Patriots About to Be Singled Out For Lack Of Labor Interest

[mikegibbons]

The NFLPA have shown no desire to put an end to the number one problem plaguing their members - ridiculous rookie salaries. Huge first round salaries that cut into the available salary cap are seriously hurting veteran and midlevel players and their ability to earn. I don't have any idea how the NFLPA works in terms of how it collects dues, etc, but for every Jamarcus Russell there are hundreds of vets and guys who are quality role players who become cap casualties to make room for the sexy new first round pick.

Until they do something about this the idea that the NFLPA actually cares about its members instead of catering to the select few at the top of the list of most highly paid players is impossible for me to believe.

Why are the rookie salaries ridiculous? If someone's willing to pay them, that's the market price.

Why shouldn't a team spend millions on an unproven guy with HUGE upside? That's the operative word, unfortunately. You're paying for the potential, but you do that in everything. I buy a long position in company X because it has the potential to increase its PPS 50% while paying dividends along the way.

I wouldn't buy shares in a floundering, old company just because it has the name recognition (GM, Ford). I'd rather invest in the fledgling transportation companies.

Yes, for every Jake Long you get a Ryan Leaf and an Akili Smith, but everything's a crapshoot. I could create an equally long list of veterans who received big contracts that didn't live up to its billing.

 

[Wildo7]

Why are the rookie salaries ridiculous? If someone's willing to pay them, that's the market price.

Why shouldn't a team spend millions on an unproven guy with HUGE upside? That's the operative word, unfortunately. You're paying for the potential, but you do that in everything. I buy a long position in company X because it has the potential to increase its PPS 50% while paying dividends along the way.

I wouldn't buy shares in a floundering, old company just because it has the name recognition (GM, Ford). I'd rather invest in the fledgling transportation companies.

Yes, for every Jake Long you get a Ryan Leaf and an Akili Smith, but everything's a crapshoot. I could create an equally long list of veterans who received big contracts that didn't live up to its billing.

I totally agree with this 100%

 

[TruthSeeker]

Why are the rookie salaries ridiculous? If someone's willing to pay them, that's the market price.

Well, when you say "market price", it sounds like you're making the comparison between the NFL market and the general market. Actually, there are significant differences.

In the NFL market, only 1 team can negotiate with the 1 player after the draft. There is no "free competition" for players (i.e. a team can't decide "pick #5 overall is asking too much, so we're just going to strike a deal with pick #8 who was drafted by team Y"). So, it is a severely constrained market and analogies to a typical market just don't work.

If NFL teams got together and determined that they were paying too much to rookies and would reduce the amount, then they would be (successfully) sued for collusion, so that option is out.

The choices are:
- trade down in the draft (i.e. pass the problem off to someone else). The problem is, hardly anyone else is willing to take this problem on so this solution (which only helps the team trading down) is, from a practical perspective, not available
- draft the player but refuse to sign him for big bucks. This will likely have the impact of the player refusing to sign and sitting out another year; it's a lose-lose situation. If a lot of teams do this, then they will be (successfully) sued for collusion whether there was collusion or not.
- draft the player and sign him for big bucks. The team loses, the rookie wins, the veterans (on average) all lose a little
- change the rules. This is a win for the team and a win for the veterans. It is a loss for the rookies. It is a win for the "pay for performance" philosophy that is (excuse me, was ) a foundation of our capitalist system

Clearly, the last option is the best solution. At least it's clear to the vast majority of us. The new head of the union is acting like most union negotiaters in saying that the union doesn't care about rookie salaries. He's saying this not because the union doesn't care about it (of course they do unless they're dumb which they are not), he's saying this because he's doing hardball negotiating which is what most unions (and businesses) do - we give you something so you must give us something.

We'll see how it all works out. I'm hopeful now that the NFLPA has actually chosen a leader that negotiations will start and an agreement will be reached without a work stoppage.

 

[mgteich]

"Ridiculous rookie salaries" affect a most 10 players a year and a very small percentage of the total cap. Even among these six, sometimes a player turns out to be actually worth the cap space. We drafted Mayo #10. Are we complaining? If the patriots had to pay a bit more at 7 or 8, would Mayo have been a terrible deal? In any case, we are talking about 10 players at most.

So, who cares?

This is certainly not an issue for the union. Compensation is genrally working now. Their issues have to do with pensions, injury lists and rules, and including more types of revenue in the total revenue percentages. Yes, they would like to remove the cap, but they can live with it if they get their compensation. Fanchise rules are also low priority affected maybe a dozen players a year. The union is, and should be, concerned with the vast majority of players.

The owners would like lower rookie salaries, and lower salaries for everyone, and gnerally less revenue for the players. So, what's new? That's called business. Those teams drafting in the top 10 have many options. This will only be a real issues when 10 owners a year are not willing to pay the money and players refuse the lower amounts offered.

