USA Today: NFL owners push rookie wage scale in agreement

[CCBoy]

NFL owners push rookie wage scale in agreement
By Jarrett Bell, USA TODAY



http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2011-06-19-rookie-wage-scale-cam-newton_n.htm





With the NFL pushing for a rookie wage scale as part of a new labor deal, the quarterback chosen No. 1 overall by the Carolina Panthers and other high draft picks are undoubtedly braced to feel the effects of a major landscape change.

Last year's top pick, Sam Bradford, signed a six-year deal with the St. Louis Rams that guaranteed a record $50 million. In 2009, Detroit Lions quarterback Matthew Stafford got $41 million guaranteed as the No. 1 pick.

Any chance that Newton sees those type of numbers?

"I don't know about that," Panthers owner Jerry Richardson said during NFL meetings in Indianapolis last month. "We don't even have a system in place."

Unlike previous years, when the No. 1 pick was typically signed before the draft, Richardson contended that the Panthers had no pre-draft contract talks with Newton...

 

[Bowdown27]

I think everyone agrees on this one. Rookie pay is ridiculous. Look at recent years Alex smith, Jamarcus Russell, Vernon Glohston etc. Not fair how these guys get paid and other guys don't get close to that

 

[ThreeSportStar80]

I think everyone agrees on this one. Rookie pay is ridiculous. Look at recent years Alex smith, Jamarcus Russell, Vernon Glohston etc. Not fair how these guys get paid and other guys don't get close to that

Amen... This faulty pay scale should have been fixed a looooong time ago though.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

Problem is Matt Ryan and Sam Bradford would be woefully underpaid if they were a part of a rookie scale. Its not fair that they turn a franchise around and get stuck on a scale for 5 years. Leaving them maybe 1 real chance at a free market contract.

Id say 3 guaranteed years for 1st round picks. And a team option for a 4th year that gives them a noticeable raise. Perhaps based on playingt time

If you dont know what your 1st round pick is by 3 years then hes probably a bust anyway

 

[SDCowboy]

Problem is Matt Ryan and Sam Bradford would be woefully underpaid if they were a part of a rookie scale. Its not fair that they turn a franchise around and get stuck on a scale for 5 years. Leaving them maybe 1 real chance at a free market contract.

Id say 3 guaranteed years for 1st round picks. And a team option for a 4th year that gives them a noticeable raise. Perhaps based on playingt time

If you dont know what your 1st round pick is by 3 years then hes probably a bust anyway

True. Getting paid 15 mil instead of 50mil is just disgusting.

 

[ThreeSportStar80]

True. Getting paid 15 mil instead of 50mil is just disgusting.

:laugh2: Oh how horrible...

 

[sonnyboy]

Problem is Matt Ryan and Sam Bradford would be woefully underpaid if they were a part of a rookie scale. Its not fair that they turn a franchise around and get stuck on a scale for 5 years. Leaving them maybe 1 real chance at a free market contract.

Id say 3 guaranteed years for 1st round picks. And a team option for a 4th year that gives them a noticeable raise. Perhaps based on playingt time

If you dont know what your 1st round pick is by 3 years then hes probably a bust anyway

This is close to what I've been suggesting. I can't see how they're going to come up with something "fair" to everyone if they're debating on 4 or 5 yrs.

That's far too long a time frame to seriously reduce the rookie pay.

Here's how I'd do it.

Set a relatively low salary for the 1st overall pick and each pick after that gets a slight decrease until you get to Mr Irrelevant.

I think a annual base salary of 7mil for the 1st pick makes sense.
Every contract for picks in rds 1-3 are two year deals with every penny guaranteed.
Picks 4-7 get a one year deal that comes with a small SB and have to make the team to get the rest of their salary.

Now after two years, we have a tender offer system similar to what has existed previously.

So the first pick made 14 million over two years and gets a new deal.

If the team was to obtain exclusive rights, the tender offer must be significantly higher than the 7 mil dollar base.

The team can also have an option to tender a smaller deal, but the player can negotiate with other teams and the original team gets a right to match.

The tough part is figuring out what these tender offers need to be.

What should a min tender offer be to the first pick after year two to retain his rights and keep him off the market?

How about a 2nd or 3rd rd guy? And of course it gets a litle tougher with the later rd guys who only got one year deals.

What I'm trying to do is come up with something that's fair to everyone. Teams, rookies and vets.

If you keep the rookie deals cheap and short, but guarantee the money I think eveyone wins.

 

[firehawk350]

This is close to what I've been suggesting. I can't see how they're going to come up with something "fair" to everyone if they're debating on 4 or 5 yrs.

That's far too long a time frame to seriously reduce the rookie pay.

Here's how I'd do it.

Set a relatively low salary for the 1st overall pick and each pick after that gets a slight decrease until you get to Mr Irrelevant.

I think a annual base salary of 7mil for the 1st pick makes sense.
Every contract for picks in rds 1-3 are two year deals with every penny guaranteed.
Picks 4-7 get a one year deal that comes with a small SB and have to make the team to get the rest of their salary.

Now after two years, we have a tender offer system similar to what has existed previously.

So the first pick made 14 million over two years and gets a new deal.

If the team was to obtain exclusive rights, the tender offer must be significantly higher than the 7 mil dollar base.

The team can also have an option to tender a smaller deal, but the player can negotiate with other teams and the original team gets a right to match.

The tough part is figuring out what these tender offers need to be.

What should a min tender offer be to the first pick after year two to retain his rights and keep him off the market?

How about a 2nd or 3rd rd guy? And of course it gets a litle tougher with the later rd guys who only got one year deals.

What I'm trying to do is come up with something that's fair to everyone. Teams, rookies and vets.

If you keep the rookie deals cheap and short, but guarantee the money I think eveyone wins.

I don't think anybody will agree to that. The form is going to likely take 4 or 5 year contract for a first rounder, based on slotting, with another option year at an inflated price. I envision somebody getting what they want with the rookie wage scale (at least, relatively) but giving up what they want on the FRoR issue. Those are the two issues left and I think the compromise will be a give for a take.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

True. Getting paid 15 mil instead of 50mil is just disgusting.

I thought about prefacing it but was confident no one would be lame enough to play that card.

32 teams think they are worth something they deserve a chance to get it before their career is over.