Russell demanding $35M guaranteed

[Fogbuster]

.





Agents.





//

 

[Fogbuster]

They should have a pay scale for all rookies coming in. I'm not sure of the details, but it's not fair for a rookie to get paid the same amount as the best players in the game their first year.

A thousand amens to that!! This is the way to cut through all this endless and now escalating crap of hold-outs, salary jacks, and overall emphasis on individualism over the team. This salary jacking flat out sux. Bad for the game. Going to turn the NFL into the NBA. No, thanks.




//

 

[Deus Irae]

They round the numbers and tell you that about 1/3 of first rounders are disappointments or busts, about 1/3 become solid players and about 1/3 become excellent players. Well, why shouldn't a player hold out for all he can get knowing that there's a 2-in-3 shot that he'll never see that big contract the second time around?

As for the scale at the top, sure these players are getting enormous and unwarranted amounts of dollars. But, they are also facing enormous and unwarranted pressure to succeed. Where once apprenticeship situations allowed them to learn at a sensible pace, top quarterbacks are now expected to start in their second, if not their rookie, seasons, just for example. The money is monopoly money, so whether it's given to rookies or veterans makes no difference to me.

And, seriously, is there anyone here that thinks Belioli wouldn't have gladly gambled and paid Calvin Johnson his contract if it meant having him in New England for 6 seasons if they could have gotten him?

 

[slash83]

if i was drafted number one overall to the raiders id ask for that much 2

 

[Pats726]

The money is monopoly money, so whether it's given to rookies or veterans makes no difference to me.

It does make a difference to me..and it SHOULD to all football fans. That BIG money goes to unproven prima donna players who have done NOTHING in the NFL is absurd. It is WRONG for the game..and teh sooner they really institute a scale, the better. I agree that it is NOT helping weaker teams at all having top picks. They pay out exorbitant anounts of money and may or may not ever see any value in their play. Top picks will vecome worth even less in coming years if this continues to happen. 35mill?? Let him sit...I hate the greed and hate the agents that promote this.

 

[MosisMooses]

Re: Russel Demanding 35 Mil Guaranteed

.... Did I mention the current rookie compensation scale is......NUTS!!!!!!!

Seriously its getting to the point were the draft is no longer a real benefit to the weaker teams, when that are being forced to make these very large investments in players who will likely NEVER meet the value of their contacts.

It simply doesn't make sense to pick in the top 5 any more. AND if this continues then the value of these high picks will diminish.

Can't a team like the Raiders simply sit on their pick until and wait for one or two other teams to pick before they turn in their draft card? If they're confident that the next two teams aren't going to grab Russel, then they could have sat back and allow the Lions to pick first and then save themselves several million by picking their guy with a lower pick.

 

[Pats726]

Re: Russel Demanding 35 Mil Guaranteed

Can't a team like the Raiders simply sit on their pick until and wait for one or two other teams to pick before they turn in their draft card? If they're confident that the next two teams aren't going to grab Russel, then they could have sat back and allow the Lions to pick first and then save themselves several million by picking their guy with a lower pick.

Maybe..but the NFL is NOT going to be happy with that if teams FAIL to make picks..I think and hope they will do something so that does not happen. Could u imagine Goodell up there with teh Raiders on teh clock and they..pass???

 

[Wretch]

I wonder if the NFLPA would trade getting rid of the franchise player system for a rookie pay schedule (kind of like the NBA)?

It helps the owners with ridiculous pay for unproven players and helps the veteran players that would be assigned the franchise tag.

Thoughts?

 

[captain stone]

I wonder if the NFLPA would trade getting rid of the franchise player system for a rookie pay schedule (kind of like the NBA)?

It helps the owners with ridiculous pay for unproven players and helps the veteran players that would be assigned the franchise tag.

Thoughts?

Definitely food for thought. That's probably a trade the perpetually-awful teams would make, in a heartbeat.

 

[Pats726]

I wonder if the NFLPA would trade getting rid of the franchise player system for a rookie pay schedule (kind of like the NBA)?

It helps the owners with ridiculous pay for unproven players and helps the veteran players that would be assigned the franchise tag.

Thoughts?

