Jason Peters, Tom Brady, and the draft

[Miguel]

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.

FWIW - I do not think that the Pats would ever put themselves in a position where they would buy back a contract and not be absolutely sure that the person after 3 NFL seasons was worth it. My point being is that I consider the Patriots front office to be vastly superior to the 49ers.

FWIW Part 2 - The New York Giants ranked among the league leaders with dead money last season and was last in total payroll
http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2007
and they still won Super Bowl XLII. My point being is that as the cap increases teams can live with more and more dead money.

 

[JoeSixPat]

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.

Sorry - that was more directed towards one of the earlier posts where Deus Irae stated that the high rookie contracts are a "sham", discounting the impact they can have. (In his defense, no one quite knows what he means by "sham" since he's declined to offer any more detail than that one word.)

"Can have" is the optimum wording there. I think pretty much everyone would admit that outside of the top ten, there's tremendous value. But for the Top 5 picks they all pretty much HAVE to perform at the absolute highest level to make their rookie contracts worthwhile. So for them the risk is exceptionally high and the "reward" is simply them playing to what are already exceptionally high expectations.

Given this, one might even begin to notice a trend of teams having a difficult time trading out of the highest draft spots - or at least not getting as much "value" in return given the risk/reward scenario.

FWIW - I do not think that the Pats would ever put themselves in a position where they would buy back a contract and not be absolutely sure that the person after 3 NFL seasons was worth it. My point being is that I consider the Patriots front office to be vastly superior to the 49ers.

FWIW Part 2 - The New York Giants ranked among the league leaders with dead money last season and was last in total payroll
http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2007
and they still won Super Bowl XLII. My point being is that as the cap increases teams can live with more and more dead money.

I'd sure refrain from any comparisons between the 49ers and the Patriots - nor do I see the Patriots having the #1 pick anytime soon. But the Patriots aren't immune from some pure bad luck or even bad decisions themselves when it comes to draft picks.

When you make a mistake with a 2nd rounder you lament it for the lost pick, but cap wise its not a huge deal. And even with a pick in the teens the cap hit of a crappy pick (even due to injury) hurts but can be managed.

When you're talking Alex Smith taking up $10 million of cap space it becomes much easier to see how the current system is not a "sham" and how such circumstances can really have a tangible adverse impact.

Can a team weather $10 million in dead cap space? Yes. Would the team be better if they had a chance at using that $10 million for one of the top tier veteran players in the NFL?

Of course they would.

Perhaps in the next CBA there could be some sytem that rewards all rookies for playing at a high level - with top tier draft picks still earning the majority of such bonuses - but only if they perform at a level consistent with their status as a top pick. In such a case they'd eventually be commanding a signficant cap hit - but they'd also be worth it.

 

[Deus Irae]

Sorry - that was more directed towards one of the earlier posts where Deus Irae stated that the high rookie contracts are a "sham", discounting the impact they can have. (In his defense, no one quite knows what he means by "sham" since he's declined to offer any more detail than that one word.)

No, I said the draft money argument is a sham, and noted the sunk cost aspect of the deals. Contract does not equal draft money, although the one is impacted by the other. Why do you feel a need to misrepresent the posts of people who disagree with you?

 

[JoeSixPat]

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.

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.

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.

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?

No, I said the draft money argument is a sham, and noted the sunk cost aspect of the deals. Contract does not equal draft money, although the one is impacted by the other. Why do you feel a need to misrepresent the posts of people who disagree with you?

Huh? I've tried my darndest to try to get you to explain what you mean by it being a sham... I can't misrepresent anything when you haven't said anything in the first place - aside from "its a sham" and the "money's already spent" which doesn't seem to acknowledge the later impact on the cap.

Seriously, would you think it was a "sham" if the Patriots were paying Matt Cassell $10 million this year and were looking at cutting him with a cap hit of $8 or $9 million next year? There's no question other players would look at a guy earning that much in guranteed money for doing effectively nothing, other than being drafted, with a jaded eye.

Maybe this word "sham" doesn't mean what you think it means!

 

[Deus Irae]

Huh? I've tried my darndest to try to get you to explain what you mean by it being a sham... I can't misrepresent anything when you haven't said anything in the first place - aside from "its a sham" and the "money's already spent" which doesn't seem to acknowledge the later impact on the cap.

Seriously, would you think it was a "sham" if the Patriots were paying Matt Cassell $10 million this year and were looking at cutting him with a cap hit of $8 or $9 million next year?

Maybe this word "sham" doesn't mean what you think it means!

Sham:

1. something that is not what it purports to be; a spurious imitation; fraud or hoax.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sham

I understand the meaning quite well. The money is allocated by the league, and how that money is doled out to the individuals drafted is up to the teams. Furthermore, if the money involved were so usurious, the teams could simply show a little courage and do something crazy like, for example, not giving in. If teams really felt that the value of a top 10 pick was as low as they claim, they could just let the player go unsigned and use that money on quality free agents.

