Very Timely: Union against more structuring of rookie deals

LoyaltyisaCurse

IF AND WHEN HEALTHY...
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Posts
53,873
Reaction score
19,668
Location
CA
By Jason Cole, Yahoo! Sports 6 hours, 28 minutes ago


Gene Upshaw hears the complaints like clockwork.


“Every year at this time, I hear it again. They don’t like how the rookies are paid,” the executive director of the NFL Players Association said of owners and front-office personnel. “ ‘They need some kind of pay scale.’ Well, I’m not going to limit how the rookies are paid because it has a huge impact on veterans. I’m not going to agree to it.

With the NFL salary cap continually growing, the pay scale for rookies drafted in the first few picks is increasing as well – at a pace seemingly uncomfortable for a number of franchises.


Last year, quarterback JaMarcus Russell eventually got a record $29 million in guarantees from the Oakland Raiders after being taken No. 1 overall. In order to keep from matching or surpassing that total this year, the Miami Dolphins have already begun negotiations with at least two prospects (offensive tackle Jake Long from Michigan and defensive end Vernon Gholston from Ohio State) and reportedly are close to inking a deal with Long.

In a year when there is no clear-cut best prospect, the thought of spending $30 million or more in guaranteed money for an unproven player is troublesome to many NFL executives.

“We’re not paying based on the real talent level, but based on the fact that somebody just happens to have to go first or second and whatever,” Indianapolis Colts president Bill Polian said in February.
That comment echoes previous statements made by Polian.
“The system is a mess. It’s broken and we have to fix it,” Polian said in the fall.

One thought has been the implementation of a rookie scale. The NBA has a system where rookie contracts are essentially predetermined. However, the key differences between the NBA and the NFL are that NBA players can get to free agency after three years and the career for a basketball player is potentially much longer than in football. Furthermore, because NBA contracts are fully guaranteed, veteran players don’t run the same risk of being cut when younger players enter the league.

Upshaw is against additional structuring because the union has already given teams a rookie cap within the overall salary cap, effectively putting limits on how much guaranteed money goes to rookie players. He noted that while the amount of guaranteed money has increased for the top five and 10 overall picks, the amount guaranteed in the second round has decreased. Much of that is because players selected after the first round can only sign four-year maximum contracts.


Ultimately, Upshaw is concerned that keeping rookie salaries too cheap could price veterans out of jobs, especially those who make one of the varying minimum salaries. That has been an issue before in the salary-cap era.

In the late 1990s, for instance, the veteran minimum wage was growing at a higher aggregate rate than rookies’. What that eventually meant for teams is that keeping rookies was more cost effective than keeping veterans. For instance, teams could almost keep two or three rookies for the cost of keeping one veteran. The league and the union eventually addressed that issue with a somewhat complex formula for rookie and veteran salaries, making sure the salaries stayed in some proportion.
“We have to have a system where every player has an equal chance to get a job,” Upshaw said. “We don’t want to get into a position where the league is keeping four or five rookies because it’s cheaper than keeping one or two veterans.”

That’s part of a two-fold impact that rookie salaries have on veterans, Upshaw explained. Upshaw is of the belief that the high salaries for rookies help raise the scale for signing bonuses and other guaranteed money.
“If you have a rookie player who gets $10 million, $20 million, maybe even $30 million in guaranteed money, what do you think that means for a veteran player? That means he can ask for that or more,” Upshaw said.

To that point, agent Chad Speck, who represents Tennessee Titans defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth, said in February that he’s interested to see what type of contract LSU’s Glenn Dorsey gets as a first-round pick.

Such an example is perhaps further proof why Polian has endorsed a stricter cap on rookie earnings. He said in February that the NFLPA needs to agree to that as part of a new collective bargaining agreement.

Baltimore Ravens president Ozzie Newsome, a Hall of Fame player who has drafted the likes of Jonathan Ogden, Ray Lewis and Ed Reed as an executive, has a simpler solution.

“Give them all two-year contracts,” Newsome said as he threw his hands in the air to emphasize his point. “I can decide in two years whether someone is a good football player or not.”


That type of short-term approach might be the only real solution to a growing problem that has wide-ranging impact for clubs.

Russell eventually got the hefty contract he sought last year, but it came at a huge price for both the player and franchise. Russell missed all of training camp, therefore falling far behind in learning the Raiders’ playbook. Yet, while rookies holding out have long been a part of the game, the salary aspect becomes just one issue teams have to consider.

If teams decide to trade out of a high draft spot for whatever reason, they have to get the appropriate compensation in return. Dolphins vice president of football operations Bill Parcells has already told the New York Post that there isn’t much of a market for the No. 1 pick. The last trade involving top five selections was in 2004, when the San Diego Chargers took Eli Manning No. 1 and then dealt him to the New York Giants for a package that included No. 4 overall pick Philip Rivers.