 

[Pats726]

Why are the rookie salaries ridiculous? If someone's willing to pay them, that's the market price.

What??? There is NO market price here..so what you are saying is that a veteran quaterback who may be one of the best in the league isn't worth as much with some college hot shot who hasn't played a MINUTE in the NFL??? Is that what you are saying?? So Stafford is MORE VALUABLE than either Manning or Brady??? Yes...rookie salaries that pay college players that haven't even set FOOT in an NFL game MORE than top vets IS ridiculous.. I think you and the like are part of the wall street crowd that sold the economy down the drain...NO logic at all....

 

[Deus Irae]

Why are the rookie salaries ridiculous? If someone's willing to pay them, that's the market price.

Why shouldn't a team spend millions on an unproven guy with HUGE upside? That's the operative word, unfortunately. You're paying for the potential, but you do that in everything. I buy a long position in company X because it has the potential to increase its PPS 50% while paying dividends along the way.

I wouldn't buy shares in a floundering, old company just because it has the name recognition (GM, Ford). I'd rather invest in the fledgling transportation companies.

Yes, for every Jake Long you get a Ryan Leaf and an Akili Smith, but everything's a crapshoot. I could create an equally long list of veterans who received big contracts that didn't live up to its billing.

1.) There's a rookie cap, so it's not a free market.

2.) The NFL is a Socialist system whereas moneys and players are doled out in such a way as to keep everything close to even. It's not a free market.

3.) There's an overall salary cap, so it's not a free market.

4.) The poor structure currently in place has made it so that a top 7 pick that busts can significantly hamstring a team, especially if that top 7 pick is a top 3 pick and a quarterback.

5.) The NFL players have a union which takes a specific percentage of the revenues, so it's not a free market.


Other than that, you may have the tiniest scintilla of a speck of a minute percentage of a point. You probably don't, but you might.

 

[mikegibbons]

In the NFL market, only 1 team can negotiate with the 1 player after the draft. There is no "free competition" for players (i.e. a team can't decide "pick #5 overall is asking too much, so we're just going to strike a deal with pick #8 who was drafted by team Y"). So, it is a severely constrained market and analogies to a typical market just don't work.

I agree and disagree. Whenever you have a draft-system for entry into the league, the drafting team has more leverage than the player*. However, we could see more of a system like baseball where players can simply return to college or sit out. This would create a media and fan uproar, but is really to only fair way to give the players some leverage. Isn't this really what the union should be fighting for if it's the champion of the people?

*I really hate player drafts. Especially in salary cap sports leagues, I think it would be cool to have an open market. Wouldn't that be pretty interesting?

It is a loss for the rookies. It is a win for the "pay for performance" philosophy that is (excuse me, was ) a foundation of our capitalist system

When has paying for past performance been a pillar of capitalism? Doesn't that ****** economic growth?

We'll see how it all works out. I'm hopeful now that the NFLPA has actually chosen a leader that negotiations will start and an agreement will be reached without a work stoppage.

I'm so passionate about this, because I see this as a detriment to the game. Vincent and the player reps are going to try and institute changes that benefit the older players. We're going to see more of a caste system where independent of your ability, you can find a better standard of living if you're 30+ years old. Now, I'm not a rigid guy here...I certainly endorse pension/Medicare-like system that Ditka is talking about. But even that I think should be voluntary for the players. Why should a 7th round pick who is the 53rd man on the roster have to pay a dime to that fund when he could be cut after a year and probably not qualify for such a system? So he's now out $x amount while receiving nothing in return.

I just worry that we're going to see somewhat of a "good ol boy" system. It will certainly affect the game in some way.

 

[mikegibbons]

1.) There's a rookie cap, so it's not a free market.

2.) The NFL is a Socialist system whereas moneys and players are doled out in such a way as to keep everything close to even. It's not a free market.

3.) There's an overall salary cap, so it's not a free market.

4.) The poor structure currently in place has made it so that a top 7 pick that busts can significantly hamstring a team, especially if that top 7 pick is a top 3 pick and a quarterback.

5.) The NFL players have a union which takes a specific percentage of the revenues, so it's not a free market.


Other than that, you may have the tiniest scintilla of a speck of a minute percentage of a point. You probably don't, but you might.

What??? There is NO market price here..so what you are saying is that a veteran quaterback who may be one of the best in the league isn't worth as much with some college hot shot who hasn't played a MINUTE in the NFL??? Is that what you are saying?? So Stafford is MORE VALUABLE than either Manning or Brady??? Yes...rookie salaries that pay college players that haven't even set FOOT in an NFL game MORE than top vets IS ridiculous.. I think you and the like are part of the wall street crowd that sold the economy down the drain...NO logic at all....

