Labor Dispute Master Thread (2 Viewers)

[CalBear]

Because the rookies hold too MUCH leverage now. Teams HAVE to sign them, or risk pissing off their fans. To make things worse, the owners have been unable to go backwards on offers compared to prior years, instead watching the demands of the first round rookies escalate to unreasonable levels.

Is there any plausible reason why rookie salaries would have gone down during a period where NFL revenues were skyrocketing?

 

[cobalt_27]

Heard two comments from players, neither identified. Adam S quoted one as saying players have given in a lot, owners have not followed suit. This player is part of negotiating team. I believe there was a PFT quote from a player that sides are not close and it will be a while. Said optimism in media from owners manipulating the public opinion.It's over when it's over. I am not counting on the 21st.

Thank you.

It's nearly over. The deal's going to be done within the next 10 days or so. The rookie cap is going to happen, it's just a matter of negotiating the amount.I know a lot of you on the players side want to see Armageddon, blow the whole thing up, not have a season based on your misplaced hate for the owners. But, there will be an NFL season, they'll get it ratified next week, we'll open camp, and you all can go back to the drawing board of other social issues to whine and complain about.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

Euroleague Basketball, commonly known as the Euroleague, is the highest level tier and most important professional club basketball competition in Europe, with teams from up to 18 different countries, members of FIBA Europe. For sponsorship reasons, for five seasons starting with 2010-2011, it will be named Turkish Airlines Euroleague. The competition is operated by ULEB, a Europe-wide consortium of leading professional basketball leagues. During the season, the Euroleague is broadcast on television in 191 countries and can be seen by up to 245 million (800 million via satellite) households weekly in China. It is also televised in the United States and Canada on NBA TV and available online through ESPN3. The Euroleague Final Four is broadcast on television in 197 countries.

...and it started in 1958. This does not qualify as an upstart.

When was Euroleague first taken seriously by NBA-level basketball players? Certainly not in 1992. Charles Barkley, when asked if anyone could beat the Dream Team, said "No, absolutely not. Maybe the U.S. women's team." It was assumed prior to our third-place finish in 1988 that USA basketball was so vastly superior to European (or any other) basketball that we could send college players and still dominate. And with NBA players in 1992, the USA looked like the Harlem Globetrotters against the Europeans.The NBA rookie scale was adopted in 1995. Is it coincidence that the decline of USA basketball coincided with the adoption of the NBA rookie wage sale? I think you have to presume that there was an effect. Certainly the basketball world is a lot different now than it was in 1995, and not to the advantage of the NBA.

As for whether the XFL would have succeeded with Sam Bradford's vs. Mike Pawlawski...I think it would have delegitimized the product even more as elite talents surrounded by replacement level talent doesn't produce compelling competition. And how much more would a PFL have to offer a Bradford or Cam Newton to throw away his NFL dreams? Plus, from a marketability standpoint, is said player as marketable in the PFL as he is in the NFL? I simply don't buy it.

The USFL managed to sign Herschel Walker, Steve Young, and Heisman Trophy winner Mike Rozier; and that was without the NFL artificially depressing rookie salaries.

Whether the US took European-level basketball seriously is beside the point. By the early 90's a successful business model had been established in Europe for professional basketball. Any competitive league to the NFL, whether it's US based or not, would essentially need to be started from scratch. As for the USFL, you are talking about a time in the NFL's history that did not include free agency. And when you say the NFL wasn't artificially depressing rookie salaries, without free agency, they were essentially depressing ALL salaries. Now, while guys like Rozier/Walker/Young were able to secure significant contracts, they were the exception and were done essentially outside the USFL's economic structure since each teams salary cap was less than $2M. At the time it was considered unheard of for any football player to make $3M in a 2 year period, which is what Rozier was able to do. But now...the millions that the elite college players who would be drafted high would make would still be incredibly substantial, not to mention that if in the new CBA players can become FA in 4 years...? The soundness of the NFL business model coupled with the fact that it is now a 11 figure business annually...I think the comparison to the bygone days of the AFL and USFL no longer hold water.

 

[CalBear]

Are you suggesting that the NBA is becoming less popular because players are leaving to play in the Euro League because of the rookie pay schedule? That's what it sounds like. I can't think of a single one.

I'm suggesting that there are players in the Euro league who are good enough to play on NBA teams, and there are more and more of them, and that the NBA rookie salary scale is a contributing factor. Let's say you're a European player who is a late first-round NBA talent. You can stay in Europe near home, be a star on the local team playing 30+ minutes a night, or you can take less money to go the the NBA and pick up garbage-time minutes. The NBA is still commanding the elite talents, but a lot of those second-tier players are staying in Europe (and a lot of good US college players are going there, too). So the Euroleague is getting stronger, getting a bigger following and more sponsorship, and is more able to pay bigger salaries. And now the NBA has an asinine rule barring game-ready kids out of high school from playing (just like the NFL). Frankly, if Dirk Nowitzki were 18 years old today, there's a good chance he'd be playing in Europe instead of the NBA.

 

[coolnerd]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/11/players-owners-return-to-talks-on-wednesday/

For those who think vacation means no contact (I should know from my wife's interuprtions most years)

Paolantonio says that mediator Arthur Boylan will monitor progress via e-mail, and that he’s available for “a short phone call or two” if necessary.

Though we respect Boylan’s ability to take his vacation, speaking from the perspective of a guy who’s currently on vacation, there’s plenty of time in the day to take a short phone call or two.

 

[Rockchild]

Heard two comments from players, neither identified. Adam S quoted one as saying players have given in a lot, owners have not followed suit. This player is part of negotiating team. I believe there was a PFT quote from a player that sides are not close and it will be a while. Said optimism in media from owners manipulating the public opinion.It's over when it's over. I am not counting on the 21st.

Thank you.

It's nearly over. The deal's going to be done within the next 10 days or so. The rookie cap is going to happen, it's just a matter of negotiating the amount.I know a lot of you on the players side want to see Armageddon, blow the whole thing up, not have a season based on your misplaced hate for the owners. But, there will be an NFL season, they'll get it ratified next week, we'll open camp, and you all can go back to the drawing board of other social issues to whine and complain about.

I, for one, don't want to see Armageddon or blow the whole thing up and realize that there will be a CBA of some sort but refuse to believe that by giving more to the owners the problems they say they have will be solved. The NHL locked out it's players for a year and a half, got their salary cap, rookie wage scale and are going to probably lock the players out again. I'll acknowledge that there is a bit of a difference between the two leagues but the underlying issue is the same:revenue sharing between big market teams and small market teams.

 

[cobalt_27]

Heard two comments from players, neither identified. Adam S quoted one as saying players have given in a lot, owners have not followed suit. This player is part of negotiating team. I believe there was a PFT quote from a player that sides are not close and it will be a while. Said optimism in media from owners manipulating the public opinion.It's over when it's over. I am not counting on the 21st.

Thank you.

It's nearly over. The deal's going to be done within the next 10 days or so. The rookie cap is going to happen, it's just a matter of negotiating the amount.I know a lot of you on the players side want to see Armageddon, blow the whole thing up, not have a season based on your misplaced hate for the owners. But, there will be an NFL season, they'll get it ratified next week, we'll open camp, and you all can go back to the drawing board of other social issues to whine and complain about.

I, for one, don't want to see Armageddon or blow the whole thing up and realize that there will be a CBA of some sort but refuse to believe that by giving more to the owners the problems they say they have will be solved. The NHL locked out it's players for a year and a half, got their salary cap, rookie wage scale and are going to probably lock the players out again. I'll acknowledge that there is a bit of a difference between the two leagues but the underlying issue is the same:revenue sharing between big market teams and small market teams.