We’re at the point that trading up isn’t worth the price, not just (from) what you have to give up, but in the salary you pay for that pick,” said Tampa Bay Buccaneers general manager Bruce Allen, whose team resisted the temptation to trade up from No. 4 last year to select wide receiver Calvin Johnson. Johnson was the No. 2 overall pick.

This year, a handful of players – Gholston, Jake Long, Virginia defensive end Chris Long, Dorsey, Arkansas running back Darren McFadden and Boston College quarterback Matt Ryan – are all arguably worth taking at No. 1 overall, depending on who you’re talking to at a given moment. If that’s the case, why should one of them make $12 million, $14 million or even $16 million more than another? That’s the approximate difference that could end up between being the No. 1 and No. 6 overall pick depending upon how the contracts are structured.

Upshaw believes that all of the fuss over money is a cover-up for sometimes faulty decision-making.


“What the teams want is for us to make them bulletproof from their own mistakes,” Upshaw said. “I hear Bill Polian talking about how he’s so worried about the cost of signing a No. 1 pick, but I don’t hear him talk about how happy he is he took Peyton Manning over Ryan Leaf. What teams need to do is spend more money on their scouting and player evaluation to make sure they don’t make mistakes.”

To Upshaw, the bottom line is that nothing management has talked about to this point makes sense to him and, frankly, he’s suspect of anything they might suggest.


“We’re not willing to adjust our thinking right now because we’re in a situation that we think works for all the players,” Upshaw said. “We went through this before with the owners in 1987. They wanted to put restrictions on the rookies that were just ridiculous … Then they keep saying to the veterans, ‘This will allow us to give more money to the veteran players.’ But that doesn’t happen and I don’t trust them.”

Jason Cole is a national NFL writer for Yahoo! Sports. Send Jason a question or comment for potential use in a future column or webcast.
 

SuperSpck

ASFN Addict
Joined
Mar 24, 2004
Posts
7,977
Reaction score
15
Location
Iowa
I understand Upshaw's distrust of owners.

The continued growth of rookie contracts makes things wonky from year to year. It'll only make things worse.

We've seen an example in Dockett already. The deal he signed a couple of years ago was pretty sweet to him then. But now rookies are getting paid more, which means NEW FA's will get paid to match or beat the latest rookies.

The new FA's cashing in under the expanding pool are getting better deals than guys with older deals so the guys with older deals want new ones, so in a couple of years a whole new round of contracts will be needed... yeesh.

This is complicated, and I still think there's a better answer out there than the current structure.

How about we take the idea of a guaranteed salary and apply it to 3 year rookie contracts. It'll be a modest amount, based on round, but the whole contract is guaranteed. After 3 years they can seek more traditional FA contracts.

I dunno, I'm thinking out loud. If anyone's got any ideas, I'd love to hear 'em.

Good article by the way.
 

slanidrac16

ASFN Icon
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2002
Posts
15,523
Reaction score
15,641
Location
Plainfield, Il.
We look at having the #1 pick in the draft as a burden to the cap, which to some degree , it is. What's the solution.

1. Win. Then you don't have to worry about drafting so high.

2. Trade down and forget the so called "value chart". If I had the #1 pick and wanted to trade out . I'd simply offer a bargian price to any team interested. Let's take the Jet's and Dolphins for example. I'd call the Jet's and offer to swap 1st round picks and ask them to throw in a 3rd round pick. The Dolphins would save a bunch of money, still acquire a top player and an additional pick that a team like the Dolphin's could desperately use. I'm sure they would be getting fleeced according to the value chart, but it is one way around it.

3. Drive down the price by negotiating with 3 or 4 top players. Agents know what the #1 pick (40m?) is going to get. They also have a pretty good idea what the #2 player is going to get(32m?). Well, alright then. We will pay our selection 35m tops. There are agents and players out there that will be happy with that money and the prestige as the #1 pick.

I wonder what would happen if Parcells called a guy like (picking a name out of the hat) S Kenny Phillips and said, " Look, you are projected by every draft publication in America to go somewhere in the middle 2nd round. We are prepared to draft you first and we are willing to give you a contract of 20 mil guaranteed."
If you're Kenny Phillips you got to know that if you wait until draft day and become the 50th pick in the draft you will not come anywhere near that type of money. Wouldn't YOU consider the offer?

To hell with the critics. To hell with conventional widom and to hell with the system. Right , wrong or indifferent it's a way around the system. Would the fans be unhappy? Probably. But what if Kenny Phillips goes on to be an All Pro safety? Just because a team has the top pick in the draft doesn't guarantee that selected player will go on to a stellar career. If for no other reason an injury could end a career before that player ever plays in a real NFL game. Or he could be Ryan Leaf.

