NFL Commish Wants Lower Pay For Rookies (1 Viewer)

[Kevin Ashcraft]

June 27, 2008, 15:05

NFL

NFL Commissioner Goodell Wants To Pay Rookies Less

Associated Press via Rocky Mountain News - [Full Article]

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell believes its "ridiculous" to reward untested rookies with lucrative contracts and wants the issue addressed in contract talks. "There's something wrong about the system," Goodell said today. "The money should go to people who perform." Goodell referred to Michigan tackle Jake Long's five-year, $57.75 million contract - with $30 million guaranteed. Long was the first overall draft pick by the Miami Dolphins in April. "He doesn't have to play a down in the NFL and he already has his money," Goodell said. "And that money is not going to players that are performing. It's going to a player that never makes it in the NFL. And I think that's ridiculous." Goodell said he favors lowering salaries offered to rookies, but allowing a provision for those players to renegotiate their deals after proving themselves on the field.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008...y-rookies-less/

 

[Brownsfan07]

oh hell yes they do need a lower system. overpaying unproven talent is a bunch of bull####.

mike vick, brady quinn(sorry browns fans!), and jake long are examples!

 

[joffer]

I'm ok with a rookie cap, but i hope he's not suggesting anything close to pay-for-performance

 

[Doug Drinen]

LOL at this from Goodell:

“There have been some things that none of us could’ve envisioned,” Goodell said. “You have an economy that’s weakening. You have aspects of the deal that we didn’t realize that we were going to be building billion-dollar stadiums. … Things happen.

I have an idea. If building a billion-dollar stadium isn't going to be a net positive for you, then don't build it.

 

[jaybebo]

oh hell yes they do need a lower system. overpaying unproven talent is a bunch of bull####.mike vick, brady quinn(sorry browns fans!), and jake long are examples!

 

[NoFBinLA]

LOL at this from Goodell:

“There have been some things that none of us could’ve envisioned,” Goodell said. “You have an economy that’s weakening. You have aspects of the deal that we didn’t realize that we were going to be building billion-dollar stadiums. … Things happen.

I have an idea. If building a billion-dollar stadium isn't going to be a net positive for you, then don't build it.

'We were also surprised the fans got ticked off by PSLs. Who knew 4k just to have the right to buy tickets would be so upsetting?'

I do agree they need a rookie cap - I want a guy to get a shot at the cash as much as anyone else, but some of the bonuses are ridonkulous and when you've hit a point where the top 1-5 picks are virtually untradeable, it's a problem. IMO.

 

[treat88]

This is the first intelligent comment I've heard come out of Goodell's mouth since becoming commish.

 

[Chase Stuart]

What exactly is lower pay? The league minimum? $2M/year? $5M/year? $10M/year?

I assume he means some sort of rookie cap, as opposed to him just saying hey, I wish we could pay rookies less and pocket the difference for the owners. That leaves open the question of who determines what veterans get paid more than what rookies? Does Thomas Jones get paid more than Darren McFadden? Does Fred Taylor? Does Marion Barber?

If we got rid of the draft, and had wide open free agency, we could let the market decide.

 

[49erBamBam52]

What exactly is lower pay? The league minimum? $2M/year? $5M/year? $10M/year?I assume he means some sort of rookie cap, as opposed to him just saying hey, I wish we could pay rookies less and pocket the difference for the owners. That leaves open the question of who determines what veterans get paid more than what rookies? Does Thomas Jones get paid more than Darren McFadden? Does Fred Taylor? Does Marion Barber? If we got rid of the draft, and had wide open free agency, we could let the market decide.

NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!i love my draft vacation... i stay the second boooorring ### day just to get tickets for the following year... i look forward to it from the day i leave...leave my draft alone BAM

 

[Jack Burton]

Alex Smith got 24 mill guaranteed just for being the first pick. That effed up. Something needs to change regarding rookie salaries, and fast.

 

[The Keyboard of Reason]

June 27, 2008, 15:05

NFL

NFL Commissioner Goodell Wants To Pay Rookies Less

Associated Press via Rocky Mountain News - [Full Article]

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell believes its "ridiculous" to reward untested rookies with lucrative contracts and wants the issue addressed in contract talks. "There's something wrong about the system," Goodell said today. "The money should go to people who perform." Goodell referred to Michigan tackle Jake Long's five-year, $57.75 million contract - with $30 million guaranteed. Long was the first overall draft pick by the Miami Dolphins in April. "He doesn't have to play a down in the NFL and he already has his money," Goodell said. "And that money is not going to players that are performing. It's going to a player that never makes it in the NFL. And I think that's ridiculous." Goodell said he favors lowering salaries offered to rookies, but allowing a provision for those players to renegotiate their deals after proving themselves on the field.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008...y-rookies-less/

This is great to see. I know many people have said that the market tells you that rookies get what they deserve but that is simply wrong. The argument is that teams would trade away their picks if they felt it was too much to pay, but I disagree, sometimes they can't and it is obvious that teams are starting to understand this now as they will not give up a fortune to move up a few spots anymore. Further, there aren't always positions available for need on the open market.this will be good for the sport

 

[Chase Stuart]