That's an important, too. The current revenue split mechanism seems to provide a great balance between teams that are innovative and takes risks vs the slugs, while making the relative spending equal. But, that ignores the other key philosophical and logistical issues that surround how a pro sports league divides profits. That's what the final days will depend on and will define the focus of the next 10 days of talks.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

What is wrong with a graduated scale based upon how the rookie performs. I think all sports should be like golf. If you do well you get paid if you don't you don't get paid. Paying a salary to an unproven rookie is cazy. Ask San Diego about Ryan Leaf.

Too hard to measure. Do you go by stats? They're too heavily influenced by team situation (which is out of the player's control). Take Philip Rivers, for example — the anti-Leaf. He was everything the Chargers wanted him to be from day one, but he didn't get any stats sitting behind Drew Brees for his first few years.In golf, it's easy to measure a player's performance. You go by score. In football, there's no objective way to do it. Draft position seems like the least bad way to measure a player's value for his first few years. What he's offered on the open market seems the best way to measure it after that.If you want to put more emphasis on merit rather than draft position, you could shorten the number of years covered by rookie contracts. But that less adequately rewards teams for drafting well (or punishes them for drafting poorly).

 

[dparker713]

Because the rookies hold too MUCH leverage now. Teams HAVE to sign them, or risk pissing off their fans. To make things worse, the owners have been unable to go backwards on offers compared to prior years, instead watching the demands of the first round rookies escalate to unreasonable levels.

Is there any plausible reason why rookie salaries would have gone down during a period where NFL revenues were skyrocketing?

Its not like there is much competition for rookies. Sure a little from MLB and a tiny bit from the NBA, but smart owners certainly could have recognized rookies essentially held no leverage. Sitting out a year is sure to depress their draft stock and shortens an already brief career. And its not like a team needs high first rounders to win like in the NBA. Of course, there's too many egomanics among the owners for them to have held any rational cost depressing measures for long absent a rule requiring it.

 

[GregR_2]

Because the rookies hold too MUCH leverage now. Teams HAVE to sign them, or risk pissing off their fans. To make things worse, the owners have been unable to go backwards on offers compared to prior years, instead watching the demands of the first round rookies escalate to unreasonable levels.

Is there any plausible reason why rookie salaries would have gone down during a period where NFL revenues were skyrocketing?

Correcting overpaying of the top rookies that was growing faster than the revenue would cause them to go down.

 

[roadkill1292]

I shouldn't have posed that one question because of course I understand that this can only happen by being collectively bargained.

But neither of you is yet addressing my question of why owners feel that a cap on rookie salaries is necessary in the first place when rookies already possess so little leverage in the negotiating process. If it's so disadvantageous for a rookie to sit out for year, why are owners "overpaying" now?

From the perspective of short careers, lower pay than other pro sports and a lack of viable competition, it seems unbelievable to me that a "like it or lump it" deal for rookies can be allowed to stand.

Because the rookies hold too MUCH leverage now. Teams HAVE to sign them, or risk pissing off their fans. To make things worse, the owners have been unable to go backwards on offers compared to prior years, instead watching the demands of the first round rookies escalate to unreasonable levels. I will agree that it's the owner's own faults. They weren't drawing a hard enough line on first rounders 15 years ago, and it's simply gotten worse. But knowing that simply does nothing to change the reality of the problem....the salaries for high first round picks have been unreasonably high and the teams are desperate for a legal way to curtail the problem.

One could make a very good argument (and you have) that a rookie cap is in many ways unfair. I understand and sympathise somewhat with those arguments. SOMETHING needs to be done though, and I think some compromise should be attainable. IN return for a cap (something that reduces first round pricetags an average of 30-50%), rookies subjected to a capped figure should have shorter contracts (4 years?) or some other means by which someone independant from the team will force recognition of those few rookies who actually outperform their rookie deals.

ETA: Oh...and like it or lump it deals are common in MANY other businessess/professions at the entry-level. At least these kids are still going to become multi-millionares in thier "like it or lump it" screw-jobs.

Walking away from management's offer and the accompanying wrath of the fans is a rookie's only leverage. And if it's as disadvantageous for a rookie to sit out a year as some have suggested, then I suggest that it isn't very much leverage at all. The NFL already has a tool for keeping owners from overspending -- it's called a salary cap. Screwing over a subset of the players affected by it is poor policy and could very well turn out to be a poor financial decision down the line as well.The NFLPA is going in the wrong direction here if they're not adamantly opposed to this. I think that caving on the rookie cap will come back and bite them in the ###.

 

[ChromeWeasel]

I shouldn't have posed that one question because of course I understand that this can only happen by being collectively bargained.

But neither of you is yet addressing my question of why owners feel that a cap on rookie salaries is necessary in the first place when rookies already possess so little leverage in the negotiating process. If it's so disadvantageous for a rookie to sit out for year, why are owners "overpaying" now?

From the perspective of short careers, lower pay than other pro sports and a lack of viable competition, it seems unbelievable to me that a "like it or lump it" deal for rookies can be allowed to stand.

Because the rookies hold too MUCH leverage now. Teams HAVE to sign them, or risk pissing off their fans. To make things worse, the owners have been unable to go backwards on offers compared to prior years, instead watching the demands of the first round rookies escalate to unreasonable levels. I will agree that it's the owner's own faults. They weren't drawing a hard enough line on first rounders 15 years ago, and it's simply gotten worse. But knowing that simply does nothing to change the reality of the problem....the salaries for high first round picks have been unreasonably high and the teams are desperate for a legal way to curtail the problem.

One could make a very good argument (and you have) that a rookie cap is in many ways unfair. I understand and sympathise somewhat with those arguments. SOMETHING needs to be done though, and I think some compromise should be attainable. IN return for a cap (something that reduces first round pricetags an average of 30-50%), rookies subjected to a capped figure should have shorter contracts (4 years?) or some other means by which someone independant from the team will force recognition of those few rookies who actually outperform their rookie deals.

ETA: Oh...and like it or lump it deals are common in MANY other businessess/professions at the entry-level. At least these kids are still going to become multi-millionares in thier "like it or lump it" screw-jobs.

Walking away from management's offer and the accompanying wrath of the fans is a rookie's only leverage. And if it's as disadvantageous for a rookie to sit out a year as some have suggested, then I suggest that it isn't very much leverage at all. The NFL already has a tool for keeping owners from overspending -- it's called a salary cap. Screwing over a subset of the players affected by it is poor policy and could very well turn out to be a poor financial decision down the line as well.The NFLPA is going in the wrong direction here if they're not adamantly opposed to this. I think that caving on the rookie cap will come back and bite them in the ###.

Rookies can still walk away. No one is forced to play for the NFL. People compete to get into the NFL because it's a one in a million opportunity that most people would die for. If the deal is really that bad, then players can opt out and not bother trying to get into the NFL at all. Any rookie that feels as you do, that they are being screwed over by a poor rookie policy, should take that avenue and bugger off. The NFL will be a better league without them.

 

[Snotbubbles]

What is wrong with a graduated scale based upon how the rookie performs. I think all sports should be like golf. If you do well you get paid if you don't you don't get paid. Paying a salary to an unproven rookie is cazy. Ask San Diego about Ryan Leaf.

