New supposed rookie cap system

[supafly]

So much talk has been made of the prospect of the new rookie cap slotting system being implemented in the next CBA--whenever that ends up taking place. Many feel as though it will have an immediate effect on this years' draft, as the potential for a new CBA will possibly be in place before most of these picks are signed, if not all. (considering that our higher picks are often signed last, in a 'bottom to top' effort that doesn't even take place until often the end of the summer)

Under the supposed new guidelines, the top half of the 1st round (picks 1-16) can be signed for 6 years, while the bottom half of round 1 (17-32) can only be signed for 5 years.

Since we miss this 6 year potential signing by ONE pick at #17, this has added incentive for us to move up at least to #16 this year, so that we can possibly lock up this highly picked player for 6 yrs instead of 5.

So, it's obvious that there is added extra incentive now in TWO areas to move up this year :

1. The rookie slotting system, which lowers the potential of a highly paid bust
2. The 6 year vs. 5 year contractual issue

My question would be how much does this come into play, and are there many posters who feel that moving up is now a higher possibility than before?

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

The incentive may be removed by Judge Nelson as early as today if she rules against the NFL on the preliminary injunction requests of Brady, et. al. and the NFL retirees.

 

[supafly]

The incentive may be removed by Judge Nelson as early as today if she rules against the NFL on the preliminary injunction requests of Brady, et. al. and the NFL retirees.

While most, or at least many seem to agree that it will be the other way around, this is still a good point--that it is still up in the air, and maybe for quite some time. Whoever wins this legal battle, will only get leverage--nothing more. The agreement (whenever that will be) will come from talking, something either side apparently wanted to do since they want this leverage first.

Considering the appeals process etc, and the likely quicker initial ruling coming from Nelson (within a couple of weeks), it may indeed be done within the next couple of months--but not before the draft.

The bottom line remains however, that there will still be a negotiated deal that comes through talks, and that the rookie cap will take place with a new CBA. I don't believe that Judge Nelson's ruling will have much of anything to do with this issue at all. Even if she rules that the players somehow win the injunction, that means they go back to work, and that the NFL and players union will then hash out a new deal---only the NFLPA* will now have the leverage in these talks. There is no way, IMO that the NFL will sit back and have the rules of last season implemented for another year while this goes back and forth in the courtroom. Whoever loses this ruling will only have less of what they originally wanted.

For example, if the ruling from Judge Nelson takes place as early as today and is in favor of the players, as you suggest, that will now also make the draft illegal starting next year. Do you really think the NFL and the players are going to play without a draft? No, they're going to return to the bargaining tables, where they belong. Per PFT:

"“It would be almost impossible to operate under those circumstances,” one league executive told Breer. “Teams couldn’t make any significant investments for the future. There would be no way to build stadiums, expand into new markets, increase television coverage, bring new technologies into play. . . . Conflict would be the norm.”

She could/and should make the case that they both need to return to the tables, and if no new deal is hashed out by a month then she'll rule.


In other words, the chances of the new rookie slotting system have to be in the majority to happen by the time the draft picks sign, but you also make a good point that is not a given and is still up in the air. Hopefully, there will be a more clear cut answer, but the 2 sides have already agreed in principle to a rookie slotting system. It's hard to not see it take place, but of course nothing is written in stone.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

So much talk has been made of the prospect of the new rookie cap slotting system being implemented in the next CBA--whenever that ends up taking place. Many feel as though it will have an immediate effect on this years' draft, as the potential for a new CBA will possibly be in place before most of these picks are signed, if not all. (considering that our higher picks are often signed last, in a 'bottom to top' effort that doesn't even take place until often the end of the summer)

Under the supposed new guidelines, the top half of the 1st round (picks 1-16) can be signed for 6 years, while the bottom half of round 1 (17-32) can only be signed for 5 years.

Since we miss this 6 year potential signing by ONE pick at #17, this has added incentive for us to move up at least to #16 this year, so that we can possibly lock up this highly picked player for 6 yrs instead of 5.

So, it's obvious that there is added extra incentive now in TWO areas to move up this year :

1. The rookie slotting system, which lowers the potential of a highly paid bust
2. The 6 year vs. 5 year contractual issue

My question would be how much does this come into play, and are there many posters who feel that moving up is now a higher possibility than before?