June 27, 2008, 15:05

NFL

NFL Commissioner Goodell Wants To Pay Rookies Less

Associated Press via Rocky Mountain News - [Full Article]

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell believes its "ridiculous" to reward untested rookies with lucrative contracts and wants the issue addressed in contract talks. "There's something wrong about the system," Goodell said today. "The money should go to people who perform." Goodell referred to Michigan tackle Jake Long's five-year, $57.75 million contract - with $30 million guaranteed. Long was the first overall draft pick by the Miami Dolphins in April. "He doesn't have to play a down in the NFL and he already has his money," Goodell said. "And that money is not going to players that are performing. It's going to a player that never makes it in the NFL. And I think that's ridiculous." Goodell said he favors lowering salaries offered to rookies, but allowing a provision for those players to renegotiate their deals after proving themselves on the field.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008...y-rookies-less/

This is great to see. I know many people have said that the market tells you that rookies get what they deserve but that is simply wrong. The argument is that teams would trade away their picks if they felt it was too much to pay, but I disagree, sometimes they can't and it is obvious that teams are starting to understand this now as they will not give up a fortune to move up a few spots anymore. Further, there aren't always positions available for need on the open market.this will be good for the sport

It will be good for the owners. It will be good for the players. It will be bad for the rookies.

 

[NoFBinLA]

It will be good for the owners. It will be good for the players. It will be bad for the rookies.

Well, I think that's relative, Chase. How bad is bad? Is a 10 million signing bonus welfare money for a first round pick? Compared to a 30 mill bonuses, maybe. But it's still a Brinks truck full of cash. Sure they won't get more money than the Federal Deficient before they even play down one, but they'll still get paid plenty - AND they will find themselves with a league that is stable later on. It may seem bad for them at first, but they won't run into issues other leagues have had and would - I think - be thankful for it down the road.The guys who might get killed are the late round guys - that's where the real tough budget cuts would happen.

 

[Chase Stuart]

It will be good for the owners. It will be good for the players. It will be bad for the rookies.

Well, I think that's relative, Chase. How bad is bad? Is a 10 million signing bonus welfare money for a first round pick? Compared to a 30 mill bonuses, maybe. But it's still a Brinks truck full of cash. Sure they won't get more money than the Federal Deficient before they even play down one, but they'll still get paid plenty - AND they will find themselves with a league that is stable later on. It may seem bad for them at first, but they won't run into issues other leagues have had and would - I think - be thankful for it down the road.The guys who might get killed are the late round guys - that's where the real tough budget cuts would happen.

Why should someone who has never proven themselves before get a $10M signing bonus?

 

[NoFBinLA]

It will be good for the owners. It will be good for the players. It will be bad for the rookies.

Well, I think that's relative, Chase. How bad is bad? Is a 10 million signing bonus welfare money for a first round pick? Compared to a 30 mill bonuses, maybe. But it's still a Brinks truck full of cash. Sure they won't get more money than the Federal Deficient before they even play down one, but they'll still get paid plenty - AND they will find themselves with a league that is stable later on. It may seem bad for them at first, but they won't run into issues other leagues have had and would - I think - be thankful for it down the road.The guys who might get killed are the late round guys - that's where the real tough budget cuts would happen.

Why should someone who has never proven themselves before get a $10M signing bonus?

I think you missed my point.You said it would be bad for the rookies. And I';m saying it might seem that way, but long term, it wouldn't be.The 10 mill is just a number I'm throwing out there vs the 30 mill right now. A #1 rookie might get a 30 mill bonus now - a cap would bring that down to a lower number - I just pulled 10 mill out of the air for contrast.They could pay them per hour - my point is still the same. It's all relative - a rookie might be bummed by the cap but they'll get the benefit of a stronger league long term.You're focusing on the numbers there and they aren't the important part of what I am saying. So to clear it up, I will remove them and say simply:At first the rookies would probably perceive a rookie cap as bad but in the end they would see the benefits would way outweigh the upfront pay cut.....

 

[Chase Stuart]

It will be good for the owners. It will be good for the players. It will be bad for the rookies.

Well, I think that's relative, Chase. How bad is bad? Is a 10 million signing bonus welfare money for a first round pick? Compared to a 30 mill bonuses, maybe. But it's still a Brinks truck full of cash. Sure they won't get more money than the Federal Deficient before they even play down one, but they'll still get paid plenty - AND they will find themselves with a league that is stable later on. It may seem bad for them at first, but they won't run into issues other leagues have had and would - I think - be thankful for it down the road.The guys who might get killed are the late round guys - that's where the real tough budget cuts would happen.

Why should someone who has never proven themselves before get a $10M signing bonus?

I think you missed my point.You said it would be bad for the rookies. And I';m saying it might seem that way, but long term, it wouldn't be.The 10 mill is just a number I'm throwing out there vs the 30 mill right now. A #1 rookie might get a 30 mill bonus now - a cap would bring that down to a lower number - I just pulled 10 mill out of the air for contrast.They could pay them per hour - my point is still the same. It's all relative - a rookie might be bummed by the cap but they'll get the benefit of a stronger league long term.You're focusing on the numbers there and they aren't the important part of what I am saying. So to clear it up, I will remove them and say simply:At first the rookies would probably perceive a rookie cap as bad but in the end they would see the benefits would way outweigh the upfront pay cut.....