Too hard to measure. Do you go by stats? They're too heavily influenced by team situation (which is out of the player's control). Take Philip Rivers, for example — the anti-Leaf. He was everything the Chargers wanted him to be from day one, but he didn't get any stats sitting behind Drew Brees for his first few years.In golf, it's easy to measure a player's performance. You go by score. In football, there's no objective way to do it. Draft position seems like the least bad way to measure a player's value for his first few years. What he's offered on the open market seems the best way to measure it after that.If you want to put more emphasis on merit rather than draft position, you could shorten the number of years covered by rookie contracts. But that less adequately rewards teams for drafting well (or punishes them for drafting poorly).

Performanced based would be a terrible way to dole out salary. The internal strife it would cause to a team wouldn't be worth the money the owners saved.

 

[dparker713]

I shouldn't have posed that one question because of course I understand that this can only happen by being collectively bargained.

But neither of you is yet addressing my question of why owners feel that a cap on rookie salaries is necessary in the first place when rookies already possess so little leverage in the negotiating process. If it's so disadvantageous for a rookie to sit out for year, why are owners "overpaying" now?

From the perspective of short careers, lower pay than other pro sports and a lack of viable competition, it seems unbelievable to me that a "like it or lump it" deal for rookies can be allowed to stand.

Because the rookies hold too MUCH leverage now. Teams HAVE to sign them, or risk pissing off their fans. To make things worse, the owners have been unable to go backwards on offers compared to prior years, instead watching the demands of the first round rookies escalate to unreasonable levels. I will agree that it's the owner's own faults. They weren't drawing a hard enough line on first rounders 15 years ago, and it's simply gotten worse. But knowing that simply does nothing to change the reality of the problem....the salaries for high first round picks have been unreasonably high and the teams are desperate for a legal way to curtail the problem.

One could make a very good argument (and you have) that a rookie cap is in many ways unfair. I understand and sympathise somewhat with those arguments. SOMETHING needs to be done though, and I think some compromise should be attainable. IN return for a cap (something that reduces first round pricetags an average of 30-50%), rookies subjected to a capped figure should have shorter contracts (4 years?) or some other means by which someone independant from the team will force recognition of those few rookies who actually outperform their rookie deals.

ETA: Oh...and like it or lump it deals are common in MANY other businessess/professions at the entry-level. At least these kids are still going to become multi-millionares in thier "like it or lump it" screw-jobs.

Walking away from management's offer and the accompanying wrath of the fans is a rookie's only leverage. And if it's as disadvantageous for a rookie to sit out a year as some have suggested, then I suggest that it isn't very much leverage at all. The NFL already has a tool for keeping owners from overspending -- it's called a salary cap. Screwing over a subset of the players affected by it is poor policy and could very well turn out to be a poor financial decision down the line as well.The NFLPA is going in the wrong direction here if they're not adamantly opposed to this. I think that caving on the rookie cap will come back and bite them in the ###.

The rookie cap already inplace more or less dictates the amounts rookies make. Sure, it does limit the amount rookies can receive, but it also means ownership can't hold down salaries much for a weak draft class. This makes the top picks in the draft less valuable than they would be otherwise to ownership because of the possible cap ramifications down the line. Regardless, I fail to see how this is poor policy for either the NFLPA or the owners. The loss of talent will be minimal and its just an internal redistribution of the funds the players are to receive.

 

[cvnpoka]

Are you suggesting that the NBA is becoming less popular because players are leaving to play in the Euro League because of the rookie pay schedule? That's what it sounds like. I can't think of a single one.

I'm suggesting that there are players in the Euro league who are good enough to play on NBA teams, and there are more and more of them, and that the NBA rookie salary scale is a contributing factor. Let's say you're a European player who is a late first-round NBA talent. You can stay in Europe near home, be a star on the local team playing 30+ minutes a night, or you can take less money to go the the NBA and pick up garbage-time minutes. The NBA is still commanding the elite talents, but a lot of those second-tier players are staying in Europe (and a lot of good US college players are going there, too). So the Euroleague is getting stronger, getting a bigger following and more sponsorship, and is more able to pay bigger salaries. And now the NBA has an asinine rule barring game-ready kids out of high school from playing (just like the NFL). Frankly, if Dirk Nowitzki were 18 years old today, there's a good chance he'd be playing in Europe instead of the NBA.

im not sure how valid this is. plenty of euro players go in the mid and later rounds of the draft every year. i think your flaw is thinking that they are taking substantially less money to play in america.

 

[jbobbett]

Because the rookies hold too MUCH leverage now. Teams HAVE to sign them, or risk pissing off their fans. To make things worse, the owners have been unable to go backwards on offers compared to prior years, instead watching the demands of the first round rookies escalate to unreasonable levels.

Is there any plausible reason why rookie salaries would have gone down during a period where NFL revenues were skyrocketing?

Its not like there is much competition for rookies. Sure a little from MLB and a tiny bit from the NBA, but smart owners certainly could have recognized rookies essentially held no leverage. Sitting out a year is sure to depress their draft stock and shortens an already brief career. And its not like a team needs high first rounders to win like in the NBA. Of course, there's too many egomanics among the owners for them to have held any rational cost depressing measures for long absent a rule requiring it.

I agree with this reasoning and I don't understand the big deal about this rooking pay scale. Drafted players already have no leverage and anyway, why do the owners care? Any money they save on rookies they will have to pay to veterans (any team that is spending up to its cap). It helps perenially bad teams a bit by keeping costs artificially low on the top few picks and that is a legitimate goal for the owners I guess. Current union members should be for it. Money will be diverted from rookies (who aren't yet members) to them. In the long run it's a wash for the players though. Less money for rookies, more for vets, some vets will lose their jobs to artificially cheap rookies. It doesn't change their collective piece of the pie though.

Seems like just a bunch of noise. Once the salary cap and revenue sharing are established the rest is just rearranging the chairs.

 

[GregR_2]

I shouldn't have posed that one question because of course I understand that this can only happen by being collectively bargained.

But neither of you is yet addressing my question of why owners feel that a cap on rookie salaries is necessary in the first place when rookies already possess so little leverage in the negotiating process. If it's so disadvantageous for a rookie to sit out for year, why are owners "overpaying" now?

From the perspective of short careers, lower pay than other pro sports and a lack of viable competition, it seems unbelievable to me that a "like it or lump it" deal for rookies can be allowed to stand.

Because the rookies hold too MUCH leverage now. Teams HAVE to sign them, or risk pissing off their fans. To make things worse, the owners have been unable to go backwards on offers compared to prior years, instead watching the demands of the first round rookies escalate to unreasonable levels. I will agree that it's the owner's own faults. They weren't drawing a hard enough line on first rounders 15 years ago, and it's simply gotten worse. But knowing that simply does nothing to change the reality of the problem....the salaries for high first round picks have been unreasonably high and the teams are desperate for a legal way to curtail the problem.

One could make a very good argument (and you have) that a rookie cap is in many ways unfair. I understand and sympathise somewhat with those arguments. SOMETHING needs to be done though, and I think some compromise should be attainable. IN return for a cap (something that reduces first round pricetags an average of 30-50%), rookies subjected to a capped figure should have shorter contracts (4 years?) or some other means by which someone independant from the team will force recognition of those few rookies who actually outperform their rookie deals.

ETA: Oh...and like it or lump it deals are common in MANY other businessess/professions at the entry-level. At least these kids are still going to become multi-millionares in thier "like it or lump it" screw-jobs.

Walking away from management's offer and the accompanying wrath of the fans is a rookie's only leverage. And if it's as disadvantageous for a rookie to sit out a year as some have suggested, then I suggest that it isn't very much leverage at all. The NFL already has a tool for keeping owners from overspending -- it's called a salary cap. Screwing over a subset of the players affected by it is poor policy and could very well turn out to be a poor financial decision down the line as well.The NFLPA is going in the wrong direction here if they're not adamantly opposed to this. I think that caving on the rookie cap will come back and bite them in the ###.