One other thing. This so called "value chart" is seriously out dated. The salary cost for a top 5 pick is no longer a luxury. It has become more of a burden. Therefore the #1 pick in today's draft is not worth the same value as the so called chart anymore. The idea of trading up to get the top pick at the cost of two first round, a second round and a 4th round pick is not only insane , but laughable.
 

RugbyMuffin

ASFN IDOL
Joined
Apr 30, 2003
Posts
30,485
Reaction score
4,877
All this is pointing to a bad situation with the NFL.

Enjoy the 2008 season cause I have a feeling it will be all down hill from there. Between this non-sense (I agree rookies are paid way too much), and the labor negotiations that will be going on next offseason, all I see, is greed coming to destroy the game.

The minute the salary cap goes away our team, along with other small market teams will be like a B-league squad compared to the big market teams.

Kinda like how baseball is now, and one of the reasons why baseball sucks and is boring.

I'll be the first to say, I will write off the NFL if there is a strike, or lockout. There is too much money out there already for everyone to have get their piece of the pie. This is pure greed. And when ever any sport has any stoppage of their playing the season it is a kick in the nutz to the fans. And that is unacceptable. Especially in times where money for the FANS is tight, and players/owners are fighting over who gets an extra 100 million dollars
 
Last edited:

slanidrac16

ASFN Icon
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2002
Posts
15,523
Reaction score
15,641
Location
Plainfield, Il.
All this is pointing to a bad situation with the NFL.

Enjoy the 2008 season cause I have a feeling it will be all down hill from there. Between this non-sense (I agree rookies are paid way too much), and the labor negotiations that will be going on next offseason, all I see, is greed coming to destroy the game.

The minute the salary cap goes away our team, along with other small market teams will be like a B-league squad compared to the big market teams.

Kinda like how baseball is now, and one of the reasons why baseball sucks and is boring.

I'll be the first to say, I will write off the NFL if there is a strike, or lockout. There is too much money out there already for everyone to have get their piece of the pie. This is pure greed. And when ever any sport has any stoppage of their playing the season it is a kick in the nutz to the fans. And that is unacceptable. Especially in times where money for the FANS is tight, and players/owners are fighting over who gets an extra 100 million dollars

I agree. There is SO much money flowing into the NFL that you would think the eschelon of this league just won't let it fall apart. The real problem with baseball is they impose a luxury tax on high market teams, however, small market teams are NOT required to spend that money. They can pocket the 20 mil that the league gives them and continue to operate like they never received it.

Also, can we be described any longer as a small market team? New stadium, increasd revenue, increased market sales, stadium naming rights, not to mention what the Cardinals receive from other venues that rent the stadium.

Five years ago I would have REALLY been worried about this. Today it's a little different. Most of these owners earn the fortune doing something else. There might be a few that would be willing to dip into their personal business to fund a winning team, but not many. Even the Dan Snyders of the world has slowed down a bit. IF, and thats a big if, the salary cap was eliminated this team could compete financially, at least currently, with most other teams.


I have to believe there is no way in the world that the owners will ever go into a season without a cap. They can't be that dumb. That being said , it is a thriving business that can actually get better.
 

DaisyCutter

Hall of Famer
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Posts
1,718
Reaction score
0
How about we take the idea of a guaranteed salary and apply it to 3 year rookie contracts. It'll be a modest amount, based on round, but the whole contract is guaranteed. After 3 years they can seek more traditional FA contracts.


A lot of position players (like WRs, QBs, and DL) don't develop fully within those first three years. I think that would be a huge problem.

People get cranky with the rookie contract situation every July, but these things do work themselves out, and you don't have teams that are handcuffed by their top-of-the-draft players. It just seems that way when the funny-money contracts are announced.

If the league were to go to a rookie slotting system, I would think that Top 5 picks would get 7 year deals, Top 10 picks would get 6 year deals, First round picks would get 5 year deals, and second rounders downward would get four year contracts. Perhaps the guaranteed money would increase by the same percentage as the salary cap.

The problem is that the "guaranteed" money is often in incentives, and those are going to be different for Matt Ryan and Jake Long. The incentives would likely even be different between Vernon Gholston and Chris Long, even though they play the same position.
 

SuperSpck

ASFN Addict
Joined
Mar 24, 2004
Posts
7,977
Reaction score
15
Location
Iowa
A lot of position players (like WRs, QBs, and DL) don't develop fully within those first three years. I think that would be a huge problem.

People get cranky with the rookie contract situation every July, but these things do work themselves out, and you don't have teams that are handcuffed by their top-of-the-draft players. It just seems that way when the funny-money contracts are announced.

If the league were to go to a rookie slotting system, I would think that Top 5 picks would get 7 year deals, Top 10 picks would get 6 year deals, First round picks would get 5 year deals, and second rounders downward would get four year contracts. Perhaps the guaranteed money would increase by the same percentage as the salary cap.

