Rookie wage scale not a sure thing

[Deus Irae]

Everybody was screaming about the contract that Sam Bradford got from the Rams. A year later, where's all the screaming?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

According to this
The Rookie Sacrifice: NFL, NFLPA proposals unveiled | National Football Post

it was the players who are including the retirees in their proposal, not the owners.

Brandt simply neglected to cover in his analysis what the owners proposal for distribution of the savings entailed. He does things like that from time to time...

The owners began proposing their rookie scale back in January 2010. They have exchanged a couple of proposals with the union since. The union's first proposal didn't mention giving back the savings to the rookies, they wanted $100M to go to the retirees as the result of PR pressure, and the remainder to veterans and wanted the league to match the amount that went to retirees out of pocket for good measure...but they also wanted that done in conjunction with a 2 year extension to the expiring CBA. They were willing to sell out the class of 2010 for a two year extension of the CBA owners opted out of because it was so imbalanced in favor of the players.

What the owners are proposing is a true rookie scale with slotted contracts that eliminate the need for agents or the possibility of holdouts. They want signing bonuses paid out over the life of the rookie contract as opposed to guaranteed up front, so that if the player screws up that money is recoverable. They want 5 year deals for first rounders and 4 year deals for all but UDFA's who would get 3 year deals. They want the #1 pick to get roughly $5M in bonus money and another $10M or so in salary over the first 5 years of his deal. Those deals could not be renegotiated for three years in the case of first rounders and two years in the case of all others. But if a team wants to and is satisfied the investment is warranted, they could then pay that player whatever they choose two or three years in. The second deal would become the big deal, theoretically after a player has proven he is worth the investment. It's a proposal most fans and many veterans would largely support on it's face. That is why the union has to attempt to spin it as something else.

The union that had always contended it would only support a rookie scale if the savings flowed to veteran players apparently decided after some prodding from the big agents that rookies in fact did matter. For openers their top tier deals drive the market for elite veteran players. They then changed their tune and claimed that the owners proposal was actually a veteran cap since more than half of all current union members have between 3-5 years of service... Suddenly their focus shifted to redirecting half of the so called savings back to the rookies and away from the veterans and retirees. The same retirees Gene Upshaw always contended were not his constituency.

Back in January Mark Murphy, the President of the Packers, had an article in the Washington Post detailing the owners proposals and the rationale behind them from his unique perspective as a former UDFA who ended up playing for 8 years and winning Superbowl Rings as both a player and now a Club President and member of the Management Council. Liz Mullen of the Sports Business Journal also has had the details on each sides proposals over the past year. Unfortunately my computer has recently decided it will not allow me to cut and paste links... One of the things I have come to realize about De Smith is you can't trust his spin on any proposal or issue to be remotely factual. I also believe that while this is a fight between billionaires and millionaries, the billionaires had a lot more to do with making the millionaires than visa versa. The league was smart to make the game and not the talent it's product. Talent comes and goes, the game endures. And while there are some problematic owners at both extremes, I do believe the vast majority want a fair deal for all parties. While I don't think the NFLPA gives a rats ass about anything other than grabbing as much of the pie for the talent they represent, and in particular the perceived elite talent, as they possibly can in the present or the future.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Everybody was screaming about the contract that Sam Bradford got from the Rams. A year later, where's all the screaming?

Not sure what your point is, but while it's not like he was the total bust Russell was I don't think too many fans outside of St. Louis (and probably within) believe a player who isn't within the top 20 at his position in his rookie season should be making the same money as veteran players with exponentially better stats and multiple winning seasons and pro bowl or all pro honors and even championship rings on their resume, or guaranteed as much money as most elite FA see in their second contract before he ever steps on the field as a pro.

I think he barely performed well enough as a rookie to justify the kind of deal he'd get under the rookie wage scale ownership proposed. And it remains to be seen how he performs consistently going forward, but for the Rams sake I hope it's a lot better...

 

[Deus Irae]

Not sure what your point is, but while it's not like he was the total bust Russell was I don't think too many fans outside of St. Louis (and probably within) believe a player who isn't within the top 20 at his position in his rookie season should be making the same money as veteran players with exponentially better stats and multiple winning seasons and pro bowl or all pro honors and even championship rings on their resume, or guaranteed as much money as most elite FA see in their second contract before he ever steps on the field as a pro.

I think he barely performed well enough as a rookie to justify the kind of deal he'd get under the rookie wage scale ownership proposed. And it remains to be seen how he performs consistently going forward, but for the Rams sake I hope it's a lot better...

