Here's another thought...

[patfanken]

....that is linked to the first one.

I'm thinking that if the owners are willing to give up some aspect of the franchise tag, you'd think the union would have to give up something in order to get it done. Well here's what they should do.....IMHO.

The union and the owners should get together and get the rookie salaries under control. 8 figure GUARANTEES are ridiculous for players chosen in the first round who haven't played a down in the league. The union should be OK with this because the money that isn't going to the rookies would be going to the more veteran players. In fact you could tie in 3 issues here. The franchise tag, the rookie salary structure, and the veteran minimum.

ROOKIE SALARY STRUCTURE - There should be a strict maximum that a player can be signed for IN THEIR FIRST YEAR. It should be something like $2MM for the top pick and work its way down. Each player would be able to negotiate a multi year contract, but the FIRST year would be strictly controlled. In the second and ongoing years the player can negotiate any amount the market will bear based on agreed upon incentives like games played, wins etc. Pretty much like they do now, but AFTER the first year.

Now that you've freed up millions of dollars that the DON'T have to play untried kids who haven't played a down, they can give back that money to the guys who have EARNED it. Raise the Vet minimum a hundred thousand or so, and lower the cap consequence for keeping a minimum wage vet instead of an untried rookie. Its fairer all around.

THis might put a dent in that sense of entitlement that a number of first round rookies walk around with. It might even allow teams to get rid of busts earlier.

 

[Miguel]

Re: here's, another thought....

The union and the owners should get together and get the rookie salaries under control.

This presumes that this is not already being done. The percentage amount of the cap that is being taken up by rookies has been going down over the past couple of years and looks to go down this year and next.

8 figure GUARANTEES are ridiculous for players chosen in the first round who haven't played a down in the league.

How many rookies get 8 million guarantees??

The union should be OK with this because the money that isn't going to the rookies would be going to the more veteran players.

How would you guarantee that??

ROOKIE SALARY STRUCTURE - There should be a strict maximum that a player can be signed for IN THEIR FIRST YEAR. It should be something like $2MM for the top pick and work its way down.

How much will the last pick get??

Each player would be able to negotiate a multi year contract, but the FIRST year would be strictly controlled. In the second and ongoing years the player can negotiate any amount the market will bear based on agreed upon incentives like games played, wins etc. Pretty much like they do now, but AFTER the first year.

If you are not limiting what a rookie deal can reach, then how are you solving this so-called problem??

Now that you've freed up millions of dollars that the DON'T have to play untried kids who haven't played a down, they can give back that money to the guys who have EARNED it.

Can is different than will. If you can't guarantee will, why should the union agree to the deal.

Raise the Vet minimum a hundred thousand or so,

This would cost a lot more than what you allege to have saved. Let's say that there are about 1,000 vets in the league. 1,000 *100,000= 1,000,000,000. The rookie pool this year is around 137,000,000.

and lower the cap consequence for keeping a minimum wage vet instead of an untried rookie.

Already done in the last CBA.

Its fairer all around.

It's not fairer to a great percentage of the draft picks who will see a decrease in pay.

 

[mgteich]

Re: here's, another thought....

1) We are not in the middle of CBA negotiations.
2) The franchise is a very low priority item for the union. It affects fewer than 50 of their members each year.
3) Incentives to retain old veterans increase each year, putting younger players out of work. I fully support this.
4) It is never "fairer all around" to take money from one group and give it to another.

 

[mgteich]

Re: here's, another thought....

Miguel,

This is a bit disengenuous. How many veterans receive the vet minimum? No one suggested increasing ALL veteran salaries by $100K. The presumption is that more would be covered, but the relevant number is the difference between the veteran minimum and the current veteran minium multiplied by the number of players who would receive this amount.

This would cost a lot more than what you allege to have saved. Let's say that there are about 1,000 vets in the league. 1,000 *100,000= 1,000,000,000. The rookie pool this year is around 137,000,000.

 

[Miguel]

Re: here's, another thought....

