Goodell believes rookie contracts have become "ridiculous" *Merge*

[sonnyboy]

Someone correct me if I have the wrong impression on this.

I've always looked at the NFL rookie salary issue as something similar to the steroid issue in baseball.

Both issues have been looked on by the respective players unions in an *** backwards manner.

Both scumbag unions used these issues as bargining chips. As if these issues only benefited the owners.

The fact is that steroid testing in baseball and a lower rookie wage scale in football benefits the players of both leagues.

 

[notherbob]

Agreed.

It will kill the game. Too many guys just cashing in. No performance... "Sport(brand) Building" (if you will)

I agree with what you're saying but Gene Upshaw doesn't and I think there will be a strike and a lockout. Neither labor nor management care much what the fans think.

I hope I'm wrong.

 

[TheCount]

Goodell: NFL rookie pay scale ‘ridiculous’

By JOHN WAWROW, AP Sports Writer 9 hours, 58 minutes ago


CHAUTAUQUA, N.Y. (AP)—NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said it’s “ridiculous” to reward untested rookies with lucrative contracts, and wants the issue addressed in contract talks.

“There’s something wrong about the system,” Goodell said Friday. “The money should go to people who perform.”
Goodell referred to Michigan tackle Jake Long’s five-year, $57.75 million contract—with $30 million guaranteed. Long was the first overall draft pick by the Miami Dolphins in April.

“He doesn’t have to play a down in the NFL and he already has his money,” Goodell said during a question-and-answer period at the end of a weeklong sports symposium at the Chautauqua Institution. “Now, with the economics where they are, the consequences if you don’t evaluate that player, you can lose a significant amount of money.

“And that money is not going to players that are performing. It’s going to a player that never makes it in the NFL. And I think that’s ridiculous.”

Goodell said he favors lowering salaries offered to rookies, but allowing a provision for those players to renegotiate their deals after proving themselves on the field.

His statement was greeted by a long round of applause from the estimated crowd of 2,000 inside the amphitheater.

Speaking to reporters before his appearance, Goodell said he plans to open negotiations with the players union on a revamped labor deal this fall. He’s listened to concerns from all 32 owners in meetings over the past month.

“We just finished a series of one-on-one meetings with all 32 teams, where I have a better understanding and people have a better understanding of the economics each team is facing,” Goodell said. “I think we can identify what it is we need in a negotiation to continue to make the agreement work for the NFL and for the players.”

Goodell said the key need is to have the NFL Players’ Association appreciate the financial challenges owners face with rising stadium construction costs and a faltering economy. Those issues were not anticipated in the previous collective bargaining agreement, which provided players a 60 percent share of the league’s gross revenues.

“As our costs increase outside of player costs, that other 40 percent … squeezes the margins and just makes it financially unworkable,” Goodell said. “There has to be some more recognition of the costs.”

League owners, last month, voted unanimously to opt out of the CBA that was signed in spring 2006. The decision to opt out maintains labor peace through 2011, but will result in changes regarding the NFL’s salary cap and contract signings if a new deal is not signed by March 2010.
Goodell referred to next March as a deadline, but “not the end deadline,” but hoped a deal could be reached by then. If not, teams will enter the following season without a salary cap. While there are concerns some of the NFL’s richer teams would use their vast resources to buy up star players, there’s also a drawback for players.

Under the new rules, the time for free agency in an uncapped year would rise from four years to six and allow teams to protect one extra player with franchise or transition tags. In addition, the two-year lag would allow many teams to extend the contracts of their most important players, maintaining the continuity that is important to winning teams.

Goodell acknowledged the NFL and its owners failed to foresee the economic issues that would face the league when the last CBA was approved.
“There have been some things that none of us could’ve envisioned,” Goodell said. “You have an economy that’s weakening. You have aspects of the deal that we didn’t realize that we were going to be building billion-dollar stadiums. … Things happen. I don’t look back at it as a mistake. I look back at it as what do we need to do going forward?”

 

[playmakers]

You would think that, as a player, their college career would be way more important than their pro one. If theres a stud like Mcfadden in college and he comes into the league to fall flat on his face, would he really be a loser? I dont think so. He would have 25 mil in his bank account. The system as its set up is designed for the nobodys of the world to shine. For example, for guys like McFadden, Long, Ryan, etc its all downhill from here. They can not possibly make any more guranteed money in their career than they just got. As a gm, you better hope you drafted a guy with dedication. On the other hand, a guy like Romo comes in the league as a nobody. Those types of players have to work their butts off to get where they are. When they get huge contracts it came from long hours in the gym and on the field.