The top rookies in the draft class are as a group overpaid when compared to proven veterans, and also overpaid when compared to other rookies within their own draft class. In 2010 tackles were taken #6 (Okung) and #24 (Bulaga). Okung is making more than 3 times as much money. Is he really that much better of a prospect to warrant 3x more in salary and 3.5x more in signing bonus? I, and the NFL and most writers, would argue no, that Okung's salary is a product of a system that has resulted in the top pick's salaries being inflated over time.I don't recall anything in your posts that addresses the part of the system that is broken that the change is made to fix. It's not necessarily broken because of the power of an individual player to hold out. It's broken because once some teams wrote bad contracts, it affects all the other teams in subsequent years, and the genie can't be put back in the bottle without actions by the teams that would be collusion and illegal.

I think there are plenty of issues that should have someone advocating on the rookies side. If the pay is going to be lower they should be able to hit free agency of some sort earlier. And with lower rookie salaries they should have a better incentive program than they currently do to pay a young player who is performing as well as the proven veterans.

But the arguments that the rookies are losing leverage, when the system already was resulting in them getting more of the pie than their lack of track record warrants, is going to fall on deaf ears with a lot of us. You're arguing about a hill and ignoring the mountain beside it.

 

[steelcitysledgehammers]

Seems like just a bunch of noise. Once the salary cap and revenue sharing are established the rest is just rearranging the chairs.

I concur. Doesn't anyone recall articles like this one that came out back in March before negotiations broke down - Sources: Agreement reached on rookie scale? Now that same rookie wage scale is being touted as the "last holdup" to an agreement. Bull-puckey.The owners will continue to bait-and-switch the players in order to perpetuate the illusion that they're negotiating. They don't want to get in trouble with the courts so they're being forced to go through the motions, but they have no intention on making a deal prior to the players losing money. That's where their leverage lies. That's where their leverage has always been. They think they can go longer without revenues than the players can and they're going to drag this out until they get the sweetheart deal they want or the courts force them to get back to the business of football.

Next week we'll have another reason why the negatiations are dragging out. Same with the week after that. The soonest I see anything happening is when Doty rules on the damages awarded to the players for the owners breach of contract in regards to the TV deals. Depending on that amount awarded and the feasibility of an appeal, the owners MAY cut a deal at that time, but I'm still skeptical.

The owners are trying to screw us out of football. I say screw the owners!

J

 

[D.J.]

Seems like just a bunch of noise. Once the salary cap and revenue sharing are established the rest is just rearranging the chairs.

I concur. Doesn't anyone recall articles like this one that came out back in March before negotiations broke down - Sources: Agreement reached on rookie scale? Now that same rookie wage scale is being touted as the "last holdup" to an agreement. Bull-puckey.The owners will continue to bait-and-switch the players in order to perpetuate the illusion that they're negotiating. They don't want to get in trouble with the courts so they're being forced to go through the motions, but they have no intention on making a deal prior to the players losing money. That's where their leverage lies. That's where their leverage has always been. They think they can go longer without revenues than the players can and they're going to drag this out until they get the sweetheart deal they want or the courts force them to get back to the business of football.

Next week we'll have another reason why the negatiations are dragging out. Same with the week after that. The soonest I see anything happening is when Doty rules on the damages awarded to the players for the owners breach of contract in regards to the TV deals. Depending on that amount awarded and the feasibility of an appeal, the owners MAY cut a deal at that time, but I'm still skeptical.

The owners are trying to screw us out of football. I say screw the owners!

J

Yes, that must be it. The owners are sitting around plotting how to make you miserable...And, how is out that you know that the owners are just stalling, but the judge that has been sitting in on the meetings believes that they are negotiating in good faith?

This while thing is about business. Nothing more, nothing less. The only way the players lose money is if the owners lose money also. At this point, no matter how much leverage the owners get, they can't stray very far from what the publicly known aspects of the current talks are. It would be a pr nightmare for the owners to miss games because they drastically changed the deal now. and it won't be worth missing games to "win" a little more.

yes, the owners are trying to maximize profits and they have used some dirty tactics to get there, but money is why these guys own teams. That is their entire agenda. So, while you moan and groan about how horrible the owners are.and how they hate the fan, remember that they are actually very smart bussines owners that make their money off of the fans. They will push as long as they can, but the bottom line is that if there is no football, they dont make money. If they decide to miss games, they have to.believe that the better deal that they think they will get is worth the lost revenues. I find it hard to believe that they will get a deal that will give them an extra $1b over the next 5-10 by missing the preaeason alone.

right now, both sides are just posturing for the final push.

 

[jbobbett]

But the arguments that the rookies are losing leverage, when the system already was resulting in them getting more of the pie than their lack of track record warrants, is going to fall on deaf ears with a lot of us. You're arguing about a hill and ignoring the mountain beside it.

I personally think the rookies are getting screwed if there's a significant rookie cap. Seattle wouldn't pay Okung what they did if they didn't think he was worth it. This is nothing more than the current union members acting in their own self-interest (to be expected, nothing wrong with that IMO), looking for another place to get money from. It's why all union wage scales value seniority above all else. It's sad though. Most players' rookie contract is their only one. Not only does the draft prevent them from getting true free agent market value, now they won't even be able to get the value of the extremely limited market that the draft restricts them to.

And to think the union asked college players to boycott the draft ceremony. Unconscionable.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

sounds like the HOF game is all but cancelled if the deal isnt reached this week

 

[roadkill1292]

But the arguments that the rookies are losing leverage, when the system already was resulting in them getting more of the pie than their lack of track record warrants, is going to fall on deaf ears with a lot of us. You're arguing about a hill and ignoring the mountain beside it.

I personally think the rookies are getting screwed if there's a significant rookie cap. Seattle wouldn't pay Okung what they did if they didn't think he was worth it. This is nothing more than the current union members acting in their own self-interest (to be expected, nothing wrong with that IMO), looking for another place to get money from. It's why all union wage scales value seniority above all else. It's sad though. Most players' rookie contract is their only one. Not only does the draft prevent them from getting true free agent market value, now they won't even be able to get the value of the extremely limited market that the draft restricts them to.

And to think the union asked college players to boycott the draft ceremony. Unconscionable.

This is very much how I see things and I think a much bigger stink should be raised about this issue than has been, despite what the majority opinion seems to be in here. In the interest of harmony, however, I'll set this aside for now. We'll pick it back up if and when somebody of import makes it an issue that can't be ignored.

 

[RUSF18]

But the arguments that the rookies are losing leverage, when the system already was resulting in them getting more of the pie than their lack of track record warrants, is going to fall on deaf ears with a lot of us. You're arguing about a hill and ignoring the mountain beside it.

I personally think the rookies are getting screwed if there's a significant rookie cap. Seattle wouldn't pay Okung what they did if they didn't think he was worth it. This is nothing more than the current union members acting in their own self-interest (to be expected, nothing wrong with that IMO), looking for another place to get money from. It's why all union wage scales value seniority above all else. It's sad though. Most players' rookie contract is their only one. Not only does the draft prevent them from getting true free agent market value, now they won't even be able to get the value of the extremely limited market that the draft restricts them to.

And to think the union asked college players to boycott the draft ceremony. Unconscionable.

