Russell demanding $35M guaranteed

[rbkgoalr]

To be honest with you, if I was the Oakland GM, I might just walk. I think it is completely absurd for a rookie QB, A ROOKIE who has not proven anything in the league, to ask for so much guaranteed money. It is just flat-out ridiculous. Honestly, if I was offered 31 mill in guaranteed money, I sure as hell would take it. I could understand if he had proven something in the NFL, but he hasn't. For all we know he could be the next Ryan Leaf.

 

[Pats726]

To be honest with you, if I was the Oakland GM, I might just walk. I think it is completely absurd for a rookie QB, A ROOKIE who has not proven anything in the league, to ask for so much guaranteed money. It is just flat-out ridiculous. Honestly, if I was offered 31 mill in guaranteed money, I sure as hell would take it. I could understand if he had proven something in the NFL, but he hasn't. For all we know he could be the next Ryan Leaf.

Amen....silly!!

 

[Miguel]

Re: Russel Demanding 35 Mil Guaranteed

Miguel, could you help with understanding on this? How much of the rookie pool did the Raiders get? And, can Russell's demands fit under what the Raiders have left in their pool?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2862869
The Raiders had a rookie pool of $6.913 million. Since I do not know how much the Raiders have left in their pool, I can't answer the 2nd question.

 

[Miguel]

Re: Russell demanding 35 Mil guaranteed

Are Russell's requests at the same % increase in the salary cap since '05?

(make that 2 questions)

The cap was 85,500,000 in 2005.
The cap is 109,134,000 in 2007.

If my math is right, the cap increased by over 27% since 2005.

 

[Miguel]

IMO, if the NFLPA wants vets to get more money, then they should get rid of the rule that any incentive added during the season is automatically considered LTBE. By doing so, teams would be forced to spend more money on their players.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Russel Demanding 35 Mil Guaranteed

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2862869
The Raiders had a rookie pool of $6.913 million. Since I do not know how much the Raiders have left in their pool, I can't answer the 2nd question.

Thanks Miguel. You're hard work is always appreciated.

 

[captain stone]

Re: Russell demanding 35 Mil guaranteed

The cap was 85,500,000 in 2005.
The cap is 109,134,000 in 2007.

If my math is right, the cap increased by over 27% since 2005.

Thanks, Miguel.

So, if Alex Smith received $24M guaranteed in 2005 (as per Zippo), then the Raiders should offer Russell no more than $31M guaranteed.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Re: Russel Demanding 35 Mil Guaranteed

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2862869
The Raiders had a rookie pool of $6.913 million. Since I do not know how much the Raiders have left in their pool, I can't answer the 2nd question.

I don't claim to be an expert (or not even close) in the CBA like Miguel but there was a recent article in the SacBee ( see link below) that explained that the Raiders may have screwed the pooch in dealing with JaMarcus Russell by giving Zach Miller too much of a signing bonus and overutiilizing the rookie pool leaving less money for Russell becuase of the 25% rule.

I estimated signing bonuses based on the players above or below and what was known and prorated the bonuses over the length of the contracts. While Miller's bonus is known, for
Quentin Moses I used the player within a few selections as a benchmark....

Oakland
Rd Sel# Player Pos. Ht. Wt. annual bonus total bonus
1 1 Russell, JaMarcus
2 38 Miller, Zach TE 241K prorated 965K 4 yrs
3 65 Moses, Quentin D 175k prorated 700K
3 91 Henderson, Mario 156K prorated est 625 4
3 99 Higgins, Johnnie Lee 125K prorated est 500K 4
4 100 Bush, Michael RB 125K prorated 500K 4 yrs
4 110 Bowie, John CB 112K est 450K est
5 138 Richardson, Jay DE 69 k est 275 est
5 165 Frampton, Eric SS 30 K 120K est
6 175 O'Neal, Oren 25 K 100K est
7 254 Holland, Johnathan 9K prorated est 36K 4 years


10 other picks at $285K base salary each (according to NFLPA player search)is $2.85 million plus prorated share of signing bonus for them ($1.067 est) totalling $3.92 million out of
6.913 Million rookie pool, leaves approximately $3 million to sign Russell for this year.

