NFL | Some thinking rookie salaries need to slow down (1 Viewer)

[stp-d]

Article: (KFFL) Calvin Watkins, of The Dallas Morning News, reports NFL owners and some players feel salaries for rookies need to slow down. The top three picks in the 2007 NFL Draft signed contracts that totaled $174.5 million. Several NFL owners have complained that spending that much is hurting the game. A possible solution could be a rookie salary cap. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said, "We do want to look at that. I think it's important to veteran players. As a veteran player, you have proved your performance on an NFL field, and I think that should be rewarded. So when you see players come in that have not played in the NFL and it's still unclear whether they can still play on a certain level in the NFL, I think that's a fair point."

I think this is a great point. I think a rookie salary cap would be an improvement for the future of the league. The rookies contracts are huge and directly affect the #'s the vets expect come contract time, or even before. However, i believe an improved healthcare, pension & non-NFL career transition program would be needed to better protect young guys who get injured early.

Thoughts?

 

[No. 16]

It's a wonder why it hasn't been implemented sooner. When bad teams are trying ot trade away the #1 pick because it costs too much, you are doing nothing but hurting the league.

The NBA does the rookie draft the best.

 

[g5jamz]

One of the few things the NBA does right.

It's ridiculous for a team like the Raiders to sell season tickets to people hoping to see JaMarcus Russell just to have him sit out of near everything and not play a down. He might have actually played a bit if he'd attended the preseason.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

I think something needs to be done. Unproven rookies getting paid more than very good (not great) players who are proven and dependable is stupid.

How does it work in the NBA?

 

[Jedimaster21]

I think at the very least they need to limit the guaranteed money. If a team wants to give a rookie 40 million over 6 years, that's fine. However, wait until they prove something on the field before giving them 60% just for signing a contract.

 

[Andy Herron]

This concept has been long overdue. As assertive as Roger Goodell has been, I would expect to see him implement something soon to correct this ongoing faux-pau. It's ridiculous to pay out so much money to unproven players in a salary cap structured league.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

The first sentence is slightly disingenuous, since of course the owners want to pay out less money and the vets want to be paid more. Ultimately, I doubt obediance to selfish impulses will improve the league.

 

[No. 16]

I think something needs to be done. Unproven rookies getting paid more than very good (not great) players who are proven and dependable is stupid. How does it work in the NBA?

Rookies have a slotted salary with each pick. #1 pick gets something like 5 million per year and the 30th pick in the 1st round gets something like 1 million per year if not less. The 1st two years are guaranteed and the team has option for years 3 and 4 (at roughly the same salary). After 2 years with the same team, the player become a restricted FA, followed by the team having "Bird Rights" the ability to go over the salary cap to re-sign their own FAs. So rookie busts do not costs teams much against the cap and if a rookie is a superstar the team gets a huge discount for the 1st 4 years of the deal and then gets rights to match any offer they receive. NBA teams and fans get to watch rookies grow and develop on the team that drafted them and basically can keep pay them more than anyone else the rest of their careers. Nike was is paying Lebron James more money per year than the Cavs.

 

[Buckfast]

This concept has been long overdue. As assertive as Roger Goodell has been, I would expect to see him implement something soon to correct this ongoing faux-pau. It's ridiculous to pay out so much money to unproven players in a salary cap structured league.

It should be noted that putting a cap on rookies salaries is not something that Roger Goodell or the NFL owners can simply proclaim through an amendment to the NFL rules, as that would be a violation of federal antitrust laws that prohibit agreements that set artificial limits on salaries. In order to institute an individualized salary cap, the NFL Players' Association and the NFL owners would have to come to an agreement on a scheme and then amend the collective bargaining agreement to include the individualized salary cap in order to avoid antitrust liability. As one might guess, it could potentially take a lot of time and negotiation between the NFLPA and owners to institute such a broad-reaching plan, although both sides share similar interests in that it would benefit both current players and owners. The NFLPA does not represent players that are not yet drafted and thus they can agree to an individualized salary cap on future draft picks that would benefit current players while disadvantaging players-to-be without violating their duty of fair representation. It will be interesting to see if the NFLPA and the NFL owners would be able to come together for the purpose of capping rookie salaries, despite their ongoing feuds over the current collective bargaining agreement and the threat of the owners opting out of the agreement.

