Jason Peters, Tom Brady, and the draft

[K-Ro 25]

Fair enough. But would you really take Gholston over Adalius Thomas for the same $$? Or rather, Gholston over Thomas + lower draft picks you could have traded down for? The top-end rookie salary structure is just preposterous and bad for the vast majority of players, and it's shameful that the players' union refuses to admit it.

fair enough. The rookie salaries are terrible but I think Gholston is not the guy you should be looking at. Jake Long, Matt Ryan, and Run DMC all being paid upwards of 11 mil as a rookie.

 

[ALP]

From the National Football Post:An interesting take, though I think they moved down because they could, not out of respect for Brady. Everyone knows rookie salaries are crazy. I also loved Brady's comment recently where he was asked if he felt underpaid and he laughed and said no. Even if he is underpaid relative to other star players, he doesn't want to insult the common man and you have to respect that.

The impact of Dockery and Walker took a year. The impact of Samuels on Sheppard only took a few months. We know the Jets locker room is a mess with all the money flying around, and it's not going to get any better.

The point is, the next time you hear someone say the Pats are cheap for not paying big money to some departing free agent, or for staying out of the first few days of free agency, it's worth keeping in mind the impact outside of the cap. Having and maintaining a salary structure has value that's only visible in its absence.

When they pay the big bucks, it has to be to a player who clearly demonstrates their value on the field. T.Brady. A.Thomas. R.Moss.

seriously? if u were a rookie coming in, and u were drafted by the pats (pretend ur not a pats fan)...

and u were told, we wont pay u according to where u were chosen...we can only give u the second most money in the team, b/c no one can make more then tom brady...

would that not make much sense?

 

[JoeSixPat]

From the National Football Post:An interesting take, though I think they moved down because they could, not out of respect for Brady.

So either you're right, or the reporter who thinks that Belichick makes his draft decisions based on a concern of hurting a player's feelings is right.

Hmmmm. I think I'll go with you on this one.

 

[JoeSixPat]

The draft money argument is a sham anyway. Teams are given amounts to spend by the NFL based upon where they are drafting and how many picks they have. For teams to then complain about what's being spent is the height of idiocy. The money is already a sunk cost.

The cap space committment is no sham.... and isn't that the point?

None of us actually care what NFL salaries are (aside from affecting ticket and beer sales) - what we care about is fitting the best players in under the cap - and if an untested rookie eats up $10 million, that's a potential problem.

 

[Deus Irae]

The cap space committment is no sham.... and isn't that the point?

None of us actually care what NFL salaries are (aside from affecting ticket and beer sales) - what we care about is fitting the best players in under the cap - and if an untested rookie eats up $10 million, that's a potential problem.

No, it's not. Teams have minimum and a maximum. The rookie salary caps are part of that. The money is already spent.

 

[jmt57]

Interesting to see football fans debate socialism versus capitalism.

 

[patchick]

Interesting to see football fans debate socialism versus capitalism.

Nah, the current system is nothing like capitalism. There's no open market: once the draft pick is made, the predetermined buyer and seller can only negotiate with each other, within twisty, narrowly defined slot and cap parameters. The entire thing is completely artificial. The only question is how best to structure the artifice -- for the benefit of the individual players, individual teams, and the league as a whole.

My argument is that the current system benefits a random half dozen college football players to the detriment of absolutely everybody else. That's not capitalism at work, it's just bad business. You see the results in the rising tide of successful young players who throw fits by year 3 of their contracts because they had the bad luck to be among the 90% of draft picks outside of random windfall territory.

 

[Deus Irae]

My argument is that the current system benefits a random half dozen college football players to the detriment of absolutely everybody else. That's not capitalism at work, it's just bad business. You see the results in the rising tide of successful young players who throw fits by year 3 of their contracts because they had the bad luck to be among the 90% of draft picks outside of random windfall territory.

That same argument can be made about high priced free agents just as much as about top draft picks.

 

[patchick]

That same argument can be made about high priced free agents just as much as about top draft picks.

I don't think it can. First off, teams have (nearly) genuine freedom in signing vet FAs and structuring their contracts, whereas a team picking #3 in the draft is pretty much stuck giving a contract bounded by last year's #3 and this year's #2 and 4, regardless of player quality. Second, vet FAs have actually earned their contracts on the field. Third, and most simply:

The top FAs earn about 15 times as much as the lowest veteran.
The top draft picks earn more than 40 times as much as the lowest rookie.
If the #1 pick made 15 times rookie minimum, I'd be ok with that. Edit: to put it another way, remember that crazy monster contract Asante signed as the prize of his FA class? That would only put him #5 among the incoming rookies.