Do you think the league is in damage of going under or something?I don't think it's ever been stronger.

 

[NoFBinLA]

Do you think the league is in damage of going under or something?I don't think it's ever been stronger.

Just because you are healthy today doesn't mean you will never get sick or die.The spiraling rookie salaries could be a danger to the long term health the league. Even Goodell sees this.They aren't on life support no. And yes, stronger than ever.Doesn't mean they should look ahead towards potential problems in the future. No good business functions for today only.

 

[Jimmy James]

Rookie deals should be a standard 3 years at league minimum for every position with a nice system of incentives. Pay the rooks $50,000 for attending minicamp. Pay them $50,000 for attending rookie orientation. Be generous with these incentives and structure them to reward good play (even if it's just hard work in practice or excellent special teams play). At the same time, give every drafted rookie some assurance that they will have income coming in if their career doesn't pan out (say a guarantee of half the minimum for a guaranteed six years from draft date).

Allow first day draft picks to receive signing bonuses that are capped at $6 million for first rounders and something like $1 million for second rounders.

 

[NoFBinLA]

Rookie deals should be a standard 3 years at league minimum for every position with a nice system of incentives. Pay the rooks $50,000 for attending minicamp. Pay them $50,000 for attending rookie orientation. Be generous with these incentives and structure them to reward good play (even if it's just hard work in practice or excellent special teams play). At the same time, give every drafted rookie some assurance that they will have income coming in if their career doesn't pan out (say a guarantee of half the minimum for a guaranteed six years from draft date). Allow first day draft picks to receive signing bonuses that are capped at $6 million for first rounders and something like $1 million for second rounders.

I think - while the details could be debated - this isn't a bad idea. Incentive bonus for numbers are always scary - it's been done badly before - but the if it's well thought out they could work.Both sides have to budge (and a third side, the agents) and that would be the difficulty. Especially with some agents who want that big fat payday and are less worried abotu a player 6 years from now vs right now.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Rookie deals should be a standard 3 years at league minimum for every position with a nice system of incentives. Pay the rooks $50,000 for attending minicamp. Pay them $50,000 for attending rookie orientation. Be generous with these incentives and structure them to reward good play (even if it's just hard work in practice or excellent special teams play). At the same time, give every drafted rookie some assurance that they will have income coming in if their career doesn't pan out (say a guarantee of half the minimum for a guaranteed six years from draft date). Allow first day draft picks to receive signing bonuses that are capped at $6 million for first rounders and something like $1 million for second rounders.

Should we do this for veterans too?Isn't the contract Javon Walker got, especially after his awful year, more ridiculous than any rookie contract this year?

 

[Max Power]

2 quick points here...

I just find the timing of this funny. Two of the NFL's biggest young stars are currently in the news for Domestic issues and a hit-and run. So Goodall issues a statement saying rookies make too much and sites Jake Long's contract (signed over 2 months ago). This is old news and everyone has been saying it for years...

Secondly I found this a bit funny... Goodell said he favors lowering salaries offered to rookies, but allowing a provision for those players to renegotiate their deals after proving themselves on the field. So if ADP gets a skinny Rookie Contract, can he ask to be paid franchise type money in year 2? I understand rookies rarely make this type of impact, but it is a situation that should be addressed. What happens when the next Romo making pennies to the dollar has a pro-bowl season? Pro-bowl money in the offseason?

 

[Jimmy James]

Rookie deals should be a standard 3 years at league minimum for every position with a nice system of incentives. Pay the rooks $50,000 for attending minicamp. Pay them $50,000 for attending rookie orientation. Be generous with these incentives and structure them to reward good play (even if it's just hard work in practice or excellent special teams play). At the same time, give every drafted rookie some assurance that they will have income coming in if their career doesn't pan out (say a guarantee of half the minimum for a guaranteed six years from draft date). Allow first day draft picks to receive signing bonuses that are capped at $6 million for first rounders and something like $1 million for second rounders.

Should we do this for veterans too?Isn't the contract Javon Walker got, especially after his awful year, more ridiculous than any rookie contract this year?

I don't think so. At some point, I think the league has to promise that the teams will be free to pay what they want to the players (particularly if they want to kill the cap). If a team is willing to pay Walker, who is a veteran, they only have themselves to blame if he's a bust and they have wasted their money. Rookies are treated differently because they should be a bigger risk than a veteran player. The league has to allow for big pay days eventually or else the CFL, the Arena League, or even some new startup league can take away the top talent. I think most college players would be willing to pay their dues for three years before cashing in. More than that, and I think they start looking elsewhere.

 

[NoFBinLA]

Rookie deals should be a standard 3 years at league minimum for every position with a nice system of incentives. Pay the rooks $50,000 for attending minicamp. Pay them $50,000 for attending rookie orientation. Be generous with these incentives and structure them to reward good play (even if it's just hard work in practice or excellent special teams play). At the same time, give every drafted rookie some assurance that they will have income coming in if their career doesn't pan out (say a guarantee of half the minimum for a guaranteed six years from draft date). Allow first day draft picks to receive signing bonuses that are capped at $6 million for first rounders and something like $1 million for second rounders.