 

[David Yudkin]

This concept has been long overdue. As assertive as Roger Goodell has been, I would expect to see him implement something soon to correct this ongoing faux-pau. It's ridiculous to pay out so much money to unproven players in a salary cap structured league.

It should be noted that putting a cap on rookies salaries is not something that Roger Goodell or the NFL owners can simply proclaim through an amendment to the NFL rules, as that would be a violation of federal antitrust laws that prohibit agreements that set artificial limits on salaries. In order to institute an individualized salary cap, the NFL Players' Association and the NFL owners would have to come to an agreement on a scheme and then amend the collective bargaining agreement to include the individualized salary cap in order to avoid antitrust liability. As one might guess, it could potentially take a lot of time and negotiation between the NFLPA and owners to institute such a broad-reaching plan, although both sides share similar interests in that it would benefit both current players and owners. The NFLPA does not represent players that are not yet drafted and thus they can agree to an individualized salary cap on future draft picks that would benefit current players while disadvantaging players-to-be without violating their duty of fair representation. It will be interesting to see if the NFLPA and the NFL owners would be able to come together for the purpose of capping rookie salaries, despite their ongoing feuds over the current collective bargaining agreement and the threat of the owners opting out of the agreement.

I am curious if the NFLPA would have much of a gripe if the total amount players ere paid remained constant and the salary cap kept going up. All that would happen in such a scenario would be that college players entering the league would see reduced salaries and bonuses, but (theoretically) veteran players would benefit by having more dollars allocated throughout the player pool.In such a situation I doubt the NFLPA would put up much of a fight. However, if it would appear that decreasing rookie contracts would be a thinly veiled cost cutting plan to lower the overall salary cap, I doubt they would budge.I have never for the life of me understood why a college player that has never played a down in the NFL should be paid way more than a later round pick that could have been a multiple time All-Pro still stuck with his low dollar initial contract.

 

[No. 16]

This concept has been long overdue. As assertive as Roger Goodell has been, I would expect to see him implement something soon to correct this ongoing faux-pau. It's ridiculous to pay out so much money to unproven players in a salary cap structured league.

It should be noted that putting a cap on rookies salaries is not something that Roger Goodell or the NFL owners can simply proclaim through an amendment to the NFL rules, as that would be a violation of federal antitrust laws that prohibit agreements that set artificial limits on salaries. In order to institute an individualized salary cap, the NFL Players' Association and the NFL owners would have to come to an agreement on a scheme and then amend the collective bargaining agreement to include the individualized salary cap in order to avoid antitrust liability. As one might guess, it could potentially take a lot of time and negotiation between the NFLPA and owners to institute such a broad-reaching plan, although both sides share similar interests in that it would benefit both current players and owners.

The NFLPA does not represent players that are not yet drafted and thus they can agree to an individualized salary cap on future draft picks that would benefit current players while disadvantaging players-to-be without violating their duty of fair representation.

It will be interesting to see if the NFLPA and the NFL owners would be able to come together for the purpose of capping rookie salaries, despite their ongoing feuds over the current collective bargaining agreement and the threat of the owners opting out of the agreement.

I am curious if the NFLPA would have much of a gripe if the total amount players ere paid remained constant and the salary cap kept going up. All that would happen in such a scenario would be that college players entering the league would see reduced salaries and bonuses, but (theoretically) veteran players would benefit by having more dollars allocated throughout the player pool.In such a situation I doubt the NFLPA would put up much of a fight. However, if it would appear that decreasing rookie contracts would be a thinly veiled cost cutting plan to lower the overall salary cap, I doubt they would budge.

I have never for the life of me understood why a college player that has never played a down in the NFL should be paid way more than a later round pick that could have been a multiple time All-Pro still stuck with his low dollar initial contract.

The lower paid player can always hold out for a bigger contract.The better questions is... I have never understood why a player who has never played an NFL down in his life is making more guaranteed money than ALL-PRO players?

