Hindsight - seems the veteran players got hosed with the new CBA (1 Viewer)

[Bossman]

This John Abraham thing has me wondering.... why can't this guy find a team that wants him?

... as well as all the other vet players cut or left unsigned ...that seem like they still have plenty of gas left in the tank.

Not sure exactly what caused it ... but with this new CBA, it sure seems like veteran players are being cast aside quickly -- in favor of rookies and undrafted free agents.

Sure seems like the players got hosed somehow in the new CBA.

Is the new rookie salary structure to blame -- making rookis more affordable to roster under the salary cap?

Not to mention how the vet players salaries seem to have taken a hit. (other than Joe Flacco)

Seems the Free Agent class that DID find a home didn't get paid nearly as much as most were predicting.

 

[meyerj31]

I don't think it's as much a function of the new CBA as the way the game itself is trending. The sport is becoming much more like basketball and the selection of versatile, speedy, lengthy players shows how that is true. Some of these guys, while still able to play their previous positions, might be getting passed over in favor of younger, less specialized, more versatile players. Speed also has never been more important in the game and that's probably the first thing to go as you get older.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Mix of a lot of things. 1st off, yes the NFL has quickly discovered there are positions they need not spend a lot of money on to fill so a No 2 RB on a team let's say is not given a 2nd contract from that team and is left to go FA market because the team can go draft a rookie in the 4th or 5th round and pay him peanuts for the next 2-3 years.

Vets are having to sign a lot of 1 year deals, and it seems to be frustrating to a lot of them. There were 4-5 OT walking the streets a week ago that were all better players right now than anything that was drafted after say the top half of the 1st round.

The vets were crying before the CBA deal as I recall. The NFL is a young man's sport except maybe at QB where they age like a fine wine but the rest not so much.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

Two things are happening: QB's, even above average ones, are taking up a bigger and bigger piece of the salary cap pie. And the rookie wage scale is making it economical to fill holes with young unproven labor. Moreso than before.

 

[Shane Falco]

Two things are happening: QB's, even above average ones, are taking up a bigger and bigger piece of the salary cap pie. And the rookie wage scale is making it economical to fill holes with young unproven labor. Moreso than before.

This along with the veteran minimum being so high. Its much cheaper to grab a rookie or 2nd year player than someone who has been around 8-10 years. Especially if that guy is a part-time pass rusher, 2 down Lb, etc

 

[GroveDiesel]

Two things are happening: QB's, even above average ones, are taking up a bigger and bigger piece of the salary cap pie. And the rookie wage scale is making it economical to fill holes with young unproven labor. Moreso than before.

This is kind of true, but the new CBA also requires teams to spend at least 98% of the cap. So it's not like they're just being cheap and pocketing the money.Calvin Johnson, Percy Harvin, Rodgers, Brady, Ellerbe, Kruger, Gholdson, Levitre and plenty of others signed big deals within the last year.The problem for guys like Dansby, Abraham and Freeney is that they're past their prime, not as effective, and one dimensional. And yet they want teams to give them $8-10M a year.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

the new CBA also requires teams to spend at least 98% of the cap.

This isn't really true, it's more complicated than that. They must spend a certain percentage over a certain period of years.

 

[GroveDiesel]

the new CBA also requires teams to spend at least 98% of the cap.

This isn't really true, it's more complicated than that. They must spend a certain percentage over a certain period of years.

It's high enough that teams aren't able to be cheap like in years past. So saying that they're just signing cheaper younger guys isn't really the case. The money is being spent, it's just not on mid 30 year old pass rushers.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

the new CBA also requires teams to spend at least 98% of the cap.

This isn't really true, it's more complicated than that. They must spend a certain percentage over a certain period of years.

Yeah, perhaps, but if that's your argument you're missing the forest for the trees. The larger point is that the NFL is nothing like MLB, where you have teams with a $200M payroll and a $40M payroll competing on the same diamond.

Within a reasonable margin of error, NFL teams are all spending the same amount on players. What's changed is how they spend it. The assumption was that the money saved by eliminating outlandish rookie deals would flow more or less evenly across the rest of the rosters, but that hasn't been the case. The extra money has gone to stars and guys who are "multi-tool" players. The one-trick ponies of the league have been more or less left behind - and many of them are seasoned veterans, who teams have decided aren't worth the vet minimum any more.

 

[ghostguy123]

Teams just dont want to give long term high money deals to those guys. If they would sign 1-2 year deals for reasonable money they will sign, otherwise, they arent worth the money

Not real sure how rookies making LESS would hurt them. If anything when the rookies made a lot more there wasnt money left over for veterans. Am I missing something here?

 

[BassNBrew]

Are John Beason and DeAngelo Williams (or Mark Sanchez) considered veteran players?

I'd argue the vets are doing better. The pie is bigger and the rookies are getting less of that pie.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Over the hill free agents want more than the vet minimum and teams are not willing to give it. Let's not over think it here.

 

[Bossman]

Are John Beason and DeAngelo Williams (or Mark Sanchez) considered veteran players?

