PDA

View Full Version : Football NFL wants to divert $300 million from first-round contracts


Mr. Laz
04-13-2011, 02:23 PM
NFL wants to divert $300 million from first-round contracts
Associated Press

Published: <abbr id="article-time" class="value" title="2011-04-13T12:24:00-0700"> April 13, 2011 at 03:24 p.m. </abbr>
Updated: <abbr id="article-updatedtime" class="value" title="2011-04-13T12:37:39-0700"> April 13, 2011 at 03:37 p.m. </abbr>

NEW YORK -- The NFL's proposal to the players for a rookie compensation system would divert about $300 million a year from first-round draft picks' contracts to veterans and player benefits.

More than $525 million went to first-rounders in guaranteed payments in 2010. So nearly half of that total would wind up as veterans' salary or benefits under the proposal, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

The league's offer would free more than $1.2 billion by 2016 and slow the growth rate of guaranteed payments to first-rounders, which the documents show increased by 233 percent since 2000. All contracts for first-round picks would become fixed at five years.

Such quarterback busts as JaMarcus Russell ($32 million), Matt Leinart (http://www.nfl.com/players/mattleinart/profile?id=LEI453701) ($12.9 million), David Carr (http://www.nfl.com/players/davidcarr/profile?id=CAR358385) ($15 million) and Joey Harrington ($13.9 million) received huge guaranteed payments that totaled $367 million in the past 10 drafts.

Draft Do-Overs: 2006
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/catch_all/nfl_image/m_leinart_110413_IL.jpg
The Cardinals' selection of QB Matt Leinart
at No. 10 is one of many do-overs that NFL
teams would like to have in the 2006 draft,
NFL.com senior analyst Pat Kirwan writes.
More ... (http://www.nfl.com/goto?id=09000d5d81f380d0)


Of course, Eli Manning (http://www.nfl.com/players/elimanning/profile?id=MAN473170) ($24 million), Philip Rivers (http://www.nfl.com/players/philiprivers/profile?id=RIV651634) ($17.9 million) and Matt Ryan (http://www.nfl.com/players/mattryan/profile?id=RYA238179) ($34.7 million) have not done too badly for their teams.

Guaranteed money paid to top 10 selections since 2000 reached nearly $2 billion. Guaranteed payments for all first-rounders were at $3.5 billion.

During talks for a new collective bargaining agreement, the league also proposed eliminating holdouts by reducing the maximum allowable salary if a rookie isn't signed when training camp begins. The NFL also suggested eliminating holdouts for all veterans by prohibiting renegotiations of contracts if a player holds out in the preseason.

The compensation system would not include a rookie wage scale and would allow for individual contract negotiations. Contracts would have a fixed length of four years for players chosen in the second through seventh rounds and would not affect salaries for those rounds, the league said.

The league and the NFLPA were not immediately available for comment.
Several agents said the proposals place unfair limitations on players entering the league.

"Five years and reduced pay is basically restricting players," said Ben Dogra, whose clients include Patrick Willis (http://www.nfl.com/players/patrickwillis/profile?id=WIL618736) and Sam Bradford (http://www.nfl.com/players/sambradford/profile?id=BRA101548). "Roughly 68 percent of the NFL is comprised of players with five years or less of NFL experience.

"Even players from essentially picks 11 to 32 in the first round are good financial deals for the teams. If a player becomes a starter or an integral part of the team under the current system, the NFL teams have the player under a rookie deal that is favorable to the team."

Peter Schaffer, who represents Joshua Cribbs and Hakeem Nicks (http://www.nfl.com/players/hakeemnicks/profile?id=NIC726593), called such a system "scouting insurance" for teams making bad selections high in the draft.

"It also makes the rookies more valuable when you reduce the amount you are paying to the young guy," Schaffer said. "This will eliminate the veteran middle class because teams can have younger players who are making less and are under fixed contracts."

A modified salary system for rookies was a negotiating point for a new CBA until talks broke off March 11 and the NFLPA dissolved as a union. The owners locked out the players hours later.

The two sides are scheduled for court-mandated mediation in Minneapolis beginning Thursday.

Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press

The_Doctor10
04-13-2011, 02:27 PM
So the average-below average players are out of the league in 2-4 years. This is different how?

If you're an elite player, by the time that contract is up, you'll still be in your prime. You'll get paid for your prime years, as opposed to all these runningbacks who get 20+ million guaranteed for past performance rather than what they're actually capable of at this point.

Mr. Laz
04-13-2011, 02:47 PM
So the average-below average players are out of the league in 2-4 years. This is different how?

