Provisions that I don't truly understand

[DaBruinz]

John Clayton was able to get ahold of some provisions in the CBA offer from the players to the owners. Here they are.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2358857

• Contracts for players selected in rounds two through seven of the collegiate draft will be limited to four years in length. More and more teams have been trying to lock second-day draft choices into five-year contracts that prevent the player from hitting restricted free agency after year three and unrestricted free agency after year four.

• Bonuses in contracts will be pro-rated over five years this year and over six years in 2007, but in 2008 the pro-ration reverts to five years.

These two provisions seem, to me, to be bad moves for the players.

In both cases, I think it will mean smaller signing bonuses for players because the bonuses can't be stretched out more over the length of the contract.

Also, the 2nd one seems to be basically saying that contracts will be limited to 5 years after the 2007 season. While its not written in stone, limiting the proration to 5 years means teams are less likely to offer large bonuses because they can't pro-rate them as long.

 

[hwc]

The only thing the NFL Agents Association cares about is getting more players to hit free agency more often. In the eyes of the agents, the more they can churn the rosters, the more opportunity to pick up a nice fat commission.

With a max four-year deal for rookies, you'll see teams cutting a lot more draft picks after a year or two. There is absolutely no incentive to stick with a guy while he develops. If you finally coach him up into a starter after three or four years, you'll have no chance of keeping him. So, if a guy doesn't produce right away, but him and move on to the next guy.

 

[Miguel]

John Clayton was able to get ahold of some provisions in the CBA offer from the players to the owners. Here they are.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2358857



These two provisions seem, to me, to be bad moves for the players.

In both cases, I think it will mean smaller signing bonuses for players because the bonuses can't be stretched out more over the length of the contract.

Also, the 2nd one seems to be basically saying that contracts will be limited to 5 years after the 2007 season. While its not written in stone, limiting the proration to 5 years means teams are less likely to offer large bonuses because they can't pro-rate them as long.

A Day 2's draft pick's biggest contract is often his second one. The union just wants the player to hit free agency one year earlier. Apply that proposal to Deion Branch. From 2002-2006 he will have made $3.4 million with the Pats. Under the NFLPA's proposal, he would have probably gotten a $800,000 signing bonus in 2002, rather than a $1,025,000 signing bonus. Branch takes $200,000 less in 2002 to get millions more in 2006 while having one less year of taking on the injury risk. The earlier a player can pass on the injury risk to the team the better for the player. Under the current system if Branch suffers an injury in 2006, he never sees a big payday.

 

[hwc]

A Day 2's draft pick's biggest contract is often his second one.

I'd love to see the stats on how many Day 2 draft picks even make it to a second NFL contract. I bet the percentages are very, very low.

 

[JoeSixPat]

A Day 2's draft pick's biggest contract is often his second one. The union just wants the player to hit free agency one year earlier.

The NFLPA rationale for this provision seems very clear and straightforward. Generally speaking I would think that Day 2 picks - Rounds 4 and on - wouldn't be longer than 4 years anyway.

The provision would probably mostly affect Round 2 and 3 players who might have contracts with Team Options for up to 5 years. So a good move for the players there.

Limiting the length of signing bonus pro-rating doesn't strike me as a smart thing for the players. The only thing that makes sense is that this was a bone they were throwing to the Owners - and that limiting to 5 years rather than 7 years would limit the use of "fake" years in contracts.

 

[Miguel]

Limiting the length of signing bonus pro-rating doesn't strike me as a smart thing for the players. The only thing that makes sense is that this was a bone they were throwing to the Owners - and that limiting to 5 years rather than 7 years would limit the use of "fake" years in contracts.

BINGO. If the unions gets something they want, the owners have to get something in return. That's how most negotiations work.

 

[hwc]

BINGO. If the unions gets something they want, the owners have to get something in return. That's how most negotiations work.

Oh. You mean like: when the union gets what it wants (counting total league revenues), then they give up something by dropping their 60% demand to 59.5%?

 

[PATSNUTme]

I have a feeling that those provisions won't come into play. I don't think that there will be an agreement tonight.

I hope that there is, but I don't think that there will be.

Hope that I'm wrong.