nodnarb Posted April 25, 2009 Posted April 25, 2009 I couldn't believe my eyes when I read what Detroit just gave to a guy who has never played a down in the NFL. That he is getting paid more per year than the best in the game is so absurd, I can't believe that it's not being addressed by the league. And it just goes to show how dangerously powerful the NFLPA has become. Compare Stafford's salary to Brady, Manning, McNabb, Brees, and the other elite QBs in the game. One quick look and you realize the seriousness of the problem. Unearned excesses create quiet, and sometimes not so quiet, hostilities. The inequity will lead many players to hold out, or play soft, uncommitted ball. And that's just the obvious consequences. This is runaway inflation within the game, and like any kind of runaway inflation, it has a giant ripple effect. We'll see how much power Goodell has soon enough. We'll see how strong his will is. I haven't heard enough yet. The Chiefs just gave Cassel a sensible contract, earned by his play in the league, even if for only one year. He's clearly a good QB. Now compare this to the money being thrown around this year to unproven kids, in the worst recession since the 1970s. It's astounding.
GOBILLS78 Posted April 25, 2009 Posted April 25, 2009 I was astouded as well. You'd think that if we were going to see rookie contracts go down, this would be the year. I guess not. It really handcuffs franchises -- especially if they whiff on a top-five selection.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 25, 2009 Posted April 25, 2009 I have been saying this for years. I can't understand it. Hope may be on the way, however. In today's Sporting News Today, there was an interview with Goodell. Question: "Will there be a rookie salary scale. Goodell: "We have a system designed to give the team that performed the worst the best opportunity to improve. But now it is getting to the point the risk is so great by having that high draft choice, that if you make a mistake the impact can be so great that it can set you back from a competitive standpoint... We want the players that have performed on NFL level to be compensated. In the first round alone (today), we're going to commit $600 million, $400 million guaranteed. So if a player doesn't make it, that money is out of the system... There is something wrong with that."
DonInBuffalo Posted April 25, 2009 Posted April 25, 2009 You do realize that there's been a "rookie pool" as part of the CBA for years, right? There's a specified portion of the total salary cap that is allocated for all rookies. After the draft is complete, there's a formula that divides the pool among all 32 teams, based on how many picks they had, and how high/low they were.
billsfan89 Posted April 25, 2009 Posted April 25, 2009 The first five to ten picks get hugely devalued because of the current system. Yeah you get to choose the top player in the draft but you have to pay him like the best player in the nfl even thought he might not play that way for several years or ever at all. I think a system were you slot the first round picks and only give the top pick like five years 25 million and than go down from there gives a team a real opportunity to improve their team. There is no way the top pick should get more than five million a year and no more than 12 million guaranteed.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 25, 2009 Posted April 25, 2009 You do realize that there's been a "rookie pool" as part of the CBA for years, right? There's a specified portion of the total salary cap that is allocated for all rookies. After the draft is complete, there's a formula that divides the pool among all 32 teams, based on how many picks they had, and how high/low they were. I think most people are really only concerned with the amounts that the teams pay for the first 10-15 picks in general, and the top 1-5 in particular.
nodnarb Posted April 25, 2009 Author Posted April 25, 2009 You do realize that there's been a "rookie pool" as part of the CBA for years, right? There's a specified portion of the total salary cap that is allocated for all rookies. After the draft is complete, there's a formula that divides the pool among all 32 teams, based on how many picks they had, and how high/low they were. yes, of course I know about rookie pool, but it's irrelevant to the problem. Has it in any way prevented this absurd contract inflation for the first half of the first round? The other contracts are for the most part sensible when weighted against proven veteran contracts. If not sensible, at least not so egregiously overvalued as to be a problem. But that first round, and the first half of the first round in particular, is just plain ridiculous.
Recommended Posts