smg930 said:
If rookie deals can not go for more than the 5 years for the #21 pick under the new CBA than don't you think these agents will be clamoring for four year deals? Now that the CBA has cut these rookie deals by one year from 6 to 5 years, do you think agents will not change there stand and still be happy with a 5 year rookie deal? Of course not. They'll likely want to cut short that contract by a year since as you pointed out, the rookie deal is where players are the most underpaid.
Interesting hypothesis. We will see what happens in real life. My prediction - Picks 17 through 32 will all be signed to at least 5-year deals.
On your second item, if teams had their way, they would sign all their players to 15 year rookie contracts (assuming SB's can be spread out by 15 years of course) because once again, these contracts are where they are most underpaid. Knowing they can sign players and cut them whenever they want is a luxury that NFL teams have as you know. That's the point of limiting rookie contracts in the first place. That's why length of rookie contracts is a CBA topic. That is also why when the Union negotiates for a new CBA, one of the likely topics as it was this year was to shorten the rookie contracts to prevent strategies like this. Free Agency would be pretty dead if rookie contracts were allowed to go for 15 years. Under that scenario, do you really think that Brady, Branch, Seymour, and Givens would ever be let go until after the 15 year period assuming they are still playing at a decent level in the end of their contract? Frankly, at the end of that 15 years, all of those guys would be in their mid to late thirties and why would you want to sign a guy at that age to a big FA contract. It is under that scenario where drafts would be extremely important because you know that teams aren't going to let go and cut their blue chip stars if they still are under the contracts where they are at their most underpaid.
FWIW - I hate the use of looking at extremes.
On your third item, sure there will be players who sign an extenstion
which directly contradicts yours and PromisedLand's point - "And as promisedland said, if they are stars, why sign an extension when there is every chance that they can cash in on free agency? I have to think that bona fide stars will think very hard before they decide to opt out of free agency."
I'm not a capologist like you, but I simply believe in the laws of supply and demand.
FYI - I also believe in the laws of supply and demand.
Teams will be able to re-stock rosters through FA because there will be more players available because not all rookies will want an extension.
Just because you and PromisedLand say that the new limits will cause more players to be available does not mean that it is true. I have already shown that not every team had a strict policy of signing players to 6-year deals.
Im not even so sure that Seymour would have extended his contract two years ago if he knew that he would have been an FA last year instead of holding out and staying away from parts of training camp. In my mind, when there are more players available, that means salary expectations for these FA's will also be less simply because there is more talent to choose from, and teams are still constrained by a salary cap.
At the beginning of April, the average team was under the cap by $10 million. That is not being constrained.
Greater supply due to more FA talent combined with finite demand in the form of a salary cap will lessen the cost for FA's and therefore make it more palatable for teams to re-stock rosters with young NFL veterans. That's just plain Adam Smith Economics 101.
FYI - I graduated with an economics degree. I did not need a refresher course.
IMO, the reasons why stars like Brady, Seymour, Manning, Palmer, Vick, and Tomlinson forgo free agency have NOT been eliminated with the new limits. Therefore, I do not believe that the new limits will cause more FA talent to be available than would have been available if there were no new limits.
The Pats are right now 16.9 million under the cap.
Let's say that the Pats will have a $1.5 million injury reserve.
Let's say that it will take $1.2 million to sign players 52,53, and a 8 man practice squad.
Let's say that it will take $3.3 million to sign their draft picks.
All of the above numbers are on the high end, BTW.
That leaves the Pats $10.9 million in cap room to use.
The Pats will either use that cap room to extend players or use the phony LTBE/NTLBE move to move cap space into 2007. If it is the former, then the number of Patriots free agents in 2007 will decrease. If it is the latter, the Pats will not be constrained by the cap in 2007 so they can freely spend in free agency. Either way, your contention that "Greater supply due to more FA talent combined with finite demand in the form of a salary cap will lessen the cost for FA's and therefore make it more palatable for teams to re-stock rosters with young NFL veterans" will have a hard time becoming reality.
That will be true for every team who are way under the cap now (Green Bay, Philly, San Diego, Cincy, Jets, etc.)