I'll be so happy when/if they put in a rookie salary scale

[moklerman]

From nationalfootballpost.com:

2. The work ethic of quarterback JaMarcus Russell is still being questioned by many who have worked with him in the past and are working with him now. After he issued a call to his teammates to practice and finish the OTA days strong, he then disappeared and was AWOL on the last day. Russell must learn that talent alone is not going to make him successful. Dedication to becoming a better player is what he needs.

Go Jeff Garcia!

 

[Catfish]

I agree with you mok ---- a rookie cap would cure a number of ills in the NFL framework, not the least of which is the salary disparity of the journeyman veterans. What a shame that their salaries are often far below that of rookies who have EARNED nothing. To have them throw it in the face of hard-working vets, (like Russell has done) is unthinkable in my opinion.

 

[ANDY440]

Don't jump to conclusions,he could have been changing Al's diaper.

 

[Perfectionist]

I am not sure how the union is going to stand on this, but I bet there are many rank and file members who would love and support this. Where else but the NFL!

 

[moklerman]

As far as the union goes, it might not actually oppose the rookie scale as vehemently as one might think. The stars and established players that are being asked about it right now are saying what's in place is fine because that's how it's always been but if a vote were taken of the majority of NFL players I would think that those who weren't drafted in the first round would vote to have something similar to the NBA's 3 year rookie scale system.

I think it will be unfortunate for those guys who get injured out of the league early in their career but overall I think it will be much better for a majority of the players. Bigger 2nd contracts across the board(3rd if they make it that far) because the will be happening after year 2 or 3. That way, a guy gets to prove himself for two years and get a new contract based on his ability and teams aren't saddled with <ahem> "players" like JaMarcus Russell and his huge contract. Or Ryan Leaf or any of the other gigantic financial busts that can set a team back a few years.

And, talking more big picture type stuff, I think this will continue and expand the parity that has developed in the league over the last decade which has started to erode somewhat. A dynasty is nice when you're the 49ers or Cowboys or whoever but the majority of fans, I think, would prefer each year to have a realistic shot at winning it all.

The way it's set up now, an early pick in the draft is almost more likely to hurt your team than help it. The chances of one of those early picks being a value/financial bust is much greater than helping your team out of a hole. The problem is two-fold though because the teams that are drafting at the top are often the same teams that aren't terribly good at drafting so they wind up compounding their situation.

Losing should be penalty enough, those teams shouldn't be cap-strapped for years because of poor personnel decisions that require huge contracts.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

i'll bet anything that there will be a rookie cap in the next CBA. The only holdup will be that the owners will have to somehow be held accountable to re-distribute that money amongst the veteran players and not just pocket it.But it will get done.

 

[AntSports Steve]

I am in favor of rookie salaries like the NBA. 3 year contracts would be perfect (no voidables, or future year options, just a straight contract with normal incentives).

But, this would make rookies even cheaper. The vets need some insurance that teams would try to just go to rookies to save money. Right now there is salary cap relief if a team has a long time vet at min contract.

I propose a NFL vet fund here vets get extra cash from the league (not from their team) and lower the vet min so teams can choose rookie or vet based on player skill.

 

[SuperSpck]

I don't mind the setup now, once a team gets outside the top ten. They need to get some kind of cap on that half of the draft for sure, but they don't really have to tear down the whole draft pay scale to do it, they just need to control the front-heavy top end.

 

[joeshmo]

I dont think the rookie pay sacle thing needs to change as drastically as some might want. Outside of the top 10 rookie pay doesnt really cost that much in the grand scheme. There is a drastic difference in cost of a top 10 pick compared to a pick just outside of the top 10. Example, DRC the 16th pick is making 6 years 16 mill compared to Gholston pick just 10 picks earlier is making more then double that with 5 years 32.5 mill. So again only the top 10 picks contracts need to be addressed.

But again not as much as some might think. Only the bonus money needs to be addressed, because the most of the rest of the salary is tied up in escalators and incentives. So if a team wants to pay a guy an extra 10 mill for doing his job and making the pro bowl 2 times out of his first 3 years more power to the team and the player. That should not be regulated IMO. So in summary I dont think there should be a complete slotting system, there should only be a gauranteed money slotting system, then everything else is fair game, becuase like I said if a team wants to reward a player for doing his job over and beyond by giving him incentives and escalators thats cool with me. So in my world Stafford would still get a contract that could be worth 72 mill if he hits the incentives the team lays out for him but instead of 42 of it being gauranteed only 15 mill of it would be gauranteed. Fair for the team and still keeps the capitalistic nature of contracts alive and well for the player, which I think is best.

 

[Redheart]

I dont think the rookie pay sacle thing needs to change as drastically as some might want. Outside of the top 10 rookie pay doesnt really cost that much in the grand scheme. There is a drastic difference in cost of a top 10 pick compared to a pick just outside of the top 10. Example, DRC the 16th pick is making 6 years 16 mill compared to Gholston pick just 10 picks earlier is making more then double that with 5 years 32.5 mill. So again only the top 10 picks contracts need to be addressed.

