PDA

View Full Version : Rookie Wage Scale Proposal


lostknight
12-31-2010, 06:01 AM
I've maintained for a while that the NFL going to a wage scale might make this a very very good year to have a top five draft pik, or to trade up for one. Profootballtalk just released some details about the proposal, and apparently, it's going to be a very good time.

From: The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121702560.html)


Under the proposal, the first pick in the draft would sign a five-year contract and receive a $5.34 million signing bonus and $1.5 million salary his rookie year, even if he does not play a single down. In years two and three, his salary would be set at $1.7 million and $1.9 million, respectively. His fourth- and fifth-year salaries would rise to $2.3 million and $2.9 million for a total package of $15.6 million. (If he is a quarterback, he would be paid $4.3 million in year six.) The first pick would still be paid well, but at a much more reasonable level than under the current system.
This is spectacularly better then the previous first round deals.

elsid13
12-31-2010, 06:07 AM
I don't see the union agreeing to a rookie scale and contract of that length. I expect a 3 year deal and then Free Agency as a counter.

peacepipe
12-31-2010, 06:12 AM
I doubt the NFLPA is going to accept anything close to that. hell, I wouldn't accept it.

Dr. Broncenstein
12-31-2010, 06:23 AM
There is no way in hell a rookie wage scale will fly with six year deals.

LonghornBronco
12-31-2010, 06:25 AM
I suspect some college players make more than that.

Kaylore
12-31-2010, 06:28 AM
I don't see the union agreeing to a rookie scale and contract of that length. I expect a 3 year deal and then Free Agency as a counter.

Yeah, but this is part of opening negotiations. You ask for more than you want. They will probably settle on 3-4 years and then go to restricted free agency.

Dr. Broncenstein
12-31-2010, 06:36 AM
Two years then restricted free agency. Three years then unrestricted free agency.

Hercules Rockefeller
12-31-2010, 06:46 AM
Two years then restricted free agency. Three years then unrestricted free agency.

The players won't take that earlier proposal and no way the owners take that. Most guys take a couple years to develop, and under that "proposal'" teams spend time to develop players and see no benefit.

Dr. Broncenstein
12-31-2010, 06:56 AM
The players won't take that earlier proposal and no way the owners take that. Most guys take a couple years to develop, and under that "proposal'" teams spend time to develop players and see no benefit.

Are you saying that most teams don't have a pretty good idea what kind of player they have after two years? The team (as well as the rest of the league) gets two years of evaluation at a minimal expense. No more guaranteed millions for players that pan out at 50% at best. If they like what they see, the team gets the right of first refusal or significant compensation in the form of draft picks. The player is guaranteed an early shot at a big payday if he generates enough interest. Sounds like a perfect compromise to me.

Jason in LA
12-31-2010, 08:08 AM
Damn that's a low ball offer. I'm all for a rookie cap, but that's a long contract for low pay, if a player is a first round pick. What if a player becomes a pro bowl player by year 3, is he stuck making almost nothing? There should be certain incentives thrown in there that pushes the contract up a lot. Really thinking about it, that offer sounds good if there are some incentives. If a player is a bust then the team isn't investing much into him. If he's good then he'll make his money.

Mediator12
12-31-2010, 08:24 AM
We estimate that a rookie wage scale would free up more than a billion dollars during the term of a five-year agreement, and more if it is a longer deal. That money would be redistributed to veterans and retired players. The new entry-level system would end rookie holdouts that damage relations between the player and team, and would eliminate the complexities in the current rookie contracts.

Under our proposal, mandatory contract lengths would be five years for first-round players (six years for quarterbacks), four years for second- through seventh-round picks and three years for undrafted rookies (as I was). Players and teams would be able to renegotiate and extend the initial contracts of first-round rookies after year three, and after year two for all other rookies.

Under the proposal, the first pick in the draft would sign a five-year contract and receive a $5.34 million signing bonus and $1.5 million salary his rookie year, even if he does not play a single down. In years two and three, his salary would be set at $1.7 million and $1.9 million, respectively. His fourth- and fifth-year salaries would rise to $2.3 million and $2.9 million for a total package of $15.6 million. (If he is a quarterback, he would be paid $4.3 million in year six.) The first pick would still be paid well, but at a much more reasonable level than under the current system.

By eliminating individual negotiations, a rookie wage scale should have the added benefit of reducing the influence of agents on our college campuses. Having served as a college athletic director for 16 years at Colgate and Northwestern, I know firsthand that even one unscrupulous agent who chooses to break NCAA rules can cause serious problems for a college and its players, resulting in the forfeiture of games, championships, awards and scholarships.


That is the initial offer. It is perfectly fine by me, but the players will go nuts if they get the 18 game season along with that. I suspect they will want a little more money up front, but they should not get it. That is more than enough money for a rookie to live on for 10 years unless they try and live paycheck to paycheck.