Don't confuse "market price" with me saying the NFL is a free-market system. I never said that, to be clear.

Market price is referring to the price that the good (a player) will go for in the NFL marketplace.

So Stafford is MORE VALUABLE than either Manning or Brady???

He's not more valuable, but certainly worthy of the contract because of simple supply and demand: yes. To the Detroit Lions, they need a quarterback. A lot of other teams this year need a QB. This is the demand. And with the supply being Jeff Garcia, Sage Rosenfels, and JP Losman...that's the price you have to pay.

 

[Deus Irae]

Don't confuse "market price" with me saying the NFL is a free-market system. I never said that, to be clear.

Market price is referring to the price that the good (a player) will go for in the NFL marketplace.

I'm not sure what part of "no market" you keep missing, though. There is no market for rookie draftees once they've actually been drafted. It's a one-to-one contractual transaction within fairly firmly defined boundaries. There's no "market price" at all. There is a specified floor and a specified ceiling, and the salaries agreed upon must fall within those parameters.

Again, this is because there's no free market. Again, you don't really have any point.

P.S. I have no problem with the players getting every dime possible within the rules. I have a problem with the current rules. So, as a matter of fact, do the players themselves (at least the ones that I've heard on radio/tv read in print and spoken to personally have a problem with it).

 

[mikegibbons]

I'm not sure what part of "no market" you keep missing, though. There is no market for rookie draftees once they've actually been drafted. It's a one-to-one contractual transaction within fairly firmly defined boundaries. There's no "market price" at all. There is a specified floor and a specified ceiling, and the salaries agreed upon must fall within those parameters.

Again, this is because there's no free market. Again, you don't really have any point.

P.S. I have no problem with the players getting every dime possible within the rules. I have a problem with the current rules. So, as a matter of fact, do the players themselves.

Again, this is because there's no free market. Again, you don't really have any point.

Again, I'm not and have never said NFL free agency or rookie contracts are a free-market. Market price refers to the price you'll pay for a good in a marketplace. So with the TV upfronts going on, advertisers are paying a market price for ads, and think of any other industry...

Please don't confuse the two or put words into my mouth.

But you talk about the rookie cap and the ceiling. Well when the NFLPA goes to task during the next CBA negotiations, we're just going to see more caps.

 

[Deus Irae]

Again, this is because there's no free market. Again, you don't really have any point.

Again, I'm not and have never said NFL free agency or rookie contracts are a free-market. Market price refers to the price you'll pay for a good in a marketplace. So with the TV upfronts going on, advertisers are paying a market price for ads, and think of any other industry...

Please don't confuse the two or put words into my mouth.

But you talk about the rookie cap and the ceiling. Well when the NFLPA goes to task during the next CBA negotiations, we're just going to see more caps.

I'm not confusing the point. There's no free market, which restricts your "market price" argument: that's just the nature of the beast. A "market price" argument is truly only useful when there's a free, or relatively free, competition for the goods and services involved. Once there's not, the question doesn't become "Market Price", it becomes "Fairness of the pre-determined price/parameters". Further, there's no actual market since the player is drafted and can only go to one place.

What seems to be the struggle you're having with this?

 

[mikegibbons]

I'm not confusing the point. There's no free market, which restricts your "market price" argument: that's just the nature of the beast. Further, there's no actual market since the player is drafted and can only go to one place.

What seems to be the struggle you're having with this?

Arggg. We're going OT. Market price refers to a price of a good in a marketplace. This doesn't mean free-market system blah blah.

I would ask you why you keep struggling with me on this topic. I never said in a post that the NFL is a free-market system. Did I? I went through my posts and didn't see any comments from me on it.

 

[Wildo7]

I'm not confusing the point. There's no free market, which restricts your "market price" argument: that's just the nature of the beast. Further, there's no actual market since the player is drafted and can only go to one place.

What seems to be the struggle you're having with this?

Maybe he's struggling with the fact that you're totally wrong. An NFL team is actually bidding against the market when offering a rookie contract. Just because they secure first rights to sign a player doesn't mean that they aren't competing against what that player can get if he sits out and is signed later by another team. If there was no market influence then teams could sign draftees to whatever contract they want. Not a very complicated concept.

He never said "free" market. The market isn't totally "free" but it's a market nonetheless. Take a minute and think about how stupid what you are saying is. If there was no market, there wouldn't be a standard for rookie contracts.

 

[mikegibbons]

There's no free market, which restricts your "market price" argument: that's just the nature of the beast. A "market price" argument is truly only useful when there's a free, or relatively free, competition for the goods and services involved.

It's a semantics battle here, but when any football analyst or coach says "the price was just too high for us" when it comes to free agency or drafting in the top 10...they're referring to the market price.

