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.

booooooooooooooooom goes the dynamite

(disinterested shrug)

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.

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....

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.

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.

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?

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.

good point.

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.

Locking them in for 5 years seems excessive.

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.