That no team has done that should tell you all you need to know. The 'problem' with the top 10 players is the same problem as with the top free agents: when they fail, you still get charged for them.

Or, to demonstrate this in another way:

The Dolphins rookie pool was about $6.5 million, for all draftees.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/05/08/chiefs-have-deepest-rookie-pool/

Long ends up costing only about 3 million against the cap.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Sham:



http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sham

I understand the meaning quite well. The money is allocated by the league, and how that money is doled out to the individuals drafted is up to the teams. Furthermore, if the money involved were so usurious, the teams could simply show a little courage and do something crazy like, for example, not giving in. If teams really felt that the value of a top 10 pick was as low as they claim, they could just let the player go unsigned and use that money on quality free agents.

That no team has done that should tell you all you need to know. The 'problem' with the top 10 players is the same problem as with the top free agents: when they fail, you still get charged for them.

Or, to demonstrate this in another way:

The Dolphins rookie pool was about $6.5 million, for all draftees.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/05/08/chiefs-have-deepest-rookie-pool/

Long ends up costing only about 3 million against the cap.

You lost me again. Is there a particular reason why you refuse to elaborate on WHAT it is you view as a sham?

Because you understand, Long's not just on a one year contract - and in fact he's guranteed $30 million. No matter how you slice that - from the perspective of veteran players who have earned their big contract with proven NFL performance, to the team GM keeping his fingers crossed he didn't just give $30 million minimum to the next Alex Smith - none of them are going to take too much solace in your declaration that its a sham.

If Matt Cassell were getting paid $10 million this year in salary and bonus like Alex Smith - you'd have a pretty tough time convincing Patsfans what a sham that is and how the lack of $10 million in salary were having no effect on the team.

Geeze, with $10 million we could have kept Samuel - not that I would want to at that price, but pick your own top tier player and add them to the Patriots. That's not a sham - that would buy us a pretty darn good veteran player.

 

[VJCPatriot]

And every time I see Woods or Alexander on the field I KNOW Peyton Manning sees the same thing I do....

Yup he sees Woods and Alexander. Pierre Woods has been making strides and BB has been singing his praises. I'm not so high on Alexander, but he should never see the field except as a rotation guy to keep people fresh.

As for Mayo vs Suggs. That's a pipe dream. And Suggs would have demanded at least the 5/50 deal that Gholston got. That doesn't fit into the Pats cap philosophy. Mayo got signed to a good (moneywise) 5 year deal, and he's looked pretty good so far. This sounds like the grass is greener thinking.

 

[Deus Irae]

You lost me again. Is there a particular reason why you refuse to elaborate on WHAT it is you view as a sham?

I've pointed it out on numerous occasions.

Because you understand, Long's not just on a one year contract - and in fact he's guranteed $30 million. No matter how you slice that - from the perspective of veteran players who have earned their big contract with proven NFL performance, to the team GM keeping his fingers crossed he didn't just give $30 million minimum to the next Alex Smith - none of them are going to take too much solace in your declaration that its a sham.

No, this is incorrect. Long was guaranteed some portion of $6.5 million, nothing more. Everything else is because of contract negotiations. The irony of your Alex Smith argument is that such 'busts' happen all the time in free agency, as is illustrated by people here frequently calling the Redskins the champions of the offseason. Money poorly spent is what hurts a team, whether it's spent on a rookie or a veteran.

If Matt Cassell were getting paid $10 million this year in salary and bonus like Alex Smith - you'd have a pretty tough time convincing Patsfans what a sham that is and how the lack of $10 million in salary were having no effect on the team.

Matt Cassel is not being paid $10 million because nobody felt his potential was worth that much. Your argument would be just as accurate (and ridiculous) if you substituted Damon Huard for Matt Cassel and were decrying the free agency system. What about this is so difficult for you to grasp?

Geeze, with $10 million we could have kept Samuel - not that I would want to at that price, but pick your own top tier player and add them to the Patriots. That's not a sham - that would buy us a pretty darn good veteran player.

Again, Long only counts as $3 million against the cap, and he was the #1 pick overall, while Samuel has a cap hit of about $9.5 million, so your argument continues to be nonsensical.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I've pointed it out on numerous occasions. [

No, this is incorrect. Long was guaranteed some portion of $6.5 million, nothing more. Everything else is because of contract negotiations. The irony of your Alex Smith argument is that such 'busts' happen all the time in free agency, as is illustrated by people here frequently calling the Redskins the champions of the offseason. Money poorly spent is what hurts a team, whether it's spent on a rookie or a veteran.

Matt Cassel is not being paid $10 million because nobody felt his potential was worth that much. Your argument would be just as accurate (and ridiculous) if you substituted Damon Huard for Matt Cassel and were decrying the free agency system. What about this is so difficult for you to grasp?