Should we do this for veterans too?Isn't the contract Javon Walker got, especially after his awful year, more ridiculous than any rookie contract this year?

Interesting point and an opening for a larger debate.Spiraling vet salaries were the bane of hockey for a long time. Still may be, I don't watch.I can't recall Walkers salary - was a lot of it bonus?This would be a good side thread, FWIW. Since we're talking rookies here. But they definitely dovetail.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Rookie deals should be a standard 3 years at league minimum for every position with a nice system of incentives. Pay the rooks $50,000 for attending minicamp. Pay them $50,000 for attending rookie orientation. Be generous with these incentives and structure them to reward good play (even if it's just hard work in practice or excellent special teams play). At the same time, give every drafted rookie some assurance that they will have income coming in if their career doesn't pan out (say a guarantee of half the minimum for a guaranteed six years from draft date).

Allow first day draft picks to receive signing bonuses that are capped at $6 million for first rounders and something like $1 million for second rounders.

Should we do this for veterans too?Isn't the contract Javon Walker got, especially after his awful year, more ridiculous than any rookie contract this year?

Interesting point and an opening for a larger debate.Spiraling vet salaries were the bane of hockey for a long time. Still may be, I don't watch.

I can't recall Walkers salary - was a lot of it bonus?

This would be a good side thread, FWIW. Since we're talking rookies here. But they definitely dovetail.

I was being sarcastic.Would you like it if every job opening in your industry set a ceiling that was lower than market value on what you could make?

NFL rookies are usually underpaid, IMO, thanks to the draft system and the rookie cap on the team side. Instituting a hard cap on the player's side would make the situation even more unfair for rookies.

I think the need for a draft is pretty outdated with a salary cap in place. For the most part, teams are equal. The whole point of a rookie draft in reverse order of standings was to help bad teams get good players for cheap. But once you have a salary cap, teams can't spend whatever they want on players, so this effect is minimized. But the fact that we still want to help bad teams get good players for cheap -- by keeping the draft -- should be a signal to you that rookies are underpaid. If rookies were overpaid, bad teams would want to pick at the end of the round, not the beginning.

 

[SSOG]

this will be good for the sport

It will be good for the owners. It will be good for the players. It will be bad for the rookies.

Correction: it will be bad for the rookies whose draft position exceeds their performance. Do you really think a system that gives lower initial payouts and then rewards performace would be bad for Tom Brady? Marques Colston? Terrell Davis? Tom Nalen? Shannon Sharpe? There's a long litany of rookies who would benefit from this system. The ones who wouldn't benefit are the ones who, with the benefit of hindsight, never deserved the massive sums of money they were paid in the first place. And I'm okay with that.

 

[Chase Stuart]

this will be good for the sport

It will be good for the owners. It will be good for the players. It will be bad for the rookies.

Correction: it will be bad for the rookies whose draft position exceeds their performance. Do you really think a system that gives lower initial payouts and then rewards performace would be bad for Tom Brady? Marques Colston? Terrell Davis? Tom Nalen? Shannon Sharpe? There's a long litany of rookies who would benefit from this system. The ones who wouldn't benefit are the ones who, with the benefit of hindsight, never deserved the massive sums of money they were paid in the first place. And I'm okay with that.

Almost all rookies won't benefit, because the majority will fall somewhere in line with their draft position, and they'll be getting deflated contracts to match that.Yes, the Marques Colstons of the world will benefit, but they're the ones that are going to benefit in the end, anyway.The point is there's zero need for intervention. The market should be allowed to work. And when you interfere with that, you usually end up weakening your system. It's a small example, but the Jeff Samardzijas of the world will be more likely to not join the NFL the less you pay them.

 

[NoFBinLA]

I was being sarcastic.

Would you like it if every job opening in your industry set a ceiling that was lower than market value on what you could make?

NFL rookies are usually underpaid, IMO, thanks to the draft system and the rookie cap on the team side. Instituting a hard cap on the player's side would make the situation even more unfair for rookies.

I think the need for a draft is pretty outdated with a salary cap in place. For the most part, teams are equal. The whole point of a rookie draft in reverse order of standings was to help bad teams get good players for cheap. But once you have a salary cap, teams can't spend whatever they want on players, so this effect is minimized. But the fact that we still want to help bad teams get good players for cheap -- by keeping the draft -- should be a signal to you that rookies are underpaid. If rookies were overpaid, bad teams would want to pick at the end of the round, not the beginning.

I dunno chase, maybe you're just arguing to argue.The fact that teams refuse to trade up to higher picks in part because the cost of a rookie in the top ten is so huge seems to point out your are incorrect.

You're telling me that without trowing a pass that Matt Ryan is worth what he was paid? Or are you arguing that because they paid it, clearly it's fine?

I'm not sure what you're arguing man - earlier you said - and I quote -

Why should someone who has never proven themselves before get a $10M signing bonus?

So which is it man? Over paid or underpaid? You can't have it both ways.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I was being sarcastic.

Would you like it if every job opening in your industry set a ceiling that was lower than market value on what you could make?

NFL rookies are usually underpaid, IMO, thanks to the draft system and the rookie cap on the team side. Instituting a hard cap on the player's side would make the situation even more unfair for rookies.

