What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Sources: Agreement reached on rookie scale (1 Viewer)

David Yudkin

Footballguy
Sources: Agreement reached on rookie scale

By Jason Cole, Yahoo! Sports

WASHINGTON – While the NFL Players Association and owners remain far apart on the most critical issue – how to split approximately $9 billion in revenues – the two sides have reached agreements on a couple of smaller issues.

According to two sources familiar with the negotiations, the league and the union have reached a basic compromise on a rookie wage scale that will replace the current rookie salary cap. The owners backed off the idea of requiring first-round picks to sign five-year deals, instead limiting the contracts to four years before a player could become a free agent. The agreement is also expected to include a stipulation limiting the amount of guaranteed money and signing bonus offered to draft picks.

In addition, the league agreed that all players drafted after the first round would be limited to three-year deals, but teams would be allowed to put restricted free agent tags after the three years. That’s essentially similar to the current process where players can be tagged as restricted free agents after a three-year deal, although the existing rule allows players drafted after the first round to sign four-year pacts.

The key change is for the players in the first round. Currently, the first 16 players taken in the first round can sign for up to six years. The next 16 players taken can sign up to five years.

The reason the union wanted shorter deals is that it allows good players to get to free agency faster. While the owners and players agreed that high picks such as quarterbacks JaMarcus Russell, Matthew Stafford and Sam Bradford were paid too much under the old system, it was important to the union that good players who proved themselves got a chance to cash in faster and avoid the risks of injury. Tennessee Titans running back Chris Johnson and Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker LaMarr Woodley(notes) are among recent late first-rounders or second-round picks who have sought (and in the case of Johnson, was granted) new contracts because they felt they had outperformed their rookie deals.

In the process, the NFL backed off its desire for what would have been potentially onerous contracts. For instance, the league’s first proposal called for the top pick in the draft to get a maximum five-year, $19 million deal. Only $6 million of that would have been guaranteed. The deal would have included no bonuses for play time or achievement, such as making the Pro Bowl.

That would have been in stark contrast to the six-year, $72 million deal that Bradford received last year. That deal included $50 million guaranteed.

“We all saw the problem with the current system, but you have to give a guy a chance to get paid if he’s a good player,” one source said. “After three years, you pretty much know if a guy is a good player.”

In addition to the rookie wage scale, the NFLPA is also expected to agree on stronger language to allow teams to recoup money from players who get in trouble with the law, such as then-Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick or Plaxico Burress with the New York Giants. In the Vick case, he was allowed to keep approximately $20 million in signing-bonus money despite going to prison for dog-fighting and related charges.

In essence, the NFLPA received strong support from other players who said that players such as Vick and Burress should not be allowed to keep money in those situations.

 
Love the part about teams having more ability to recoup money from trouble players. I love even more that the NFLPA agrees that its necessary.

I do, however, think that you are going to see MANY FA's basically get trained up by the team who drafted them, and bring the benefits to their new team.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Love the part about teams having more ability to recoup money from trouble players. I love even more that the NFLPA agrees that its necessary.I do, however, think that you are going to see MANY FA's basically get trained up by the team who drafted them, and bring the benefits to their new team.
If the player is good, why wouldn't the team just offer a contract extension after year 1 or 2? They don't have to let the player get to free agency.
 
Love the part about teams having more ability to recoup money from trouble players. I love even more that the NFLPA agrees that its necessary.I do, however, think that you are going to see MANY FA's basically get trained up by the team who drafted them, and bring the benefits to their new team.
If the player is good, why wouldn't the team just offer a contract extension after year 1 or 2? They don't have to let the player get to free agency.
that's assuming the player wants to sign the extension . . .
 
Love the part about teams having more ability to recoup money from trouble players. I love even more that the NFLPA agrees that its necessary.I do, however, think that you are going to see MANY FA's basically get trained up by the team who drafted them, and bring the benefits to their new team.
If the player is good, why wouldn't the team just offer a contract extension after year 1 or 2? They don't have to let the player get to free agency.
Same reasons it rarely happens now before the final year of a contract. Risk of injury, need to have cheap talent alongside expensive talent to stay under the cap, need to motivate young players, principle of honoring a contract ect. You are right though, teams often refuse to give guys who are outperforming their contract the pay they deserve. The option has always been there for them to pay a young player and keep him happy.Rookies making less means veterans are going to make more because the team is still going to spend the same amount. It had to be done though. Bad teams with early draft picks were shooting themselves in the foot by having to pay unproven players so much. They can now have more money to offer free agents and there will be more free agents available. Now if a team doesnt attract players due to that team's reputation (think Bengals), then they'll just have to either change their management attitude or continue to fail.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The rookie pay agreement seems like a really big deal to me and not a minor positive move. Am I wrong to see this as a major positive move? It seems like this is indicative of the two sides having good feed-back to settle a key issue. I am leaning more to a feeling that they will get an agreement reached, even though it may take one more time extension.