Again, Long only counts as $3 million against the cap, and he was the #1 pick overall, while Samuel has a cap hit of about $9.5 million, so your argument continues to be nonsensical.

So Long is on a one year contract?

Funny, I could have sworn he has a 5 year deal with $30 million guranteed.

Matt Cassell - since you couldn't figure it out - is a Patriotsesque comparison to Alex Smith - standing on the sidelines at a cap hit of $10 million.

Someone felt he was worth that much - and gave him a contract - but because he was a player with no NFL experience he did not fulfil expectations. This is what tends to get some veteran players a little jaded.

Can you understand that?

Do you view Alex's Smith's $10 million in salary and bonus as "a sham"? (I still don't know what you mean after re-reading every post in this thread - but clearly you are just unwilling to explain what you mean by that - other than restating its a sham and saying that you've already made that clear - even throwing the dictionary definition around... very odd.)

 

[patchick]

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

Sorry to derail the side argument that's broken out , but Miguel -- to me that's not the main point. The point is the bizarre top-loading of the distribution among rookies. A small handful of players get a vast windfall before they've ever played a game, while the many quality players drafted outside the top dozen picks inevitably feel used and underpaid when they perform well. That's not a rookies vs. vets thing, or even a salary cap thing. It's just a badly-skewed-distribution-thing.

 

[Deus Irae]

So Long is on a one year contract?

Funny, I could have sworn he has a 5 year deal with $30 million guranteed.

Now you're just being a putz. You were the one who talked about the $10 million for Asante. That's ONE year.

Matt Cassell - since you couldn't figure it out - is a Patriotsesque comparison to Alex Smith - standing on the sidelines at a cap hit of $10 million.

Someone felt he was worth that much - and gave him a contract - but because he was a player with no NFL experience he did not fulfil expectations. This is what tends to get some veteran players a little jaded.

No, someone felt his POTENTIAL was worth that much. Free agent contracts are based upon potential determined by play in the NFL, while Draft contracts are based upon potential determined by play in college (and by the constraints of the draft allotment).

Can you understand that?

Obviously far better than you do.

Do you view Alex's Smith's $10 million in salary and bonus as "a sham"? (I still don't know what you mean after re-reading every post in this thread - but clearly you are just unwilling to explain what you mean by that - other than restating its a sham and saying that you've already made that clear - even throwing the dictionary definition around... very odd.)

No, I view the argument as a sham, as I've stated repeatedly. Is English not your native language? Is that why you always have problems with words and meanings? If so, let me know and I'll try providing synonyms for you to make things easier.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Now you're just being a putz. You were the one who talked about the $10 million for Asante. That's ONE year.

No, someone felt his POTENTIAL was worth that much. Free agent contracts are based upon potential determined by play in the NFL, while Draft contracts are based upon potential determined by play in college (and by the constraints of the draft allotment).

Obviously far better than you do.

No, I view the argument as a sham, as I've stated repeatedly. Is English not your native language? Is that why you always have problems with words and meanings? If so, let me know and I'll try providing synonyms for you to make things easier.

You really seem to enjoy being belligerent or feigning ignorance on this issue for some warped reason.

As I'm sure you understand the issue of great concern is the high rookie contracts... not just one year but the full contract including tens of millions of dollars of guaranteed money for players who have no NFL experience who often do not come close to fulfilling expectations.

That results in a defacto waste or loss of that salary and bonus for the teams in question- which transcends more than just one year, but to give you some perspective, is costing the 49ers $10 million this year alone.

$10 million dollars in cap space, just for your further perspective, is about what one would spend on one of the top tier free agents per season - using Asante Samuel as an example - ... making it something far less than a "sham" and in fact something that adversely impacts a team.

You've got some odd distinction between the "argument" of this being a sham and the issue perhaps NOT being a sham I take it - but you'll have to forgive us for missing that strage distinction.

The bottom line is that NFL veterans who get big signing bonuses get it because they have PROVEN they can play at this level. Rookies selected at the top of the 1st round have no track record in the NFL and yet earn more than veterans with proven performance.

I think very few would view the current system as good for football or a sham, and I'd expect there will be some move to modify the system, perhaps in the next CBA with a system that allows teams to mitigate the financial risk of using a high draft pick to have a portion of salary or bonus performance related.

My understanding is that the NFL granted the worst team the 1st draft choice as a measure to HELP them get better. Given the high risk such high amounts of guaranteed money, nowadays the worst teams in the NFL can effectively be penalized with the highest picks - with few interested in allowing them to trade down, with poor picks exacerbating the issue further by adversely impacting the team, creating a vicious circle in which the worst teams continue to be forced to use the most expensive draft picks because they continue to have poor records.

If anything the "sham" is that the #1 draft pick is supposed to help the team when in fact, these days it seems the best teams wouldn't want to touch that with a ten foot pole.