The problem is that the "guaranteed" money is often in incentives, and those are going to be different for Matt Ryan and Jake Long. The incentives would likely even be different between Vernon Gholston and Chris Long, even though they play the same position.

Good points, I'm pretty sure the nature of the game will make it impossible to have a perfect system, but it's in my nature to assume things will get better before worse.
 

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
39,660
Reaction score
23,659
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
A lot of position players (like WRs, QBs, and DL) don't develop fully within those first three years. I think that would be a huge problem.

People get cranky with the rookie contract situation every July, but these things do work themselves out, and you don't have teams that are handcuffed by their top-of-the-draft players. It just seems that way when the funny-money contracts are announced.

If the league were to go to a rookie slotting system, I would think that Top 5 picks would get 7 year deals, Top 10 picks would get 6 year deals, First round picks would get 5 year deals, and second rounders downward would get four year contracts. Perhaps the guaranteed money would increase by the same percentage as the salary cap.

The problem is that the "guaranteed" money is often in incentives, and those are going to be different for Matt Ryan and Jake Long. The incentives would likely even be different between Vernon Gholston and Chris Long, even though they play the same position.

I absolutely and completely disagree with the above bolded statement. First off, teams have to deal with the difficulty of signing top draft picks and getting them into camp on time. It is a crying shame that teams with good front offices and good negotiating teams can be forced into a holdout situation just because the 'slotted value' of their pick hasn't been determined because of other holdouts. I also think that a team should never, ever suffer for years on end because of one single bad draft pick. Such suffering should be limited to the impact of the pick's bad play. A team shouldn't be screwed for years financially because one player didn't pan out. It's ludicrous, and it really hurts the game and hurts those teams drafting high.

Sure, people can argue that a team that doesn't want the risk of a high draft pick simply shouldn't suck, but the purpose of allowing the worst teams pick highest isn't to punish them financially; it should be about giving them a competetive advantage through the draft.
 

40yearfan

DEFENSE!!!!
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2003
Posts
35,013
Reaction score
456
Location
Phoenix, AZ.
I absolutely and completely disagree with the above bolded statement. First off, teams have to deal with the difficulty of signing top draft picks and getting them into camp on time. It is a crying shame that teams with good front offices and good negotiating teams can be forced into a holdout situation just because the 'slotted value' of their pick hasn't been determined because of other holdouts. I also think that a team should never, ever suffer for years on end because of one single bad draft pick. Such suffering should be limited to the impact of the pick's bad play. A team shouldn't be screwed for years financially because one player didn't pan out. It's ludicrous, and it really hurts the game and hurts those teams drafting high.

Sure, people can argue that a team that doesn't want the risk of a high draft pick simply shouldn't suck, but the purpose of allowing the worst teams pick highest isn't to punish them financially; it should be about giving them a competetive advantage through the draft.

GASP!!!! I agree with Stout.
 

DaisyCutter

Hall of Famer
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Posts
1,718
Reaction score
0
I absolutely and completely disagree with the above bolded statement. First off, teams have to deal with the difficulty of signing top draft picks and getting them into camp on time. It is a crying shame that teams with good front offices and good negotiating teams can be forced into a holdout situation just because the 'slotted value' of their pick hasn't been determined because of other holdouts. I also think that a team should never, ever suffer for years on end because of one single bad draft pick. Such suffering should be limited to the impact of the pick's bad play. A team shouldn't be screwed for years financially because one player didn't pan out. It's ludicrous, and it really hurts the game and hurts those teams drafting high.

Sure, people can argue that a team that doesn't want the risk of a high draft pick simply shouldn't suck, but the purpose of allowing the worst teams pick highest isn't to punish them financially; it should be about giving them a competetive advantage through the draft.


People argue that teams are at a "competitive disadvantage" because of a high pick not working out, but can you provide some examples?

Alex Smith's poor performance (especially coupled with TE Vernon Davis) didn't prevent the 49ers from shelling out $80 million in funny money to Nate Clements two years later.

Signing JaMarcus Russell and continuing to deal with the albatross of Robert Gallery didn't limit the Raiders in signing Tommy Kelly to the largest DT contract in NFL history.

Dealing with the Top 10 castoffs of Charles Rogers and Mike Williams didn't prevent the Lions from signing more bad free agents and getting their picks into camp on time.

Even dealing with the enormous contract of Leonard Davis didn't handcuff the Arizona Cardinals from giving out pretty stupid contracts to players in the last few years.

The only real result of bust draft picks has shown up on the field. Even Larry Fitzgerald's monster contract was the result of the player actually working out for the team, and the front office gambling that the player wouldn't meet incentives. Monster contracts for guys like Ben Roethlisberger, Eli Manning, and Phillip Rivers haven't handcuffed their teams, either.