The parts in red are the real reasons this needed to be done years ago, especially the agents deal. It is always the second contract the agents should get paid well for negotiating after a prospect has PROVED his worth in the NFL. Getting rid of the ridiculous rookie Contracts for players who have never seen the NFL field will help the league and competitive advantage going forward.

orinjkrush
12-31-2010, 08:32 AM
is the length of an average NFL career still 3-5 years? That should be factored in as well.

Lolad
12-31-2010, 08:33 AM
That is the initial offer. It is perfectly fine by me, but the players will go nuts if they get the 18 game season along with that. I suspect they will want a little more money up front, but they should not get it. That is more than enough money for a rookie to live on for 10 years unless they try and live paycheck to paycheck.

The parts in red are the real reasons this needed to be done years ago, especially the agents deal. It is always the second contract the agents should get paid well for negotiating after a prospect has PROVED his worth in the NFL. Getting rid of the ridiculous rookie Contracts for players who have never seen the NFL field will help the league and competitive advantage going forward.

There will still be agents meddling with college players look at the NBA. They may not have as much as the NFL but it's still there

Mediator12
12-31-2010, 08:36 AM
is the length of an average NFL career still 3-5 years? That should be factored in as well.

3.3 years as of last years numbers.

lostknight
12-31-2010, 08:40 AM
The NFLAPA - like all unions - operates in the best interest of it's leadership and current members, not past or future members. NFL players are highly resentful of the out of whack contracts Rookies get.

As a starting point, it's not bad. I think it will get trimmed back a bit - 5 year maximums for quarterbacks, 4 years for first round picks, three years for all others, and I think the amounts will go up 20%, but I think it's a proposal that everyone (except for college players) like.

It might mean more players going to the MLB, but the NFL has the most well paying jobs out there.

Mediator12
12-31-2010, 08:47 AM
There will still be agents meddling with college players look at the NBA. They may not have as much as the NFL but it's still there

The agents need to be dealt with as well. It is OK to have an agent, in fact it is a great thing for players. However, some of these guys are more harm than good just like any other profession. The Problem is the question of conflict of interest.

Agents get paid on what their clients deals are worth and therefore its in their best interest to get more money out of each client. The client wants the best situation for him and then the most money from it. The problem has always been the agent wanting more money and forgetting the best situation for the player. In fact, counseling him to leave a good situation for more money elsewhere. In some cases, it totally backfires. The Colts lost Jake Scott to TEN because they did not offer him enough money not to go into FA. INDY's offer was more than what he finally accepted in TEN! Bad Advice and a much worse team to play and shine for his next contract.

Agents are a necessary evil, and these kids get snowed by slick presenters too. They play on the kids dreams and fears. However, there are a lot of very good reputable agents working out there and these other agents give them all a bad name. Hopefully, the slick guys will leave the little rookie contracts alone and try and pull the Scott Boras trick of stealing clients on their second contract. It will help keep the greedy bastards off the campuses a lot more I hope.

brncs_fan
12-31-2010, 09:05 AM
Last year Sam Bradford was taken #1 overall as a QB and was given a six year, $78 million contract with $50 million of that guaranteed. That's 13 mil per year with 8.3 mil of that guaranteed.

Under the new proposal Sam Bradford would still have gotten a six year deal, but would only be making $15.6 million with $5.3 million guaranteed.

That makes the total savings of $62.4 million over the course of the contract and $44.7 million guaranteed money being saved.

Broncoman13
12-31-2010, 09:41 AM
I've maintained for a while that the NFL going to a wage scale might make this a very very good year to have a top five draft pik, or to trade up for one. Profootballtalk just released some details about the proposal, and apparently, it's going to be a very good time.

From: The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121702560.html)

This is spectacularly better then the previous first round deals.

Too long. I think if you are going to have the players acquiesce on the huge rookie salaries you are going to have to assume some of their risk. That means, 15m over 3 or 4 years with the players having the opportunity to hit restricted free agency much more quickly. That protects the NFL Clubs and the players. If the player looks like a ball player, they will get a nice contract by year four. If they look like a bust, it will not bankrupt the NFL Clubs. Remember, this is more a result of so many first round picks never living up to their contracts as opposed to the $ being too much. The only picks where it is too much are in the top 10. Everything else is pretty reasonable IMO.

Share the risk, that's the wise decision.

BoulderBum
12-31-2010, 09:58 AM
I'm still confused, so correct me wherever I'm wrong.

The draft is the last thing that happens on this CBA right? Does that mean that teams can't sign any drafted players until the new CBA comes out? Or just that they are taking the risk of overpaying, so no teams will do it anyway.

Hercules Rockefeller
12-31-2010, 10:01 AM
Are you saying that most teams don't have a pretty good idea what kind of player they have after two years? The team (as well as the rest of the league) gets two years of evaluation at a minimal expense. No more guaranteed millions for players that pan out at 50% at best. If they like what they see, the team gets the right of first refusal or significant compensation in the form of draft picks. The player is guaranteed an early shot at a big payday if he generates enough interest. Sounds like a perfect compromise to me.