 

[signbabybrady]

I don't see that in itself a reason not to fix rookie salaries. If they fail at football, (GASP!) they can always GET A REGULAR JOB!!! Just because you are a football player shouldn't guarantee a payday.

I would agree from most people's perspective that is not reason not to fix the problem but the late great Upshaw was not the average person he was the one responsible for protecting these guys and I am saying that the PA has to consider these guys when they negotiate becuase they rep these guys too.

note: "these guys" = top end first round talent.

 

[PatsDparty]

Also, word was that immediately after Mayo walked out of his interview with the Patriots, Belichick pronounced that this was the guy they were drafting.QUOTE]


I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case, but I think they were definitely taking a gamble by letting Cincy still choose in front of them, since they took a LB in Rivers. Unless they had Mayo and Rivers rated pretty similarly.

 

[JoeSixPat]

The draft money argument is a sham anyway. Teams are given amounts to spend by the NFL based upon where they are drafting and how many picks they have. For teams to then complain about what's being spent is the height of idiocy. The money is already a sunk cost.

The cap space committment is no sham.... and isn't that the point?

None of us actually care what NFL salaries are (aside from affecting ticket and beer sales) - what we care about is fitting the best players in under the cap - and if an untested rookie eats up $10 million, that's a potential problem.

No, it's not. Teams have minimum and a maximum. The rookie salary caps are part of that. The money is already spent.

Huh? You DO understand that the rookie salary cap isn't "extra" money, don't you? You still have to fit the uber-high paid rookies into the same overall cap that every team does.

How can you suggest that its a sham that a high rookie salary could or would have an adverse impact? And even if the money was already somehow "spent" (whatever that means) how can you just ignore the non-rookie years of a non-rookie contract?

Jamarcus Russell signed a 6 year $61 million contract with $32 million guranteed. That has a signficant impact on the cap in the first year and through the duration of the contract.

That could be a cap KILLER if he doesn't live up to a $61 million - or even $32 million contract, with $5 million a year minimum in what's effectively dead cap space if he sucks.

Sorry -that's no sham.

I think you're under the mistaken impression that teams get "extra" rookie salary cap money when they do not - and even if they did for the rookie season, that wouldn't be any help for the non-rookie years.

There's no question rookie salaries are out of control and can have a very serious impact on the quality of the game. It's definately no sham.

 

[Deus Irae]

Huh? You DO understand that the rookie salary cap isn't "extra" money, don't you? You still have to fit the uber-high paid rookies into the same overall cap that every team does.

How can you suggest that its a sham that a high rookie salary could or would have an adverse impact? And even if the money was already somehow "spent" (whatever that means) how can you just ignore the non-rookie years of a non-rookie contract?

Jamarcus Russell signed a 6 year $61 million contract with $32 million guranteed. That has a signficant impact on the cap in the first year and through the duration of the contract.

That could be a cap KILLER if he doesn't live up to a $61 million - or even $32 million contract, with $5 million a year minimum in what's effectively dead cap space if he sucks.

Sorry -that's no sham.

I think you're under the mistaken impression that teams get "extra" rookie salary cap money when they do not - and even if they did for the rookie season, that wouldn't be any help for the non-rookie years.

There's no question rookie salaries are out of control and can have a very serious impact on the quality of the game. It's definately no sham.

It is a sham. I understand exactly how the teams get the salary cap money. That's actually the whole point.

 

[JoeSixPat]

It is a sham. I understand exactly how the teams get the salary cap money. That's actually the whole point.

You lost me.

I've just illustrated one of many ways of how the out of control rookie salaries hurt the game. You say that's a sham - and that the high salaries are not a problem because they are "spent anyway"

Can you elaborate how its a sham? I mean if you know the rookie salary cap isn't extra money, how can you say its a sham?

Do you seriously not understand how having an untested rookie potentially bite off $10 million in cap space is NOT a sham, and has a MAJOR impact on a team's salary cap?

Let me try to help you with an example. I'm not trying to bash Chad Jackson - but let's say he signed a $50 million contract over 5 years with $25 million guranteed as a rookie.

Do you understand why that's not a "sham" and how given his lack of playing time and performance, would have a major adverse impact on the team's cap, and therefore the team's ability to sign other players?

How is that a sham?

 

[Miguel]

Jamarcus Russell signed a 6 year $61 million contract with $32 million guranteed. That has a signficant impact on the cap in the first year and through the duration of the contract.

FWIW
http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?lname=russell&player=4608
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/salaries/2008/qb.html
Russell's 2007 cap number was $2,976,320.
Russell's 2008 cap number is $4,854,865.