In the MLB and NBA the rookies do not make more than the best in the game, yet in the NFL 1st round rookies make more than Pro-Bowl players. Why?

 

[KellysHeroes]

There is no reason for the #1 pick to make 10M a yr... no reason. As stated before, the kid goes out there an roves it on the field... then they resign him.

 

[Gatorman]

unfortunately, this issue has less to do with the players, and more to do with players' agents. The agents are the ones who control the NFLPA on this matter, and they certainly do not want to lose the windfall of what the top of the draft means to their pocketbooks.

(I think it should change too, but you need to know all the players here)

 

[Chase Stuart]

Surprise, surprise: two groups want to stop a third group from making money.

I've said this before: it's not a clear issue that institution a rookie cap wouldn't violate federal antitrust laws. Yes, the NFLPA usually insulates the NFL from that, but seeing as how the NFLPA doesn't represent the interest of NFL draftees, there's not true bargaining going on here.

 

[obxlegends]

I've said this before: it's not a clear issue that institution a rookie cap wouldn't violate federal antitrust laws.

How does the NBA get around this Chase?

 

[dparker713]

Surprise, surprise: two groups want to stop a third group from making money.I've said this before: it's not a clear issue that institution a rookie cap wouldn't violate federal antitrust laws. Yes, the NFLPA usually insulates the NFL from that, but seeing as how the NFLPA doesn't represent the interest of NFL draftees, there's not true bargaining going on here.

Collective bargaining allows for the union to represent current, former and future player interests. This is true of all unions, regardless of member turnover rates. Otherwise, it would be impossible to create a binding agreement of any duration. Just think of the age restriction the NFLPA agreed to, it was collectively bargained and upheld despite adversely effecting potential union members.As for the rookie cap, I could see this as a potential means to avert a major standoff with the next CBA. The owners want to get back some of the revenue they've given away, and the players dont want to give any up. So that players can just give up some of the rookie money, make the owners happy, and keep the veteran money in place.

 

[Bri]

the rookie contracts or how they're hashed out are in the CBA

If the owners don't like it, they can offer to change it during the next CBA

They only whine after the fact. Initially they're always glad to have some new (potentially) star player on their team and introduce them with big smiles and satisfaction.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Surprise, surprise: two groups want to stop a third group from making money.

I've said this before: it's not a clear issue that institution a rookie cap wouldn't violate federal antitrust laws. Yes, the NFLPA usually insulates the NFL from that, but seeing as how the NFLPA doesn't represent the interest of NFL draftees, there's not true bargaining going on here.

Collective bargaining allows for the union to represent current, former and future player interests. This is true of all unions, regardless of member turnover rates. Otherwise, it would be impossible to create a binding agreement of any duration. Just think of the age restriction the NFLPA agreed to, it was collectively bargained and upheld despite adversely effecting potential union members.

Yes, all unions are used to represent future employees. And it's certainly true that new employees may receive less benefits than old employees, although it's debatable whether it's justifiable to extend such logic to the NFL arena. But what's important is that the NFL is a monopoly and that the NFLPA has an interest in hurting its draftees at the expense of helping its veterans. It's the combination of those two effects that make a reduction in salary of several million dollars of questionable legality. It's literally robbing from the young to pay the poor. What's worse is that there doesn't seem to be a strong justification for it, because teams are voluntarily paying the young high salaries. The only way they can not pay the young these high salaries is if the work together and collude to artificially suppress these salaries. That's when the antitrust issue gets shoved to the forefront.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I've said this before: it's not a clear issue that institution a rookie cap wouldn't violate federal antitrust laws.

How does the NBA get around this Chase?

That's a good question. Unfortunately, I know very little about the NBA, the NBAPA and the NBA collective bargaining agreement. I also don't remember or know what the rookie salaries were like pre-cap. I don't think they were as large as they are in the NFL, which makes it a tougher comparison.

 

[dparker713]

I've said this before: it's not a clear issue that institution a rookie cap wouldn't violate federal antitrust laws.

How does the NBA get around this Chase?

That's a good question. Unfortunately, I know very little about the NBA, the NBAPA and the NBA collective bargaining agreement. I also don't remember or know what the rookie salaries were like pre-cap. I don't think they were as large as they are in the NFL, which makes it a tougher comparison.