The point is that nobody cares about the money when it goes to players that pan out. It's only an issue when it goes to the busts. The owners love the issue, though, because high-end rookie contracts are the worst contracts for them. They actually cost real money, and aren't just accounting gimmicks like so many follow up contracts end up being. If a team sucks on the field, they get rewarded with a high draft pick. If they suck at drafting, they get punished by having a JaMarcus Russell draining their bank account. Seems pretty fair to me. Why should crappy teams get both high drafting ability and draft bust insurance (which is what a rookie cap that drags down tops salaries is)? If a team really doesn't want to pay a player for #1 overall money, it could just pass on the pick. Eventually, someone will step to the podium with a selection.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

I think he barely performed well enough as a rookie to justify the kind of deal he'd get under the rookie wage scale ownership proposed. And it remains to be seen how he performs consistently going forward, but for the Rams sake I hope it's a lot better...

Agreed that he was overpaid under the current system but I think you underestimate his rookie year. Look at other QBs thrown in as a rookie, Aikman and Peyton and he performed as well. Am I putting him in their category going forward? No, but there have been worse rookie years. Let's see if he steps it up in year two..
yds TD/int rating team record
Peyton 326/575 3739 56.7% 26/28 71.2 3-13
Troy A.155/293 1749 52.9% 9/18 55.7 0-11(11 games not 16)
Bradford 354/590 3512 60.0% 18/15 76.5 7-9

 

[Miguel]

Brandt simply neglected to cover in his analysis what the owners proposal for distribution of the savings entailed. He does things like that from time to time....

An unproven assertion.

 

[Deus Irae]

An unproven assertion.

WB Miguel. People were getting panicky without you to help them on salary issues.

 

[Miguel]

Those deals could not be renegotiated for three years in the case of first rounders and two years in the case of all others. But if a team wants to and is satisfied the investment is warranted, they could then pay that player whatever they choose two or three years in..

Brandt reports:
"No renegotiations or extensions of the rookie contract until after three years of the contract. The present rule allows for renegotiations or extensions after two years of rookie contracts. This locks a player into his rookie deal no matter what performance in the first two seasons of his career."

Why should I accept your version/interpretation of the owner' proposal over Brandt's?

 

[Miguel]

For openers their top tier deals drive the market for elite veteran players.

Which is true. Did anyone think that any top QB was going to take less than what Bradford got?

They then changed their tune and claimed that the owners proposal was actually a veteran cap since more than half of all current union members have between 3-5 years of service..

Given that the owners' rookie wage scale proposal includes lowering the minimum salaries for years 1 through 5 and maybe all years I think that it is fair to say that the owners' proposal will lower the salaries for a good deal of veterans.

 

[townes]

I think what people are missing is that a rookie wage scale actually hurts the top players financially because it is rookie deals that continually drive up the bar for top contracts. When Jake Long comes in as the highest paid OL in football it establishes a new baseline for the top tackles when they hit the open market, and it simply drives all salaries up. Older players and mediocre players end up losing out on their part of the pie but people are kidding themselves if they think the players are gung ho to establish a rookie scale. The owners want it, the players will concede it, but it's a chip, and since the owners aren't really negotiating but are actually demanding it's a chip the players should hang onto until they get some concessions. Personally I think the players should make the 18 game season their big chip and shouldn't give in to it unless the owners give real concessions from their current stand. The 18 game season is a horrible idea, and imo shows that the owners greed trumps their concern for the game as a whole.

 

[moosekill]

I think what people are missing is that a rookie wage scale actually hurts the top players financially because it is rookie deals that continually drive up the bar for top contracts.

I think some people are missing the point that there will almost certainly be a salary cap after this mess is solved. When you make rookies the highest paid players they end up taking a large chunk of that salary cap. Teams then don't have the ability to pay the other players while remaining under the cap. It sort of amazes me that some people don't get it.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

I think what people are missing is that a rookie wage scale actually hurts the top players financially because it is rookie deals that continually drive up the bar for top contracts. When Jake Long comes in as the highest paid OL in football it establishes a new baseline for the top tackles when they hit the open market, and it simply drives all salaries up. Older players and mediocre players end up losing out on their part of the pie but people are kidding themselves if they think the players are gung ho to establish a rookie scale. The owners want it, the players will concede it, but it's a chip, and since the owners aren't really negotiating but are actually demanding it's a chip the players should hang onto until they get some concessions. Personally I think the players should make the 18 game season their big chip and shouldn't give in to it unless the owners give real concessions from their current stand. The 18 game season is a horrible idea, and imo shows that the owners greed trumps their concern for the game as a whole.