Miguel,

This is a bit disengenuous. How many veterans receive the vet minimum? No one suggested increasing ALL veteran salaries by $100K. The presumption is that more would be covered, but the relevant number is the difference between the veteran minimum and the current veteran minium multiplied by the number of players who would receive this amount.

I may have misunderstood Ken's post then.

The vet min is tied to the minimum salary of a player with two years of service. If you increase that by $100,000, IMO, you have to increase the minimum salaries of players with greater salaries or you run into a situation where a player with two years of service is making more money than a player with more service which is counter to Ken's point.

 

[patfanken]

Re: here's, another thought....

How many rookies get 8 million guarantees??

For example, recently there was a lot of talk about the #3 pick (Thomas) is likely to get a deal with $30MM in guarantees, so how hard is it to extrapolate down the line and infer that there will be guys in the teens who get deals with $10MM+ in guarantees

How much will the last pick get??

Now you are getting unfair. You are asking for specifics on a GERM of an idea posted after midnight. As for a possible answer. I would guess the last pick in the first round would get slightly less than a million.

If you are not limiting what a rookie deal can reach, then how are you solving this so-called problem??

I'm not "solving" the problem, but rather attempting to minimize the risk to the team and the financial IMPACT to them in THE FIRST YEAR. I'm assuming that in the contract teams would put in reasonable benchmarks that a high pick would be expected to meet inorder to get the bigger money in the following years of the contract. Again this is more a concept than a finished product.

Can is different than will. If you can't guarantee will, why should the union agree to the deal.

This is a valid point. At first I guess, my initial thought was that the more veteran players would get more money through (I can't believe I'm actually saying this) the "trickly down theory" (thanks to RReagan ). Teams like the Pats who spend to the cap, would filter the extra money down to the Vets. However there are a lot of teams who don't think like that so I guess some sort of incentive/punishment would have to be put in place, like an increase in the vet minimum

This would cost a lot more than what you allege to have saved. Let's say that there are about 1,000 vets in the league. 1,000 *100,000= 1,000,000,000. The rookie pool this year is around 137,000,000.

Again, this is a cheap shot, though in my defense, I bet that there aren't 1000 guys right now who are making the vet minimun, that would be over 30 guys per team making the vet minimum

It's not fairer to a great percentage of the draft picks who will see a decrease in pay.

This only effects a player's first year. A year where, under the current system, 95% of the first round rookies' production NEVER reaches the value of their contract

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: here's, another thought....

I agree with Ken. I don't have a specific proposal for fear that "certain people" will pick it apart for fun but conceptually I think all draft choices should make the league minimum + a little bonus based on where they're drafted with some kind of good paying team option after 1 then 2 years so that a team can get out of a contract scott free but the player gets a chance at big money quickly if he shows he's worth keeping around.

 

[QuiGon]

Re: here's, another thought....

....that is linked to the first one.

I'm thinking that if the owners are willing to give up some aspect of the franchise tag, you'd think the union would have to give up something in order to get it done. Well here's what they should do.....IMHO.

With all due respect, I think you are trying to fix something that simply ain't broke. Just because the Patriots and Asante are having a pissing contest this offseason doesn't mean the entire concept of franchise players needs to be overhauled. Personally I would rather fix what happened last year... IMHO, there should be more serious consequences for a player under contract who refuses to play.

As I mentioned in another post, I don't think there is much desire on the part of the union to get rid of the franchise player designation because the vast majority of players benefit from it.

 

[Miguel]

Re: here's, another thought....

For example, recently there was a lot of talk about the #3 pick (Thomas) is likely to get a deal with $30MM in guarantees, so how hard is it to extrapolate down the line and infer that there will be guys in the teens who get deals with $10MM+ in guarantees



Now you are getting unfair. You are asking for specifics on a GERM of an idea posted after midnight. As for a possible answer. I would guess the last pick in the first round would get slightly less than a million.

I was thinking that you were talking about the last pick in the entire draft, not the 1st round. Because, IMO, you limit what the top players in the draft make you have to limit what the rest of the players make.