I wonder if the way it is now keeps the bad teams from improving?? If year after year poor and paying large anounts for unproven talent..does that NOT make keep them from flattening out their teams pay scale? For teams like the Patriots..it will NOT help them a bit..they would RATHER have the Franchise Tags and I think MOST teams would wish for that.
Yes it will help overall...I think the NFLPA would want that..to help vets who are proven get MORE money than unproven rooks. It's really only the top 15 picks or so that make the large crazy money anyways.

 

[Deus Irae]

It does make a difference to me..and it SHOULD to all football fans. That BIG money goes to unproven prima donna players who have done NOTHING in the NFL is absurd. It is WRONG for the game..and teh sooner they really institute a scale, the better. I agree that it is NOT helping weaker teams at all having top picks. They pay out exorbitant anounts of money and may or may not ever see any value in their play. Top picks will vecome worth even less in coming years if this continues to happen. 35mill?? Let him sit...I hate the greed and hate the agents that promote this.

It's not "wrong for the game" by any means. It's been going on seemingly forever and the game's been fine. If the players were so opposed to it, they'd get rid of it in the CBA. Instead, they've kept if on numerous occasions when they've had the opportunity to drop it. As for the fans, why should it matter to them unless they are consumed by petty jealousy? The NFL salary cap is the same no matter which players get the big dollars, after all.

 

[FarScapeR]

I wonder if the NFLPA would trade getting rid of the franchise player system for a rookie pay schedule (kind of like the NBA)?

It helps the owners with ridiculous pay for unproven players and helps the veteran players that would be assigned the franchise tag.

Thoughts?

Perfect. Soon to be rookies won't be able to complain because they aren't in the NFL yet

 

[Wretch]

I wonder if the way it is now keeps the bad teams from improving?? If year after year poor and paying large anounts for unproven talent..does that NOT make keep them from flattening out their teams pay scale? \.

I think the league is more interested parity than keeping losing teams down.

Except for a few (Al Davis) I think the owners recognize the need for a healthy league not just healthy teams. TV contracts are the primary financial driver behind the league and being able to get decent ratings for a Green Bay versus Kansas City game is as important to the long term health of the league as the ratings for a New England and Indy game. Other wise football risks becoming irrelevant in 2/3 of the country.

Baseball and Basketball both suffer from the meaningless game syndrome for most of their seasons. Football because of the leagues goal of parity doesn't.

 

[JaredOfNazareth]

Perpetual bad teams are bad because their front office does not know how to spend thier cap dollars. It may be "monopoly money" but even in that classic board game there are winners and losers.

It's a proportional thing. An NFL team has to diversify their cap now and plan for future FA from their team and the rest of the league. Having a top draft choice is not bad for a team that is bad temporarily because they won't have consecutive years picking in the top ten. Look at the 49ers a well run team. 2005 Alex Smith 1st overall, 2006 Vernon Davis 6th overall, 2007 Patrick Willis 11th overall. They have been down but now they are out of the top ten. But the Lions have drafted in the top ten for the past six drafts. Even NE only picked once in the top ten since BB got here. Staying in the top ten of the draft for years reenforces the suckitude.

The Falcans were not going to win the SB with Mike Vick not because he wasn't a good passer but because he was the highest paid player in the league. Dwight Freeney's contract hurts the Colts.

NE gets a lot of talent at a bargain. A Madden analogy: NE has a few players in the 90s overall but the whole team is better then 75 overall. Actually if you ranked the players in real life the Patriots would have the better average and median score per player.

 

[Deus Irae]

Perpetual bad teams are bad because their front office does not know how to spend thier cap dollars. It may be "monopoly money" but even in that classic board game there are winners and losers.

It's a proportional thing. An NFL team has to diversify their cap now and plan for future FA from their team and the rest of the league. Having a top draft choice is not bad for a team that is bad temporarily because they won't have consecutive years picking in the top ten. Look at the 49ers a well run team. 2005 Alex Smith 1st overall, 2006 Vernon Davis 6th overall, 2007 Patrick Willis 11th overall. They have been down but now they are out of the top ten. But the Lions have drafted in the top ten for the past six drafts. Even NE only picked once in the top ten since BB got here. Staying in the top ten of the draft for years reenforces the suckitude.

The Falcans were not going to win the SB with Mike Vick not because he wasn't a good passer but because he was the highest paid player in the league. Dwight Freeney's contract hurts the Colts.