One side note, Im suprised with the NFL system set up the way it is that the college game doesnt have more "me" players. Theres a fortune to be had if these players can succeed any way neccessary. Whether thats being a player that acts like Chad Johnson when he scores or a guy whose a media dream like Clinton Portis; whatever it is Im just suprised there isnt more of it in college. The NFL system doesnt support "team" football.

 

[Hoofbite]

Pretty sure it was posted before but still a good read.

Goodell has it right.

Little unsure about the "provision for those players to renegotiate their deals after proving themselves on the field".

I thought players already had that. Does that mean hes in favor of a system that pretty much requires teams to pay more or restructure if the player they have drafted outperforms his contract? That would be ridiculous.

I think a pay scale similar to the NBA's scale is what needs to happen. I don't like much about the way the NBA is set up because draft picks outside of the top couple are traded for players left and right as if they don't have a whole lot of value but I really think their slotted pay scale is a GREAT idea.

Start with a set number that each player gets based on pick. On top of that, players can then negotiate for performance bonuses.

Going even further they could even put a limit on the total contract amount. Make it to where a Rookie won't be signing a contract that is worth more than the 10 highest paid players at their position. Of course that would never happen but maybe you give the player the option of opting out of his contract a year or two early.

Theres a lot of things they can do and definitely need to do something. Just isn't right. You got veterans out there who don't have a lot of time left and are too old to get the big payday at this point watching rookies come in and get signing bonuses bigger their total contracts for the last 10 years.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

THE commish is right about this subject.

 

[leeblair]

My only input on this is that Goodell is talking about something that the teams are doing willfully; They are the ones that are making those payments to those rookies.

It's no different from a kid that comes into the league and suffers a career ending knee injury in his first year because he's asked to carry the load too soon, and is not ready-

By putting that much money into the players, the teams know to protect their investments. Goodell may not like the salaries, and I think they are high, too;

But, it's a two way street, and teams constantly re-negotiate players contracts for less money when it's beneficial to them.

 

[Hoofbite]

My only input on this is that Goodell is talking about something that the teams are doing willfully; They are the ones that are making those payments to those rookies.

It's no different from a kid that comes into the league and suffers a career ending knee injury in his first year because he's asked to carry the load too soon, and is not ready-

By putting that much money into the players, the teams know to protect their investments. Goodell may not like the salaries, and I think they are high, too;

But, it's a two way street, and teams constantly re-negotiate players contracts for less money when it's beneficial to them.

They do but never in cases where players are performing at a level that makes them deserving of their salary. Teams ask players to take pay cuts when their play has declined.

And I wouldn't say teams are willfully paying that money. Players wouldn't sign for pennies.

 

[leeblair]

It's just a matter of the teams having to control their own budgets.

It's no different from the salary cap, which was instilled to ensure that teams like Dallas and San Francisco couldn't buy up all of the brightest stars, while teams like Cinncinnati have to settle for less.

They wanted parody; but for years it's meant mediocracy- when good teams loose the players they have developed due to salary cap considerations, and another team being willing and able to pay them more. Dallas has managed it well now, but it has really hurt us in the past.

All I'm saying is that the teams must take responsibility themselves for this issue. If they don't want to pay that much, "just say no".

And, like the salary cap- if they say no, will someone else say yes?

 

[Tovya]

It's just a matter of the teams having to control their own budgets.

It's no different from the salary cap, which was instilled to ensure that teams like Dallas and San Francisco couldn't buy up all of the brightest stars, while teams like Cinncinnati have to settle for less.

They wanted parody; but for years it's meant mediocracy- when good teams loose the players they have developed due to salary cap considerations, and another team being willing and able to pay them more. Dallas has managed it well now, but it has really hurt us in the past.

All I'm saying is that the teams must take responsibility themselves for this issue. If they don't want to pay that much, "just say no".

And, like the salary cap- if they say no, will someone else say yes?

I agree with you on this.

While I do believe rookie contracts are out of control in the NFL, it falls upon the teams themselves to regulate it. It's not different than saying that gas prices are too high, so they are going to regulate how much gas you can buy per week so that there is less of a shortfall and it will help lower prices...

At the end of the day, each team needs to stop dumping ridiculously padded contracts on rookies, and it will have a trickle down effect.... we don't need the league to step in and force teams to do something that they should already be doing on their own.

The NFL's current CBA (although soon to expire) is already the most pro-owner agreement in professional sports. It needs to be left alone.

 

[kmd24]

This is such a silly issue. What are we talking about, 15 players at the top of the draft?

This is a matter of teams having stage fright about picking at the top of the draft IMO.