I think the need for a draft is pretty outdated with a salary cap in place. For the most part, teams are equal. The whole point of a rookie draft in reverse order of standings was to help bad teams get good players for cheap. But once you have a salary cap, teams can't spend whatever they want on players, so this effect is minimized. But the fact that we still want to help bad teams get good players for cheap -- by keeping the draft -- should be a signal to you that rookies are underpaid. If rookies were overpaid, bad teams would want to pick at the end of the round, not the beginning.

I dunno chase, maybe you're just arguing to argue.The fact that teams refuse to trade up to higher picks in part because the cost of a rookie in the top ten is so huge seems to point out your are incorrect.

You're telling me that without trowing a pass that Matt Ryan is worth what he was paid? Or are you arguing that because they paid it, clearly it's fine?

I'm not sure what you're arguing man - earlier you said - and I quote -

Why should someone who has never proven themselves before get a $10M signing bonus?

So which is it man? Over paid or underpaid? You can't have it both ways.

My point with the $10M comment was to show that you're being completely arbitrary. If you want to argue that an unproven player shouldn't make a ton of money, you're going to end up picking some random number. That's silly.If Matt Ryan was a free agent, he would have signed at least a similar deal. QBs with his potential don't hit the open market very often, so it's hard to really compare, but yes, Ryan is worth what he was paid. Teams very rarely get the chance to sign a guy with franchise QB potential, making their demand incredibly high. And as you know, the supply of those guys -- especially those guys on the market -- is really low. You don't think KC/ATL/MIN/BAL/CAR/TAM/etc wouldn't have created a bidding war for Ryan?

No one is paid based on production. Everyone is paid based on potential. When you sign Bernard Berrian, he's totally unproven in the year 2008. You sign him hoping he'll be really good. When you sign Asante Samuel, you don't get his prior Pro Bowl performances. You cross your fingers and hope he's a Pro Bowler in 2008. That's how it works.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

If Matt Ryan was a free agent, he would have signed at least a similar deal.

I don't believe this to be true at all.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

A-F-ing-Men

 

[Jimmy James]

Yes, the system is unfair to rookies. In a way, it's also unfair to veterans at the end of careers because pure economics makes the underpaid rookies a better idea for the team.

With that said, I still think it's a better system than just letting the market work in that letting the market work would be really ugly for at least half the teams in the league in at least the short term. If you think the Lions, the Bengals, or the Cardinals have had some terrible teams under the current system, I think you'd be shocked at the types of mistakes that a free market system would encourage. I think you could actually see a team go bankrupt that way.

 

[cheatsheetwarroom]

I think a rookie cap is a good idea, but then again I think all contracts should be incentive-based and there should be very little guaranteed money. Please don't tell Rosenhaus where I live.

Of course the proportions are much different, but in most professions the rate of pay for entry-level professionals seems to go up faster than the average pay increases for those already in the field. It's probably a bad analogy, but I know that even in my field (computer programming) if I hadn't switched jobs 2 times since graduation I wouldn't be making nearly as much as kids who are just coming out. Life isn't fair, unfortunately.

 

[NoFBinLA]

I was being sarcastic.

Would you like it if every job opening in your industry set a ceiling that was lower than market value on what you could make?

NFL rookies are usually underpaid, IMO, thanks to the draft system and the rookie cap on the team side. Instituting a hard cap on the player's side would make the situation even more unfair for rookies.

I think the need for a draft is pretty outdated with a salary cap in place. For the most part, teams are equal. The whole point of a rookie draft in reverse order of standings was to help bad teams get good players for cheap. But once you have a salary cap, teams can't spend whatever they want on players, so this effect is minimized. But the fact that we still want to help bad teams get good players for cheap -- by keeping the draft -- should be a signal to you that rookies are underpaid. If rookies were overpaid, bad teams would want to pick at the end of the round, not the beginning.

I dunno chase, maybe you're just arguing to argue.The fact that teams refuse to trade up to higher picks in part because the cost of a rookie in the top ten is so huge seems to point out your are incorrect.

You're telling me that without trowing a pass that Matt Ryan is worth what he was paid? Or are you arguing that because they paid it, clearly it's fine?

I'm not sure what you're arguing man - earlier you said - and I quote -

Why should someone who has never proven themselves before get a $10M signing bonus?

So which is it man? Over paid or underpaid? You can't have it both ways.

My point with the $10M comment was to show that you're being completely arbitrary. If you want to argue that an unproven player shouldn't make a ton of money, you're going to end up picking some random number. That's silly.If Matt Ryan was a free agent, he would have signed at least a similar deal. QBs with his potential don't hit the open market very often, so it's hard to really compare, but yes, Ryan is worth what he was paid. Teams very rarely get the chance to sign a guy with franchise QB potential, making their demand incredibly high. And as you know, the supply of those guys -- especially those guys on the market -- is really low. You don't think KC/ATL/MIN/BAL/CAR/TAM/etc wouldn't have created a bidding war for Ryan?

No one is paid based on production. Everyone is paid based on potential. When you sign Bernard Berrian, he's totally unproven in the year 2008. You sign him hoping he'll be really good. When you sign Asante Samuel, you don't get his prior Pro Bowl performances. You cross your fingers and hope he's a Pro Bowler in 2008. That's how it works.