But again not as much as some might think. Only the bonus money needs to be addressed, because the most of the rest of the salary is tied up in escalators and incentives. So if a team wants to pay a guy an extra 10 mill for doing his job and making the pro bowl 2 times out of his first 3 years more power to the team and the player. That should not be regulated IMO. So in summary I dont think there should be a complete slotting system, there should only be a gauranteed money slotting system, then everything else is fair game, becuase like I said if a team wants to reward a player for doing his job over and beyond by giving him incentives and escalators thats cool with me. So in my world Stafford would still get a contract that could be worth 72 mill if he hits the incentives the team lays out for him but instead of 42 of it being gauranteed only 15 mill of it would be gauranteed. Fair for the team and still keeps the capitalistic nature of contracts alive and well for the player, which I think is best.

Joe is wicked-smart.

I like the step away from gauranteed money, it soften's the blow of a bust, but still lets a player get paid for performance.

As a side note, to say top draft picks have not "earned" anything is not recognizing the hard work and sacrifice they have already given to be recognized as a "top draft pick"; these guys become the future stars of the NFL for a reason, they were the studs in college.

 

[Covert Rain]

I am sick of Rookies commanding so much of a teams salary cap & getting fat signing bonuses before they even play a down in the NFL. It's not fair to the Vets and some of the guys never pan out.

The NFL needs a rookie salary scale that limits earning potential until you have proven yourself. How many vets with good stats get cut every year just so teams can make room for the incoming class? It's pathetic.

 

[cardsfanmd]

I think we have finally escaped the "armpit of the NFL" and dont see us drafting in the top ten anytime soon so I dont want anything to change. If we begin to suck again I'll change my mind then.

 

[Duckjake]

And, talking more big picture type stuff, I think this will continue and expand the parity that has developed in the league over the last decade which has started to erode somewhat. A dynasty is nice when you're the 49ers or Cowboys or whoever but the majority of fans, I think, would prefer each year to have a realistic shot at winning it all.

The way it's set up now, an early pick in the draft is almost more likely to hurt your team than help it. The chances of one of those early picks being a value/financial bust is much greater than helping your team out of a hole. The problem is two-fold though because the teams that are drafting at the top are often the same teams that aren't terribly good at drafting so they wind up compounding their situation.

Losing should be penalty enough, those teams shouldn't be cap-strapped for years because of poor personnel decisions that require huge contracts.

There have been many discussions about what you state. Mainly concerning how the draft actually hurts the weaker teams instead of making them better. IMO It is why there is no parity in the NFL and the same teams win all the time. Especially in the AFC.

20% of the teams hold 60% of the Championships. (Super Bowls)

 

[SuperSpck]

Bump for an article:

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/The-differences-in-rookie-contracts.html

Although many have failed to report this, the NFL does have a rookie salary cap.
It’s called the “entering player pool” in which a number is given to each team after the draft depending on the location of its draft selections. So in a way, the rookie cap is a sort of defined “recommendation” on what each team should pay its draft choices similar to Major League Baseball, with the added kicker of a cap.

The rookie cap – a subset of each team’s overall cap – is not a large number in the NFL. The average rookie cap is around four percent of the team’s overall cap, a miniscule amount of cap tied up in all the drafted and undrafted rookies on the roster.

Thus, the problem with the system in the NFL is certainly not the allocation of rookie contracts to the cap.

The problem is cash, not cap, especially at the top. Due to the increasing leverage of players at the top of the draft, the cash outlays to top picks have become a source of consternation to league officials and veteran players every year.

This year, we’ve seen guaranteed amounts of over $41M to Matthew Stafford, the highest guarantee in the history of the NFL, and $28M to Mark Sanchez.

Having said this, the problem is limited to a handful of players every year, but it’s those players who get the attention of the media. No one writes about players on their rookie contracts making less than $500,000 in their third year in the league.

Due to the operation of the rookie pool, there are a myriad of rules and regulations that have to be navigated in every contract to avoid pool charges yet provide the player the amount set by the marketplace.

As a result, these contracts end up being up to 60 pages long, most of which is simply language to keep money out of the rookie cap. For example, Sanchez will not receive a signing bonus in 2009, simply around $2.5M of salary, which will be his cap number to squeeze into the rookie pool.

However, he will reportedly receive more than $30M over the next three seasons. That’s the weird dichotomy between cap and cash with these rookie contracts.

NFL teams do have to squeeze their picks into a cap, and the functional reality is that 50-55 percent of each team’s rookie cap -- and a much higher percentage of cash --ends up going to the top pick.

There is much debate about the players at the top, but the vast majority of rookies represent fixed and reasonable costs for their teams.

Having summarized these rookie contract issues, here’s the bottom line on players entering any of these leagues:

The goal is to get to the second contract. Except for a few aberrations – bonus babies such as the “S” boys, Stafford, Sanchez and Strasburg – the real money will be on the next contract, not this one.

Although there’s a lot of attention paid to what these rookies make coming into the league having not played a minute of professional sports, these contracts pale in comparison to veteran contracts, especially the lucky few who reach the mother lode of free agency.

He also breaks down the other major sports and how their rookie stuff works.
There's some stuff in there we knew, some stuff we may not have, but a fresh perspective is always good.

 

[slanidrac16]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the fact that a top 10 salary slotting would INCREASE the value of a first round pick. Teams would be more willing to trade up for that first pick giving the team a real opportunity to trade down to acquire additional players and picks to improve their team much quicker than any one individual player.

As it is now, nobody wants to trade up into the top ten because they know how much it's going to cost.