Yes, the holdout process is frustrating for fans, but it wasn't Darrelle Revis's holdout (incidentially, the 16th overall pick in the draft last year) that caused the Jets to be terrible, and his contract, combined with D'Brickashaw Ferguson's underperformance in his sophomore campaign, didn't prevent the Jets from shelling out stupid money to a number of players both already on their roster as well as in free agency.

So, what are some of these results of the financial impact of a rookie bust destroying the finances of a franchise and holding them back?
 

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
39,660
Reaction score
23,659
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
People argue that teams are at a "competitive disadvantage" because of a high pick not working out, but can you provide some examples?

Alex Smith's poor performance (especially coupled with TE Vernon Davis) didn't prevent the 49ers from shelling out $80 million in funny money to Nate Clements two years later.

Signing JaMarcus Russell and continuing to deal with the albatross of Robert Gallery didn't limit the Raiders in signing Tommy Kelly to the largest DT contract in NFL history.

Dealing with the Top 10 castoffs of Charles Rogers and Mike Williams didn't prevent the Lions from signing more bad free agents and getting their picks into camp on time.

Even dealing with the enormous contract of Leonard Davis didn't handcuff the Arizona Cardinals from giving out pretty stupid contracts to players in the last few years.

The only real result of bust draft picks has shown up on the field. Even Larry Fitzgerald's monster contract was the result of the player actually working out for the team, and the front office gambling that the player wouldn't meet incentives. Monster contracts for guys like Ben Roethlisberger, Eli Manning, and Phillip Rivers haven't handcuffed their teams, either.

Yes, the holdout process is frustrating for fans, but it wasn't Darrelle Revis's holdout (incidentially, the 16th overall pick in the draft last year) that caused the Jets to be terrible, and his contract, combined with D'Brickashaw Ferguson's underperformance in his sophomore campaign, didn't prevent the Jets from shelling out stupid money to a number of players both already on their roster as well as in free agency.

So, what are some of these results of the financial impact of a rookie bust destroying the finances of a franchise and holding them back?

Interesting that in none of your examples (save the Lions, and they're just dysfunctional) do you list players at the same positions. That would disprove your point, of course. A TE and a QB. A QB and a DT. The problem is that if you draft a guy that high, you're likely trying to fill a major hole. Let's say that hole is at QB. Great, if he works out, you have your QBOF. If not, you're going to suck for the next probably 3-5 years, even if you decide after year one that he isn't your guy. Why? You can't eat a huge contract and then shell out another huge contract at the same position. You can't pick a QB #1 and then go out and pay big bucks for another QB, or draft another one very high. It's the same reason why we'll probably lose the Quan. So, if you take a certain position high, you're pretty well locked in with that player for a long time. If you take a player in the 2nd round, or even in the 20's in the 1st round, you can replace a player that underproduces.
 

DaisyCutter

Hall of Famer
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Posts
1,718
Reaction score
0
Interesting that in none of your examples (save the Lions, and they're just dysfunctional) do you list players at the same positions. That would disprove your point, of course. A TE and a QB. A QB and a DT. The problem is that if you draft a guy that high, you're likely trying to fill a major hole. Let's say that hole is at QB. Great, if he works out, you have your QBOF. If not, you're going to suck for the next probably 3-5 years, even if you decide after year one that he isn't your guy. Why? You can't eat a huge contract and then shell out another huge contract at the same position. You can't pick a QB #1 and then go out and pay big bucks for another QB, or draft another one very high. It's the same reason why we'll probably lose the Quan. So, if you take a certain position high, you're pretty well locked in with that player for a long time. If you take a player in the 2nd round, or even in the 20's in the 1st round, you can replace a player that underproduces.

But that's not what your point is. You said that:

I also think that a team should never, ever suffer for years on end because of one single bad draft pick. Such suffering should be limited to the impact of the pick's bad play. A team shouldn't be screwed for years financially because one player didn't pan out.

Where are these teams that were "screwed for years financially because one player didn't pan out"? One could argue that only the Cards would be stupid enough to shell out a Top 5 pick for a player where they've already got one Pro Bowler in their 20s. But the Colts had 2 high-dollar WRs and that hasn't crippled their competitiveness. The Rams had 2 1st round WRs and that hasn't crippled them.

The Vikings had a high-dollar FA in Chester Taylor and a Top 5 pick in Adrian Peterson. That's worked out well so far. The Chargers had a 2nd round QB in Brees and still traded for Phillip Rivers. Not only that, but paying out money for Phillip Rivers didn't prevent the Chargers from using the Franchise tag on Brees after his rookie contract ended.