Glenn Robinson signed a 10 year, $68 million contract as a rookie in 1994. 12 years later, the rookie deal was $8 million over 2 years with club options for years 3 and 4. So there is quite a large amount of money that was taken from the rookies.BTW, at the time Larry Johnson had just signed the biggest deal in NBA history - 12 years, $84 million.

 

[dparker713]

Surprise, surprise: two groups want to stop a third group from making money.

I've said this before: it's not a clear issue that institution a rookie cap wouldn't violate federal antitrust laws. Yes, the NFLPA usually insulates the NFL from that, but seeing as how the NFLPA doesn't represent the interest of NFL draftees, there's not true bargaining going on here.

Collective bargaining allows for the union to represent current, former and future player interests. This is true of all unions, regardless of member turnover rates. Otherwise, it would be impossible to create a binding agreement of any duration. Just think of the age restriction the NFLPA agreed to, it was collectively bargained and upheld despite adversely effecting potential union members.

Yes, all unions are used to represent future employees. And it's certainly true that new employees may receive less benefits than old employees, although it's debatable whether it's justifiable to extend such logic to the NFL arena. But what's important is that the NFL is a monopoly and that the NFLPA has an interest in hurting its draftees at the expense of helping its veterans. It's the combination of those two effects that make a reduction in salary of several million dollars of questionable legality. It's literally robbing from the young to pay the poor. What's worse is that there doesn't seem to be a strong justification for it, because teams are voluntarily paying the young high salaries. The only way they can not pay the young these high salaries is if the work together and collude to artificially suppress these salaries. That's when the antitrust issue gets shoved to the forefront.

While it may seem unfair, its part of labor law. The rights of potential future employees are unrepresented until they actually become part of the union. However unfair it may seem, thats how the system works and needs to work in order for collective bargaining to have any teeth.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I've said this before: it's not a clear issue that institution a rookie cap wouldn't violate federal antitrust laws.

How does the NBA get around this Chase?

That's a good question. Unfortunately, I know very little about the NBA, the NBAPA and the NBA collective bargaining agreement. I also don't remember or know what the rookie salaries were like pre-cap. I don't think they were as large as they are in the NFL, which makes it a tougher comparison.

Glenn Robinson signed a 10 year, $68 million contract as a rookie in 1994. 12 years later, the rookie deal was $8 million over 2 years with club options for years 3 and 4. So there is quite a large amount of money that was taken from the rookies.BTW, at the time Larry Johnson had just signed the biggest deal in NBA history - 12 years, $84 million.

Thanks. It's pretty difficult to compare a two year deal with a ten year deal, especially when salaries keep rising. But like I said, I'm not very knowledgeable about the NBA rules, and I don't even know if it's been challenged.I'm not saying the NFL would lose an antitrust suit if it tried to institute a rookie cap, just that I think there would be a lawsuit, and I think there's a decent chance it would lose. And I think it should lose. Like I said, no one is holding a gun to the team's head, and it's hard to argue that these billionaire owners are getting their wool pulled over their eyes.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Surprise, surprise: two groups want to stop a third group from making money.

I've said this before: it's not a clear issue that institution a rookie cap wouldn't violate federal antitrust laws. Yes, the NFLPA usually insulates the NFL from that, but seeing as how the NFLPA doesn't represent the interest of NFL draftees, there's not true bargaining going on here.

Collective bargaining allows for the union to represent current, former and future player interests. This is true of all unions, regardless of member turnover rates. Otherwise, it would be impossible to create a binding agreement of any duration. Just think of the age restriction the NFLPA agreed to, it was collectively bargained and upheld despite adversely effecting potential union members.

Yes, all unions are used to represent future employees. And it's certainly true that new employees may receive less benefits than old employees, although it's debatable whether it's justifiable to extend such logic to the NFL arena. But what's important is that the NFL is a monopoly and that the NFLPA has an interest in hurting its draftees at the expense of helping its veterans. It's the combination of those two effects that make a reduction in salary of several million dollars of questionable legality. It's literally robbing from the young to pay the poor. What's worse is that there doesn't seem to be a strong justification for it, because teams are voluntarily paying the young high salaries. The only way they can not pay the young these high salaries is if the work together and collude to artificially suppress these salaries. That's when the antitrust issue gets shoved to the forefront.