If top draft rookies weren't being paid exorbitantly, teams wouldn't throw the bank at Brady or Manning? Or even at proven pass rushers or high performing wide receivers or shut down corners? I tend to think, ultimately, that teams in need of players will bid what they can afford -- and sometimes even bid what they can't afford -- which will set market price. As long as being successful equals more franchise value, large rookie contracts will have little long term impact on the market rate. One need look no further than Baseball to see how organizations will outbid each other to land players that can add franchise value.
A player's ultimate contribution, or perceived contribution, to franchise value -- franchise value in all its forms -- along with many teams bidding for those contributions will quickly drown out any (if there is any) small and temporary loss from scaled back rookie wages. The only real wage scale dampener is the salary cap. It is a way to save owners from themselves and keep wage rates from going much higher (and rookie wages would have no affect on that).

 

[jczxohn1]

I think what people are missing is that a rookie wage scale actually hurts the top players financially because it is rookie deals that continually drive up the bar for top contracts. When Jake Long comes in as the highest paid OL in football it establishes a new baseline for the top tackles when they hit the open market, and it simply drives all salaries up. Older players and mediocre players end up losing out on their part of the pie but people are kidding themselves if they think the players are gung ho to establish a rookie scale. The owners want it, the players will concede it, but it's a chip, and since the owners aren't really negotiating but are actually demanding it's a chip the players should hang onto until they get some concessions. Personally I think the players should make the 18 game season their big chip and shouldn't give in to it unless the owners give real concessions from their current stand. The 18 game season is a horrible idea, and imo shows that the owners greed trumps their concern for the game as a whole.

Come clean, you're an agent, right?

 

[The Boston Patriot]

I think what people are missing is that a rookie wage scale actually hurts the top players financially because it is rookie deals that continually drive up the bar for top contracts. When Jake Long comes in as the highest paid OL in football it establishes a new baseline for the top tackles when they hit the open market, and it simply drives all salaries up. Older players and mediocre players end up losing out on their part of the pie but people are kidding themselves if they think the players are gung ho to establish a rookie scale. The owners want it, the players will concede it, but it's a chip, and since the owners aren't really negotiating but are actually demanding it's a chip the players should hang onto until they get some concessions. Personally I think the players should make the 18 game season their big chip and shouldn't give in to it unless the owners give real concessions from their current stand. The 18 game season is a horrible idea, and imo shows that the owners greed trumps their concern for the game as a whole.

The rookie pay scale will happen and the 18 game season will happen, the
latter just not in the next couple of years. That will be the concession the
NFLPA will get for accepting the rookie pay scale, nothing more. Someone
needs to tell the NFLPA that they are moments away (figure of speech) from
all out insurrection when the players start losing their pay checks and some
of them will see what's left of their career being flushed down the toilet. It's
going to get ugly real quick in the trenches.

 

[Miguel]

I think some people are missing the point that there will almost certainly be a salary cap after this mess is solved. When you make rookies the highest paid players they end up taking a large chunk of that salary cap. Teams then don't have the ability to pay the other players while remaining under the cap. It sort of amazes me that some people don't get it.

In 2008 the cap space amount devoted to the phony LTBE move (close to 163 million) was more than the cap space devoted to the 2008 draft class (close to 143 million)

Since I like to back up my assertions with facts

Chiefs get largest rookie pool to pay draft picks - NFL - ESPN

NFL Forum :: - Pushing cap room from 2008 into 2009

I think that your understanding of rookie contracts would benefit from reading
AdamJT13: The rookie pool and the salary cap

 

[Miguel]

Can anyone name for me a veteran who was underpaid because of a contract given to a rookie?I am not asking you to compare a veteran's salary cap numbers to a rookie's.

Example, was Tom Brady underpaid because of a contract given to a Patriot rookie?

 

[Rob0729]

Can anyone name for me a veteran who was underpaid because of a contract given to a rookie?I am not asking you to compare a veteran's salary cap numbers to a rookie's.

Example, was Tom Brady underpaid because of a contract given to a Patriot rookie?

It isn't the top veterans who get underpaid. It is the older veterans who skills are declining who get cut or forced to take major pay cuts because of their salaries to get the team under the cap. It is the Pats cutting a Willie McGinest when he still has value because his cap number is prohibitive. Here is my list of players just from the Pats who were hurt because of the cap which included the need to have a signficant enough rookie pool:

Willie McGinest (cut because of a roster bonus)
Rodney Harrison (forced to take a $700k pay cut)
Mike Vrabel (traded because of a $1 million roster bonus)
Ty Law (cut because of his salary, but he might have been cut anyway since his cap number was huge)
Lawyer Milloy (Considering the amount of room the Pats needed that year, a smaller rookie pool might have made it easy enough to keep him with a few minor moves)

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Can anyone name for me a veteran who was underpaid because of a contract given to a rookie?I am not asking you to compare a veteran's salary cap numbers to a rookie's.

Example, was Tom Brady underpaid because of a contract given to a Patriot rookie?