NE gets a lot of talent at a bargain. A Madden analogy: NE has a few players in the 90s overall but the whole team is better then 75 overall. Actually if you ranked the players in real life the Patriots would have the better average and median score per player.

If you suck, you can choose between Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf. If you make the right choice, you win a Super Bowl. If you make the wrong choice, you end up drafting Michael Vick and trading him for Drew Brees and then Drafting Ely Manning and trading him for Phillip Rivers and still not getting to the AFC championship game.

It's not the money that's the problem. Bad management tends to yield bad teams no matter where the draft picks come from.

 

[DaBruinz]

If you suck, you can choose between Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf. If you make the right choice, you win a Super Bowl. If you make the wrong choice, you end up drafting Michael Vick and trading him for Drew Brees and then Drafting Ely Manning and trading him for Phillip Rivers and still not getting to the AFC championship game.

It's not the money that's the problem. Bad management tends to yield bad teams no matter where the draft picks come from.

I think that you are kind of comparing apples to oranges here.

There was an article done not to long ago that talked about the financial drain that a top 5 pick puts on a team, particularly if that player doesn't work out. As everyone knows, the draft is a crap shoot. Yes, you can look back and say that the Chargers were dumb for drafting Ryan Leaf, but that is hind-sight. Even with the Phillips Rivers/Shawne Merriman for Ely Manning deal and even the Tomlinson for Vick deals.

Yes, Bad management does tend to yield bad teams, but the money involved in a top 5 pick hamstrings a team for several years. Its a big reason people talk about a salary scale for the rookies. So that the damage isn't nearly as bad.

For instance, lets say that Russell gets injured permanently and can't play anymore after signing his contract and getting a huge signing bonus. That money signing bonus money still counts against the cap whether he plays or not.

Now, one COULD make the case that it was bad management for giving a player that sort of obscene money, but that can be said about ANY player salary today.

 

[patchick]

The most interesting thing to me is that this is happening with a #1 overall pick. The Raiders were free to negotiate with Russell before draft day.

Remember how the Texans were pilloried for choosing Mario Williams in large part because he was agreeable on terms? Looking a little less silly right now.

 

[Pats726]

It's not "wrong for the game" by any means. It's been going on seemingly forever and the game's been fine.

I think it is QUITE wrong..simply to pay zillion of dollars for someone who hasn't played a down in the NFL...silly!! And if the vets in the league HAD any leadership, that would certainly change. No doubt that high draft picks should get paid well, but many will flop, get big bicks and basically be more a trvia question. With your logic..a player like Russell who is demanding 32 million who hasn't played a down of football in the NFL is worth as much as a proven QB? Makes plenty of sense..right? LOL..

 

[Pats726]

I think the league is more interested parity than keeping losing teams down.

Except for a few (Al Davis) I think the owners recognize the need for a healthy league not just healthy teams. TV contracts are the primary financial driver behind the league and being able to get decent ratings for a Green Bay versus Kansas City game is as important to the long term health of the league as the ratings for a New England and Indy game. Other wise football risks becoming irrelevant in 2/3 of the country.

Baseball and Basketball both suffer from the meaningless game syndrome for most of their seasons. Football because of the leagues goal of parity doesn't.

I agree...parity is important..and one way to help this is to really slot the rookie pay scale..and I am talking about the HIGH choices..so it's less out of whack. With these rookie contracts taking up a LARGE degree of salary cap money, I think it's hard for teams to improve. Granted there always will be bad management and bad choices, but a team that has high picks 3-4 years risks a large gamble on those players turning the ship around.
I'm wondering if the NFLPA would be opposed to that and if so why?? A BIT MORE money for vets?? is that bad?
Would that help the Detroits, Arizonas, Houstons??
I agree basketball and baseball suffer greatly from that.

 

[JaredOfNazareth]

If you suck, you can choose between Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf. If you make the right choice, you win a Super Bowl. If you make the wrong choice, you end up drafting Michael Vick and trading him for Drew Brees and then Drafting Ely Manning and trading him for Phillip Rivers and still not getting to the AFC championship game.

It's not the money that's the problem. Bad management tends to yield bad teams no matter where the draft picks come from.

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.