VJ91 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Bucky Gleason makes an excellent point in his article in today's Buff News. Why in the world do the NFL owners agree to pay rookies so much money in the first place? Peters did not make his final decision until he watched how much un-deserved un-earned money the Dolphins paid Jake Long after picking him number 1 last year. So why do they pay the rookies so much? The Players Union? The agents? Fear of a "strike" by college kids who already make nothing but the quiet dirty money funneled to them from dirty coaches and/or dirty alumni? They certainly can't live off those few bucks per season. With the economy bottoming out deeper every day, now is the perfect time to stop the insanity. Come up with a real rookie cap, one that awards veterans for their years of service, while still allowing the best rookies to buy their mom's homes and buy their SUV's and their bling. For example: Nobody can pretend to know just how arrogant and selfish and egotistical Jason Peters is. That has been beaten to death out here. However, since he was an undrafted free agent, perhaps if Jake Long, the number one pick in the entire draft, was paid only 3 Million Dollars per season for two years, with just a 4 Million dollar signing bonus, Peters would have not become so angry and jealous! At the same time, Long could have used his 2 Million dollars after taxes, from his signing bonus, and done some of the things the young rich athletes love to do. WIN WIN. If he earned the big contract after two years of being worth the number one pick in the draft, then sign him to the mega-deal. I guess this just makes too much common sense for the NFL owners to actually do. All we can hope is they agree to pay less money then what they are paying for top 5 to 10 picks today, when they re-do the collective bargaining agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Doesn't the CBA dictate how big the rookie salary pool is? The money being handed out to the top picks is always at the top of my list in terms of what has to be corrected in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve In Atlanta 2008 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Doesn't the CBA dictate how big the rookie salary pool is? The money being handed out to the top picks is always at the top of my list in terms of what has to be corrected in the NFL. Jake Long was 10 times better than Peters last year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 So why do they pay the rookies so much? The Players Union? The agents? Fear of a "strike" by college kids who already make nothing but the quiet dirty money funneled to them from dirty coaches and/or dirty alumni? Guess he forgot to mention Kraft, Jones, Snyder, et al who want to price out the other teams by continuing to raise the cap to the stratosphere. But yes, a rookie cap is long past due. Hopefully they will insist on one in the next contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2o Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 There is supposed to be a rookie salary structure of sorts coming up in the next CBA is what they're saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Blame Donahoe. If he had not let Pat Williams go away, perhaps Levy and Co. would not have been so concerned about losing another player on the DL (Kelsay). If Kelsay had not received the ridiculous contract, then Schobel would not have had his contract -- one with three years left -- redone. If the Bills had not renegotiated Schobel's contract, then maybe they would have an easier time putting off Peters' new contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VJ91 Posted April 23, 2009 Author Share Posted April 23, 2009 Jake Long was 10 times better than Peters last year... Ok, what if he was? A rookie that actually earned a fraction of his overpayment. A refreshing thing to see. Still you are missing my point entirely. Peters decided to stop playing football as soon as Miami paid Long all that money. He may have worked out on his own, but he skipped the entire training camp. Of course he did not have a good as sesaon as if he would have come to camp. Now that he is earning a little more money then Long, we will be able to see just how good Peters is....for the Eagles of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Blame Donahoe. If he had not let Pat Williams go away, perhaps Levy and Co. would not have been so concerned about losing another player on the DL (Kelsay). If Kelsay had not received the ridiculous contract, then Schobel would not have had his contract -- one with three years left -- redone. If the Bills had not renegotiated Schobel's contract, then maybe they would have an easier time putting off Peters' new contract. The NFL should adopt one of the few things the NHL has right. No contract extensions until the player reaches the last year of the current contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 The owners have been consistently blocked by NFLPA in their attempt to institute a rookie cap. Of course anyone with a rudimentary understanding of math & law would see that mid-tier vets are the ones feeling the biggest impact from the high rookie salaries. So much for protecting the interests of your constituents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 The NFL should adopt one of the few things the NHL has right. No contract extensions until the player reaches the last year of the current contract. (Yet again), if players are to be absolutely bound to a contract then the contract has to be guaranteed like it is in all other sports. The owners like to express moral outrage (as do the multitude of easily duped fans) when a player wants to have his existing deal renegotiated early. What people here continue to miss is that a team can cut a player at any time to renege on their contractual obligation. The player gets no further money when he is cut. The only money guaranteed is the signing bonus. Why is it that owners are allowed to break a contract but players are vilified when they want to renegotiate early? