PFT: A simple solution to the rookie wage scale problem

[cowboyjoe]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/12/a-simple-solution-to-the-rookie-wage-scale-problem/
We propose two-year contracts for all draft picks. After two years, the players become exclusive-rights free agents, which is essentially what they are upon being drafted.

Then, after completing the initial two-year contract, the player can threaten to withhold services as leverage for getting the best possible deal, which is precisely the leverage that unsigned draft picks possess. Or he can sign a one-year tender that would be based on playing time and possibly other factors, such as Pro Bowls and other achievements and awards. Or the two sides can come together and agree to a long-term deal based not only on potential but also on two years of performance.

 

[NinePointOh]

Sounds attractive to the owners but not at all to the players.

 

[sonnyboy]

Sounds attractive to the owners but not at all to the players.

Which players?

Not the proven veterans.

That's what I can never grasp with the players union using a rookie cap as a bargining chip. How is this a bad thing for the players?

 

[Eskimo]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/12/a-simple-solution-to-the-rookie-wage-scale-problem/
We propose two-year contracts for all draft picks. After two years, the players become exclusive-rights free agents, which is essentially what they are upon being drafted.

Then, after completing the initial two-year contract, the player can threaten to withhold services as leverage for getting the best possible deal, which is precisely the leverage that unsigned draft picks possess. Or he can sign a one-year tender that would be based on playing time and possibly other factors, such as Pro Bowls and other achievements and awards. Or the two sides can come together and agree to a long-term deal based not only on potential but also on two years of performance.

Exclusive rights free agents have less leverage than draft picks because draft picks can refuse to sign and re-enter the draft the next year. If the ERFAs are given the right to become an UFA the next year, then they would have lots of leverage.

 

[texbumthelife]

Which players?

Not the proven veterans.

That's what I can never grasp with the players union using a rookie cap as a bargining chip. How is this a bad thing for the players?

Because you're taking a huge chunk of money away from player (albeit rookies). What is so hard to understand?

Personally I think they need to get rid of the franchise tag. If completely defeats the purpose of free agency in my opinion and forces players to stay with teams they obviously no long want to play for, ala Mankins and so many others.

 

[sonnyboy]

I have proposed an almost identical solution in the past. It's the obvious solution to the problem.

The only question is just what the rookie cap will be?

I think it should and probably will be a set dollar amount for each and every draft slot.

Perhaps the #1 pick gets 6 million guaranteed in a two year deal and each pick there after gets scaled down a little.
Last pick in the 7th rd gets $500,000 over two years.

Now there are a few consessions I believe should be made to make things fair.

1) The whole two year deal is guaranteed. Basically an upfront signing bonus the rookie gets day one for his two years of service.

2) I'd make the tender offer each team had to make to retain the exclusive rights of the 2nd yr guy significant.
I'm talking about a major escalation on the orginal rookie deal. This way the new rookie cap doesn't become a means to hold down veteran player salries.

If you really like that player you drafted two years ago, he's now starting or is a significant contributer, you should have to offer that player a significant raise to keep his rights.

 

[speedkilz88]

Because you're taking a huge chunk of money away from player (albeit rookies). What is so hard to understand?

Personally I think they need to get rid of the franchise tag. If completely defeats the purpose of free agency in my opinion and forces players to stay with teams they obviously no long want to play for, ala Mankins and so many others.

That's not necessarily true. All teams work under a salary cap, minimum and maximums. So the money saved from the rookie cap would more than likely be moved to the veterans. Now the league also wants to lower the percentage the players make overall but that's still a separate bargaining point.

 

[SDogo]

I have proposed an almost identical solution in the past. It's the obvious solution to the problem.

The only question is just what the rookie cap will be?

I think it should and probably will be a set dollar amount for each and every draft slot.

Perhaps the #1 pick gets 6 million guaranteed in a two year deal and each pick there after gets scaled down a little.
Last pick in the 7th rd gets $500,000 over two years.

Now there are a few consessions I believe should be made to make things fair.

1) The whole two year deal is guaranteed. Basically an upfront signing bonus the rookie gets day one for his two years of service.

2) I'd make the tender offer each team had to make to retain the exclusive rights of the 2nd yr guy significant.
I'm talking about a major escalation on the orginal rookie deal. This way the new rookie cap doesn't become a means to hold down veteran player salries.

If you really like that player you drafted two years ago, he's now starting or is a significant contributer, you should have to offer that player a significant raise to keep his rights.

geebus......you know this is probably the best idea I have heard yet. Almost makes too much sense.....