Then SAY that man. Why am I having to pull teeth to get that Chase?Seriously, otherwise I have no idea where you are coming from until I get to your response to SSOG - I think you mentioned your point earlier too, but frankly it didn't seem to line up with what I was talking about. NOW I see it, but it took multiple back and forths to get there.

And listen, if you are going to be obtuse, don't get angry/frustrated with me when I can't tell. I love a good debate, but I need to know we're talking about the same thing.

If you had stated - 'well NoFBinLA, I think no matter what number you pull, it is going to be arbitrary - like I said to suchandsuch earlier, I say throw the whole thing out and here's how it would work better', then fine. That's fair enough. But stop giving me one sentance answers that it turns out aren't answers or full responses and then clearly rolling your eyes when I don't get the hidden meaning.

I might reply further later, but this is more than a little frustrating now.

 

[Jimmy James]

By the way, I think it's really unfair for the commissioner to single out Long, particularly when tackles taken high are quite often well worth their selection and when linemen in general are likely underpaid and are generally not the ones to moan about it.

 

[creeps1313]

Its about time!

 

[menobrown]

The NBA developed a rookie wage scale years ago when rookies were making more than the All-Stars. I've not heard any complaints since they started this system. Come into the league, put in a few good years and than get paid. I don't see what's wrong with that.

 

[Phurfur]

oh hell yes they do need a lower system. overpaying unproven talent is a bunch of bull####.

mike vick, brady quinn(sorry browns fans!), and jake long are examples!

I am not sure but I think Quinn does not fall in this category. Isn't his contract incentive based and contract friendly? How does his contract compare to A. Rodgers?

 

[Chase Stuart]

The NBA developed a rookie wage scale years ago when rookies were making more than the All-Stars. I've not heard any complaints since they started this system. Come into the league, put in a few good years and than get paid. I don't see what's wrong with that.

The problem is 25 year old players are more valuable in the NFL than 30 year old players.

 

[menobrown]

oh hell yes they do need a lower system. overpaying unproven talent is a bunch of bull####.

mike vick, brady quinn(sorry browns fans!), and jake long are examples!

I am not sure but I think Quinn does not fall in this category. Isn't his contract incentive based and contract friendly? How does his contract compare to A. Rodgers?

Vick does not belong in that list either. He got a raise on his second contract which makes it hard to argue the team overpaid on his initial deal.

 

[Jimmy James]

The NBA developed a rookie wage scale years ago when rookies were making more than the All-Stars. I've not heard any complaints since they started this system. Come into the league, put in a few good years and than get paid. I don't see what's wrong with that.

The problem is 25 year old players are more valuable in the NFL than 30 year old players.

I don't see that as a problem for this sort of system. You're 18 when you graduate high school. You declare for the draft at 21 or 22. You're then 25 when you hit free agency after your three year rookie contract. You have a few years you can use to cash in. If you're lucky, you are still marketable at 30 and have a few more years to make some money.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

The NBA developed a rookie wage scale years ago when rookies were making more than the All-Stars. I've not heard any complaints since they started this system. Come into the league, put in a few good years and than get paid. I don't see what's wrong with that.

The problem is 25 year old players are more valuable in the NFL than 30 year old players.

not at the QB position

 

[menobrown]

The NBA developed a rookie wage scale years ago when rookies were making more than the All-Stars. I've not heard any complaints since they started this system. Come into the league, put in a few good years and than get paid. I don't see what's wrong with that.

The problem is 25 year old players are more valuable in the NFL than 30 year old players.

I considered that and I'm sure the NFLPA would as well and my guess is any condition to implement a rookie wage scale would also involve decreasing the years before a player achieved unrestricted FA. If that number was 4 years that would leave most players free to negotiate their second contract right when they are in their prime which would be 25-26 for most players. I do understand one problem the system could create if not structured properly. If they made the rookie wage to low it would price veterans out and the league would become considerably younger as most teams would value rostering cheap, young players. One thing they don't want to do is lower the rookie wage to the degree that it prices vets out. I'm not saying rookies should not get nice contracts but for instance a guy like Vernon Davis should not come into the NFL and be the highest paid TE in the history of the game when he's never caught a pass. So while I'm 100% in agreement with a rookie pay scale it certainly needs to be handled responsibly so that the limits are not so low that it hurts the older guys.

 

[NoFBinLA]

I don't think players just paid on potential. They are paid on track record as well - it's what makes you believe they HAVE potential. In an earlier example, the Eagles are paying Samuel because they HOPE he will get another Pro Bowl. ANOTHER Pro Bowl. Samuel does NOT get that money if he hadn't HAD Pro Bowls before. Past history - without it, you don't get the big money for upside.

If you've put up in the past, they'll pay you based on it. It's 50/50 - 50% potential based off 50% past history. IMO.

Now here's the flipside-

the above is true (ish) unless you are a rookie, or really, a first rounder. Matt Ryan is not a proven franchise QB - he IS a proven very good college QB - but he's done nothing to tell me he's surefire money at the Pro Level. In fact, there are more than a few people who were not sold on him this predraft season. He's a darn good QB (I like him a bunch) - maybe a franchise QB - but not a Manning type.

