Draft Strategy Change due to "Agreement reached on rookie pay scale"

[mcsully]

Some of you might not be aware but

According to two sources familiar with the negotiations, the league and the union have reached a basic compromise on a rookie wage scale that will replace the current rookie salary cap. The owners backed off the idea of requiring first-round picks to sign five-year deals, instead limiting the contracts to four years before a player could become a free agent. The agreement is also expected to include a stipulation limiting the amount of guaranteed money and signing bonus offered to draft picks.

Sources: Agreement reached on rookie scale - NFL - Yahoo! Sports


I'm looking to see what people think if this actually goes thru this year ... Would this change BB philosphy in any way? If so, how.. I'm very interested in hearing what people think.

 

[Off The Grid]

This agreement was inevitable, as both sides have long since seen eye to eye on this, if on nothing else...

Even so, I am kinda JAZZED that they're announcing this, as it speaks to a Bear Market in Acrimony!!

 

[mgteich]

Moving up would be less attractive. Intead of gettting a player for six years (old rules), the proposed rules would only allow a 4 year contract.

BTW this only matters if something is signed before the draft. Otherwise the pay scale will likely be delayed until 2012.

However, it is just possible that the pay scale could be added for this years as a signed amendment to the old agreement, which is in place for certain things such as this draft and access to team doctors in case of a lockout.

Personally, I think that and agreed upon rookie scale before the draft would make Watt a much more likely target. However, I still think that the team might pass.

 

[MaineMan]

Moving up would be less attractive. Intead of gettting a player for six years (old rules), the proposed rules would only allow a 4 year contract.

BTW this only matters if something is signed before the draft. Otherwise the pay scale will likely be delayed until 2012.

However, it is just possible that the pay scale could be added for this years as a signed amendment to the old agreement, which is in place for certain things such as this draft and access to team doctors in case of a lockout.

Personally, I think that and agreed upon rookie scale before the draft would make Watt a much more likely target. However, I still think that team might pass.

Agree with all of this.

 

[Patriot Missile]

Moving up would be less attractive. Intead of gettting a player for six years (old rules), the proposed rules would only allow a 4 year contract.

BTW this only matters if something is signed before the draft. Otherwise the pay scale will likely be delayed until 2012.

However, it is just possible that the pay scale could be added for this years as a signed amendment to the old agreement, which is in place for certain things such as this draft and access to team doctors in case of a lockout.

Personally, I think that and agreed upon rookie scale before the draft would make Watt a much more likely target. However, I still think that the team might pass.

Rumor is every one of those players will be restricted FA's so atleast there will be some kind of compensation to the team that loses their player.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Rumor is every one of those players will be restricted FA's so atleast there will be some kind of compensation to the team that loses their player.

I should have been clearer, Patriot Missile, since I think you're going off my comment in the other thread.

FA would go back to four years, so anyone drafted after the first round would be an RFA at the end of his rookie contract.

First-round draftees would still be UFAs at the end of their rookie contracts. OTOH, they would still be locked up for one year more than second-rounders, so that might work in the favor of the teams with late firsts. . . .

 

[supafly]

BTW this only matters if something is signed before the draft. Otherwise the pay scale will likely be delayed until 2012.

However, it is just possible that the pay scale could be added for this years as a signed amendment to the old agreement, which is in place for certain things such as this draft and access to team doctors in case of a lockout.

I could certainly be wrong mg, but isn't the CBA deal expired now, as of last Thursday at midnight? I understand that the draft was already agreed upon, or somehow was a special circumstance or whatever, but I thought that part of Neal's thinking regarding his retirement was that he was NOT going to be able to receive team medical care? I thought that some were questioning in the thread about him, whether he may have decided to stay had these circumstances not taken place.

In other words, it seems as though any rookie draft picks could in no way be tied to the last, expiring deal, and it would take effect this year for sure. I couldn't see how this year's picks could possibly be tied back to the last expired deal, but in these uncertain events I suppose anything is possible.

At least that is the way that I understand it, but I certainly could be misunderstanding something, or just flat out misinformed/wrong.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I could certainly be wrong mg, but isn't the CBA deal expired now, as of last Thursday at midnight? I understand that the draft was already agreed upon, or somehow was a special circumstance or whatever, but I thought that part of Neal's thinking regarding his retirement was that he was NOT going to be able to receive team medical care? I thought that some were questioning in the thread about him, whether he may have decided to stay had these circumstances not taken place.

In other words, it seems as though any rookie draft picks could in no way be tied to the last, expiring deal, and it would take effect this year for sure. I couldn't see how this year's picks could possibly be tied back to the last expired deal, but in these uncertain events I suppose anything is possible.

At least that is the way that I understand it, but I certainly could be misunderstanding something, or just flat out misinformed/wrong.

That was my understanding as well. I mean the extensions have the CBA in this weird limbo, but I thought the 2011 draft was tied to the old CBA, and not the new one coming in. So any changes in the draft wouldn't take effect until 2012. But is that wrong?

As for the changes, a lot depends on how much is allocated to those top 15 or so draft slots. It's tough to cost-justify a trade-up with draft picks, but to then pay a ton more in salary makes it almost impossible, especially to move into the top 5. The Jets traded up 12 slots to select Sanchez. While they got a pretty good deal to move up, Sanchez still cost them 5 years at $50M ($28M guaranteed). Meanwhile, the QB selected in their original 17th spot, Josh Freeman, got 5 years for $36M ($10.2M guaranteed).

Under a rookie cap, this type of deal may not be so far apart financially and could increase the value of the top picks. And I could see many bad teams trying to trade down to get more picks instead of premium picks. It's something they've tried to do in the past but the cost was too prohibitive for most teams to try and trade into the top 5.

 

[patsfan-1982]

the pats never change what they do.

 

[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.

I could certainly be wrong mg, but isn't the CBA deal expired now, as of last Thursday at midnight? I understand that the draft was already agreed upon, or somehow was a special circumstance or whatever, but I thought that part of Neal's thinking regarding his retirement was that he was NOT going to be able to receive team medical care? I thought that some were questioning in the thread about him, whether he may have decided to stay had these circumstances not taken place.

In other words, it seems as though any rookie draft picks could in no way be tied to the last, expiring deal, and it would take effect this year for sure. I couldn't see how this year's picks could possibly be tied back to the last expired deal, but in these uncertain events I suppose anything is possible.

At least that is the way that I understand it, but I certainly could be misunderstanding something, or just flat out misinformed/wrong.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.