From all I've read, a rookie wage scale will only materially impact the top picks, with guys getting drafted lower in the first round not seeing a big change to what they receive. So let's take last year's #2 pick, Gerald McCoy. He got a $35 million signing bonus. How does that compare to recent FA deals/contract extensions for other DTs? Varying from Pro Bowlers to solid starters. Of course we know about Haynesworth's ridiculous deal, but what are some others? Can we do the same for the #11 pick, Anthony Davis ($16 million guaranteed) and other OTs?

 

[Ksquared]

But the arguments that the rookies are losing leverage, when the system already was resulting in them getting more of the pie than their lack of track record warrants, is going to fall on deaf ears with a lot of us. You're arguing about a hill and ignoring the mountain beside it.

I personally think the rookies are getting screwed if there's a significant rookie cap. Seattle wouldn't pay Okung what they did if they didn't think he was worth it. This is nothing more than the current union members acting in their own self-interest (to be expected, nothing wrong with that IMO), looking for another place to get money from. It's why all union wage scales value seniority above all else. It's sad though. Most players' rookie contract is their only one. Not only does the draft prevent them from getting true free agent market value, now they won't even be able to get the value of the extremely limited market that the draft restricts them to.

And to think the union asked college players to boycott the draft ceremony. Unconscionable.

The problem with this whole line of thinking is a senile owner is all it takes (ie Al Davis)to screw it up. I know Al twice since 2000 has signed a top 10 pick to figure that did not go along with the previous informal structure that the agents, players, and owners had setup. I don't remember what exactly it was (something like 5% higher than last year's contract) for the same draft pick was the norm. I know one year (I think it was the year Al drafted Hayward-Bay) that Al paid him more than picks that were 3 or 4 slots ahead of that position the previous year. Every year that happens, there is a trickle affect for every draft and upper draft pick in the future. That is one reason why a lot of the top picks wait until the last to sign and be sure they do not get paid less than someone behind them. I remember the year after the Raider signing that the team with the same pick number tried to sign their pick to the historical trend and had a moderately long hold out until the team gave in to the new elevated numbers.

 

[GregR_2]

But the arguments that the rookies are losing leverage, when the system already was resulting in them getting more of the pie than their lack of track record warrants, is going to fall on deaf ears with a lot of us. You're arguing about a hill and ignoring the mountain beside it.

I personally think the rookies are getting screwed if there's a significant rookie cap. Seattle wouldn't pay Okung what they did if they didn't think he was worth it. This is nothing more than the current union members acting in their own self-interest (to be expected, nothing wrong with that IMO), looking for another place to get money from. It's why all union wage scales value seniority above all else. It's sad though. Most players' rookie contract is their only one. Not only does the draft prevent them from getting true free agent market value, now they won't even be able to get the value of the extremely limited market that the draft restricts them to.

And to think the union asked college players to boycott the draft ceremony. Unconscionable.

RUSF18 beat me to it. It's mainly the top draft picks (i.e. like the top 15 or so) that are expected to be affected much. As a matter of fact, it's possible that the majority of rookies could even come out with more money if they push some of that top 15 money down to the players later in the draft. Which I would support if it plays out that way. That's an example to me of what the player's union should be pushing for, not focusing on protecting the top 15 rookies so much who it is so hard to argue are not overpaid, but on the rookie class as a whole.I don't think any of us can honestly say that those top 15 players are likely to have their rookie contract be their only one. And for the rare players where it is, then they probably didn't deserve their rookie contract money they did get, even under the new system. (Yes, I'm talking to you, Jamarcus.)

The only problem I see with this situation is if the affected rookies don't either have their rookie contracts shortened some, or if there isn't an improved rookie bonus pool over what the NFL has previously had in place to make up the pay disparity for rookies who vastly outperform their rookie contract.

 

[cobalt_27]

Seems like just a bunch of noise. Once the salary cap and revenue sharing are established the rest is just rearranging the chairs.

I concur. Doesn't anyone recall articles like this one that came out back in March before negotiations broke down - Sources: Agreement reached on rookie scale? Now that same rookie wage scale is being touted as the "last holdup" to an agreement. Bull-puckey.The owners will continue to bait-and-switch the players in order to perpetuate the illusion that they're negotiating. They don't want to get in trouble with the courts so they're being forced to go through the motions, but they have no intention on making a deal prior to the players losing money. That's where their leverage lies. That's where their leverage has always been. They think they can go longer without revenues than the players can and they're going to drag this out until they get the sweetheart deal they want or the courts force them to get back to the business of football.

Next week we'll have another reason why the negatiations are dragging out. Same with the week after that. The soonest I see anything happening is when Doty rules on the damages awarded to the players for the owners breach of contract in regards to the TV deals. Depending on that amount awarded and the feasibility of an appeal, the owners MAY cut a deal at that time, but I'm still skeptical.

The owners are trying to screw us out of football. I say screw the owners!

J

 

[GregR_2]

Seems like just a bunch of noise. Once the salary cap and revenue sharing are established the rest is just rearranging the chairs.

I concur. Doesn't anyone recall articles like this one that came out back in March before negotiations broke down - Sources: Agreement reached on rookie scale? Now that same rookie wage scale is being touted as the "last holdup" to an agreement. Bull-puckey.The owners will continue to bait-and-switch the players in order to perpetuate the illusion that they're negotiating. They don't want to get in trouble with the courts so they're being forced to go through the motions, but they have no intention on making a deal prior to the players losing money. That's where their leverage lies. That's where their leverage has always been. They think they can go longer without revenues than the players can and they're going to drag this out until they get the sweetheart deal they want or the courts force them to get back to the business of football.

Next week we'll have another reason why the negatiations are dragging out. Same with the week after that. The soonest I see anything happening is when Doty rules on the damages awarded to the players for the owners breach of contract in regards to the TV deals. Depending on that amount awarded and the feasibility of an appeal, the owners MAY cut a deal at that time, but I'm still skeptical.

The owners are trying to screw us out of football. I say screw the owners!

J

You should request that the owners pay you a fee for each post you make. Your ad nauseum attacks on them probably do more to turn people here to their side than anything else in this thread.

 

[jbobbett]

RUSF18, Ksquared, GregR,

All I am saying is there is nothing built into the system that makes these top picks overpaid. If the teams could better spend that money on free agents or extending their own players they are free to do that. Just because Al Davis overpays doesn't mean anyone else has to. They can let the player walk and spend the money they save in some other presumably better way. That they don't do that, that they always sign the player tells me that they think the player is worth it.

Baseball gives teams compensation picks. If you don't sign say the 9th overall pick you get the 10th pick next year. That gives more leverage to baseball teams than football teams get. In baseball though high school players can opt for college and college players can go back to school. College Seniors are considered very "signable". So baseball put that compensation pick mechanism in there to balance things out. Football players however have no where else to go, just back to the draft next year. The teams should be able to get them for bargains and again, since they don't let virtually any picks at all walk, you have to conclude they are getting those bargains. I should say "projected" bargains because there are obviously major busts, but that doesn't change the argument.

 

[renesauz]

But the arguments that the rookies are losing leverage, when the system already was resulting in them getting more of the pie than their lack of track record warrants, is going to fall on deaf ears with a lot of us. You're arguing about a hill and ignoring the mountain beside it.

I personally think the rookies are getting screwed if there's a significant rookie cap. Seattle wouldn't pay Okung what they did if they didn't think he was worth it. This is nothing more than the current union members acting in their own self-interest (to be expected, nothing wrong with that IMO), looking for another place to get money from. It's why all union wage scales value seniority above all else. It's sad though. Most players' rookie contract is their only one. Not only does the draft prevent them from getting true free agent market value, now they won't even be able to get the value of the extremely limited market that the draft restricts them to.

And to think the union asked college players to boycott the draft ceremony. Unconscionable.