 
The rookie pay agreement seems like a really big deal to me and not a minor positive move. Am I wrong to see this as a major positive move? It seems like this is indicative of the two sides having good feed-back to settle a key issue. I am leaning more to a feeling that they will get an agreement reached, even though it may take one more time extension.
I think this was the easiest issue to solve. Neither side was against it. The only disagreement would have been over length of contracts. If the owners expect to save 30-40 million on top players, they had to give up a year (or two) on the length of contracts.
 
I wish we could find out how the 2011 rookies feel about this. Were they represented well or not.

Ingram was to fall in the draft. Otherwise QBs and DL (which are some of the highest paid positions already) were expected to go high. I don't see that this will change much but maybe Ingram and even still he's been so highly publicized I figure teams have made up their opinion of him already.

I'd like to see the RFA tender stuff and the tag stuff before jumping to conclusions on this. In the past I have felt like the owners only make it seem like a player is free to hit the open market. I do not think the tags are good for the NFL. I like the "matching" type stuff as a means for a team to get back their favorite player, but not when they throw in dopey little incentives that no one can reasonably match nor attain. I'm not a fan of tampering, or all but tampering like with Haynesworth, either.

I believe the open market is best for everyone and all these little schemes to avoid it annoy me.

We do the auction stuff in FF. We are basically pretending we are NFL execs. We know those $1 guys are gems. One can easily imagine that no NFL player wants to hit the open market and make a small amount. Similarly that no owner wants to have to pay a player twice his projected salary because others raised the bidding. I get all that but.....tough! Deal with it.

Agents will have to make quicker deals before teams use up their cap. Players will have to perform well or accept a subpar salary etc.

 
The rookie pay agreement seems like a really big deal to me and not a minor positive move. Am I wrong to see this as a major positive move? It seems like this is indicative of the two sides having good feed-back to settle a key issue. I am leaning more to a feeling that they will get an agreement reached, even though it may take one more time extension.
wE CAN HOPE. HOWEVER, SMITH SAYING THE 18 GAMES IS OFF THE TABLE IS A SETBACK. I STILL THINK THIS GOES TO COURT.
 
I wish we could find out how the 2011 rookies feel about this. Were they represented well or not.
are people usually represented by a union before they're hired? Sure it sucks for the first few years but in the long run, good players will benefit.

This news is already changing the experts mocks. Mel Kiper is projecting that teams will be wanting to trade up into the top of the draft. http://insider.espn....perMockDraft3.0
Newton in Cincy :X
 
This news is already changing the experts mocks. Mel Kiper is projecting that teams will be wanting to trade up into the top of the draft. http://insider.espn....perMockDraft3.0
I can't see how that's anything BUT a terrific thing. Bad teams needing multiple picks could now reasonably trade back and get those picks. Teams that have been great at cap management and used a shotgun approach (New England, Philly) now have other options, and can afford to trade up and fill that "one hole" with a reasonably salaried rookie.
 
I wish we could find out how the 2011 rookies feel about this. Were they represented well or not.
are people usually represented by a union before they're hired? Sure it sucks for the first few years but in the long run, good players will benefit.

This news is already changing the experts mocks. Mel Kiper is projecting that teams will be wanting to trade up into the top of the draft. http://insider.espn....perMockDraft3.0
Newton in Cincy :X
AWESOME!/signed a Steeler fan.

 
This news is already changing the experts mocks. Mel Kiper is projecting that teams will be wanting to trade up into the top of the draft. http://insider.espn....perMockDraft3.0
From my understanding, I didn't think this pay scale would be put in place until 2012 draft.
I didn't think any of the rookies could even be SIGNED until a CBA is in place, or some other sort of temporary agreement between the owners and players for a CBA-less season.Hold the draft, yes. Sign those same rookies to contracts? I thought not... :confused:

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top