 

[Miguel]

Do you seriously not understand how having an untested rookie potentially bite off $10 million in cap space is NOT a sham, and has a MAJOR impact on a team's salary cap?

No rookie has ever taken up $10 million or close to that amount in cap space.

 

[Miguel]

Do you understand why that's not a "sham" and how given his lack of playing time and performance, would have a major adverse impact on the team's cap, and therefore the team's ability to sign other players?

How is that a sham?

http://www.kffl.com/forums/showthread.php?t=234292

After all but a couple of draft picks were signed, the 32 teams STILL had an average of just over $11 million in cap space which proves, IMO, that rookie contracts do not adversely impact a team's ability to sign other players.

Can any veteran really point to a rookie's contract and say that it is the reason that he is underpaid?? Can any veteran Patriot really contend that because of the contracts given to a contract that he is/has been underpaid
when the Pats are under the cap by over $5 million??
the Pats have been using the NLTBE move the past couple of years on Eckel, Spann, and Gorin??

 

[Miguel]

My main point in all of this is that if the point in reducing the contracts paid to rookies is to make more money available to give to veterans what will be the mechanism that ensures that the money does go to the vets as teams are not using all of their cap space on their vets NOW or in the recent past. Look at how much the LTBE move was used last year.

In 2007 23 teams used the LTBE move to push $185 million in cap space to 2008
http://www.kffl.com/forums/showthread.php?t=224567

In 2007 the rookie pool was $136.79 million. In other words, in 2007 more cap space was used on the LTBE moves than on the rookies. I expect that it will be true in 2008.

 

[JoeSixPat]

My main point in all of this is that if the point in reducing the contracts paid to rookies is to make more money available to give to veterans what will be the mechanism that ensures that the money does go to the vets as teams are not using all of their cap space on their vets NOW or in the recent past. Look at how much the LTBE move was used last year.

In 2007 23 teams used the LTBE move to push $185 million in cap space to 2008
http://www.kffl.com/forums/showthread.php?t=224567

In 2007 the rookie pool was $136.79 million. In other words, in 2007 more cap space was used on the LTBE moves than on the rookies. I expect that it will be true in 2008.

Of course you realize that we're not talking about rookie contracts in general here - only the top tier ones, where a player with 0 games in the NFL ties up more cap space than proven veterans. The vast majority of rookies play for very reasonable contracts.

But I think it woudl be a a "devastating leap of logic" to infer that top tier rookie contracts have no impact on a team's ability to sign players because no teams have exceeded the cap, and in fact retain some wiggle room. A team can always find some way to juggle the numbers and sign someone - but eventually they have to pay the bill and it does affect their ability to sign players - there is not an endless amount of money to spend.

And we're not solely talking about the rookie year either. We're talking about the duration of the Rookie contract. Let's go back 3 years ago when rookie contracts were comparitively "low and affordalble" compared to today with backup QB Alex Smith singing for 6 years, $50 million and $24 million guranteed.

The 49ers now have their backup QB earning 20 times as much as their starter, with Smith counting about $10 million on the cap. Or looked at another way, the 49ers have about $12 million in Quarterbacks standing on the sidelines.

I don't know about you but I would NOT like to see the Patriots be forced to field a team with $12 million less cap space than everyone else. That's something I would consider to be an adverse impact. Could they field a good team? Probably - would they have to make some tough choices on certain players too? Absolutely. But playing at $12 million less than everyone else is NOT a benefit.

No doubt the 49ers will likely cut or trade Smith next year - causing another $8 million cap hit for NOT having him on the sidelines.

Now I know veterans can sign big contracts and be injured too, or crap out - but at least they have some proven NFL production that says they can play at this level. I have a real tough time trying to accept any spin that these top tier rookie contracts are a sham and have no impact on the salary cap. They most certainly do.

 

[Miguel]

But I think it woudl be a a "devastating leap of logic" to infer that top tier rookie contracts have no impact on a team's ability to sign players because no teams have exceeded the cap, and in fact retain some wiggle room. A team can always find some way to juggle the numbers and sign someone - but eventually they have to pay the bill and it does affect their ability to sign players - there is not an endless amount of money to spend.

And yet a year after having the #1 overall pick the Raiders went on a spending spree.

I have a real tough time trying to accept any spin that these top tier rookie contracts are a sham and have no impact on the salary cap. They most certainly do.

I never said that the "top tier rookie contracts are a sham" nor did I ever say that they have no impact on the salary cap."

My main point in all of this remains that if the point in reducing the contracts paid to rookies is to make more money available to give to veterans what will be the mechanism that ensures that the money does go to the vets as teams are not using all of their cap space on their vets NOW or in the recent past.