Salary implications of drafting LB in 1st ??

[Gumby]

Hey all,

anybody have the general cap / salary hits for a 1st round 24 and/or 28 spot pick? (I would like that info to figure out my own and hear your opinions on my further question below.)

I was reading the herald article suggesting we would draft a LB in first and got to thinking if drafting a LB in 1st might upset the pay scales?

If so are there any implications; not related to total cap hit or salary cost specifically; but rather related to how the rest of our LBs are paid (a camraderie penalty sort of) ??????

ie. will anybody get jealous that a newbie rookie will be getting $x and he is getting substantially less. Thereby causing somebody under contract for a while yet to attempt to re-negoitiate or hold out.

Per Miguel:
Name................. Salary................. Prorated SB..........Total Cap Figure
Rosevelt Colvin.... $4,600,000.......... $1,828,000...........$6,434,720
Mike Vrabel......... $2,050,000.......... $1,533,500.......... $4,099,220
Adalius Thomas.... $900,000............. $2,400,000.......... $3,406,720
Tedy Bruschi....... $1,700,000.......... $875,000 .............$2,581,720
Larry Izzo........... $820,000............. $40,000............ $481,720
Eric Alexander..... $435,000............. $0......................$441,720


I can't imagine a rookie could get a deal anywhere close to the $2-4 M range our top LBs are getting.

And I would think Alexander is just going to be happy if he makes the team.

But maybe could cause an issue with Tedy or Larry; although they are both pretty team oriented guys.

Thoughts?

 

[satz]

Laurance maroney signing a contract for 5 yrs 11 million gaureented at 21 .so even with the cap growth i would this you would see similar numbers.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Whether or not you get more value for your 1st round picks depend on who you pick rather than where you pick.

Everyone says the Pats would never trade up because more expensive players represent less value.

Does anyone feel we got ripped off on Richard Seymour's rookie contract when we drafted him #6? Or was that rookie contract such a bargain that Seymour outplayed it?

 

[NE39]

I don't think any player the Pats draft first is going to have a huge first-year cap number. I doubt anyone on the team will be upset with what a rookie is earning, it is the way the NFL works.

Also, the fact the Pats have older players with higher cap numbers at LB is why they need to address the position in the draft (possibly with a high pick). They need younger players to replace those guys.

I think your premise is way off.

 

[NE39]

BTW, Izzo makes more money than you showed, part of his salary doesn't count towards the cap because of the Veteran Minimum Salary Exception in the CBA. I doubt he would get much more on the open market.

Also, Tedy is due FA next year. If he doesn't like his compensation the last thing he is going to do is hold out. If he wants to keep playing he will have to play his butt off to get the best deal he can when he hits the market after 2007.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Everybody whose name you remember outplayed their rookie contracts (okay, outside those top 5-10 spots. Where's Tim Couch when you need him?)

AAV is more pertinent to think about than guaranteed money, when you're talking about rookies. What I mean is, AAV becomes a prominent consideration, moreseo for rookies than vets, not that AAV is necessarily more important than guaranteed money. It's just that the risks are risks of making it through the adjustment, rather than the risks of injury or just age-related declining performance. (Rooks do tend to heal if injured... uh, you reading this Chad?)

Rooks have a different kind of gamble attached - the "bust quotient." That is, how many of them just do not contribute. Since most guys just plain wash out, including a good number of high first rounders, (paging Mr. Couch... Mr. Smith? Mr. Akili Smith?... KiJana Carter...?,) you have to weigh the transition of the player, not just what you "hope" he is worth.

But bear in mind - if rooks contribute enough, by and large, just by being "good", just by starting consistently, they likely outplay their rookie deal. Of course you want them to excel, and they want to, but at the money you pay for them (typically,) think of what you would get. Maroney's hit, for instance, is about a mil and a half this year. You really think a top-notch back will be available for that?

So basically, for the rookie deal, the guys play cheap, because every one of them is a little risk bomb ready to go off (or maybe a little "potential bomb" ready to fizzle.) They know that, and the teams know that, so they make a deal: I'll take AAV for 4 years, you do the best you can with me, I'll have steaks instead of Ramen noodles, and a house that middle age men on patsfans.com can drive by and wish they could live in... even though I believe I'm worth of an even bigger house etc., right now we both know that's just wishing, not planning.

The 1s through 5s in the first round, less so, of course... but at 24, you will not see a blockbuster deal, or even close. If you take a Harris or a Beason (sp?) at 24, you don't pay him what an Adalius Thomas or Rosie Colvin gets. As for pissing off Alexander? One could make the argument that he hasn't quite earned the right to be pissed off.

PFnV