If you're an elite player, by the time that contract is up, you'll still be in your prime. You'll get paid for your prime years, as opposed to all these runningbacks who get 20+ million guaranteed for past performance rather than what they're actually capable of at this point.
The key imo is that the money doesn't leave the players ... it is just moved to the veteran players.

notice how the only people this article had to speak against it were agents.

keg in kc
04-13-2011, 02:47 PM
Sounds good to me.

Hog Farmer
04-13-2011, 02:57 PM
Some poor guys may only make 5 million:deevee:

Bowser
04-13-2011, 02:59 PM
Bowser wants the NFL to divert from the bullshit and get business running again.

notorious
04-13-2011, 03:00 PM
I cannot come up with one reason that this is a bad idea.


More money to the proven and less to the unproven.

Just Passin' By
04-13-2011, 03:02 PM
The players were smart to turn that down. It was bad for both rookies and veterans.

durtyrute
04-13-2011, 03:10 PM
Rookies should have never been making that much in the first place

Buck
04-13-2011, 03:10 PM
New rule. You finish as the worst team in the AFC or NFC and you don't get a first round pick.

Direckshun
04-13-2011, 03:11 PM
I was thinking more like $500 million, but whatever.

JASONSAUTO
04-13-2011, 03:16 PM
The players were smart to turn that down. It was bad for both rookies and veterans.

why do you say that?

crazycoffey
04-13-2011, 03:24 PM
I cannot come up with one reason that this is a bad idea.


More money to the proven and less to the unproven.

the way it should be

Hog Farmer
04-13-2011, 03:27 PM
why do you say that?

Because Jamaarcus Russel would have had to put out some effort and may have become a HOF QB but by getting has 32 million he was able to get fat and fuck around dragging down another franchise for 5 years.

Fritz88
04-13-2011, 03:29 PM
Good
Posted via Mobile Device

Mr. Laz
04-13-2011, 03:29 PM
why do you say that?
do you really need to ask?


countdown until Brock shows up with the "it's all a trick of the evil owners ... go Unions!!" 10 ... 9 ... 8 ...

Brock
04-13-2011, 03:35 PM
do you really need to ask?


countdown until Brock shows up with the "it's all a trick of the evil owners ... go Unions!!" 10 ... 9 ... 8 ...

Another expert strawman build. Congrats on that, I guess.

Mr. Laz
04-13-2011, 03:37 PM
Another expert strawman build. Congrats on that, I guess.
booooooooooooooooom goes the dynamite

Brock
04-13-2011, 03:38 PM
booooooooooooooooom goes the dynamite

(disinterested shrug)

bevischief
04-13-2011, 04:00 PM
Sounds better than what is in place. The last several mistakes in the first round are millionaires. I would rather see it go to those that get it and make plays.

Just Passin' By
04-13-2011, 04:01 PM
why do you say that?

Two quick examples for each

For Rookies:

Careers average less than one contract in length. Lowering that money lessens their earnings. While not as drastic for the top players because of guarantees and the like, the same concept will apply, and it's just a matter of which year it happens.

Preventing holdouts means the team has more power in the case of a contractual stalemate, and nothing is being gained in return.


For veterans:

Lower rookie deals impact veteran deals, since veterans often peg their deals to what the rookies just got in their contracts

Preventing holdouts (again) means the team has more power in the case of a contractual stalemate, and nothing is being gained in return.

crazycoffey
04-13-2011, 04:05 PM
Two quick examples for each

For Rookies:

Careers average less than one contract in length. Lowering that money lessens their earnings. While not as drastic for the top players because of guarantees and the like, the same concept will apply, and it's just a matter of which year it happens.

Preventing holdouts means the team has more power in the case of a contractual stalemate, and nothing is being gained in return.


For veterans:

Lower rookie deals impact veteran deals, since veterans often peg their deals to what the rookies just got in their contracts

Preventing holdouts (again) means the team has more power in the case of a contractual stalemate, and nothing is being gained in return.


for the rookies, good - lower their income and wasted money on unproven players

For the veterans, I read it that their salaries are not being adjusted, so as of right now the highest paid players at their respected positions will continue to set the bar for new contracts, and with the money not going to the rookies there will be more money for more vet players.

Sounds like it was only a bad deal for the rookies, and frankly I'm ok with that....

Just Passin' By
04-13-2011, 04:11 PM
for the rookies, good - lower their income and wasted money on unproven players

The idea that these kids are "unproven" is a myth. They proved themselves in college. It's not the fault of the player if an NFL scout didn't properly determine whether the player was going to be able to make the transition to the NFL. That's not significantly different than when teams sign free agents from other teams, though.

For the veterans, I read it that their salaries are not being adjusted, so as of right now the highest paid players at their respected positions will continue to set the bar for new contracts, and with the money not going to the rookies there will be more money for more vet players.

This is incorrect or, rather, misleading. Of course deals will be cut moving forward. That's part of the money cutting. What you're talking about is that current contracts won't have numbers slashed. That's not the same thing. What will happen with current deals is that some veteran players will have to accept cuts or get the axe. But their current, base, deals won't be immediately impacted with an across-the-board cutback.

Detoxing
04-13-2011, 04:12 PM
for the rookies, good - lower their income and wasted money on unproven players

For the veterans, I read it that their salaries are not being adjusted, so as of right now the highest paid players at their respected positions will continue to set the bar for new contracts, and with the money not going to the rookies there will be more money for more vet players.

Sounds like it was only a bad deal for the rookies, and frankly I'm ok with that....

Unless of course the money doesn't actually get spent on the veterans. I'd assume they'd raise the cap floor, but by how much?

crazycoffey
04-13-2011, 04:18 PM
The idea that these kids are "unproven" is a myth. They proved themselves in college. It's not the fault of the player if an NFL scout didn't properly determine whether the player was going to be able to make the transition to the NFL. That's not significantly different than when teams sign free agents from other teams, though.
.


what I did in college was irrelevant to my professional career too, What I did in the Army didn't give me more experience pay when I started my professional career.

They didn't get paid in College, boo hoo. don't like that rule change it. As for the NFL, getting millions of dollars to not even practice yet is and has always been a dumb waste of money. Just my 2 cents.

crazycoffey
04-13-2011, 04:18 PM
Unless of course the money doesn't actually get spent on the veterans. I'd assume they'd raise the cap floor, but by how much?


good point.

Chiefaholic
04-13-2011, 04:42 PM
Two quick examples for each

For Rookies:

Careers average less than one contract in length. Lowering that money lessens their earnings. While not as drastic for the top players because of guarantees and the like, the same concept will apply, and it's just a matter of which year it happens.

Preventing holdouts means the team has more power in the case of a contractual stalemate, and nothing is being gained in return.


For veterans:

Lower rookie deals impact veteran deals, since veterans often peg their deals to what the rookies just got in their contracts

Preventing holdouts (again) means the team has more power in the case of a contractual stalemate, and nothing is being gained in return.

Rookies have no buisness making premier money at their position. Get on the field and PROVE you're worth the average of the top 5 at your position. If they come in and back up their worth with actual stats, then I'de like to see an optional void in the contract for the player after year 3-4. Screw the agents and rookie busts who don't play hard because they're already rich and set for life.

The money going back to the vets and raising their salaries is where the majority of the cash belongs anyway. If rookies want evteran money, then EARN it by playing up to your potential, eating and drinking the right foods, keeping in shape, and keeping your ignorant butts out of trouble with the law.

Baconeater
04-13-2011, 05:04 PM
Locking them in for 5 years seems excessive.

kstater
04-13-2011, 05:06 PM
Locking them in for 5 years seems excessive.

It's a starting point. They'll end up at 4. The players want 3.

Baconeater
04-13-2011, 05:07 PM
It's a starting point. They'll end up at 4. The players want 3.
I think 3 years is a reasonable amount of time for a player to prove whether he's a bust or not.

cabletech94
04-13-2011, 06:40 PM
I think 3 years is a reasonable amount of time for a player to prove whether he's a bust or not.

so that means THIS is castle's year?

ROFL

J Diddy
04-13-2011, 06:47 PM
The key imo is that the money doesn't leave the players ... it is just moved to the veteran players.

notice how the only people this article had to speak against it were agents.



My thoughts exactly. They're pissing their pants. The first round cash cow's going away.

Renegade
04-13-2011, 07:20 PM
So will they (the owners) just give bigger signing bonuses than they do now to Rookies? I can't remember if a bonus counts against cap or not.

milkman
04-13-2011, 07:46 PM
I think 3 years is a reasonable amount of time for a player to prove whether he's a bust or not.

Since the average career is about 3 years, 3 years on the initial contract is more than reasonable.

Marcellus
04-13-2011, 08:14 PM
Two quick examples for each

For Rookies:

Careers average less than one contract in length. Lowering that money lessens their earnings. While not as drastic for the top players because of guarantees and the like, the same concept will apply, and it's just a matter of which year it happens.

If average careers are less than the contract length then they are busts and don't deserve the big money.

notorious
04-13-2011, 08:43 PM
My thoughts exactly. They're pissing their pants. The first round cash cow's going away.

Easy money. The bar is already set, so negotiating isn't very tough.

MagicHef
04-13-2011, 08:56 PM
Does it seem a little weird to anyone else that the only people that don't have a say in the rookie wage scale are the, uh, rookies?

Marcellus
04-13-2011, 08:57 PM
Does it seem a little weird to anyone else that the only people that don't have a say in the rookie wage scale are the, uh, rookies?

Nope.

Just Passin' By
04-13-2011, 09:08 PM
what I did in college was irrelevant to my professional career too, What I did in the Army didn't give me more experience pay when I started my professional career.

You made different choices, and they're inapplicable to the world of professional sports.

They didn't get paid in College, boo hoo. don't like that rule change it. As for the NFL, getting millions of dollars to not even practice yet is and has always been a dumb waste of money. Just my 2 cents.

WTF are you talking about? They're getting the money in the NFL, and you're the one bitching for change, not them.

Just Passin' By
04-13-2011, 09:13 PM
If average careers are less than the contract length then they are busts and don't deserve the big money.

Deserve has nothing to do with it. They're getting paid based upon potential, just like everyone else is in a first job. The difference is that they can't choose where to apply and work, while pretty much everyone else can. Given that the biggest losers in this scenario would be the top players in the first round, it's pretty clear that they'd have been able to shop their services in a free system.

Marcellus
04-13-2011, 09:16 PM
Deserve has nothing to do with it. They're getting paid based upon potential, just like everyone else is in a first job. The difference is that they can't choose where to apply and work, while pretty much everyone else can. Given that the biggest losers in this scenario would be the top players in the first round, it's pretty clear that they'd have been able to shop their services in a free system.

I don't know what job you are in but first jobs typically don't pay top dollar for potential.

You work your way up. Your whole argument is flawed.

Just Passin' By
04-13-2011, 09:20 PM
I don't know what job you are in but first jobs typically don't pay top dollar for potential.

You work your way up. Your whole argument is flawed.

Go check out what first jobs for top end graduates pay. The average starting salary for a Harvard Law Graduate in 2008, for example, was about $155,000.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/current/sfs/index.html

Marcellus
04-13-2011, 09:28 PM
Go check out what first jobs for top end graduates pay. The average starting salary for a Harvard Law Graduate in 2008, for example, was about $155,000.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/current/sfs/index.html

Harvard Law vs NFL rookie? If you want to compare go ahead.

What do you think that $155,000 a year compares to a graduate from Harvard Law in their prime? Half or a 3rd of their annual salary and probably not even that.

Great example to make my point.

Just Passin' By
04-13-2011, 09:29 PM
Harvard Law vs NFL rookie? If you want to compare go ahead.

What do you think that $155,000 a year compares to a graduate from Harvard Law in their prime? Half or a 3rd of their annual salary and probably not even that.

Great example to make my point.

Not really, given that professional athletes are basically at the pinnacle of the salary world. You seem to be trying to equate NFL players to factory workers, and you're also overlooking the fact that there's already a rookie cap in the NFL.

Also, Peyton Manning and Brady, among others, will be making more money than Sam Bradford, so your progression argument is really a non-starter.

Marcellus
04-13-2011, 09:40 PM
Not really, given that professional athletes are basically at the pinnacle of the salary world. You seem to be trying to equate NFL players to factory workers.

Also, Peyton Manning and Brady, among others, will be making more money than Sam Bradford, so your progression argument is really a non-starter.

Look I am not the one who used starting salaries of Harvard Law graduates, you did. And compaired to their field which is relevent, they don't make the big money compared to experienced equals do out of college.

Harvard Law is elite. The NFL is elite. The comparison applies.

You aprovided the example not me. No sure where your factory worker comment applies.

I am not saying rookies shouldn't be paid well, they should not be top of their proffession straight out of school before ever playing an NFL game.

To use your example, an attorney straight out of school wont be the top paid Guy in court making more than the judge 99% of the time.

That's pretty logical.

ClevelandBronco
04-13-2011, 11:12 PM
Jamarcus Russell woke from his stupor long enough to say that this is bullshit.

Easy 6
04-13-2011, 11:58 PM
Nope.

I knew someone would deliver that simple message before me, just not so quickly.

veist
04-14-2011, 02:43 AM
So the NFL is asking for absolution from responsibility to scout players and that the players give up their only leverage if they outplay a contract? And people wonder why the negotiations aren't going well. What a wonderful time to be breaking in a new head of the PA and a new Commish.

HemiEd
04-14-2011, 03:45 AM
Drop it down to three years, and sign the thing and move on, football as usual.

Maybe add an opt out clause based on outstanding performance, such as being a top five NFL player rated at your position, in any of the first two years. Yeah, I know that is kind of gray, but them geniouses (cp spelling) can figure it out.

kstater
04-14-2011, 04:00 AM
Needs to be 3 years to restricted FA IMO.