 

[NinePointOh]

Which players?

Not the proven veterans.

That's what I can never grasp with the players union using a rookie cap as a bargining chip. How is this a bad thing for the players?

A union by definition represents all of its members (including future members, virtually all of whom would be subject to the rookie cap) and it's not in their best interest to divide into factions based on which groups would be harmed by specific policies. That defeats the entire purpose of collective bargaining.

 

[speedkilz88]

I have proposed an almost identical solution in the past. It's the obvious solution to the problem.

The only question is just what the rookie cap will be?

I think it should and probably will be a set dollar amount for each and every draft slot.

Perhaps the #1 pick gets 6 million guaranteed in a two year deal and each pick there after gets scaled down a little.
Last pick in the 7th rd gets $500,000 over two years.

Now there are a few consessions I believe should be made to make things fair.

1) The whole two year deal is guaranteed. Basically an upfront signing bonus the rookie gets day one for his two years of service.

2) I'd make the tender offer each team had to make to retain the exclusive rights of the 2nd yr guy significant.
I'm talking about a major escalation on the orginal rookie deal. This way the new rookie cap doesn't become a means to hold down veteran player salries.

If you really like that player you drafted two years ago, he's now starting or is a significant contributer, you should have to offer that player a significant raise to keep his rights.

Are you talking all rounds or just the first? The problem would be a lot of draft picks don't make the team and those 500,000 contracts and up would add up for a lot of guys that just can't play and contribute to the league.

Maybe you could guarantee the contract once they make the squad but then that would make things tight for teams when they need to make mid season cuts to open up a roster spot for injuries. Also might keep teams from churning the bottom of the roster picking up practice squad players.

 

[BlindFaith]

The whole problem with paying rookies huge contracts is that many times they get their "payday" and decide not to play anymore. Why do you think the draft is a crap shoot? Every year there are guys who are very talented, but then don't amount to anything. They hit their lottery and don't give the effort or time.

A rookie pay scale would help. Give them a nice bonus for being very good in college, but not so much that they can just take the money and run. Two year deals with slotted pay. Escalating bonuses based on being on the roster.

The missing piece here is how do you reward the team for drafting the player. And how do you reward the fans by keeping a team together.

I'd like to see a percentage of what a teams actual cap number is set aside as a "drafted player" pool. This money does not go against the cap if spent on a player that your team drafted. So when a rookie completes his second year and you want to keep him, you can let him test free agency. Some team makes him an offer. If you are up against the cap, but want to resign him, you can dip into the "drafted player" pool and sweeten the deal to keep him.

Teams that spend more on salaries would then have a higher drafted player pool.

Team A spends the minimum to wards the cap - lets say 130 million.
Team B spends the max - lets say 190 million

Set the drafted player pool to 5%

Team A would have 6.5 million to resign their own drafted players.
Team B would have 9.5 million to resign their own.

So if team B got into a bidding war with another team over a player that they themselves had drafted, they could always just throw in an extra 5 million or 9.5 million if they wanted to as a guaranteed bonus.

This would help teams keep their drafted players and cut down on having to bring in new guys all the time.

 

[cowboyjoe]

Are you talking all rounds or just the first? The problem would be a lot of draft picks don't make the team and those 500,000 contracts and up would add up for a lot of guys that just can't play and contribute to the league.

Maybe you could guarantee the contract once they make the squad but then that would make things tight for teams when they need to make mid season cuts to open up a roster spot for injuries. Also might keep teams from churning the bottom of the roster picking up practice squad players.

that part is true, but which would be better for the team and NFL?

a rookie especially in 1st to 3rd round, making that kind of wage scale money, or a rookie being guaranteed millions of dollars like QB Russell was who is no longer in the NFL, thats sets a team back money wise and draft pick wise.

seems to me, would be better to lose $500,000 than 30 to 40 million in guaranteed money for that rookie that has never played a down in the NFL and making a ton of more money than veteran players,

do you realize how much undrafted rookie drew pearson made his first year
14,500 and I think 150 dollars bonus money, but dont quote me on that, was either about 150 in bonus signing moneyl
drew said he remembers it because he got 7 twenties and a ten for signing bonus

i saw it
mickey said to drew, no you made more than that, , was probably that first week, drew said no, was that first year of his contract and his signing bonus

compare that to a veteran that played in the league of now, like say sam hurd who played in the nfl for what 5 years, and he just finally got a 1 million plus contract, that jerry didnt want to sign him to, to a contract of j russell that played what 3 years in nfl and now is no longer in NFL and he got what 40 plus million guaranteed money?