He might turn out to be. But I don't think many people feel sure about it. But they just dumped Manning money on him. Does that make sense?

So whereas a player who has been around the block gets their cash based on a mix of past performance and future hope, a rookie is paid 100% off of his potential.

so I dunno, maybe you make a perfect case Chase. It could be people would very quickly learn NOT to pay a rook huge money after two or three went all Ryan Leaf on teams.

For every Peterson, there are plenty of Leafs. Could be, it would work itself out.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

If Matt Ryan was a free agent, he would have signed at least a similar deal.

I don't believe this to be true at all.

If you REALLY believe what you wrote, then the logical conclusion is that Atlanta shouldn't have executed pick #3. They should have refused to make the pick, because Ryan cost way more than his true value.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

If Matt Ryan was a free agent, he would have signed at least a similar deal.

I don't believe this to be true at all.

If you REALLY believe what you wrote, then the logical conclusion is that Atlanta shouldn't have executed pick #3. They should have refused to make the pick, because Ryan cost way more than his true value.

no, not really. NFL teams are forced to overpay for players all the time.

 

[None_More_Black]

I think a good question to ask is if 80% of 1st round draft picks went on the have "productive careers" would they owners still be complaining? I think the problem in the NFL is there are just too many flat out busts in the first round . NFL owners need to find a way to hedge the money spent on first rounds picks. You could argue that the buzz, jersey sales, new season ticket buyers, ect. effectivly does this. Reggie Bush sucks but he has made plenty of money for the Saints. Plenty of late round picks sign 4 year deals and are grossly underpaid. Plenty of 1st round picks bust. When the NFL chose to have a draft instead of just all out free agency there should have been an understanding that sometimes you lose sometimes you win. Sounds like the owners get pretty vocal when they lose but don't say much when they get the late round gem to sign a five year deal for the league minimum.

 

[NoFBinLA]

I think a good question to ask is if 80% of 1st round draft picks went on the have "productive careers" would they owners still be complaining? I think the problem in the NFL is there are just too many flat out busts in the first round . NFL owners need to find a way to hedge the money spent on first rounds picks. You could argue that the buzz, jersey sales, new season ticket buyers, ect. effectivly does this. Reggie Bush sucks but he has made plenty of money for the Saints. Plenty of late round picks sign 4 year deals and are grossly underpaid. Plenty of 1st round picks bust. When the NFL chose to have a draft instead of just all out free agency there should have been an understanding that sometimes you lose sometimes you win. Sounds like the owners get pretty vocal when they lose but don't say much when they get the late round gem to sign a five year deal for the league minimum.

Ok, this is off topic, but as has been said before - in two seasons Bush has totaled over 2300 yards and 14 TDs while missing 4 games last year.While he ain't Barry Sanders, saying he sucks is a little strong. Has he lived up to his promise? Fantasywise, heck no. But the Saints might argue otherwise./tangent

 

[None_More_Black]

I think a good question to ask is if 80% of 1st round draft picks went on the have "productive careers" would they owners still be complaining? I think the problem in the NFL is there are just too many flat out busts in the first round . NFL owners need to find a way to hedge the money spent on first rounds picks. You could argue that the buzz, jersey sales, new season ticket buyers, ect. effectivly does this. Reggie Bush sucks but he has made plenty of money for the Saints. Plenty of late round picks sign 4 year deals and are grossly underpaid. Plenty of 1st round picks bust. When the NFL chose to have a draft instead of just all out free agency there should have been an understanding that sometimes you lose sometimes you win. Sounds like the owners get pretty vocal when they lose but don't say much when they get the late round gem to sign a five year deal for the league minimum.

Ok, this is off topic, but as has been said before - in two seasons Bush has totaled over 2300 yards and 14 TDs while missing 4 games last year.While he ain't Barry Sanders, saying he sucks is a little strong. Has he lived up to his promise? Fantasywise, heck no. But the Saints might argue otherwise./tangent

Dude. 3.7 yard per carry and 5.7 yards per reception sucks. You could give virtually any nfl back his amount of attempts and get better numbers. He fumbled 7 times. His long for rushing was 22 yards.(eye popping 18 for the "home runner hitter" in 2006) That's right, his career long is 22 yards. His long for receiving was 25. Plus he is injury prone and a liar (college days). Don't confuse work with production. He sucks.

 

[NoFBinLA]

I think a good question to ask is if 80% of 1st round draft picks went on the have "productive careers" would they owners still be complaining? I think the problem in the NFL is there are just too many flat out busts in the first round . NFL owners need to find a way to hedge the money spent on first rounds picks. You could argue that the buzz, jersey sales, new season ticket buyers, ect. effectivly does this. Reggie Bush sucks but he has made plenty of money for the Saints. Plenty of late round picks sign 4 year deals and are grossly underpaid. Plenty of 1st round picks bust. When the NFL chose to have a draft instead of just all out free agency there should have been an understanding that sometimes you lose sometimes you win. Sounds like the owners get pretty vocal when they lose but don't say much when they get the late round gem to sign a five year deal for the league minimum.

Ok, this is off topic, but as has been said before - in two seasons Bush has totaled over 2300 yards and 14 TDs while missing 4 games last year.While he ain't Barry Sanders, saying he sucks is a little strong. Has he lived up to his promise? Fantasywise, heck no. But the Saints might argue otherwise.

