SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.
Miguel said:No one has shown that the money that will be given to the draft picks this year is preventing veterans from getting more money.
Let's use our favorite team as an example.
Currently, the Patriots are under the cap by $16.8 million. Because of the Top 51 rule it will take $1.8 million in cap space to sign the 2006 draft class.
Let's set aside $1.25 million a a reserve to replace injured players during the season.
Let's set aside another $1.25 million to sign players 52,53 and have a 8-man practice squad.
16.8
-1.8
-1.25
-1.25
======
$12.5 million in cap space.
IMO, one can not say that the money devoted to Maroney, Chad Jackson is preventing veterans like Troy Brown or Tedy from getting raises.
NEM said:They are all friggin overpaid, period. It has to stop.
NEM said:They are all friggin overpaid, period. It has to stop.
MoLewisrocks said:You're talking cap while others are talking contract and cash. You are also talking about a team that doesn't get to pick in the top ten but rarely and hasn't had a top 3-5 pick to absorb in the BB era. And a team that eschews the big money hype based deals across the board and asks veterans at the top to take a little less or resist the impulse to insist they raise the bar personally so that their team can afford to pay a little more for a solid middle class. Apples and oranges.
We do it the way the league should. To protect them (and us) from the consequences of many not having the intestinal fortitude to do it as a matter of good business sense, or have the NFLPA cry collusion, the league would have to cap these deals and use the money as Trent Green suggests to expand the compensation pool to reward those who have outperformed their existing contracts. Youngsters drafted later or UDFA's, journeymen who are the backbone of the league, and grizzled veterans who are often still outperforming these bonus babies for a fraction of the take home pay.
MoLewisrocks said:You're talking cap while others are talking contract and cash.
MoLewisrocks said:.
We do it the way the league should. To protect them (and us) from the consequences of many not having the intestinal fortitude to do it as a matter of good business sense, or have the NFLPA cry collusion, the league would have to cap these deals and use the money as Trent Green suggests to expand the compensation pool to reward those who have outperformed their existing contracts.
MoLewisrocks said:You're talking cap while others are talking contract and cash. You are also talking about a team that doesn't get to pick in the top ten but rarely and hasn't had a top 3-5 pick to absorb in the BB era. And a team that eschews the big money hype based deals across the board and asks veterans at the top to take a little less or resist the impulse to insist they raise the bar personally so that their team can afford to pay a little more for a solid middle class. Apples and oranges.
NEM said:Bob Kraft tried, it went no where.
MoLewisrocks said:Joe hit it dead on in one of his posts - saddling an underperforming team with year after year of these draft bonus babies is not a recipe for parity. Collect enough of them and it eventually chokes not just your cash flow but your cap whether they pan out or not.
From pages 56 and 57 of the http://www.nflpa.org/PDFs/Shared/20...y_Averages_&_Signing_Trends_November_2005.pdfMoLewisrocks said:Again, I'm talking actual cash payroll, not cap. And not slashing rookie salaries or contracts, just capping insane signing bonus payouts to players who have yet to set foot on the field.
Tell that to the 2005 Bengals. From 1999 to 2003 they had a Top 10 pick. Once they got Marvin Lewis, they stopped having a losing record.Joe hit it dead on in one of his posts - saddling an underperforming team with year after year of these draft bonus babies is not a recipe for parity. Collect enough of them and it eventually chokes not just your cash flow but your cap whether they pan out or not.
I am well aware that the compensation program exists. As is Trent Green. He wants to see it expanded to include underpaid journeymen and veterans, not just youngsters who outperform their recent draft status.
ClosingTime said:If anything it is the vets that are overpaid and the rookies are severly underpaid. That is a major reason why the axiom "you build your team through the draft" is so true.
I would agree on looking at the top choices...making way way too much..and the UDFAs...lower picks making too little.. That is why when one looks at it in total, it is a low percentage of total money. I agree..maybe flatten out a bit more of the top rounds..fatten the UDFAs a bit more.. The more I looked at it, the more I realized that it is MORE the top picks..that are overpayed..(and what is outrageous..) than any of the others. I agree..the magic wand might be win-win..JoeSixPat said:A distinction should be made in any response - and perhaps in a differently phrased question, as to whether 1st round draft choices are overpaid
I'd generally agree that 2nd round draft choices on down represent tremendous value... and with good reason as even future great players need time to develop and might not produce for 1, 2, even 3 years while taking a roster spot and getting paid more than most of us on this board put together
It's the guaranteed money based on potential alone - and not production - that creates the perception of being overpaid - and that's most apparent even only in the top 10 picks too.
So if I could wave a wand I'd even out the baseline salaries among the 1st round picks, but allowing them to make up the lost cash by meeting incentives
That seems like a win win situation to me