 

[johnnyd]

here's what i want a rookie cap and a some kind of version of "bird rights" im not smart enough to draw up some legalese here or actual numbers so i'll leave it to you lawyer folk

 

[Hoofbite]

Sounds like the dumbest idea ever.

Teams would be in a constant state of negotiations. Wonder how many players are going to want to redo their contracts after week 6 of their rookie year?

 

[AKATheRake]

I have proposed an almost identical solution in the past. It's the obvious solution to the problem.

The only question is just what the rookie cap will be?

I think it should and probably will be a set dollar amount for each and every draft slot.

Perhaps the #1 pick gets 6 million guaranteed in a two year deal and each pick there after gets scaled down a little.
Last pick in the 7th rd gets $500,000 over two years.

Now there are a few consessions I believe should be made to make things fair.

1) The whole two year deal is guaranteed. Basically an upfront signing bonus the rookie gets day one for his two years of service.

2) I'd make the tender offer each team had to make to retain the exclusive rights of the 2nd yr guy significant.
I'm talking about a major escalation on the orginal rookie deal. This way the new rookie cap doesn't become a means to hold down veteran player salries.

If you really like that player you drafted two years ago, he's now starting or is a significant contributer, you should have to offer that player a significant raise to keep his rights.

The structure makes very good sense to me, the numbers are debatable obviously.

Also, if this would be the rookie pay scale structure than we should get rid of the franchise tag.

Teams would not have to invest so much up front on rookies with this new structure so it should only be fair that the tag is no longer available.

 

[4lifecowboy]

Because you're taking a huge chunk of money away from player (albeit rookies). What is so hard to understand?

Personally I think they need to get rid of the franchise tag. If completely defeats the purpose of free agency in my opinion and forces players to stay with teams they obviously no long want to play for, ala Mankins and so many others.

That's a sentiment a poster like a "poster name 4lifecowboy" can't sign off on. It will ruin the game like it has the NBA making this a individual player driven league as, well all of the better players will go to the higher market teams watering down the League as a whole.

 

[fanfromvirginia]

A union by definition represents all of its members (including future members, virtually all of whom would be subject to the rookie cap) and it's not in their best interest to divide into factions based on which groups would be harmed by specific policies. That defeats the entire purpose of collective bargaining.

Well, it does in theory represent future members as well but only current members vote and, individually, they have absolutely nothing to lose in screwing the rookies to create more room under the salary cap for themselves.

 

[cowboyjoe]

Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk has a brilliant idea (so brilliant that it warrants its own post):

We propose two-year contracts for all draft picks. After two years, the players become exclusive-rights free agents, which is essentially what they are upon being drafted.

Then, after completing the initial two-year contract, the player can threaten to withhold services as leverage for getting the best possible deal, which is precisely the leverage that unsigned draft picks possess. Or he can sign a one-year tender that would be based on playing time and possibly other factors, such as Pro Bowls and other achievements and awards. Or the two sides can come together and agree to a long-term deal based not only on potential but also on two years of performance.

http://nfl-facts-and-rumors.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22475988/27501168

 

[cowboyjoe]

I could have sworn I saw this same exact thing posted by one of our zoners a day or 2 days ago on this board, hmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[cowboyjoe]

ok here it is, mike florio did write that article, here is the post link go to first post;
http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205733


then go to this post where one of our zoners says he proposed something similar to that, thought i was onto something but guess not, oh well

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post number 6
I have proposed an almost identical solution in the past. It's the obvious solution to the problem.

The only question is just what the rookie cap will be?

I think it should and probably will be a set dollar amount for each and every draft slot.

Perhaps the #1 pick gets 6 million guaranteed in a two year deal and each pick there after gets scaled down a little.
Last pick in the 7th rd gets $500,000 over two years.

Now there are a few consessions I believe should be made to make things fair.

1) The whole two year deal is guaranteed. Basically an upfront signing bonus the rookie gets day one for his two years of service.

2) I'd make the tender offer each team had to make to retain the exclusive rights of the 2nd yr guy significant.
I'm talking about a major escalation on the orginal rookie deal. This way the new rookie cap doesn't become a means to hold down veteran player salries.

If you really like that player you drafted two years ago, he's now starting or is a significant contributer, you should have to offer that player a significant raise to keep his rights.

sonnyboy
Senior Member




Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Voorhees NJ
Posts: 4,601