So, I don't want to call you out but I'm not sure why you're arguing with me on an objective fact. If you want to argue about my views on unions, that's more of a subjective battle.

But the fact here is that I'm right on how to use the term "price."

 

[Deus Irae]

It's a semantics battle here, but when any football analyst or coach says "the price was just too high for us" when it comes to free agency or drafting in the top 10...they're referring to the market price.

So, I don't want to call you out but I'm not sure why you're arguing with me on an objective fact. If you want to argue about my views on unions, that's more of a subjective battle.

But the fact here is that I'm right on how to use the term "price."

No, you're not. Because you didn't use "price", you used "market price". There is no "market price" on a rookie salary, because there is no market. In order to have a market price, by definition, you must have a market. That does not exist in the draft situation. There is a set price parameter, which cannot be exceeded nor undercut. There is no competition for services. There is only the guidelines laid out by the CBA and the calculated rookie cap.

Now, you can call it semantics, or you can just admit that without a market there can be no market price. One can apply "market price" to UDFAs, UFAs, trades, RFAs, etc... but there is no "market price" to drafted players. It's the whole point of having a draft.

 

[Deus Irae]

Maybe he's struggling with the fact that you're totally wrong. An NFL team is actually bidding against the market when offering a rookie contract. Just because they secure first rights to sign a player doesn't mean that they aren't competing against what that player can get if he sits out and is signed later by another team. If there was no market influence then teams could sign draftees to whatever contract they want. Not a very complicated concept.

He never said "free" market. The market isn't totally "free" but it's a market nonetheless. Take a minute and think about how stupid what you are saying is. If there was no market, there wouldn't be a standard for rookie contracts.

Take a minute to grasp what's being said before coming off as your usual self. The draft is in place specifically to AVOID a market. What's happened is that the rules have undercut that purpose by allowing top 7 players to still get ridiculous salaries despite the absence of that market.

 

[Wildo7]

No, you're not. Because you didn't use "price", you used "market price". There is no "market price" on a rookie salary, because there is no market. In order to have a market price, by definition, you must have an open market. That does not exist in the draft situation. There is a set price parameter, which cannot be exceeded nor undercut. There is no competition for services. There is only the guidelines laid out by the CBA and the calculated rookie cap.

Now, you can call it semantics, or you can just admit that without a market there can be no market price. One can apply "market price" to UDFAs, UFAs, trades, RFAs, etc... but there is no "market price" to drafted players. It's the whole point of having a draft.

This is just wrong. Market influences don't have to come from a completely "open" market. When a team negotiates a contract with a player and his agent, they are bidding against what the player could get if he were to sit out and then sign with another team. The player and his agent have to get what they feel they could get from another team if they were to sit out. These rookie contract standards didn't just pop up out of thin air. That's a very real market force.

 

[mikegibbons]

No, you're not. Because you didn't use "price", you used "market price". There is no "market price" on a rookie salary, because there is no market. In order to have a market price, by definition, you must have a market. That does not exist in the draft situation. There is a set price parameter, which cannot be exceeded nor undercut. There is no competition for services. There is only the guidelines laid out by the CBA and the calculated rookie cap.

Now, you can call it semantics, or you can just admit that without a market there can be no market price. One can apply "market price" to UDFAs, UFAs, trades, RFAs, etc... but there is no "market price" to drafted players. It's the whole point of having a draft.

Not trying to be a d-bag, but price and market price are the exact same thing. That's economics 101. Not sure the origin or when market was dropped.

But when you say the "price of a Snickers bar is $.75," you can substitute 'market price' for 'price' and it's the same thing---or vice-versa.

And free agency and the draft is a market. To claim otherwise is just stubbornness or ignorance.

 

[Deus Irae]

This is just wrong. Market influences don't have to come from a completely "open" market. When a team negotiates a contract with a player and his agent, they are bidding against what the player could get if he were to sit out and then sign with another team. The player and his agent have to get what they feel they could get from another team if they were to sit out. These rookie contract standards didn't just pop up out of thin air. That's a very real market force.

There is no market for a drafted player. It's the point of the draft. The rookie contract standards come from the CBA, which will be overhauled if a rookie wage scale is brought in to replace the current rookie cap system. That's the whole point.

 

[Wildo7]

Take a minute to grasp what's being said before coming off as your usual self. The draft is in place specifically to AVOID a market. What's happened is that the rules have undercut that purpose by allowing top 7 players to still get ridiculous salaries despite the absence of that market.

You need to learn the difference between "open market" and "market." A market with restrictions is still a market, and NFL teams have to act according to what a player could get if he were to sit out. Nobody except you has used the term "free market" here, you're creating your own little straw man.