This is a valid point. At first I guess, my initial thought was that the more veteran players would get more money through (I can't believe I'm actually saying this) the "trickly down theory" (thanks to RReagan ). Teams like the Pats who spend to the cap, would filter the extra money down to the Vets. However there are a lot of teams who don't think like that so I guess some sort of incentive/punishment would have to be put in place, like an increase in the vet minimum

FYI - Most teams, if not all, spend to the cap in the same manner that the Pats do.

Again, this is a cheap shot,

This board is getting far too defensive when a misunderstanding is considered a cheap shot.

though in my defense, I bet that there aren't 1000 guys right now who are making the vet minimun, that would be over 30 guys per team making the vet minimum

.

You wrote:"Raise the Vet minimum a hundred thousand or so, and lower the cap consequence for keeping a minimum wage vet instead of an untried rookie."

Let's use Larry Izzo as an example.

"When linebacker Larry Izzo re-signed with the Patriots earlier this week, the deal was a one-year package for $820,000. Izzo receives a $40,000 signing bonus. This contract qualifies for the veteran minimum benefit, meaning that Izzo's salary cap number will be about $482,000."

What would be increased by $100,000??

His actual salary of $820,000. I understood the later because that is the minimum for a veteran with his years of experience.

Or the cap hit of $482,000. If it is this, then you are not lowering the cap consequence but actually increasing it.

If it is neither, then what??

 

[upstater1]

Re: here's, another thought....

My solution is to offer an incentive for teams to sign their own players by, 1. limiting 1st round contracts for rookies, and 2. allowing teams to pay their own draft picks more when they go into free agency.

So, a team is prepared to offer your guy, say, $5 million.

If yo can offer your own guy $5 million, 10% of it will not count against the cap. So he'll only cost you 4.5 mill in cap terms. This rewards teams that draft well, and develops continuity which the fans appreciate.

 

[patfanken]

Re: here's, another thought....

My solution is to offer an incentive for teams to sign their own players by, 1. limiting 1st round contracts for rookies, and 2. allowing teams to pay their own draft picks more when they go into free agency.

So, a team is prepared to offer your guy, say, $5 million.

If yo can offer your own guy $5 million, 10% of it will not count against the cap. So he'll only cost you 4.5 mill in cap terms. This rewards teams that draft well, and develops continuity which the fans appreciate.

This is a good idea

 

[patfanken]

Re: here's, another thought....

I was thinking that you were talking about the last pick in the entire draft, not the 1st round. Because, IMO, you limit what the top players in the draft make you have to limit what the rest of the players make.

Really once you get past the first round, what rookies make in their first year is reasonable AND manageable. Yet they too would be marginally affected by a tight rookie cap. Again I'm thinking this is a one year thing. If they play liike they are expected to they would be amply rewarded going forward.

FYI - Most teams, if not all, spend to the cap in the same manner that the Pats do.

I always pretty much expect this was the case. However that article that stated "the colts were saved from some sort of overspending rule in real dollars, but was saved by teams who spent below the cap in real dollars" made me question my beliefs. Thanks for setting me straight.

As to the point at hand, if what you are saying is true, then a dollars not being spent on rookies WOULD ultimately "trickle down" to the rest of the team in some way, even if it wasn't mandated.

This board is getting far too defensive when a misunderstanding is considered a cheap shot.

Sorry about that, but it was late and at that time it seems you comments sounded more like an interrogation than a discussion about a disagreement. I was throwing out a broad concept, and you sounded like you were looking for detailed specifics.. which I didn't have.

.

You wrote:"Raise the Vet minimum a hundred thousand or so, and lower the cap consequence for keeping a minimum wage vet instead of an untried rookie."

Let's use Larry Izzo as an example.

"When linebacker Larry Izzo re-signed with the Patriots earlier this week, the deal was a one-year package for $820,000. Izzo receives a $40,000 signing bonus. This contract qualifies for the veteran minimum benefit, meaning that Izzo's salary cap number will be about $482,000."

What would be increased by $100,000??