Come on now. Only 10 or 15 players are even going to be affected in any given year. It's only the top 10 or 15 that the discussions are even concerning. IN return for capping those few guys (who even the most staunch opponent of rookie caps will usually agree tend to be overpaid), ALL the rookies will be looking at a year or 2 less time till full free agency. You guys in opposition are badly over-stating your case that "the rookies are getting screwed". The overwhelming majority of the rookies will be BETTER OFF!!!! Meanwhile, instead of 5 or 6 franchises getting screwed paying tens of millions for high first round busts, 3 or 4 young players will be stuck with contracts which don't reflect their true net worth....but which are correctable via 3rd or 4th year holdouts....just as happens today with 2nd 3rd, etc. round players who become stars.I really can't see how this idea is anything but a good one.

 

[CalBear]

You guys in opposition are badly over-stating your case that "the rookies are getting screwed". The overwhelming majority of the rookies will be BETTER OFF!!!! Meanwhile, instead of 5 or 6 franchises getting screwed paying tens of millions for high first round busts, 3 or 4 young players will be stuck with contracts which don't reflect their true net worth....but which are correctable via 3rd or 4th year holdouts....just as happens today with 2nd 3rd, etc. round players who become stars.I really can't see how this idea is anything but a good one.

You haven't detailed how a single rookie will be better off, let alone the "overwhelming majority." Jamarcus Russell is clearly better off under the current system than he would have been under a rookie wage scale. You can argue that that's wrong from a moral or business perspective, but you can't argue that he'd be better off earning less money.

 

[renesauz]

You guys in opposition are badly over-stating your case that "the rookies are getting screwed". The overwhelming majority of the rookies will be BETTER OFF!!!! Meanwhile, instead of 5 or 6 franchises getting screwed paying tens of millions for high first round busts, 3 or 4 young players will be stuck with contracts which don't reflect their true net worth....but which are correctable via 3rd or 4th year holdouts....just as happens today with 2nd 3rd, etc. round players who become stars.I really can't see how this idea is anything but a good one.

You haven't detailed how a single rookie will be better off, let alone the "overwhelming majority." Jamarcus Russell is clearly better off under the current system than he would have been under a rookie wage scale. You can argue that that's wrong from a moral or business perspective, but you can't argue that he'd be better off earning less money.

They are all better off if free agency occurs a year or two sooner, as is the proposal coupled with the rookie cap. No rookie cap will mean free agency occurs as it does now...that's the deal on the table. Jamarcus Russel is clearly not an example of the overwhelming majority.Clearly y'all are forgetting all the 2nd and 3rd year players that hold out now because they've outperformed rookie deals. With a rookie cap, I would expect there may be a couple more of these any given year.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

But the arguments that the rookies are losing leverage, when the system already was resulting in them getting more of the pie than their lack of track record warrants, is going to fall on deaf ears with a lot of us. You're arguing about a hill and ignoring the mountain beside it.

I personally think the rookies are getting screwed if there's a significant rookie cap. Seattle wouldn't pay Okung what they did if they didn't think he was worth it. This is nothing more than the current union members acting in their own self-interest (to be expected, nothing wrong with that IMO), looking for another place to get money from. It's why all union wage scales value seniority above all else. It's sad though. Most players' rookie contract is their only one. Not only does the draft prevent them from getting true free agent market value, now they won't even be able to get the value of the extremely limited market that the draft restricts them to.

And to think the union asked college players to boycott the draft ceremony. Unconscionable.

Come on now. Only 10 or 15 players are even going to be affected in any given year. It's only the top 10 or 15 that the discussions are even concerning. IN return for capping those few guys (who even the most staunch opponent of rookie caps will usually agree tend to be overpaid), ALL the rookies will be looking at a year or 2 less time till full free agency. You guys in opposition are badly over-stating your case that "the rookies are getting screwed". The overwhelming majority of the rookies will be BETTER OFF!!!! Meanwhile, instead of 5 or 6 franchises getting screwed paying tens of millions for high first round busts, 3 or 4 young players will be stuck with contracts which don't reflect their true net worth....but which are correctable via 3rd or 4th year holdouts....just as happens today with 2nd 3rd, etc. round players who become stars.I really can't see how this idea is anything but a good one.

your pro owner slant has become so boring

 

[renesauz]

But the arguments that the rookies are losing leverage, when the system already was resulting in them getting more of the pie than their lack of track record warrants, is going to fall on deaf ears with a lot of us. You're arguing about a hill and ignoring the mountain beside it.

I personally think the rookies are getting screwed if there's a significant rookie cap. Seattle wouldn't pay Okung what they did if they didn't think he was worth it. This is nothing more than the current union members acting in their own self-interest (to be expected, nothing wrong with that IMO), looking for another place to get money from. It's why all union wage scales value seniority above all else. It's sad though. Most players' rookie contract is their only one. Not only does the draft prevent them from getting true free agent market value, now they won't even be able to get the value of the extremely limited market that the draft restricts them to.

And to think the union asked college players to boycott the draft ceremony. Unconscionable.

Come on now. Only 10 or 15 players are even going to be affected in any given year. It's only the top 10 or 15 that the discussions are even concerning. IN return for capping those few guys (who even the most staunch opponent of rookie caps will usually agree tend to be overpaid), ALL the rookies will be looking at a year or 2 less time till full free agency. You guys in opposition are badly over-stating your case that "the rookies are getting screwed". The overwhelming majority of the rookies will be BETTER OFF!!!! Meanwhile, instead of 5 or 6 franchises getting screwed paying tens of millions for high first round busts, 3 or 4 young players will be stuck with contracts which don't reflect their true net worth....but which are correctable via 3rd or 4th year holdouts....just as happens today with 2nd 3rd, etc. round players who become stars.I really can't see how this idea is anything but a good one.

your pro owner slant has become so boring

Not sure why this particular issue is pro-owner vs. pro-player. If someone proposed RAISING the required salaries for late first through 3rd round rookies, I'd be in favor of that too, because in that range they have a bigger tendency to be screwed over.ETA: I strongly suspect Vincent Jackson wishes a cap were already in place with a year or two quicker to FA...and he's not alone.

IT'S ONLY 10-15 ROOKIES THIS IMPACTS. The rest GAIN something....this is not a pro-owner slant.

 

[cobalt_27]

But the arguments that the rookies are losing leverage, when the system already was resulting in them getting more of the pie than their lack of track record warrants, is going to fall on deaf ears with a lot of us. You're arguing about a hill and ignoring the mountain beside it.

I personally think the rookies are getting screwed if there's a significant rookie cap. Seattle wouldn't pay Okung what they did if they didn't think he was worth it. This is nothing more than the current union members acting in their own self-interest (to be expected, nothing wrong with that IMO), looking for another place to get money from. It's why all union wage scales value seniority above all else. It's sad though. Most players' rookie contract is their only one. Not only does the draft prevent them from getting true free agent market value, now they won't even be able to get the value of the extremely limited market that the draft restricts them to.

And to think the union asked college players to boycott the draft ceremony. Unconscionable.