Your QB question doesn't even make sense. Who decides that their QB is going to suck after one season, or even two? Do you think that the Titans are ready to pull up the bridge on Vince Young because of his 69.0 career QB rating? Are the Cards ready to pull the plug on the Matt Leinart era after two seasons and a 71.2 QB rating? Please.

And that still doesn't prove your point. The 49ers haven't been injured financially by Alex Smith's contract. They've been hurt on the field because he's been terrible.

Your only problem seems to be with Larry Fitzgerald, and his contract was only an albatross because he worked out and turned into a Pro Bowl player. Boo hoo. I have very little pity for teams that can't adapt to the success of their players, even if that team is the Arizona Cardinals.
 

WildBB

Yogi n da Bear
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Posts
14,295
Reaction score
1,239
Location
The Sonoran Jungle - West
2. Trade down and forget the so called "value chart". If I had the #1 pick and wanted to trade out . I'd simply offer a bargian price to any team interested. Let's take the Jet's and Dolphins for example. I'd call the Jet's and offer to swap 1st round picks and ask them to throw in a 3rd round pick. The Dolphins would save a bunch of money, still acquire a top player and an additional pick that a team like the Dolphin's could desperately use. I'm sure they would be getting fleeced according to the value chart, but it is one way around it.

Top picked rookie salaries have gotten so out of hand, none of them are worth it just about.

Take the Cards for instance. In this years draft I don't think we'd trade with the Jets straight up #6 for #16. :nono:
 

CardsFan88

ASFN Addict
Joined
May 28, 2002
Posts
7,470
Reaction score
4,329
lol Fitzgerald and our fa potential signings this year is a good example.

The cap is funny. With LTBE bonuses, and backloading contracts it's easy to sign people for a couple of years. But then comes the hell. You may want to look at the early to mid 00's niners as an example of what happens when you overspend. It's a whole lot easier to do it via free agency rather than the draft. But if you are shelling out 15-30 mil every year, that's the same as signing a top flight FA every year. Meanwhile teams that shell out less year after year get guys signed for 4-5 years for much less average per year cap. If one messes up, the contract is 1) smaller in length, 2) because it's less they can sign a fa, or as said above take another pick in the mid 1st to 2nd round at the same position. Very few of these top end guys are ever worth their contracts....most..even the good (not great) players tend to be overpaid. But what is overpaid....well having saying 5 guys over 5 years on your team that make 3 mill a season in their final year of their contract or thereabouts surely isn't overpaying. I'd rather have to extend and restructure in the 4th year of a contract, then wishing one could on multiple 6-7 year contracts...that 4th year.

If this year I could have a top 5 pick and sign a couple of lower level fa's or have
16th-32nd pick, a top flight fa, and you probably still could sign a few lower level fa's, what would one take? I'd take the 16th-32nd pick.

The ones that benefit or are hurt the most are the ones that either constantly pick up high, or constantly pick down low in the first round.

Ofc if someone hits on every pick, every year, it becomes moot, but that's the thing, no team is ever even close to perfect. Capwise missing on a top 5 pick is worse (but pretty even) than missing on probably 3 lower 1st round picks. If you miss, you can attempt to sign a veteran. Odds are even if you miss, and get calvin pace and bryant johnson type players, they are serviceable, and aren't costing you alot. If a top 5 pick plays like a calvin pace or bryant johnson you're screwed. Either you keep them, or lose a decent player, take the cap hit, and sign another guy who eats up more cap space.

Again since most teams fluctuate draft wise, the effects are difficult to find. But a team that spends 40 mill in guaranteed in 5 years of 1st round picks has much more flexibility and able to upgrade their needs with lower priced or higher priced veterans then a bad team that's spent 100-110 mill or more guaranteed in 5 years.

The numbers are even more ridiculous if you add in the escalating salaries when comparing the picks, and that you won't have 6th and 7th years on the contract (and the even higher escalating number). All on guys that are a complete crapshoot.

Things are weird, who would of thought it become necessary to trade 2 1st round picks to get rid of an expiring contract in the nba? Even if that's about the worst you can get, it's become en vogue for teams to pay to give up bad contracts, or pay to acquire an expiring one. In some fashion teams that are always up in the top of the 1st round picking are constantly risking getting such bad contracts...except you can[t get rid of them unless you cut them, and you still have to bite the bullet on it. In the nfl you can shoot yourself in the foot via draft or fa. In the nba at least it's only fa. Ooh Suns time.
 

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
39,660
Reaction score
23,659
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
Well said, Cardsfan88. Daisy, it's quite simple. Rookies that haven't proven anything are holding teams hostages for outrageous amounts of money. It is a very focused problem because it only happens in one small portion of the first round. That also happens to be the area of the draft that is supposed to help less successful teams recover and compete. Instead, they're forced to take on large contracts for players that have a decent chance of not even panning out. Basically, it's punishing the bad teams. When one of those picks works out, great. When it doesn't, the team cannot easily cut their losses and move on as with probably over 90 percent of the rest of the draft. It's a bad system.
 

