- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 76,883
- Reaction score
- 66,866
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.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.
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...
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...
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.
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..
Which is true. Did anyone think that any top QB was going to take less than what Bradford got?For openers their top tier deals drive the market for elite veteran players.
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.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..
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 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 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 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 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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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 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.