While it may seem unfair, its part of labor law. The rights of potential future employees are unrepresented until they actually become part of the union. However unfair it may seem, thats how the system works and needs to work in order for collective bargaining to have any teeth.

Yes, but that doesn't mean it's going to be legal when the employer is a monopoly.

 

[Pip's Invitation]

The logical agreement would be to cap rookie salaries AND the length of rookie contracts. That would enable non-first-round players who succeed to not be severely underpaid for the last 4-5 years of their rookie deal.

 

[dparker713]

The logical agreement would be to cap rookie salaries AND the length of rookie contracts. That would enable non-first-round players who succeed to not be severely underpaid for the last 4-5 years of their rookie deal.

There already is a rookie cap and a max length of years for a rookie deal. At the top of the first round I think its 6 or 7 years, by the start of the second round its 4 years. The problem the NFL has is that its rookie cap is too big and too skewed to the top players. On a yearly basis, the number one pick makes in the neighborhood of the salary of all the seventh rounders combined. Offering top pick big money made some sense when the USFL was around, but right now it seems somewhat foolish. The NFL salary structure for draftees is pretty silly, but atleast its not as bad as baseball.

 

[Incogneto]

NHL = Rookies are capped at 3 yrs, no more than $1.25 per year.

I think 3 years is too long in the NFL, but a 2 yr deal at $2M per year would be a GREAT Rookie cap, imo.

 

[Sweet Love]

NHL = Rookies are capped at 3 yrs, no more than $1.25 per year. I think 3 years is too long in the NFL, but a 2 yr deal at $2M per year would be a GREAT Rookie cap, imo.

I am not so sure about that. In the case of an Aaron Rodgers, I say that is fair. But for Adrian Petersen, whose position has a short shelf life, that is not really fair considering a roughly 116 million team cap.

 

[Riffraff]

One of the few professions where the recent college "grad" makes more than those with actual industry experience (who are also "grads").

Yes, I agree, high draft picks make too much coin. Middling Veterans and low round draft picks don't make enough.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

low round draft picks don't make enough.

Thats the other side of the coin.The owners may be complaining about how the top picks are making too much money, but howabout the 2nd-6th round picks who end up being absolute steals for the owners?Those draft day bargains don't get their payday until their rookie contract runs out.

 

[RUSF18]

The logical agreement would be to cap rookie salaries AND the length of rookie contracts. That would enable non-first-round players who succeed to not be severely underpaid for the last 4-5 years of their rookie deal.

There already is a rookie cap and a max length of years for a rookie deal. At the top of the first round I think its 6 or 7 years, by the start of the second round its 4 years. The problem the NFL has is that its rookie cap is too big and too skewed to the top players. On a yearly basis, the number one pick makes in the neighborhood of the salary of all the seventh rounders combined. Offering top pick big money made some sense when the USFL was around, but right now it seems somewhat foolish. The NFL salary structure for draftees is pretty silly, but atleast its not as bad as baseball.

How exactly? The bonuses paid don't even come close to approaching the amounts paid to top NFL picks, and the yearly salaries are set to a scale based on the minor league level the player is in and their experience. It takes 3-5 years of MLB service time to get an annual salary equivalent to what high first-round picks earn in the NFL. Of course it takes some players a few years to reach the bigs (and they've received a nice signing bonus already), but outside of the top picks, those bonuses are for a few million. Meanwhile, some high draft picks (coming from college and high school) can get to the majors anywhere from a few months to a year and a half after being drafted. I'm not saying baseball is perfect, but I don't see how it's worse than giving unproven NFL players $15-30 million guaranteed.

 

[Chase Stuart]

One of the few professions where the recent college "grad" makes more than those with actual industry experience (who are also "grads").Yes, I agree, high draft picks make too much coin. Middling Veterans and low round draft picks don't make enough.

low round draft picks don't make enough.

