PFT:Stalemate arises over rookie wage scale

[cowboyjoe]

Posted by Mike Florio on July 9, 2011, 9:12 AM EDT
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/09/stalemate-arises-over-rookie-wage-scale/

Thanks for nothing, Arthur Boylan.
As the U.S. Magistrate Judge who presided over the labor talks like a referee and then decided to leave the stadium with the ball inside the five starts his vacation, some believe that the process can continue without him, given the threat of the looming loss of preseason revenue. We’re not so sure that’s the case.

A source with knowledge of the dynamics of the negotiations tells us that the league and the players are at a stalemate on the issue of the rookie wage scale.

Per the source, the owners still are pushing for five-year contracts for first-round picks. But that approach would make it harder for truly great players to be properly compensated before making it through five years with enough left in the tank to justify a big contract. That would actually make it better for great players to slide into round two, since the players would be eligible for free agency, or at a minimum the franchise tag, after four years of play.

 

[Hostile]

If I were the players I'd hold firm on 4 years.

 

[Stash]

If I were the players I'd hold firm on 4 years.

Agreed.

If you're establishing a lower 'standard rate', rookies should be eligible for their 'big contract' after 4 years.

 

[BrassCowboy]

why not compromise and say that teams can sign 1st rounders to 5 years with first 4 years under a rookie scale, but fifth year be a guaranteed average of top 10 players at his position. The kicker is that the fifth year would be guaranteed at time of signing the player to the five years and there would be no backing out once they hit that fifth year.

to give the owners a chance to back out because maybe the player is a bust, you could make it so owners had until after their 3rd season to cut player, otherwise that 5th year wage is owed to player (4th year not being guaranteed so not paid in said case; and obviously if you wait until after 4th season then might as well keep him on roster since you would have to pay his 5th year salary that would be guaranteed anyways)

 

[ThreeandOut]

I have a hard time believing that this issue is going to keep them from reaching an overall agreement.

 

[Hostile]

I have a hard time believing that this issue is going to keep them from reaching an overall agreement.

It won't.

 

[CooterBrown]

Agreed.

If you're establishing a lower 'standard rate', rookies should be eligible for their 'big contract' after 4 years.

Part of this argument is tied to exactly what the "rookie wage scale" looks like. If it freezes what is already being paid, they already have their first "big contract" and it should be longer.

If the rookie wage scale significantly reduces what owners have to pay first rounders, I'd even go three years contracts for first rounders. At the end of the third year he is what he is. The owners complaint is that they've had to pay too much for guys that haven't proven they can perform in the NFL. After three years if he can't perform, you let him go. If he can, then pay him accordingly.

And since there are two issues tied together here, I don't understand the stalemate. There should be room for give and take unless one side is being unreasonably stubborn. The players should tell the owners, "if you want a lower rookie wage scale, give them shorter contracts to make up for it. If you want longer contracts, give them a higher rookie wage scale. Take your pick, but you can't have both a lower wage scale and longer contracts." And for the owners the reverse argument can be made.

 

[burmafrd]

I think yesterday they wanted to look over the ruling carefully and therefore everything stalled.

I think the Court should have waited another week before making its ruling.

 

[Stash]

It won't.

I think it's a foolish point to be holding things up over.

When the NBA instituted theirs (which should be the model of how to do it), they did it for 3 years I believe. 4 years seems more than reasonable, given the restrictions you'll be placing on their wages.

 

[cowboyjoe]

It won't.

ray:

 

[mmillman]

Agreed.

If you're establishing a lower 'standard rate', rookies should be eligible for their 'big contract' after 4 years.

agreed

 

[Primetime42]

I'd find it hard to believe they can't come to an agreement on this portion after all that's gone on.

It should be 4 years.

 

[big dog cowboy]

It won't.

I wish I had your confidence.

 

[cowboyjoe]

I wish I had your confidence.

we have to believe Big Dog, the LORD can do anything, if we let him. ray:

 

[Reality]

If I were the players I'd hold firm on 4 years.

Same here .. the owners have the ability to negotiate a new contract before the 4 years is up if they feel he is developing or has developed into a solid or super star player.

The 5 years seems nothing more than a way to compensate for the loss of restricted free agents.

-Reality

 

[cowboyjoe]

Same here .. the owners have the ability to negotiate a new contract before the 4 years is up if they feel he is developing or has developed into a solid or super star player.

The 5 years seems nothing more than a way to compensate for the loss of restricted free agents.

-Reality

But dont you want at least 5 years for say 1st round picks? that way you can spread out money for the cap, and have one more year to do so with 5 years?

i understand why the players only want 4 years, so they can get free agency with more money

example with the 5 years and restricted, think about spears, who the previous year was suppose to be a free agent, but restriction kicked in i think

if spears only signed a 4 year deal, would have been gone;

 

[theogt]

Echoing others, I think a 5 year mandatory rookie contract is unreasonable. And I could see it being a deal breaker for the players. They won't budge on that issue, I don't think.

 

[RCowboyFan]

If thats the case I am firmly in Players position. That stance by owners is rediculous if it is true. They want to have the cake and eat it too.

 

[ZeroClub]

That would actually make it better for great players to slide into round two, since the players would be eligible for free agency, or at a minimum the franchise tag, after four years of play.

That'll be a bigger issue.

 

[Muhast]

If thats the case I am firmly in Players position. That stance by owners is rediculous if it is true. They want to have the cake and eat it too.

I don't know. A lot of times a rookie doesn't really come into his own for 2-3 seasons. So if you give them a 4 year deal, you may only get 1-2 good years before they leave, and you still have to pay them.