DaisyCutter

Hall of Famer
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Posts
1,718
Reaction score
0
Well said, Cardsfan88. Daisy, it's quite simple. Rookies that haven't proven anything are holding teams hostages for outrageous amounts of money. It is a very focused problem because it only happens in one small portion of the first round. That also happens to be the area of the draft that is supposed to help less successful teams recover and compete. Instead, they're forced to take on large contracts for players that have a decent chance of not even panning out. Basically, it's punishing the bad teams. When one of those picks works out, great. When it doesn't, the team cannot easily cut their losses and move on as with probably over 90 percent of the rest of the draft. It's a bad system.

So, basically, you're saying that your argument has no basis in actual reality. There are no teams that are hamstrung by their "outrageous" rookie contracts.

Why don't you just say that?
 

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
39,660
Reaction score
23,659
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
So, basically, you're saying that your argument has no basis in actual reality. There are no teams that are hamstrung by their "outrageous" rookie contracts.

Why don't you just say that?

Oh, I don't agree with you so my argument has no basis in reality? Interesting take. How did the Lions do with the Harrington fiasco? The Bengals with Akili Smith? Raiders with Gallery (don't try playing it down again--they keep trying to fit him in on their line. Why? Contract.). Why don't you think the 49ers tried to get another QB this offseason? Already have a big contract there. I could go on, but I don't need to.
 

WisconsinCard

Herfin BIg Time
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Posts
15,894
Reaction score
7,613
Location
In A Cigar Bar Near You
Oh, I don't agree with you so my argument has no basis in reality? Interesting take. How did the Lions do with the Harrington fiasco? The Bengals with Akili Smith? Raiders with Gallery (don't try playing it down again--they keep trying to fit him in on their line. Why? Contract.). Why don't you think the 49ers tried to get another QB this offseason? Already have a big contract there. I could go on, but I don't need to.

I get what you're saying stout. If they were to cut an early first round pick after a year or even 2 they would take a tremendious cap hit, for all the bonus they had to pay. Also trying to pay another at the position that you just lost. Thats why Wendell Bryant was held onto for so long. We all knew he was a bust.
 

CardsFan88

ASFN Addict
Joined
May 28, 2002
Posts
7,470
Reaction score
4,329
Look at L. Davis. His contract was 'BIG' at the time....we paid him better than O.Pace at the time I believe, and paid him what at that time O.Pace deserved. What sort of production did we get? Our cap went towards one word.....HYPE.

Well a team that got good value for the position paid 2-3 mill a year at the time. Either from a guy on the backend of a team friendly contract, a low 1st round pick at the end of his contract, or even a low round rookie, 2nd, or 3rd year guy who surprised. In such a case a low round guy could have been playing for 1 mill or less a year versus our 'BIG' contract.

Even the top guys who signed fa deals got smaller deals. Didn't Hutch 2 years ago only get a 7yr-49 mill deal four years after we drafted big? Granted g is not a t, so a top T got about 1 mill per season more than a g at that time, yet that's a g salary from years later. People were saying it was way too much even then. But they paid for a top 3 guard in the nfl, 4 years later than we drafted big...and big did eventually turn out to be a guard. Who got jobbed?

Why did we let L. Davis walk? Because we couldn't or would resign him....but if he was drafted say where E. Brown was taken, would there have been a stigma to resign him?

To resign L.Davis (another product of this system)...where salaries go up and not down. If you sign a guy to a huge deal his first deal, even if he doesn't live up to standards, the starting point will be close to his final year's salary on the old deal. Again we paid out a huge rookie contract of a T, to a G....again these guys are unproven.

(Not to mention his contract ended during the uncapped year. Meaning, every team and their mother set up contracts to escalate during that year. Then when the new CBA and TV deals are signed it's based alot off what the situation in the NFL is capwise. If most teams acted like a 10 mill jump had to happen, well then it makes sense to make it bigger. My take is smart teams know the TV deals go up each time for the nfl and bank on it when it comes to what happens with the cap)

Our and other top end picks ARE our fa signings when it comes to the cap. I'll also put it this way. If we go 0-16 and have to keep the space open for a #1 overall pick....Will we be more likely to extend dansby, boldin, green, and dockett? (or any combo we feel we need) Or will we be less likely? How does that change if you only have to keep open enough for the #32 overall pick?

If we can squeeze (some) them in, what about next year? Eventually the piper needs to be paid. Especially if we or other teams don't use many LTBE in our contracts, and don't seem to get compensatory picks on a regular basis...and if we get them..we rarely get a decent one or three. To me, an extra 3rd, 4th, and 6th round pick is huge in a year. Even if you could only get an extra 4th year in and year out...that's potentially a great player every year...signed cheap for at least 3 years...maybe 4. Over the course of 5-7 years even a bad gm will pick 2 players; a starter, and a backup that can be on the team for 5 years or so.

