NFL wants to divert $300 million from first-round contracts

[Mr. Laz]

NFL wants to divert $300 million from first-round contracts
Associated Press

• Published: April 13, 2011 at 03:24 p.m.
• Updated: April 13, 2011 at 03:37 p.m.

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 ($12.9 million), David Carr ($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

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 ...


Of course, Eli Manning ($24 million), Philip Rivers ($17.9 million) and Matt Ryan ($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 and Sam Bradford. "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, 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

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

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]

Originally Posted by Laz

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]

Originally Posted by Brock

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

booooooooooooooooom goes the dynamite

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Laz

booooooooooooooooom goes the dynamite

(disinterested shrug)

[bevischief]

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]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

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]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

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]

Originally Posted by CrazyCoffey

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.

Originally Posted by CrazyCoffey

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.

[ToxSocks]

Originally Posted by CrazyCoffey

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]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

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]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

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]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

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.

[Bugeater]

Locking them in for 5 years seems excessive.

[kstater]

Originally Posted by Bugeater

Locking them in for 5 years seems excessive.

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

[Bugeater]

Originally Posted by kstater

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.