Look at this from Greg's viewpoint:
1. We did not draft or bring in a TE (many of us, including me, thought the team might bring in a young TE) Greg knows we have few options at this point.
2. Greg is about to retire (2-3 years) and his stock will never be higher. He has led the team in receiving for a few years.
3. He knows there is cap room. Gettlemen wants to carry that over to re-sign 3 hog mollies for 2018; Olsen wants it now.)
I think the Panthers lack of movement at TE has Olsen in a great negotiating position.
Now let's take a look at the Panther's position:
His quote about business and productivity could backfire on him. Businesses sign contracts for future services. People sign them every day and honor them. I may sign a long-term contract for less than I am worth, but in turn, I get security. If you think you are worth more, don't sign. I think the problem is the transparency over salaries. If you know what Jacob Tamme made last year because his agent worked out a great deal, you can use that to negotiate a new deal for Olsen if you compare the numbers. However, Tamme may have underperformed his deal, and it is erroneous to assume the performance of others based on their contracts is fair market value. What they offer and what you take is fair market value. If Olsen wants a deal based on his productivity, remove his guaranteed money and make it incentive based. Take away the guarantees and make it possible for him to earn $10m--or $2m, depending on his productivity. I am sure that he wants the security of the current deal and the Panthers to assume all risk.
Do you think the Raiders did not think that Jamarcus Russell's deal should equal productivity? It is a gamble for both sides--a 4-5 year contract is security. Guaranteed money you take for a promise to perform at your highest level for the length of the contract. Olsen is not giving money back if he has a bad year, I assure you. Contracts are not rewards, they only concern themselves with the now and the future. So where you ranked last year and the year before that---that simply means the Panthers made a wise investment in Greg Olsen. I mean, if I invest in Cisco stock, buying it at $40 per share because it is expected to rise to $50 per share and it ends the year at $60, Cisco does not come to me and say, "We should have charged you more when you bought our shares--can we have an additional $8 per share?" THAT is business .
Olsen should blame himself if he signed a lower deal than he is worth. If he did not believe he was worth more then, why should the Panthers pay more now? The Panthers paid him fair market value and he accepted the offer.
I think it is bad practice to start paying people who outperform their contracts