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 What people here continue to miss is that a team can cut a player at any time to renege on their contractual obligation. The player gets no further money when he is cut. The only money guaranteed is the signing bonus. Nobody "misses" anything. This is exactly how it should be and how other sports should do it too. In any other job, if you half ass it right after you get a big bonus and your performance drops considerably, you get fired, contract or no. In employment law it's called "cause". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Bucky Gleason makes an excellent point in his article in today's Buff News. Why in the world do the NFL owners agree to pay rookies so much money in the first place? Peters did not make his final decision until he watched how much un-deserved un-earned money the Dolphins paid Jake Long after picking him number 1 last year. So why do they pay the rookies so much? The Players Union? The agents? Fear of a "strike" by college kids who already make nothing but the quiet dirty money funneled to them from dirty coaches and/or dirty alumni? They certainly can't live off those few bucks per season. With the economy bottoming out deeper every day, now is the perfect time to stop the insanity. Come up with a real rookie cap, one that awards veterans for their years of service, while still allowing the best rookies to buy their mom's homes and buy their SUV's and their bling. For example: Nobody can pretend to know just how arrogant and selfish and egotistical Jason Peters is. That has been beaten to death out here. However, since he was an undrafted free agent, perhaps if Jake Long, the number one pick in the entire draft, was paid only 3 Million Dollars per season for two years, with just a 4 Million dollar signing bonus, Peters would have not become so angry and jealous! At the same time, Long could have used his 2 Million dollars after taxes, from his signing bonus, and done some of the things the young rich athletes love to do. WIN WIN. If he earned the big contract after two years of being worth the number one pick in the draft, then sign him to the mega-deal. I guess this just makes too much common sense for the NFL owners to actually do. All we can hope is they agree to pay less money then what they are paying for top 5 to 10 picks today, when they re-do the collective bargaining agreement. While Gleason is dead-on WRT there needing to be a true cap on the dollars each rookie gets, and that this has been long overdue, this really had nothing to do with Peters' situation. Recall that once Peters cleaned-out his locker at the end of the season, the Bills didn't see or hear from him. And Long was a surprising 1st overall pick last year around this time, i.e. almost 5 months after the season ended. So it's not like Peters waited until after Long was drafted/signed that he pulled his stunt. And who knows from where Peters' dissatisfaction truly came? Was he going to hold-out for more money even if the Bills hadn't redone Schobel's contract early, or if they hadn't signed Dockery and Walker to more money? Was it mostly Eugene Parker? Did McNally's words that he was the most talented LT he's worked with besides Munoz go to his head? No one will know for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 The rookie cap doesn't even need to change the total amount of money paid to rookies, it just needs to give the damn thing some balance. The #1 pick will probably make over $40M guaranteed. The #28 pick that we acquired is going to come in under $2M per season. And even 2nd round picks get paid like special teamers long after they become starters. It's the agents who influence the NFLPA that keep this from getting done: less money for rookies would just mean more money for veterans, and the players in the union shouldn't care about that. But if there was a rookie payscale, who would give an agent a 3% cut of a fixed payment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Nobody "misses" anything. This is exactly how it should be and how other sports should do it too. In any other job, if you half ass it right after you get a big bonus and your performance drops considerably, you get fired, contract or no. In employment law it's called "cause". In any other job? How many jobs actually involve a signed contract? Why do other sports leagues require guaranteed contracts? It's your belief that a team should be able to cut a player to relieve itself of financial obligation? You're saying teams should be able to opt out of contracts but players should be bound by them? Players are cut for a"SALARY CAP" reasons all the time regardless of performance. This is fair? Judgement of performance is a very arbitrary thing and hardly objective, particularly at a position like offensive lineman. Do you also believe that people should receive no overtime pay and should have to work on weekends without pay? What are your views on child