What a ridiculous argument. How about we look at veterans who were cut rather than retained because rookie deals become increasingly cap impactful over their course.

And as for backing up arguments, here are some excerpts from Mark Murphy's December article in The Washington Post:

Earlier this year, Sports Illustrated published a list of the 50 highest-paid American athletes. Five 2009 NFL rookies were on the list, averaging nearly $21 million in total income for their rookie year. Every other athlete on the list was a proven veteran.

Our current system of paying rookies doesn't make sense. In 2009, 256 drafted rookies signed contracts calling for $1.2 billion in compensation with $585 million guaranteed. This year the numbers increased to $1.27 billion, including $660 million guaranteed, for 255 draft choices.

No other business operates this way, and no other union gives its entry-level hires such privileges. The system is so bad that some teams no longer want picks in the top part of the first round of the NFL draft. The cost is too high, especially if a player taken that early turns out to be a bust.

As for the NFL proposal and how it was structured and where the savings would go:

Our management negotiating team has proposed to the NFLPA a common-sense wage scale for incoming players. It is similar in some respects to the fixed entry-level scale for players in the National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League, and is a critical component of a solution that would avoid a work stoppage.

We estimate that a rookie wage scale would free up more than a billion dollars during the term of a five-year agreement, and more if it is a longer deal. That money would be redistributed to veterans and retired players. The new entry-level system would end rookie holdouts that damage relations between the player and team, and would eliminate the complexities in the current rookie contracts.

Under our proposal, mandatory contract lengths would be five years for first-round players (six years for quarterbacks), four years for second- through seventh-round picks and three years for undrafted rookies (as I was). Players and teams would be able to renegotiate and extend the initial contracts of first-round rookies after year three, and after year two for all other rookies.

Under the proposal, the first pick in the draft would sign a five-year contract and receive a $5.34 million signing bonus and $1.5 million salary his rookie year, even if he does not play a single down. In years two and three, his salary would be set at $1.7 million and $1.9 million, respectively. His fourth- and fifth-year salaries would rise to $2.3 million and $2.9 million for a total package of $15.6 million. (If he is a quarterback, he would be paid $4.3 million in year six.) The first pick would still be paid well, but at a much more reasonable level than under the current system.

Murphy is the President of the Green Bay Packers and a member of the NFL negotiating committee. I think he has a better understanding of the proposal than Brandt, and maybe that is why he rose to the level he did with the Packers while Brandt after stints in the FO and as an agent ended up a mediot. I have called Brandt on some of his misinformation at the NFP via the comments section only to realize he doesn't answer critics or correct misinformation. Murphy began his NFL career as an UDFA safety and played 8 seasons with the Redskins. His perspective is rather unique as a result. He is part of the vast majority of ownership who wants to see a fair deal done that benefits everyone long term and allows for the games to go on not just this season but for the forseeable future.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/210/12/17/AR201012170256.html

 

[TruthSeeker]

I think what people are missing is that a rookie wage scale actually hurts the top players financially because it is rookie deals that continually drive up the bar for top contracts. When Jake Long comes in as the highest paid OL in football it establishes a new baseline for the top tackles when they hit the open market, and it simply drives all salaries up. Older players and mediocre players end up losing out on their part of the pie but people are kidding themselves if they think the players are gung ho to establish a rookie scale. The owners want it, the players will concede it, but it's a chip, and since the owners aren't really negotiating but are actually demanding it's a chip the players should hang onto until they get some concessions. Personally I think the players should make the 18 game season their big chip and shouldn't give in to it unless the owners give real concessions from their current stand. The 18 game season is a horrible idea, and imo shows that the owners greed trumps their concern for the game as a whole.

I think it's all pretty much irrelevant if there is a salary cap and a salary base. The money will be paid out. The marketplace will decide how much more money the top players will get than the intermediate players and the bottom-tier players. The only truly significant issue is what the cap is.

 

[townes]

I think some people are missing the point that there will almost certainly be a salary cap after this mess is solved. When you make rookies the highest paid players they end up taking a large chunk of that salary cap. Teams then don't have the ability to pay the other players while remaining under the cap. It sort of amazes me that some people don't get it.

I'm not saying there won't be a cap, what I'm saying is that there is a reason the players don't fully support the idea, and the reason is grounded in the fact that big rookie contracts drive up the bar for everyone. There seems to be a basic assumption among fans that the players want a rookie cap and that isn't the case, some want it , some don't, those who think they will ash in after their initial deals are done are going to want the high end higher, those on the back half of rosters would want it because it would give them a larger share of the pie, but those, like Mankins, who expect to be highly paid want the top deals as high as possible.

Ultimately the rookie cap is going to be a bargaining chip for the players, it's not something they are simply going to give the owners without concession.