/tangent

Dude. 3.7 yard per carry and 5.7 yards per reception sucks. You could give virtually any nfl back his amount of attempts and get better numbers. He fumbled 7 times. His long for rushing was 22 yards. His long for receiving was 27. Plus he is injury prone and a liar (college days). Don't confuse work with production. He sucks.

Please link to the many times he was injured in college. I can't speak to his capabilities as a liar, nor what it has to do with the ability to run. Plenty of NFL players do some lying and cheating and other fun stuff. Doesn't have much to do with the field work unless it puts them in jail (which for Reggie doesn't seem likely).And I'll put up JJ Arrington vs Reggie Bush for your ypc bet. I think there are tons of players who have come and gone with sucky ypcs. And I can get into what Bush appears to do for that offense beyond stats, but I gather you wouldn't care, nor be persuaded at all. Hell, I don't even like Bush all that much. I just disagree with your two year assessment of him thus far. What about Tedd Ginn? What about Cedric Benson? Where is the outcry for their lack of impact?

But this is way off topic and I don't want the thread to devolve into another 'Reggie sucks/no he doesn't' thread, second only to the 'Pats/Cheater' threads in frequency and annoyance. It's an exercise in wasted time and always will be.

I think many teams know that you can bust as frequently as succeed with first round picks and that there are multiple late round gems that are underpaid. They know the risk. But regardless of jersey sales, 30 mill is alot of money to throw at a guy. In all out free agency you think there wouldn;t be busts? You think then they would be right 100% of the time?

Come on man. The bust rate is human error. Sometimes the scouts are right. Sometimes they aren't. They seem to be wrong about Mario Williams. They may be wrong about Bush. They were wrong about Ryan Leaf. They were right about P. Manning.

Free Agency for rookies would change very little about that IMO.

 

[None_More_Black]

I think a good question to ask is if 80% of 1st round draft picks went on the have "productive careers" would they owners still be complaining? I think the problem in the NFL is there are just too many flat out busts in the first round . NFL owners need to find a way to hedge the money spent on first rounds picks. You could argue that the buzz, jersey sales, new season ticket buyers, ect. effectivly does this. Reggie Bush sucks but he has made plenty of money for the Saints. Plenty of late round picks sign 4 year deals and are grossly underpaid. Plenty of 1st round picks bust. When the NFL chose to have a draft instead of just all out free agency there should have been an understanding that sometimes you lose sometimes you win. Sounds like the owners get pretty vocal when they lose but don't say much when they get the late round gem to sign a five year deal for the league minimum.

Ok, this is off topic, but as has been said before - in two seasons Bush has totaled over 2300 yards and 14 TDs while missing 4 games last year.While he ain't Barry Sanders, saying he sucks is a little strong. Has he lived up to his promise? Fantasywise, heck no. But the Saints might argue otherwise.

/tangent

Dude. 3.7 yard per carry and 5.7 yards per reception sucks. You could give virtually any nfl back his amount of attempts and get better numbers. He fumbled 7 times. His long for rushing was 22 yards. His long for receiving was 27. Plus he is injury prone and a liar (college days). Don't confuse work with production. He sucks.

Please link to the many times he was injured in college. I can't speak to his capabilities as a liar, nor what it has to do with the ability to run. Plenty of NFL players do some lying and cheating and other fun stuff. Doesn't have much to do with the field work unless it puts them in jail (which for Reggie doesn't seem likely).And I'll put up JJ Arrington vs Reggie Bush for your ypc bet. I think there are tons of players who have come and gone with sucky ypcs. And I can get into what Bush appears to do for that offense beyond stats, but I gather you wouldn't care, nor be persuaded at all. Hell, I don't even like Bush all that much. I just disagree with your two year assessment of him thus far. What about Tedd Ginn? What about Cedric Benson? Where is the outcry for their lack of impact?

But this is way off topic and I don't want the thread to devolve into another 'Reggie sucks/no he doesn't' thread, second only to the 'Pats/Cheater' threads in frequency and annoyance. It's an exercise in wasted time and always will be.

I think many teams know that you can bust as frequently as succeed with first round picks and that there are multiple late round gems that are underpaid. They know the risk. But regardless of jersey sales, 30 mill is alot of money to throw at a guy. In all out free agency you think there wouldn;t be busts? You think then they would be right 100% of the time?

Come on man. The bust rate is human error. Sometimes the scouts are right. Sometimes they aren't. They seem to be wrong about Mario Williams. They may be wrong about Bush. They were wrong about Ryan Leaf. They were right about P. Manning.

Free Agency for rookies would change very little about that IMO.

Reggie Bush sucks and so does Benson. Bush is smarter then Benson and has better pr people but Bush has 2 more years to show something or he is going to be unemployed just like Benson. Back to the main topic, As Chase alluded to earlier, the draft was a way for owners to control entry into the nfl. A draft is one way of selecting players, an auction is another. There are pluses and minuses from both a player's and an owner's perspective for both systems. Capping salaries and having a draft is wanting your cake and eating it to. Great if you are capital not so much if you are labor. (in the era of salary caps)