So if you compound that over the years...where every year you have to keep that much space for potentially a 'big' contract, it adds up...meanwhile the good teams are paying much cheaper...and getting additional picks...it's easy for bad teams to stay bad.

Again ever wonder why some of these good teams can throw so much money around in fa? Besides from the range of creative tricks to risking salary cap hell, if they haven't had to dole out any of these contracts the last few years, they're in a better position to spend money. It's hard for us because we constantly do.

Perfectly stated stout, it's only the top portion of one round, only affecting a few teams, and the bad ones.

Ultimately there are so many factors that go into putting a winning football team on the field, that teams can get away with paying more sometimes. But it doesn't mean their cap space couldn't be in better shape if they didn't have to overpay for an average player. With this structure teams that constantly pick at the top are gambling on draft picks versus gambling on proven players.

Are we not overpaying on antrel rolle, on matt leinart? Well I guess the jury's out on them. But as a cb, rolle is not worth his money...at safety he has a chance to make it less of a burden...and because he wasn't picked in the top 5, we didn't overpay too much for him, but a value he isn't. Leinart is being paid like a probowl QB, are we getting probowl production??? We'll see.

If you don't see a guy you want to pay big bucks to in fa, you don't. If you have a top pick, you have to pay big bucks...unless you trade down. Which can be tougher than it looks. Ultimately if you can get a good player, and save millions of the cap every year, would it almost be worth to underbid at any costs just to unload the pick and pick up like a 4th rounder or even 5th...who could be another potential starter/key backup than you would have otherwise whether this year or soon after....and you spending way less...allowing you to resign your players or pick up some in fa? One less UDFA making the squad if you ask me.

If you are paid like a star and don't perform like one on sundays, you hurt the team more than just your bad or average player who doesn't perform on sundays. All top end 1st round picks are paid like stars or very, very near it.

Overall the union chief needs to find a new economic engine to drive up salaries of veteran players...the rookies get paid more every year...and thus the vets get jealous is pretty ludicrous, and not sustainable for the long run. I hope they fix it the right way and don't try to band-aid it.

I wholly support a rookie pay scale...

There is no way a player picked #1 should make more than 2-3x a 32nd pick does. What's the difference now 5-8 mill for #32, and 57-60+ mill for #1 or about 8-12x? It's too late for me to find solid numbers, but the key isn't the exact numbers, it's the vast difference between the two. Well at least that's my take.

edit: exactly...we held onto wendell when we could of had someone making 1/5th do the same thing. You even risk cutting a better player just because of the 'investment'.
 
Last edited:

DaisyCutter

Hall of Famer
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Posts
1,718
Reaction score
0
Oh, I don't agree with you so my argument has no basis in reality? Interesting take. How did the Lions do with the Harrington fiasco? The Bengals with Akili Smith? Raiders with Gallery (don't try playing it down again--they keep trying to fit him in on their line. Why? Contract.). Why don't you think the 49ers tried to get another QB this offseason? Already have a big contract there. I could go on, but I don't need to.


What about them? Were those teams unable to compete financially? That's your point, right? Read your own posts, Stout. Yes, some high draft choices flame out. But no team can or does give up on their draft choices after Year 2.

So, the economic impact of busted Top 5 picks is drastically overstated. If you could come up with one example of a team that was cash-strapped by a handful of failed Top 5 picks, your arguement would be supported by teams. But I've already illustrated how teams like the Lions, 49ers, and Raiders have been able to give out stupid contracts to free agents despite having those picks on the roster.

The problem isn't the rookie salary structure; the problem is poor front offices and scouting.
 

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
39,660
Reaction score
23,659
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
What about them? Were those teams unable to compete financially? That's your point, right? Read your own posts, Stout. Yes, some high draft choices flame out. But no team can or does give up on their draft choices after Year 2.

So, the economic impact of busted Top 5 picks is drastically overstated. If you could come up with one example of a team that was cash-strapped by a handful of failed Top 5 picks, your arguement would be supported by teams. But I've already illustrated how teams like the Lions, 49ers, and Raiders have been able to give out stupid contracts to free agents despite having those picks on the roster.

The problem isn't the rookie salary structure; the problem is poor front offices and scouting.

Okay, have it your way. Just remember that you're in the microscopic minority on the topic.
 

DaisyCutter

Hall of Famer
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Posts
1,718
Reaction score
0
Okay, have it your way. Just remember that you're in the microscopic minority on the topic.


Hey, between an actor and a fan of live theatre (non-musical, even), I think we both know that being in the microscopic minority isn't necessarily a bad thing or means that you're wrong. :D
 
Top