(A) They could have signed Jerod Mayo (#10) to a six-year deal, but didn't.
(B) Most of the seeds near the cutoff have been signed to five-year deals.

 

[Irish Hooligan]

It is an interesting thought and a worthy question by the OP, imo I think a rookie's position will play an even larger role in wanting that 6th year. (i.e. QB)

 

[supafly]

(A) They could have signed Jerod Mayo (#10) to a six-year deal, but didn't.
(B) Most of the seeds near the cutoff have been signed to five-year deals.

Thank you ct. Exactly the kind of comments and info I am looking for. What have been the past contracts of first rd picks taken highly, etc?

Yes, it may not be the most exciting thread here, but it is the slow period, and I do wonder how much effect--if any, if will have on added incentive to move up.

 

[MaineMan]

Whether contract length/pay scale is a significant contributing factor in a move up depends on how big a move you're talking about. If the Pats were to go (virtually) all-in to trade up to #8 in order to snag Watt before DAL, WAS and HOU pick, I'd guess that contract/pay were insignificant factors compared to the desirability of the player.

I guess, to me, you USUALLY only trade up to snag a player before some other team can get him. Again, taking Watt as the example, if he falls past DAL, WAS and HOU, it seems fairly likely he falls past everyone else until #17. Not sure that we'd trade up with, say, JAX at #16, just to have the right to put a 6th year on Watt's contract. However, if such a trade up transpired, that would probably be the only reason for it.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

IF Judge Nelson were to grant the injunction, then the NFL resumes "business as usual" under the same provisions as the expired CBA until the anti-trust litigation is resolved in a settlement.

THEN there will be NO rookie wage scale and Carolina will be paying out Sam Bradford money to whomever they draft.

In recent seasons there have been some teams (NYJ) willing to trade into the top five for a QB, but given the current crop of QBs and the uncertainty of any antitrust settlement costs which will come directly out of the owner's pockets, teams are likely to be even more reluctant to trade up for high dollar rookies.

If Judge Nelson declines to grant a preliminary injunction and allows the standard course of litigation to continue, then some teams may gamble that there will be a rookie wage scale.

If Judge Nelson orders all parties to resume mediation, teams will probably make their gambling decisions on factors we will never be party to.

In any case, does anyone knowing Bob Kraft's budget awareness and BB's economics based management practices expect NE to do anything different from recent drafts?

 

[SunnyDenmark]

Hi all, greetings from windy Denmark,

Forget the 6 year rookie contracts - and even 5 year contracts (for 1st rounders) are not a given if/when new CBA is reached. For more info, a very good read on the NFL / NFLPA proposals (rookie wage scale) is Andrew Brandts' article here:

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

a few tidbits to whet your appetite (but read the whole article):

"The NFLPA proposal, submitted to ownership in the fall, contained the following provisions:

Maximum contract length of four years for players drafted in rounds 1-3; and three years for players drafted in rounds 4-7. This would allow players to hit their leverage points in free agency sooner. Current maximum lengths are up to six years for picks 1-16, up to five years for picks 17-32 and up to four years for all other rounds. Most teams, as I did with the Packers, negotiate five-year deals for first-round players and four-year deals for all others. "

and the NFL's proposal:

"Mandatory length of five years for players drafted in the first round; mandatory length of four years for all other draftees. Unlike the present system, these lengths would be non-negotiable. The lengths would buy out a year of unrestricted free agency from first-round picks and a year of restricted free agency from other draftees. The NFLPA suggests these contract lengths will reduce the market value of 60% of all NFL players. However, as it currently stands in the NFL, the vast majority of drafted rookies are under contract for at least four years, so the change would not be drastic. "

Cheers and beers, SunnyDenmark

 

[MaineMan]

Hi all, greetings from windy Denmark,

Forget the 6 year rookie contracts - and even 5 year contracts (for 1st rounders) are not a given if/when new CBA is reached. For more info, a very good read on the NFL / NFLPA proposals (rookie wage scale) is Andrew Brandts' article here:

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

a few tidbits to whet your appetite (but read the whole article):