labor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Gleason's point is correct but he's wrong that it was the substantial factor in Peters' discontent. Nope, that was 100% Marv's fault. His idiotic decision to give huge contracts to two inferior players (Walker and Dockery) set this team back years, and led directly to Peters' demands for a new contract. The Marv era will go down as a colossal failure, and possibly the final nail in the coffin for this franchise's tenure in Western New York. Sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I don't know who is to blame, but the rookie salaries are out of control! It is the dumbest, friggin structure for paid athletes I have ever seen. I just can't believe how a rookie who has never played in one single practice can be higher paid than Tom Brady. It's ridiculous, and something has to be done about it. Not only is absurdly unfair, but now it becomes an extra burden for a team to have to draft in the top #5. If these teams make a bad choice, they are burdened with having to pay 1 frickin player nearly %10 of their salary cap room. Something has got to be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dollars 2 donuts Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 What do you guys think: 5 million per year with a good percentage guaranteed (maybe 75%) for the first player drafted, sloping to 3 million per year for the 16-17th pick and 1 million and over per year for the 32nd pick. Just an idea, tweak as you like. EDIT: Even with the dramatic change from the numbers you see nowadays I find it hard to believe that any college graduate...err, sorry - former college student would walk away from a 5 year, 25 million dollar deal with 18.75 million guaranteed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 The owners have been consistently blocked by NFLPA in their attempt to institute a rookie cap. Of course anyone with a rudimentary understanding of math & law would see that mid-tier vets are the ones feeling the biggest impact from the high rookie salaries. So much for protecting the interests of your constituents. Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVUFootball29 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 (Yet again), if players are to be absolutely bound to a contract then the contract has to be guaranteed like it is in all other sports. The owners like to express moral outrage (as do the multitude of easily duped fans) when a player wants to have his existing deal renegotiated early. What people here continue to miss is that a team can cut a player at any time to renege on their contractual obligation. The player gets no further money when he is cut. The only money guaranteed is the signing bonus. Why is it that owners are allowed to break a contract but players are vilified when they want to renegotiate early? Kinda comparing Macintoshes to Granny Smith's here, but I understand your point. In the owner's case, most times a player is cut its either due to lack of performance or restructuring. When a player asks for more money, especially after recently signing a new contract it makes them look very greedy. We know this is not always the case, sometimes a player who performs at a high level on cheap contract deserves the raise he is requesting, especially if his playing time and team role would suggest it (Fred Jackson) However, in many cases players want more money simply because they have to have the most (Jason Peters), and in other cases they just plain spent it all (Travis Henry). The NFL would be wise to look at the NHL in terms of rookie contracts in the next CBA. I think adopting a similar rookie policy would help many team, especially small market and losing teams save money when drafting high and give these teams an opportunity to still afford to bid on big name free agents which would contribute to a much more competitive league in terms of team talent. However, like San Jose said, if you want to contract negotiations and renegotiations like the NHL, then teams would have to guarantee all contracts to keep the balance of power in check. Truthfully, the NFL is coming to a major crossroads at the end of this CBA and needs to make the proper decisions to keep running strong or else they risk letting things get way out of control like MLB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I'd go with something like this: $5M/season for the #1 pick, $4M for 2-10, $3M for 11-20, and $2M for 21-32. $1M for the second round, then $900k in the third, $800 in the 4th, etc. The total cost of this program would be about $239M per season, so on average, 1/16th of the salary cap would go to rookies. More or less. Then beyond that, every rookie contract would be for three years at that value, with 33% of its overall worth as a signing bonus (essentially, this makes the first year of the contract guaranteed and paid up front). No contract extension may be negotiated or signed before the first day of the player's third season. After those three years, the players would be restricted free agents if they had yet to sign an extension, the top 20 picks, I think, would automatically qualify for the top tender (1st and 3rd round picks) and the rest of the first round would guarantee a 1st round pick in return. I think it would also be worth introducing a higher tender still, where a team could tender an RFA at 200% his previous year's salary, or $5M whichever's greater, and ensure a franchise-level two first round picks. How's that sound? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts