Draft Strategy Change due to "Agreement reached on rookie pay scale" - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

borg · 03-10-2011, 10:27 AM

With only 4 year contracts, I would think teams would use premium picks on players ready to contribute immediately. For the Patriots, this excludes WR, RB, OLB...but could include DT, OL, CB.

3rd and Long · 03-10-2011, 11:13 AM

I think people are really underrating the impact this will have on the draft. Since no rookies can be signed to contracts until after a new CBA is implemented, the wage scale will be used this year.

I don't think the 2nd rd and beyond will be impacted greatly by this new wage scale, but this could really shake up how teams view the top 10 picks. In the last decade the guaranteed $ given out to top 10 picks has been absurd, any top 10 pick would instantly become one of the highest paid guys on your team. So if you wanted to trade up, not only did you have to give up the draft capital, but you would also have to pay a significantly higher salary to say the 7th pick vs the 17th pick.

There is risk associated to pretty much every prospect in the draft, so when that risk is multiplied by the ridic salaries these top 10 guys were getting, teams like us didn't view the top 10 as being worth it. I think this is the major reason why we wanted Oakland's 2011 #1, instead of their 2010 #1, BB was hoping the wage scale would be in place this year.

I think the rookie wage scale combined with fact we are loaded with picks and only a few impact players away from being elite adds up to the best chance in the last 5 years that we trade up.

***Box_O_Rocks*** · 03-10-2011, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3rd and Long

I think people are really underrating the impact this will have on the draft. Since no rookies can be signed to contracts until after a new CBA is implemented, the wage scale will be used this year.

I don't think the 2nd rd and beyond will be impacted greatly by this new wage scale, but this could really shake up how teams view the top 10 picks. In the last decade the guaranteed $ given out to top 10 picks has been absurd, any top 10 pick would instantly become one of the highest paid guys on your team. So if you wanted to trade up, not only did you have to give up the draft capital, but you would also have to pay a significantly higher salary to say the 7th pick vs the 17th pick.

There is risk associated to pretty much every prospect in the draft, so when that risk is multiplied by the ridic salaries these top 10 guys were getting, teams like us didn't view the top 10 as being worth it. I think this is the major reason why we wanted Oakland's 2011 #1, instead of their 2010 #1, BB was hoping the wage scale would be in place this year.

I think the rookie wage scale combined with fact we are loaded with picks and only a few impact players away from being elite adds up to the best chance in the last 5 years that we trade up.

It's still early, while I've read that the League agrees to 4 & 3 year terms, I've not read where the actual dollars go. Compute the annual average of Bradford's six year deal and slice off two years, it's still expensive for what you receive. Once we see some details on how the top rookies will be paid, then we can see how crazy the bidding war for #1-#10 might get.

borg · 03-10-2011, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by borg

With only 4 year contracts, I would think teams would use premium picks on players ready to contribute immediately. For the Patriots, this excludes WR, RB, OLB...but could include DT, OL, CB.

The one exception to my above theory would be the QB position. If teams don't have to guarantee $10s of millions to top 15 picks, then I can easily see QB needy teams go early and often.

supafly · 03-10-2011, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgteich

1) The 2010-2011 contract year did not end.

2) The 2011-2011 provided for the draft and for various other contingencies. My understanding was that one of the conditions was that players had access to team doctors even in the case of a lockout.

3) Why would Neal retire simply because he thought he would not have access? At very least, he could have waited to retire until there actually was a lockout.

Thanks. #3 was certainly not my theory, but I did see discussions of it somewhere, either here or on Reiss' mail bag this week. I think the general idea was whether or not he (Neal) took that into consideration. I don't think anyone thinks he retired based on nothing but that premise. Anyway, that's where I first heard the 'no access' to team doctor's idea.

I think this uncertainty leaves a lot of questions in the air, regardless I appreciate the response.

***ctpatsfan77*** · 03-10-2011, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Box_O_Rocks

It's still early, while I've read that the League agrees to 4 & 3 year terms, I've not read where the actual dollars go. Compute the annual average of Bradford's six year deal and slice off two years, it's still expensive for what you receive. Once we see some details on how the top rookies will be paid, then we can see how crazy the bidding war for #1-#10 might get.

Apparently, from what I understand, the money will be higher than the league's original proposal (in which the #1 pick would get something like $20M/6 years), but less than the behemoths currently handed out. If I had to guess, it'll be something like 4 years, $20M-$25M, with $10M guaranteed, or somesuch.

***ctpatsfan77*** · 03-10-2011, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3rd and Long

There is risk associated to pretty much every prospect in the draft, so when that risk is multiplied by the ridic salaries these top 10 guys were getting, teams like us didn't view the top 10 as being worth it. I think this is the major reason why we wanted Oakland's 2011 #1, instead of their 2010 #1, BB was hoping the wage scale would be in place this year.

The 2010 #1 was never in play. Al Davis didn't want to give up his 2010 #2, and offered his 2011 #1 instead.

Ochmed Jones · 03-10-2011, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctpatsfan77

Apparently, from what I understand, the money will be higher than the league's original proposal (in which the #1 pick would get something like $20M/6 years), but less than the behemoths currently handed out. If I had to guess, it'll be something like 4 years, $20M-$25M, with $10M guaranteed, or somesuch.

I read on EsPN that 1/2 of the contract would be guaranteed.

jeffbiologist · 03-11-2011, 01:00 PM

If there is a rookie wage scale and only 4 years of control for all players it would make sense that players that can step in and play right away will have more value. Positions that require more than 1 year of development(QB, DL) should be less valued. I think the real story will be the differing compensation for lost FAs to teams.

AzPatsFan · 03-12-2011, 05:53 PM

I wondered why the owners and players published this agreement on the Rookie cap. Now it makes sense.

In light of the Decert and Lockout, the owners can establish this as part of the rules they will operate under and know it will endure. I'm certain some rookie agents will sue, but with the published agreement, with the NFLPA, they don't stand much chance of overturning it and winning.