"The NFLPA proposal, submitted to ownership in the fall, contained the following provisions:

Maximum contract length of four years for players drafted in rounds 1-3; and three years for players drafted in rounds 4-7. This would allow players to hit their leverage points in free agency sooner. Current maximum lengths are up to six years for picks 1-16, up to five years for picks 17-32 and up to four years for all other rounds. Most teams, as I did with the Packers, negotiate five-year deals for first-round players and four-year deals for all others. "

and the NFL's proposal:

"Mandatory length of five years for players drafted in the first round; mandatory length of four years for all other draftees. Unlike the present system, these lengths would be non-negotiable. The lengths would buy out a year of unrestricted free agency from first-round picks and a year of restricted free agency from other draftees. The NFLPA suggests these contract lengths will reduce the market value of 60% of all NFL players. However, as it currently stands in the NFL, the vast majority of drafted rookies are under contract for at least four years, so the change would not be drastic. "

Cheers and beers, SunnyDenmark

Seems pretty clear to me that the core of the dispute between the players and the NFL remains the free agency issue.

 

[furley]

If it's simply a difference of one year, then I choose to remain at seventeen unless a team above that desires to trade down and it makes sense to you to oblige them.

And with the way that this draft is leaning, I'm inclined to believe that we will see the unexpected names slide down to seventeen. It would then be up to Belichick to decide whether or not that name should slide on pass him. Nonetheless, I would like to see New England stay put for a change just to see who's available.

I know the media made it a point to point out that New England passed on Michael Oher in 2009 by trading down. New England would select Sebastian Vollmer in the next round.

 

[supafly]

If it's simply a difference of one year, then I choose to remain at seventeen unless a team above that desires to trade down and it makes sense to you to oblige them.

And with the way that this draft is leaning, I'm inclined to believe that we will see the unexpected names slide down to seventeen. It would then be up to Belichick to decide whether or not that name should slide on pass him. Nonetheless, I would like to see New England stay put for a change just to see who's available.

I know the media made it a point to point out that New England passed on Michael Oher in 2009 by trading down. New England would select Sebastian Vollmer in the next round.

Nice analysis, thank you for the input.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Unfortunately, our media darlings are reporting a rookie "wage" scale only in terms of contract duration, with no mention of limits on guaranteed monies or annual benefits which might more accurately be termed "wages."

For example: Young Mr. Bradford contracted for guaranteed money reported to be $50M over six years, the equivalent of $8.33M annually; his overall contract is $78M with provisions for up to $86M, or the equivalent of $13M to $14.33M.

A mandatory four year contract using those same annual equivalents would still be burdensome, if less of a gamble due to term length. Frankly, contract duration is minor, most players are already under contract for four years, the key question which I've yet to see reported deals with just how little a rookie might earn if drafted #1 overall and signed to a mandatory term?

 

[furley]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it a criticism of New England that they try to sign a first round pick for more years than what the player would like.

So if the number of years for a first round pick are predetermined (a five or six year contract), wouldn't this play right into Belichick's hands.

"Everyone's situation is unique and that was the situation I was brought into -- drafted here, 32nd overall, to a team coming off a Super Bowl that had no real need for a tight end," Watson said. "They were offering a six-year contract and that was tough. That was the whole deal with the holdout because it was unprecedented for a guy drafted in that spot to be in a contract that long.

"I don't want to say that was the low point, but it's a tough pill for a young player to understand because you want to play. You get drafted, you're excited, you're going to a great team, and you've worked so hard through the college season and combine. I wanted to play, but I guess that's why we have agents -- to protect us, because as young players we don't really know.

"Needless to say, I held out, the Patriots didn't budge, and I ended up signing [for six years]. As a rookie, you don't have leverage. The only thing you could do is go back into the draft the next year. Those circumstances were tough, and then coming in, I played the first game and tore my ACL. So those were definitely some tough times, but you learn to persevere. You learn a lot of lessons along the way about yourself, about who is important to you, what is important to you, and who you should listen to."

Ben Watson on leaving N.E. Patriots: No hard feelings, no regrets - ESPN Boston

The Patriots became the first team to sign a first-round pick by reaching a five-year, $6.4 million deal with guard Logan Mankins, the 32nd pick in the 2005 draft.