His actual salary of $820,000. I understood the later because that is the minimum for a veteran with his years of experience.

Or the cap hit of $482,000. If it is this, then you are not lowering the cap consequence but actually increasing it.

If it is neither, then what??

It was my understanding that the vet minimum was roughly around $730,000. I thought you could take some of that rookie money and spread it around to the approximately 400 players who make the vet minimum. You could even lower that number giving the benefit to only those players with more than 5 years in the league.

To those players I would raise the minimum to $830K and perhaps low the cap consequence to $350,000. Now my numbers may be wrong to start with, but it should explain the basic point I'm trying to make.

I don't know, Miguel, if you keep challenging me on this, between us we could have a full propsal ready for the mid season meetings this fall...along with the frachise tag proposal -

 

[patchick]

Re: here's, another thought....

My solution is to offer an incentive for teams to sign their own players by, 1. limiting 1st round contracts for rookies, and 2. allowing teams to pay their own draft picks more when they go into free agency.

So, a team is prepared to offer your guy, say, $5 million.

If yo can offer your own guy $5 million, 10% of it will not count against the cap. So he'll only cost you 4.5 mill in cap terms. This rewards teams that draft well, and develops continuity which the fans appreciate.

The beauty of this is that there are benefits for both sides: teams have a better chance of retaining their players, while the actual dollars paid out to players should rise. It does, though, have the worrisome whiff of a "soft cap" about it. (Cf. the messed-up economics of the NBA.)

 

[Miguel]

Re: here's, another thought....

It was my understanding that the vet minimum was roughly around $730,000. I thought you could take some of that rookie money and spread it around to the approximately 400 players who make the vet minimum. You could even lower that number giving the benefit to only those players with more than 5 years in the league.

To those players I would raise the minimum to $830K and perhaps low the cap consequence to $350,000. Now my numbers may be wrong to start with, but it should explain the basic point I'm trying to make.

Here are the minimum salaries for the 2007 season
Rookie- $285,000
1 Credited Season - $360,000
2 Credited Seasons - $435,000
3 Credited Seasons - $510,000
4 to 6 Credited Seasons- $595,000 *
7 to 9 Credited Seasons - $720,000 *
10+ Credited Seasons - $820,000 *

All salaries for players with four or more years of experience AND who sign contracts that qualify for veteran's exemption will only count $435,000 (the minimum salary of a player with two credited seasons) against teams' salary caps.

Under the new CBA the vet min cap hit would be equilavent to the minimum salary of a player with 3 credited seasons.

FWIW - These salaries are scheduled to go up by $10,000 each year during the new CBA.

 

[patfanken]

Re: here's, another thought....

Here are the minimum salaries for the 2007 season
Rookie- $285,000
1 Credited Season - $360,000
2 Credited Seasons - $435,000
3 Credited Seasons - $510,000
4 to 6 Credited Seasons- $595,000 *
7 to 9 Credited Seasons - $720,000 *
10+ Credited Seasons - $820,000 *

All salaries for players with four or more years of experience AND who sign contracts that qualify for veteran's exemption will only count $435,000 (the minimum salary of a player with two credited seasons) against teams' salary caps.

Under the new CBA the vet min cap hit would be equilavent to the minimum salary of a player with 3 credited seasons.

FWIW - These salaries are scheduled to go up by $10,000 each year during the new CBA.

Thanks for the info. God I wished I was playing now. The most I ever got was $250/game and I was damned thrilled to get it.

 

[upstater1]

Re: here's, another thought....

The problem with the NBA's soft cap is that you have automatic salary slots that make it difficult to either sign a player what you believe he's worth absent the slots, or to make trades.

My tweak wouldn't require salary slots. It's simply 10% off the top of your own draftees.

 

[Miguel]

Re: here's, another thought....

Under the new CBA the vet min cap hit would be equilavent to the minimum salary of a player with 3 credited seasons.

Man, I need an editor.

I should have wriiten "under the old CBA the vet min cap hit was equivalent to the minimum salary of a player with 3 credited seasons.[/quote]