Maximum Cap number
year 1 $3.0M assuming 25% increase. cap number
year 2 3.75M
year 3 4.68M
year 4 5.86M
year 5 7.34M
year 6 9.15M
totals $33.78 million- If they are looking for $35 million, is it possible under the CBA?


If the Raiders only have $3.0 million left in the rookie pool for Russell, then the max contract to stay in the CBA may be $33.78 because they gave too much to Zach Miller in a signing bonus...

http://www.sacbee.com/100/story/308295.html
Miller's contract uses up too much money

The most they can allocate to the cap for Russell is $3.0 million this year which messes up future increases.
I'd let a capologist study it but hopefully I'm in the ballpark..........

 

[gomezcat]

Do other American sports spend silly money on rookies? It doesn't happen to the same extent in any non-American sport I can think of. In those where 20 odd year olds get very well paid, it is because they have shown some ability at the relevant professional level.

Miguel, I'm not sure if you would know this, but why do vets put up with this?

 

[Deus Irae]

Yes I agree with your last sentence. Look at the Colts. They spend their money on offense and thier D suffers for it. But signing one guy on the squad to fix your problems doesn't usually work. Follow the money and you will find the teams view of its strength. However, their view may be flawed and then they sign Corey Redding to a huge deal.

You make this proccess sound like luck when you say Payton or Leaf. Drafting Payton did not win the Colts the SB. He was Drafted ten years ago. Thats some plan. Yeah it's a good thing NE released Lawyer Miloy in 2003 because they won the SB that year.

What I am saying is that teams that are good are good mostly because they are better at allocating their cap and evaluating talent. Because of that they can field a better overall football team.

That's exactly correct. Getting the #1 pick overall, for example, heightens this. Making the correct choice has helped set the Colts up for a decade. Making the wrong choice set the Chargers back by years. Having a top 10 pick isn't a bad thing. It gives you a chance to snag one of the very best players in the draft. However, it also makes a mistake very costly. One look at a team like the Lions makes this pretty clear, I think.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Do other American sports spend silly money on rookies? It doesn't happen to the same extent in any non-American sport I can think of. In those where 20 odd year olds get very well paid, it is because they have shown some ability at the relevant professional level.

Miguel, I'm not sure if you would know this, but why do vets put up with this?

Smart and perceptive questions gomez -

No - no other American sport pays rookies this way - though I do point out that there's a significant dropoff past the top rookies. However true comparisons between sports are apples and oranges

For example it's worth noting that beyond the bonuses, the NFL doesn't have guaranteed money whereas other bigtime sports guarnatee the entire contract. This hurts the others sports in my opinion, whearas in the NFL if a player isn't performing up to his contract, he can often be cut to make way for someone who will.

Take a look at this year's rookie phenom in Basketball, Greg Oden. In accordance with the NBA's collective bargaining agreement, Oden's deal will be for two years, with team options for the third and fourth seasons. Oden will make $3.885 million as a rookie and $4.176 in Year 2. If they pick up the option in the third year, his salary will be $4.476 million. However Oden's going to get the bulk of his money in sneaker and other endorsement deals so that's not really counted.

Compare that to a veteran like Kevin Garnett who's looking at something like $25 million a year - I suppose one has to fact the 80+ games in the NBA compared to the 16 games in an NFL season and all the money that comes with that, not to mention concessions and parking etc... But the NBA is clearly veteran friendly - now if only they had non-guaranteed contracts the league would truly be competitive.

Baseball is similar in top salaries for veterans - all guaranteed too - though some rookies do cash in with nice signing bonuses - interestingly the top chosen rookie isn't necessarilly the best - he could be the player that's most likely to sign for reasonable money, whereas the Red Sox have drafted guys much later who are better prospects who have agents demanding significant sums of cash.

You asked why the veterans tolerate this in the NFL? I think they'd prefer to see more money go to veterans, but chances are their agents talk them out of taking a strong stand.