Mankins reached agreement late Sunday night and signed the contract. Including a signing and option bonuses along with a $350,000 roster bonus this year, Mankins received $4 million in upfront guarantees, John Clayton reported.

The key to the agreement was getting the Patriots not to force a six-year contract on him. Last year, the Patriots signed tight end Ben Watson, their first-round choice in 2004, to a six-year contract. His agent at the time, Tom Condon, refused to sign a contract that long for a pick that low in the first round and resigned as Graham's agent.

Watson didn't sign until Aug. 16, after an 18-day holdout. He played in the season opener, was inactive for the second game and was then placed on injured reserve for the rest of the season with a knee injury.

Negotiations heated up Friday when Mankins' agent, Frank Bauer, worked with the team to resolve the length of the contract. For the Patriots, it was important to get Mankins into camp on time because he is expected to be a starter as a rookie.

Raiders, Eagles, Pats lock up top picks - NFL - ESPN

 

[SunnyDenmark]

Unfortunately, our media darlings are reporting a rookie "wage" scale only in terms of contract duration, with no mention of limits on guaranteed monies or annual benefits which might more accurately be termed "wages."

For example: Young Mr. Bradford contracted for guaranteed money reported to be $50M over six years, the equivalent of $8.33M annually; his overall contract is $78M with provisions for up to $86M, or the equivalent of $13M to $14.33M.

A mandatory four year contract using those same annual equivalents would still be burdensome, if less of a gamble due to term length. Frankly, contract duration is minor, most players are already under contract for four years, the key question which I've yet to see reported deals with just how little a rookie might earn if drafted #1 overall and signed to a mandatory term?

BOR, I thought the end of the article gave a good example of how the new cap could affect the first round monies - (again I highly suggest to all who are interested in the subject read the whole article which is excerpted below):

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


"Financial comparisons

Here are three examples, with the 9th, 19th and 41st picks in the Draft, comparing to the actual picks in the 2009 Draft (the 9th pick was BJ Raji of the Packers; the 19th pick, which I negotiated, was Jeremy Maclin with the Eagles; the 41st pick was Darius Butlerof the Patriots). Amounts are in millions (M):

Pick 2009 contract NFLPA proposal* NFL Proposal**
9 22.5M/5 yrs 18M/4 yrs 8.6M/5 yrs
19 12.5M/5 yrs 10M/4 yrs 6.7M/5 yrs
41 4.325M/4 yrs 4.3M/4 yrs 4M/4 yrs

*Assumes 35% playtime in one year
**Assumes 40% playtime in two years

There is almost $10 million of difference (and one year) between the two proposals at the 9th pick in the first round. However, there is only $300,000 difference between the two proposals at the 9th pick in the second round. Thus, some reason for optimism, as the proposals become much more in line once past the first round."

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

BOR, I thought the end of the article gave a good example of how the new cap could affect the first round monies - (again I highly suggest to all who are interested in the subject read the whole article which is excerpted below):

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


"Financial comparisons

Here are three examples, with the 9th, 19th and 41st picks in the Draft, comparing to the actual picks in the 2009 Draft (the 9th pick was BJ Raji of the Packers; the 19th pick, which I negotiated, was Jeremy Maclin with the Eagles; the 41st pick was Darius Butlerof the Patriots). Amounts are in millions (M):

Pick 2009 contract NFLPA proposal* NFL Proposal**
9 22.5M/5 yrs 18M/4 yrs 8.6M/5 yrs
19 12.5M/5 yrs 10M/4 yrs 6.7M/5 yrs
41 4.325M/4 yrs 4.3M/4 yrs 4M/4 yrs

*Assumes 35% playtime in one year
**Assumes 40% playtime in two years

There is almost $10 million of difference (and one year) between the two proposals at the 9th pick in the first round. However, there is only $300,000 difference between the two proposals at the 9th pick in the second round. Thus, some reason for optimism, as the proposals become much more in line once past the first round."

That was Feb 14, events have overtaken that analysis and with no ongoing negotiations no one has done similar reporting on the last proposals from each side. Presumably there was some movement prior to decertification.