Thats the other side of the coin.The owners may be complaining about how the top picks are making too much money, but howabout the 2nd-6th round picks who end up being absolute steals for the owners?Those draft day bargains don't get their payday until their rookie contract runs out.

What's amazing is all these overpaid and underpaid groups of players. What we really need is to lift the ban on paying low round picks lots of money, lift the ban on preventing owners from paying high rookies tons of money, and all will be well. If only we had a free market system to allow the players' value to be properly determined by the owners.

 

[gianmarco]

I don't necessarily have an issue with the amounts these rookies are getting paid (although I definitely agree that it should be considerably lower and capped). My issue is that these rookies, especially in recent times, are holding out and missing training camps and thus hurting both themselves AND their teams in the process, all in order to make sure they are getting what others around their draft slot are.

Problem is, everyone is waiting to see what everyone else is doing, the first one to sign usually gets the shaft so there is no incentive, and it's a vicious cycle. I would be more in favor of setting a deadline to have a contract signed or risk forfeiting your first year than a cap. Of course, that will never happen and I know this, but that's my biggest beef with what's going on with rookie contracts. That guys can essentially "sit out" until almost the start of the season to land that contract and really hurt a team that is investing in them bugs me to no end.

 

[dparker713]

The logical agreement would be to cap rookie salaries AND the length of rookie contracts. That would enable non-first-round players who succeed to not be severely underpaid for the last 4-5 years of their rookie deal.

There already is a rookie cap and a max length of years for a rookie deal. At the top of the first round I think its 6 or 7 years, by the start of the second round its 4 years. The problem the NFL has is that its rookie cap is too big and too skewed to the top players. On a yearly basis, the number one pick makes in the neighborhood of the salary of all the seventh rounders combined. Offering top pick big money made some sense when the USFL was around, but right now it seems somewhat foolish. The NFL salary structure for draftees is pretty silly, but atleast its not as bad as baseball.

How exactly? The bonuses paid don't even come close to approaching the amounts paid to top NFL picks, and the yearly salaries are set to a scale based on the minor league level the player is in and their experience. It takes 3-5 years of MLB service time to get an annual salary equivalent to what high first-round picks earn in the NFL. Of course it takes some players a few years to reach the bigs (and they've received a nice signing bonus already), but outside of the top picks, those bonuses are for a few million. Meanwhile, some high draft picks (coming from college and high school) can get to the majors anywhere from a few months to a year and a half after being drafted. I'm not saying baseball is perfect, but I don't see how it's worse than giving unproven NFL players $15-30 million guaranteed.

I consider the MLB draft worse for a few reasons. There is generally a long apprenticeship, even for college players. The MLB draft is getting better, but has long been a crap shoot. And the worst problem is overpaying for slots. Essentially, the big money teams will pay more for draftees, the draftees know it, and some will let people know that they'll refuse to sign unless given a certain amount of money. This leads to teams like the Yankees being able to buy better draft picks then they're supposed to have. Often times they'll get a top 5 player despite having a bottom 5 pick.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Salaries for the top college players should stay extremely high.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Salaries for the top college players should stay extremely high.

Or everyone is a free agent leaving college and the procedure of the draft is removed entirely.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I don't necessarily have an issue with the amounts these rookies are getting paid (although I definitely agree that it should be considerably lower and capped). My issue is that these rookies, especially in recent times, are holding out and missing training camps and thus hurting both themselves AND their teams in the process, all in order to make sure they are getting what others around their draft slot are.Problem is, everyone is waiting to see what everyone else is doing, the first one to sign usually gets the shaft so there is no incentive, and it's a vicious cycle. I would be more in favor of setting a deadline to have a contract signed or risk forfeiting your first year than a cap. Of course, that will never happen and I know this, but that's my biggest beef with what's going on with rookie contracts. That guys can essentially "sit out" until almost the start of the season to land that contract and really hurt a team that is investing in them bugs me to no end.

Why do you blame one side when there are two people at the table? Certain teams seem to always get their draft picks in on time.