There's no reason why there can't be a rookie pool slotted for the top picks with salary cap/earnings inflation factored in each year. That of course would mean that agents become unnecessary for rookies - and the agents don't like that one bit.

So me thinks that since agents and veteran players have shared allegiances in other matters, the rookie situation is one where veterans are asked to turn a blind eye though might not be so willing in the next CBA, which could come as early as 2008 (and we all remember how smooth the last CBA went, so that's something to look forward to).

 

[gomezcat]

Smart and perceptive questions gomez -

No - no other American sport pays rookies this way - though I do point out that there's a significant dropoff past the top rookies. However true comparisons between sports are apples and oranges

For example it's worth noting that beyond the bonuses, the NFL doesn't have guaranteed money whereas other bigtime sports guarnatee the entire contract. This hurts the others sports in my opinion, whearas in the NFL if a player isn't performing up to his contract, he can often be cut to make way for someone who will.

Take a look at this year's rookie phenom in Basketball, Greg Oden. In accordance with the NBA's collective bargaining agreement, Oden's deal will be for two years, with team options for the third and fourth seasons. Oden will make $3.885 million as a rookie and $4.176 in Year 2. If they pick up the option in the third year, his salary will be $4.476 million. However Oden's going to get the bulk of his money in sneaker and other endorsement deals so that's not really counted.

Compare that to a veteran like Kevin Garnett who's looking at something like $25 million a year - I suppose one has to fact the 80+ games in the NBA compared to the 16 games in an NFL season and all the money that comes with that, not to mention concessions and parking etc... But the NBA is clearly veteran friendly - now if only they had non-guaranteed contracts the league would truly be competitive.

Baseball is similar in top salaries for veterans - all guaranteed too - though some rookies do cash in with nice signing bonuses - interestingly the top chosen rookie isn't necessarilly the best - he could be the player that's most likely to sign for reasonable money, whereas the Red Sox have drafted guys much later who are better prospects who have agents demanding significant sums of cash.

You asked why the veterans tolerate this in the NFL? I think they'd prefer to see more money go to veterans, but chances are their agents talk them out of taking a strong stand.

There's no reason why there can't be a rookie pool slotted for the top picks with salary cap/earnings inflation factored in each year. That of course would mean that agents become unnecessary for rookies - and the agents don't like that one bit.

So me thinks that since agents and veteran players have shared allegiances in other matters, the rookie situation is one where veterans are asked to turn a blind eye though might not be so willing in the next CBA, which could come as early as 2008 (and we all remember how smooth the last CBA went, so that's something to look forward to).

Thanks, Joe. The bit about guaranteed salaries in baseball and basketball surprised me. I really hope Football doesn't go down that route. As for the next CBA.... let's not go there.

 

[Miguel]

Miguel, I'm not sure if you would know this, but why do vets put up with this?

My guess is that in a system where there will be 1800 or so players playing in at least one regular season game how much 5 to 10 players are paid even when overpaid is not that a big of a deal to them. IMO, what Russell will be paid has no bearing what vets like Izzo and Hawkins are going to make.

Secondly, vets know that the rookie pool has not been increasing at the same rate as the cap. They also know that while 2007 rookies will make up between 14% and 15% of the NFL population the 2007 rookie pool is less than 4% of the total cap. In 2005 the rookie pool took up around 5% of the total cap so in 2 years the percentage of the cap devoted to rookies decreased by around 20%.

Boring numbers to back up my point
From 2005 to 2006 the cap went up 19.3% (85.5 million to 102 million)
From 2006 to 2007 the cap went up 6.99% (102 million to 109,134,000)
From 2007 to 2008 the cap will go up at least by 6.41% (109,134,000 to at least $116,000).

From 2005 to 2006 the rookie pool went up by 5%.
From 2006 to 2007 the rookie pool went up by 2.5%
The most the rookie pool can go from 2007 to 2008 is 5% so there is a growing trend in which the percentage of the cap devoted to the rookies is getting smaller. Please note that while the CBA limits the increase in the rookie pool to a maximum of 5% the cap can increase by more than 5%.

