. We get our 50 and we're paying all the expenses of the business out of our 50 and the expenses are rising and it's pinching our profit margin. And we have teams like the Packers that can't operate in this model. Now I wonder whether or not that's a legitimate concern by the league or whether the league is trying to create a negotiating point that could then be surrendered because there's two ways to look at it. As the league continues its push for 18 regular season games and 16 international games. You can say, oh, the players, to agree to 18 games, they're really going to get something. They're going to get this. They're going to get that. They're going to get this. They're going to get all kinds of stuff to agree to 18 games.

22:10Maybe or maybe what they'll get is to keep what they already have. I can already envision it. The NFL makes this big push compelling arguments as to why the current cap model, sharing 50, 50, no matter how much revenue there is, why that doesn't work. So instead, here's what we're going to do. We're going to have a set number for the salary cap. It's going to be this in 27. It's going to be this in 28. It's going to be this in 29 and it's going to look great. It's going to look nearly as great as the growth in the cap. What's it just? It's already gone from 182 to 301 in five years. At that growth rate, I mean, 500 in five more years. And there's a point where, and I think every successful business, at a certain point,

23:11it's so successful if it is sharing the revenue with the workforce. At some point, the business says, it's too much. Now, maybe they'll stay, but setting up this dramatic idea that they need to change the system is the precursor to, all right, fine, fine. We don't know how we're going to do this. You know, how long the Packers can survive? These numbers are going through the roof, but if you allow us to raise more money by playing 18 games, we'll agree. So then the players really don't get anything for 18 games. You just get to keep the 50-50 split they already have. Now, I've written about this, but it's worth talking about it. The NFL Players Association is on the brink of naming a new executive director. By the time you see this, by the time I finish this, they may have announced the new executive

24:15director. They're doing their meetings in San Diego, so it's, as I speak, 9 AM, local time, I'm already late for my launch, which is not a good thing, but I want to finish this point. If the new executive director is JC Treta, whoever it is, whoever emerges from this process, and there's a chance the player reps are going to ask the executive committee to go back and add more candidates, because the three that have been given none of them are sufficiently compelling. I don't know that's going to happen. I know there's talk that some of the player reps would like to do that, but I doubt that it's enough to derail the process. The executive committee is charged with coming up with the slate of finalists, two to four, and then the board of player representatives votes on those finalists determined by the executive committee, which one's going to be the executive director. So let's say it's JC Treta. Let's say it's David, wait, let's say it's Tim Pernetti, whoever it is, once you vote for the guy, if his first order of business, as dictated by the league, is to negotiate

25:21a new CBA, because the league, I believe, is going to move quickly, and the message is going to be the offer we're making you now is better than it's ever going to be. If you don't take this, it's only going to get worse. If we have to lock you out in 2031, it's going to be worse, and the players are eventually going to take it because they don't want to miss game checks and they don't want to miss football games. So just take this offer now. If that happens, it'll include the 18 game season. Now the union won't want to repudiate the faith that it's shown in the new executive director that is going to be an internal desire to make it look like they didn't screw this up again. They just screwed it up with Lloyd Howe, pay no attention to the man behind that curtain. The president of the union last year, while all this weird stuff was going on, he's been reelected. The guy who was the chief strategy officer and the president, he was the president at the time. Lloyd Howe was elected. He became the chief strategy officer when all the weird things happened last year. The hidden collusion ruling, all the stuff that Lloyd Howe ultimately was involved in

26:25that resulted in his abrupt resignation. That structure is still in place and we're validating everything we've already did. The last thing we're going to do with the new executive director is give him a vote of no confidence by rejecting his recommendation that we agree to a CBA that is based on 18 games. But it still wants to go up for a vote of the rank and file. And the last time around in 2020, the rank and file wouldn't all that thrilled about 17. So how do you get them to agree to 18? This is an idea that came up years ago and I've heard something recently to make me think it's at least on the radar screen. I don't know if it's going to be on the table, but this is the way to get the average player who has misgivings about 18 games to agree to 18 games and the extra money that an 18th game would generate. Simple. No player plays in more than 17 games.

27:27Now, there'll be exceptions, kickers, punters, holders, snappers, starting quarterback, starting quarterbacks may not like that, but you know what? Hey, hey, star quarterbacks out there, get involved with the union. Get on the executive committee, be a player rep. Not nearly enough of the stars are involved in the union. That's one of the reasons why the union isn't as strong as it could be. But the quarterbacks already have rules that protect them against injury. We got to have the starting quarterback available for our 18 games, right? But everybody else, you're limited to 17. It's got very superficial appeal, even though I would suggest the data. If I were inclined to do a deep dive and maybe I could, maybe I should, maybe AI could do it for me. I'm going to feeling most players miss at least one game due to injury. So, for most players, you're not going to get to the point where you have to decide, when is he going to have his scheduled game off? Now, if they do it, there's got to be transparency.

28:28There's got to be notice, the prop bet crowd, the fantasy football crowd, they'll lose their minds. If they find out too late, the today is the day Bajon Robinson's getting his day off. But if it sells the 18 games and it takes care of itself by injury, I would see most teams waiting until late in the year to decide when to give their players the schedule game off. Because a lot of them will naturally miss a game at some point during the year, which means it doesn't affect them at all. It's an 18 game season. Okay, I'm here for 18 games. Oh, I missed one due to injury. I'm playing 17. Well, if there were only 17, I would have only played 16. But if you're trying to get enough votes to pass the CBA, the idea of a limitation of 17 games per player that has some basic appeal and maybe get the players to vote, yes.

29:29I'm not saying I like it. I'm not endorsing it. Now, there have been times in the not too distant past, where I share an idea that's out there and all of a sudden, I'm arguing for it, like neutral site conference championship games. It's an idea that's been out there. And it was something that came up in the aftermath of the Patriots Broncos AFC conference championship that ultimately became something in the second half, where neither team could, could function. And the question was, is that what we want? Because we know those people in the NFL that would like to play those games in a, in a dump in a neutral site. It was something Lamar Hunt pushed forever. But all of a sudden becomes my idea. This isn't my idea. Anybody out there that's going to aggregate this, there's an idea out there to limit to 17 games. And it's not a new idea.

30:29At one point before they went from 16 to 17, there was an argument to go 16 to 18 and limit the players to 16. So it's not new. But knowing this, one new executive director, two, the NFL, which has not picked a date for Super Bowl 62 in Atlanta, deliberately to retain the flexibility to slide it. Into the weekend that will correspond with 18 games and two bi-wigs. I think the NFL is warmed up to the idea of two bi-wigs. Don't know it, but I think it. So when you take those two things, there's a sense of urgency to get this done by 2027. Because that lack of a firm date for the Super Bowl leaves the window open for 18 games by 27. If we're going to move this thing quickly, and we're going to give the new executive director a chance to say, right out of the gates, I've gotten you a new CBA. We have 10 more years of labor peace. We only have to play 18 games, but each player only has to play 17.

31:29And isn't that great? It all makes too much sense. So we'll see what happens. That's it. For this Tuesday edition of PFTPM, until we meet again, which could be Wednesday morning at 7 AM Eastern on PFT Live, or could be later today. If somebody else gets traded for a first round pick, who knows? This is the time of year where post-free agency it starts to kind of, and then you never know when the next big development is going to happen. When it happens, I'll be right here in the Olive Garden Halt Room at set, and we'll be copy, paste, snarky comment at profootballtalk.com. Thanks as always for some of your time. We'll see you soon.