Come on now. Only 10 or 15 players are even going to be affected in any given year. It's only the top 10 or 15 that the discussions are even concerning. IN return for capping those few guys (who even the most staunch opponent of rookie caps will usually agree tend to be overpaid), ALL the rookies will be looking at a year or 2 less time till full free agency. You guys in opposition are badly over-stating your case that "the rookies are getting screwed". The overwhelming majority of the rookies will be BETTER OFF!!!! Meanwhile, instead of 5 or 6 franchises getting screwed paying tens of millions for high first round busts, 3 or 4 young players will be stuck with contracts which don't reflect their true net worth....but which are correctable via 3rd or 4th year holdouts....just as happens today with 2nd 3rd, etc. round players who become stars.I really can't see how this idea is anything but a good one.

your pro owner slant has become so boring

Not sure why this particular issue is pro-owner vs. pro-player. If someone proposed RAISING the required salaries for late first through 3rd round rookies, I'd be in favor of that too, because in that range they have a bigger tendency to be screwed over.ETA: I strongly suspect Vincent Jackson wishes a cap were already in place with a year or two quicker to FA...and he's not alone.

IT'S ONLY 10-15 ROOKIES THIS IMPACTS. The rest GAIN something....this is not a pro-owner slant.

Bottom line, a lot of people here don't want to see an agreement--they want a fight and then be able to blame the owners for everything from the recession to chicken pox. Fortunately, we're going to be done with all this soon. There will be a rookie cap. And, the world will continue to spin on its axis in the morning.

 

[3nOut]

<streamofconsciousness>

Haven't thought of the repurcussions of this, but I would almost like to see ALL rookies earn the same the first year. Maybe in the range of the average American salary. What is it now, around 40k, if that? Maybe that would humble some of them. After the first year, they can negotiate terms for the next four years, as it is now, if the team feels they want to keep them. If not, they can test the free agent market. That way there would be no need for a rookie scale and busts would not be a hindrance to the franchise.

Ok, maybe it's not a great idea. Won't happen anyway.

</streamofconsciousness>

 

[CalBear]

They are all better off if free agency occurs a year or two sooner, as is the proposal coupled with the rookie cap. No rookie cap will mean free agency occurs as it does now...that's the deal on the table. Jamarcus Russel is clearly not an example of the overwhelming majority.Clearly y'all are forgetting all the 2nd and 3rd year players that hold out now because they've outperformed rookie deals. With a rookie cap, I would expect there may be a couple more of these any given year.

The overwhelming majority of rookies do not sign 5+ year contracts. The overwhelming majority of rookies will not be in the league 5 years. Less money is not good for the rookies. More holdouts are not good for the second and third year players. And if rookies really wanted less money and a shorter time to free agency, they could have negotiated for that under the previous CBA. The fact that they didn't indicates that that's not what they want.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The top rookies in the draft class are as a group overpaid when compared to proven veterans

What's your line of thinking here? (Your statement contradicts the Massey-Thaler analysis — which could well be wrong, but is there any better data out there than what they used?)If your statement is true, a team should be happy to trade the rights to a top five pick for literally nothing . . . and then use the cap space to sign a similarly skilled veteran.

 

[roarlions]

You guys in opposition are badly over-stating your case that "the rookies are getting screwed". The overwhelming majority of the rookies will be BETTER OFF!!!! Meanwhile, instead of 5 or 6 franchises getting screwed paying tens of millions for high first round busts, 3 or 4 young players will be stuck with contracts which don't reflect their true net worth....but which are correctable via 3rd or 4th year holdouts....just as happens today with 2nd 3rd, etc. round players who become stars.I really can't see how this idea is anything but a good one.

You haven't detailed how a single rookie will be better off, let alone the "overwhelming majority." Jamarcus Russell is clearly better off under the current system than he would have been under a rookie wage scale. You can argue that that's wrong from a moral or business perspective, but you can't argue that he'd be better off earning less money.

They are all better off if free agency occurs a year or two sooner, as is the proposal coupled with the rookie cap. No rookie cap will mean free agency occurs as it does now...that's the deal on the table. Jamarcus Russel is clearly not an example of the overwhelming majority.Clearly y'all are forgetting all the 2nd and 3rd year players that hold out now because they've outperformed rookie deals. With a rookie cap, I would expect there may be a couple more of these any given year.

Can you or someone else provide a link showing that the owners are offering free agency quicker in exchange for the new rookie pay scale? The reports I saw late last week or over the weekend indicated that the problem which slowed the negotiations last week was that the owners were not offering free agency quicker for the top draft picks, and were in fact looking for the top picks to be signed to 5 year contracts.

 

[Andrew Garda]

You guys in opposition are badly over-stating your case that "the rookies are getting screwed". The overwhelming majority of the rookies will be BETTER OFF!!!! Meanwhile, instead of 5 or 6 franchises getting screwed paying tens of millions for high first round busts, 3 or 4 young players will be stuck with contracts which don't reflect their true net worth....but which are correctable via 3rd or 4th year holdouts....just as happens today with 2nd 3rd, etc. round players who become stars.I really can't see how this idea is anything but a good one.

You haven't detailed how a single rookie will be better off, let alone the "overwhelming majority." Jamarcus Russell is clearly better off under the current system than he would have been under a rookie wage scale. You can argue that that's wrong from a moral or business perspective, but you can't argue that he'd be better off earning less money.

They are all better off if free agency occurs a year or two sooner, as is the proposal coupled with the rookie cap. No rookie cap will mean free agency occurs as it does now...that's the deal on the table. Jamarcus Russel is clearly not an example of the overwhelming majority.Clearly y'all are forgetting all the 2nd and 3rd year players that hold out now because they've outperformed rookie deals. With a rookie cap, I would expect there may be a couple more of these any given year.

Can you or someone else provide a link showing that the owners are offering free agency quicker in exchange for the new rookie pay scale? The reports I saw late last week or over the weekend indicated that the problem which slowed the negotiations last week was that the owners were not offering free agency quicker for the top draft picks, and were in fact looking for the top picks to be signed to 5 year contracts.

This has INDEED been the problem. The owners want a five year contract. Players do not. Even though the vets want a wage scale, they'll only sell the rookies out so much.And this really impacts the first rounders more than anyone else. The sooner they can figure it out, the better.

 

[GregR_2]

The top rookies in the draft class are as a group overpaid when compared to proven veterans

What's your line of thinking here? (Your statement contradicts the Massey-Thaler analysis — which could well be wrong, but is there any better data out there than what they used?)

I'm not sure just how much to take from Massey-Thaler on this topic. The methodology they use is, IMHO, very poorly suited for studying the compensation of the top picks in the draft. As I understand it, they grouped players to come up with an average compensation and to slot rookies... those groups are:* Didn't Start* Started 8 games or less* Started more than 8 games.* Made the Pro Bowl. By that kind of measure, Derek Anderson and Jimmy Clausen are considered as worthy of the same compensation in 2010 as Aaron Rodgers and Josh Freeman if they are all drafted in the same slots. To me that is obviously too broad of a category to give me a result I'm going to consider meaningful, and Massey and Thaler realize they had issues similar to this when they note biases like that teams tend to play underperforming top draft picks more than their performance warrants.As for where my statement comes from though, my first reaction is to say common sense. But I can express it better than that. To me a better method of doing a study on this subject would be to compare for each draft slot, a given individual's rookie contract with his second contract, with both normalized to the salary cap in those years so they are directly comparable. If he was a value as a rookie then he should have got a raise in his second contract. If he was poorly priced then he should have a smaller contract relative to the available cap.Example 1: Eli Manning had a 6 year $54m rookie deal in 2004, or $9m per season. In 2009 he signed a 7 year, $107m deal, or $15m per season. The 2004 salary cap was $80m, so Eli's contract was 11% of the cap. In 2009 the cap was $123m, so his $15m was 12% of the cap. Example 2, Charles Rogers the year before Eli signed a 6 year, $55m contract. He never got a second contract, and was ordered by the courts to pay back part of his signing bonus.Now obviously Charles Rogers is a poster child for the unproven rookies are paid too much. But I'll point out that one can make a good argument here that even a successful player like Eli who lived up to his draft slot was paid a little too much as a rookie. That is... proven veteran Eli is being paid almost exactly the same as unproven rookie Eli. That suggests that either there is no value to having an NFL track record to have proved a player's ability... or it means that one of the contracts isn't right. If we accept that the second contract is done at a market value, that would mean the rookie contract was a little too high and didn't account for the increased risk that rookie Eli wouldn't work out.