I'd argue the vets are doing better. The pie is bigger and the rookies are getting less of that pie.

Prolly what the NFL PA was thinking. Doesn't seem to have worked out that way for a lot of vet FA's in this offseason .. having to settle for less $ than expected and one year deals in many cases.

Sanchez deal was a head scratcher, DWill is about to be cut?

Beasons extension was just before the new CBA, no? ... and I could see CAR giving him the boot and plugging in a rookie at OLB before Beasons contract expires.

I get the feeling we're not going to see many players (other than QB's) have 12 or 14 year careers anymore.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Are John Beason and DeAngelo Williams (or Mark Sanchez) considered veteran players? I'd argue the vets are doing better. The pie is bigger and the rookies are getting less of that pie.

Really, it depends on how you define "the veterans". If you want to talk about veterans as a class, this is right on the money- more money is spent on players, a smaller percentage of that goes to rookies, so by definition "the veterans" are getting more money under the new CBA. The real problem seems to be more one of distribution. Those veteran gains superficially seem to be increasingly concentrated in the hands of the top earners (and most specifically in the hands of the QBs). As a result, while all veterans combined might be making more money, maybe the "typical" veteran or the "median" veteran is actually making less. It could be that the majority of veterans are worse off under the new CBA, although I don't know how much of that can be pinned on the CBA vs. just a philosophical shift among GMs about how best to distribute their money.

 

[craxie]

Not real sure how rookies making LESS would hurt them.

It makes the rookies cheaper which makes them more attractive to replace a vetif a rookie and a vet are the same price, you stick with the vetif a rookie is substantially cheaper than the vet, you dump the vetit also gives teams bargaining power. "Sign for less or we'll just bring in a rookie"The 'middle class' of players is being squeezed. Pretty soon every team will have a handful of highly-paid stars and then the rest of the roster will be filled with vet-minimum contracts.

 

[Beerguzzler]

The problem is the flat cap. Teams can't keep spending and spending like they used to. I'm glad teams finally have to be fiscally responsible and can't just keep pushing money back and back into other years without repercussions.

That being said the cap will rise with the new TV money kicking in.

 

[Godsbrother]

I know it won't happen but it would be nice to see NFL teams get a cap credit for retaining long-time players on their team. Say $1 Million in cap credit for 8-year veterans that were drafted by and played their entire career for one team. I hate seeing a player that has maybe one or two good years left and has played his entire career with one team become a cap casualty.

A rule like this might help a player finish his career with the team that drafted him.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The problem is the flat cap. Teams can't keep spending and spending like they used to. I'm glad teams finally have to be fiscally responsible and can't just keep pushing money back and back into other years without repercussions.

That being said the cap will rise with the new TV money kicking in.

Yeah, this seems to be the biggest problem for veterans, not the new CBA.

 

[DawnBTVS]

Also keep in mind that guys like Dwight Freeney and John Abraham (among others) are asking for a lot of money that teams just don't want to offer especially now that "the market" has shown a ton of players taking 1 year deals and waiting until next year's free agency run.

FA Deals for DEs (invaluable resource for salary numbers btw.

Quickie Examples of FA Deals...

- DE Cliff Avril: 2 Years for $13 Million (roughly $6.5)

- DE Michael Bennett: 1 Year for $4.8 Million

- DE Osi Umenyori: 2 Years for $8.5 Million (roughly $4.25)

- DE Desmond Bryant: 5 Years for $34 Million (roughly $6.8)

Guys asking for 7.5+ Million per year simply are not going to get that. It looks like at best they can get around $6 to $6.5 and even that may be pushing it depending on length. It is just a matter of Abraham/Freeney budging on their stances and accepting deals that are comparable to "market" value as opposed to their inflated concept of what the market is showing.

 

[Shawn]

Mix of a lot of things. 1st off, yes the NFL has quickly discovered there are positions they need not spend a lot of money on to fill so a No 2 RB on a team let's say is not given a 2nd contract from that team and is left to go FA market because the team can go draft a rookie in the 4th or 5th round and pay him peanuts for the next 2-3 years.

Vets are having to sign a lot of 1 year deals, and it seems to be frustrating to a lot of them. There were 4-5 OT walking the streets a week ago that were all better players right now than anything that was drafted after say the top half of the 1st round.

The vets were crying before the CBA deal as I recall. The NFL is a young man's sport except maybe at QB, kicker and punter where they age like a fine wine but the rest not so much.

just fixed the statement a bit.

 

[Shawn]

I know it won't happen but it would be nice to see NFL teams get a cap credit for retaining long-time players on their team. Say $1 Million in cap credit for 8-year veterans that were drafted by and played their entire career for one team. I hate seeing a player that has maybe one or two good years left and has played his entire career with one team become a cap casualty.

A rule like this might help a player finish his career with the team that drafted him.

This^^^ 100% I was so sad to see the Seahawks get rid of Hasselbeck, even if he was getting old, they could have kept him as a cheaper backup if that were the case... that is just one example of thousands, i am just a Seahawks homer so that one really struck a nerve...