I will just add that until there is a guarantee that the money that would not be spent on rookies will actually be spent on vets that it is my opinion that the NFLPA will not agree to reduce the salaries of some of its members in the hope that the money will be spent on veterans.

IMO, it is not currently an either/or proposition.That is, vets are not getting paid because of the money given to the rookies. Example - can a vet on the Patriots 2006 team say that the reason he was underpaid was because of the money paid to the Patriots' 2006 rookie class. I do not think so. Not when Koppen, Troy, and Spann all agreed to the phony LTBE move for total of over $4 million.

 

[patspride]

This is just so ridiculous I had to post it.



http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

35 MILLION?!!! That is absurd?

As much as money was thrown around in free agency this year, what contract even approached 30 million, let alone 35 million guaranteed? JaMarcus Russel has never taken a snap in the NFL! I don't see how these unproven rookies are getting so muvh more than proven Pro Bowlers. It just doesn't make any sense to me. IMO the rookie contract system at the top of the draft is sick. The numbers just keep going up and I think there might be a possible strike or lockout in the future because of it. The contracts are just getting unproportionally big too fast.

you are so right about that how can a unproven rookie with really one good year of college football demand such a high price. this makes me wish that the nfl take a q from the nba with the rookie salary scale.

 

[Pats726]

Example - can a vet on the Patriots 2006 team say that the reason he was underpaid was because of the money paid to the Patriots' 2006 rookie class. I do not think so. Not when Koppen, Troy, and Spann all agreed to the phony LTBE move for total of over $4 million.

I think the point that was being talked about were the high priced rooks..the ones in the top 10-15..and not the bottom tier of the 1st round. I do not think any have any problems at all with what they are making..only the outrageous amounts to the top tier. And the fact that they are unproven is as much as the issue as the money..for I am sure the percentage of amount of the 10-15 players in the total rookie pool is very small. The Patriots didn't have any rook in that first top tier..so really, the example is interesting but hardly the case. It would have been a nice example if the Pats had a top pick, but they didn't.
Where did the extra 4 million come about? Was that a part of what was on the table for a deal with either Law or Branch? A deal that never got finished?

 

[gomezcat]

My guess is that in a system where there will be 1800 or so players playing in at least one regular season game how much 5 to 10 players are paid even when overpaid is not that a big of a deal to them. IMO, what Russell will be paid has no bearing what vets like Izzo and Hawkins are going to make.

Secondly, vets know that the rookie pool has not been increasing at the same rate as the cap. They also know that while 2007 rookies will make up between 14% and 15% of the NFL population the 2007 rookie pool is less than 4% of the total cap. In 2005 the rookie pool took up around 5% of the total cap so in 2 years the percentage of the cap devoted to rookies decreased by around 20%.

Boring numbers to back up my point
From 2005 to 2006 the cap went up 19.3% (85.5 million to 102 million)
From 2006 to 2007 the cap went up 6.99% (102 million to 109,134,000)
From 2007 to 2008 the cap will go up at least by 6.41% (109,134,000 to at least $116,000).

From 2005 to 2006 the rookie pool went up by 5%.
From 2006 to 2007 the rookie pool went up by 2.5%
The most the rookie pool can go from 2007 to 2008 is 5% so there is a growing trend in which the percentage of the cap devoted to the rookies is getting smaller. Please note that while the CBA limits the increase in the rookie pool to a maximum of 5% the cap can increase by more than 5%.

I will just add that until there is a guarantee that the money that would not be spent on rookies will actually be spent on vets that it is my opinion that the NFLPA will not agree to reduce the salaries of some of its members in the hope that the money will be spent on veterans.

IMO, it is not currently an either/or proposition.That is, vets are not getting paid because of the money given to the rookies. Example - can a vet on the Patriots 2006 team say that the reason he was underpaid was because of the money paid to the Patriots' 2006 rookie class. I do not think so. Not when Koppen, Troy, and Spann all agreed to the phony LTBE move for total of over $4 million.

Another great answer. Your grasp of figures is something else and your ability to present them to us "laymen" is equally impressive. I hadn't realised that the rookie pot is getting smaller. Thanks again.