If your statement is true, a team should be happy to trade the rights to a top five pick for literally nothing . . . and then use the cap space to sign a similarly skilled veteran.

No, they shouldn't be happy to do that. They can get a lot better for the pick than literally nothing.If you're saying, a team may be better off with a free agent signed for that amount than with the player they picked, yes, they might be. Look at the first 10 picks of any draft and ask if they'd have been better off signing a veteran FA for the same amount. 2004... Robert Gallery, Roy Williams, Reggie Williams2005... Alex Smith, Cedric Benson, Cadillac Williams, Pacman Jones, Troy WIlliamson, Mike Williams. 2006... VY, AJ Hawk, Michael Huff, Donte Whitner, Ernie Sims, Matt Leinart. 2007... Jamarcus Russell, Gaines Adams, Jamaal Anderson, Ted Ginn Jr, Amobi Okoye. How many of those teams wouldn't happily take a veteran for the same money over the player they picked if we gave them a do over? 20 players in 4 years. That's half of the top ten that they'd probably have been better off with a vet. Throw in however many more players that the vet they could have gotten would have been about equal.People don't always do the smart thing, however.

 

[T J]

The top rookies in the draft class are as a group overpaid when compared to proven veterans

What's your line of thinking here?

Dude - it's called common sense.When a rookie, who has never played a down in the NFL makes more than a proven veteran, that's just whack.

 

[rjv]

The top rookies in the draft class are as a group overpaid when compared to proven veterans

What's your line of thinking here?

Dude - it's called common sense.When a rookie, who has never played a down in the NFL makes more than a proven veteran, that's just whack.

After reading all these posts, ultimatly it comes down to this comment. It sums it up perfectly.+1 to you Bro.

 

[CalBear]

The top rookies in the draft class are as a group overpaid when compared to proven veterans

What's your line of thinking here?

Dude - it's called common sense.When a rookie, who has never played a down in the NFL makes more than a proven veteran, that's just whack.

So Kerry Collins was worth more than Sam Bradford in 2010?

 

[jbobbett]

The top rookies in the draft class are as a group overpaid when compared to proven veterans

What's your line of thinking here?

Dude - it's called common sense.When a rookie, who has never played a down in the NFL makes more than a proven veteran, that's just whack.

You're saying it's common sense that NFL owners and GMs year after year knowingly hurt their team by overpaying the top dozen or so draft picks? That there are better ways to spend their payroll and they choose to spend it stupidly? Well, why not, afterall there is no pressure on GMs to succeed.

 

[RUSF18]

The top rookies in the draft class are as a group overpaid when compared to proven veterans

What's your line of thinking here?

Dude - it's called common sense.When a rookie, who has never played a down in the NFL makes more than a proven veteran, that's just whack.

You're saying it's common sense that NFL owners and GMs year after year knowingly hurt their team by overpaying the top dozen or so draft picks? That there are better ways to spend their payroll and they choose to spend it stupidly? Well, why not, afterall there is no pressure on GMs to succeed.

In a way, yes. Maybe a better way to say it though is that owners/GMs know that they may potentially hurt their team if the players they pick don't perform to the contract they are giving them. With a top 10 pick, it's roughly 50/50 whether they turn into a bust or not. Split the percentages a little differently if you want to segment between Pro Bowler, Solid Starter, Average Starter, Career Backup, and Cut in 3 years. What do you think those ratios are for DTs drafted in the top 5 (like my Gerald McCoy example earlier)? 20%, 25%, 25%, 20%, 10% might be my guess? Now compare those percentages to ALL the DTs who have signed for $35 million guaranteed in free agency (I'm guessing there's not many, which exacerbates the issue when we see at least one rookie DT get this type of deal every year). The potential downside is much, much smaller for those players. Maybe you get 80% of what you were expecting, but at that salary level, 80% is likely still a very good player.

 

[Ksquared]

The top rookies in the draft class are as a group overpaid when compared to proven veterans

What's your line of thinking here?

Dude - it's called common sense.When a rookie, who has never played a down in the NFL makes more than a proven veteran, that's just whack.

So Kerry Collins was worth more than Sam Bradford in 2010?

Cal your better than this and I am not even going to take the time to look it up, but I believe Bradford should be compared to Brees, Brady, and Manning's contracts. If he is not equal in the short term, he is not far off and had never played a down in the NFL when he signed. Everyone talks like this is the norm in the real world. Sign the unproven hot-shot/genius straight out of graduate school to a salary as high or higher than anyone else in the company? I think not. Yes they may get a higher salary than many others that are more proven in their actual task (ie experience), but the degree the top 15 picks get $$ is like my above statement - someone from grad school coming in with a higher salary than anyone else in the building.Many of the lower level draft picks (rounds 4-7) have been getting signed to 5 year contracts. The owners are asking to keep the 5 yrs, the players are asking for 3 yrs, I think both sides are doing this so they can arrive at 4 years as a compromise.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

The top rookies in the draft class are as a group overpaid when compared to proven veterans

What's your line of thinking here?

Dude - it's called common sense.When a rookie, who has never played a down in the NFL makes more than a proven veteran, that's just whack.

So Kerry Collins was worth more than Sam Bradford in 2010?

Cal your better than this and I am not even going to take the time to look it up, but I believe Bradford should be compared to Brees, Brady, and Manning's contracts. If he is not equal in the short term, he is not far off and had never played a down in the NFL when he signed. Everyone talks like this is the norm in the real world. Sign the unproven hot-shot/genius straight out of graduate school to a salary as high or higher than anyone else in the company? I think not. Yes they may get a higher salary than many others that are more proven in their actual task (ie experience), but the degree the top 15 picks get $$ is like my above statement - someone from grad school coming in with a higher salary than anyone else in the building.Many of the lower level draft picks (rounds 4-7) have been getting signed to 5 year contracts. The owners are asking to keep the 5 yrs, the players are asking for 3 yrs, I think both sides are doing this so they can arrive at 4 years as a compromise.

No he is not, him and certain other guys been fishing in this whole thread. Cant wait for this lockout to be over, so I dont have to check this thread anymore for "news"

 

[D.J.]

Brees just said on a radio a station that a deal is "very close" and stated that more progress has been made in.2 weeks than rest of talks. I also saw he will attend talks tomorrow.

Sounds like they may actually be as close as some have said (hell, clayton may even be right about a deal by friday)

 

[fatness]

I know a lot of you on the players side want to see Armageddon, blow the whole thing up, not have a season based on your misplaced hate for the owners. But, there will be an NFL season, they'll get it ratified next week, we'll open camp, and you all can go back to the drawing board of other social issues to whine and complain about.

What you know, based on your posts in this topic, is that you hate the players. And little else.

Bottom line, a lot of people here don't want to see an agreement--they want a fight and then be able to blame the owners for everything from the recession to chicken pox.

 

[fatness]

Brees just said on a radio a station that a deal is "very close" and stated that more progress has been made in.2 weeks than rest of talks. I also saw he will attend talks tomorrow.Sounds like they may actually be as close as some have said (hell, clayton may even be right about a deal by friday)

Thank you. Until today I hadn't seen many encouraging words from the players' side, so this is good news.