 

[gianmarco]

I don't necessarily have an issue with the amounts these rookies are getting paid (although I definitely agree that it should be considerably lower and capped). My issue is that these rookies, especially in recent times, are holding out and missing training camps and thus hurting both themselves AND their teams in the process, all in order to make sure they are getting what others around their draft slot are.Problem is, everyone is waiting to see what everyone else is doing, the first one to sign usually gets the shaft so there is no incentive, and it's a vicious cycle. I would be more in favor of setting a deadline to have a contract signed or risk forfeiting your first year than a cap. Of course, that will never happen and I know this, but that's my biggest beef with what's going on with rookie contracts. That guys can essentially "sit out" until almost the start of the season to land that contract and really hurt a team that is investing in them bugs me to no end.

Why do you blame one side when there are two people at the table? Certain teams seem to always get their draft picks in on time.

Actually, I see it in terms of both sides. I think the teams are equally as responsible as the players. All I know is the current system doesn't work because we always see the above. I don't know enough about the intricate workings of these agreements and negotiations to even begin to assign blame, but the bottomline that I do see is more and more rookies not showing up on time, whether its the team's or their own fault.

 

[RUSF18]

The logical agreement would be to cap rookie salaries AND the length of rookie contracts. That would enable non-first-round players who succeed to not be severely underpaid for the last 4-5 years of their rookie deal.

There already is a rookie cap and a max length of years for a rookie deal. At the top of the first round I think its 6 or 7 years, by the start of the second round its 4 years. The problem the NFL has is that its rookie cap is too big and too skewed to the top players. On a yearly basis, the number one pick makes in the neighborhood of the salary of all the seventh rounders combined. Offering top pick big money made some sense when the USFL was around, but right now it seems somewhat foolish. The NFL salary structure for draftees is pretty silly, but atleast its not as bad as baseball.

How exactly? The bonuses paid don't even come close to approaching the amounts paid to top NFL picks, and the yearly salaries are set to a scale based on the minor league level the player is in and their experience. It takes 3-5 years of MLB service time to get an annual salary equivalent to what high first-round picks earn in the NFL. Of course it takes some players a few years to reach the bigs (and they've received a nice signing bonus already), but outside of the top picks, those bonuses are for a few million. Meanwhile, some high draft picks (coming from college and high school) can get to the majors anywhere from a few months to a year and a half after being drafted. I'm not saying baseball is perfect, but I don't see how it's worse than giving unproven NFL players $15-30 million guaranteed.

I consider the MLB draft worse for a few reasons. There is generally a long apprenticeship, even for college players. The MLB draft is getting better, but has long been a crap shoot. And the worst problem is overpaying for slots. Essentially, the big money teams will pay more for draftees, the draftees know it, and some will let people know that they'll refuse to sign unless given a certain amount of money. This leads to teams like the Yankees being able to buy better draft picks then they're supposed to have. Often times they'll get a top 5 player despite having a bottom 5 pick.

Take a look at this link and see the bonuses received by last year's 1st round signees. Not really too crazy. And the two guys who were drafted late in the first round (Porcello - Tigers and Brackman - Yankees) because of their high demands still signed for amounts pretty close to what others received towards the back of the Top 10. If teams feel like it is worth passing on a top talent to save $1-1.5 million in bonus money, that's their own problem, IMO.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

One of the few professions where the recent college "grad" makes more than those with actual industry experience (who are also "grads").Yes, I agree, high draft picks make too much coin. Middling Veterans and low round draft picks don't make enough.

low round draft picks don't make enough.

Thats the other side of the coin.The owners may be complaining about how the top picks are making too much money, but howabout the 2nd-6th round picks who end up being absolute steals for the owners?Those draft day bargains don't get their payday until their rookie contract runs out.

What's amazing is all these overpaid and underpaid groups of players. What we really need is to lift the ban on paying low round picks lots of money, lift the ban on preventing owners from paying high rookies tons of money, and all will be well. If only we had a free market system to allow the players' value to be properly determined by the owners.

You may be right, however, there's just one problem. There are just enough irresponsible owners in the NFL to wreak havoc on all the others. Generally their teams don't win squat at the end of the year, but they can set the market for player salaries. Once a precedent has been set, it gets more and more difficult for teams with fiscal responsibility to try to remain that way.