It's not an issue of knowing what you have, it's taking a chance on a guy and paying players for little or no immediate contribution only to lose control over their rights once you've developed them. Teams aren't going to go for that even if they get draft picks.

The issue is only the top picks anyway. Mid-1st round picks and later have great contracts. Clady's deal works out to about $3M per year over 6 if he hits all incentives.

Drek
12-31-2010, 10:02 AM
The NFLPA would be all for rookies making minimum wage if they saw a dollar for dollar bump in veteran salaries.

Players who will vote on this are either on a lucrative rookie deal already or on their second deal. Taking money out future rookie's deals to make more available for themselves and their established peers when they get to that second contract isn't even one of the harder issues to deal with for the new CBA.

kappys
12-31-2010, 10:04 AM
Low ball offer but the union is more worried about the total amount of money being spent on players. They're aim is to take from the rooks and give to the vets.

Overall the deal is too low and too long. 4 years, 5 for QB would be OK with some more impressive raises in years 3 and 4 (so if you have a player worth keeping you actually have to pay him

lostknight
12-31-2010, 10:09 AM
Honestly, I think it's going to end up being a framework that NFL players and teams can live with. In fact, I suspect that the vast majority of "cost savings" that the NFL owners will see will almost completely be tied up in this, as well as a two more weeks of play (but one of those being a second bye week for each team). The rest of the last CBA will stay in tact - single franchise tag instead of three, etc.

strafen
12-31-2010, 10:15 AM
Damn that's a low ball offer. I'm all for a rookie cap, but that's a long contract for low pay, if a player is a first round pick. What if a player becomes a pro bowl player by year 3, is he stuck making almost nothing? There should be certain incentives thrown in there that pushes the contract up a lot. Really thinking about it, that offer sounds good if there are some incentives. If a player is a bust then the team isn't investing much into him. If he's good then he'll make his money.I'm sure there will be room for contract renegotiations at one point during the contract based on performance and projections.
So, with that in mind, it's not as bad as it sounds, considering that something had to be done to put a ceiling on the escalating contract money first-roundrs are getting every year.
It's a necessary evil...

nickademus
12-31-2010, 10:41 AM
the thing the players like about this is that rookies will take a huge cut but the percentage spent on player salaries would not change which would me a pretty big bump in vetran salaries. while I agree that it should be 4 years with a 5th yr team option, and three years is about right for second through seventh rounders. This will be the one thing the PA and the League agree on.

lostknight
12-31-2010, 10:47 AM
We might see MLB style arbitration come in on option years.

Hamrob
12-31-2010, 10:50 AM
The NFLAPA - like all unions - operates in the best interest of it's leadership and current members, not past or future members. NFL players are highly resentful of the out of whack contracts Rookies get.

As a starting point, it's not bad. I think it will get trimmed back a bit - 5 year maximums for quarterbacks, 4 years for first round picks, three years for all others, and I think the amounts will go up 20%, but I think it's a proposal that everyone (except for college players) like.

It might mean more players going to the MLB, but the NFL has the most well paying jobs out there.Good points. That's how I see the breakdown occurring as well and I could see the $ going up 50% before it's agreed to. But, for a rookie like Bradford getting a $60m deal...even at 50% more than the proposal...that same rookie would only get $20-25m. That's much more reasonable...and much more in line with reality for unproven players.

Yes, some kids that are on the fence between Football/Baseball will probably have to consider MLB. But, really, if it's only about $...they should all go the MLB route...You can play 10-15yrs in Baseball alot easier than playing...say 5 in the NFL.

lostknight
12-31-2010, 10:54 AM
Really the only other thing that I really want to see in this round of the CBA is some provision for some sort of "minors" (needs to look very different from the NFL). Imagine how different things would look if Tebow at least was able to take the snaps - even at a inferior level - and play in real games as a developmental stage.

nickademus
12-31-2010, 11:00 AM
Really the only other thing that I really want to see in this round of the CBA is some provision for some sort of "minors" (needs to look very different from the NFL). Imagine how different things would look if Tebow at least was able to take the snaps - even at a inferior level - and play in real games as a developmental stage.

I highly doubt this happens after the failure of nfl europa the xfl and areana leagues.

Boomhauer
01-01-2011, 12:15 AM
I suspect some college players make more than that.

Like ones that refuse the draft to pursue FA instead. If you can get paid better and be able to choose who you play for, why go though the NFL Draft BS?

DarkHorse
01-01-2011, 01:43 AM
Hoping some sort of rookie scale takes place, it's about time they actually "earn" those millions of dollars.

The NFL isn't the same as the non-competitive world of college football.

Play2win
01-01-2011, 09:52 AM
Seems fair to me considering the state of things-- the economy, ticket prices, jersey prices, and ROI.