Rookie salary cap proposal by NFLPA?

[Guiness]

From Sportsline

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/12743911/upcoming-labor-talks-to-include-rookie-wage-scale


NEW YORK -- A rookie wage scale is among the issues the NFL and the players union are expected to discuss during labor negotiations this week.

The NFL Players Association has presented a proposal that would include redirecting money paid to rookies into veterans' contracts instead. The union's plan would have a scale or cap for how much rookies would be paid, and the 32 teams would use the money saved from those contracts on established players. As much as $200 million could be involved.

That proposal was made to the league before Christmas.

"We called it the proven performance plan," NFLPA assistant executive director George Atallah said Monday.

The next negotiations are set for Tuesday.

Detroit signed quarterback Matthew Stafford, the top pick in last April's draft, to a six-year contract worth $78 million overall, with $41.7 million in guarantees. Offensive tackle Jason Smith, the second overall pick, got $62 million with incentives, $33 million in guaranteed money.

The contract between the NFL and its player expires after the 2010 season. That season will not have a salary cap under the current agreement. The NFL opted out of the collective bargaining agreement in 2008.

The contract was negotiated in 2006 by then-commissioner Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw, the union leader who died in 2008.

Want to see this badly myself.

I think the money teams have to pay for a top 10 pick hurts their ability to be competitive...and they got the pick by not being competitive in the first place!!! That money put into one player is a significant portion of the salary cap, money they can't spend on proven players. Teams that didn't do well this year don't need a potential superstar, they need to sign 3-4 journeymen who can hold the fort in one of the many holes they invariably have on their team.

I think a rookie cap would make draft day much more interesting too. I think you would see a lot more teams trading quality backups for higher picks in the first round. Giving them a chance at a superstar, and giving a bad team some quality players.

[SkinBasket]

A three year set rookie contract that increases at the same rate as the salary cap each year with a team option for a fourth would be great. Set UFA rights to 5 years service, allowing the drafting team to compete for the players' service as a RFA after that fourth year.

No more rookie holdouts. No more self important posturing. No more missed TC.

The biggest problem I would see is just how many rounds and picks there are to scale through, and then the rules for undrafted free agents. Well that and treating the next few years worth of rookies for the depression stemming from them comparing their contracts to Ryan Leaf's rookie deal.

[sheepshead]

This cannot be understated in my opinion. I have been an advocate of trading out of the first round at every opportunity for this very reason. A few bad choices in the first round and a team is handcuffed for years.

[Fritz]

A three year set rookie contract that increases at the same rate as the salary cap each year with a team option for a fourth would be great. Set UFA rights to 5 years service, allowing the drafting team to compete for the players' service as a RFA after that fourth year.

No more rookie holdouts. No more self important posturing. No more missed TC.

The biggest problem I would see is just how many rounds and picks there are to scale through, and then the rules for undrafted free agents. Well that and treating the next few years worth of rookies for the depression stemming from them comparing their contracts to Ryan Leaf's rookie deal.

I wonder what agents will try to do to get around this. I'm just wondering, for example, if rookie X (say, some guy named Manning or Elway) doesn't want to play for the team that drafted him. On top of this he knows he's getting furshitzen for a salary his first contract. So would he threaten to just not report if Team A drafts him - the team he doesn't want to play for?

I'm just speculating if the imposition of a rookie cap would be an incentive for the rooks to then try to finagle their way onto the teams they want to play for.

I am in favor of a rookie cap, by the way. And that they should be hazed and forced to sing their college football songs and all that crap, too.

[bobblehead]

This cannot be understated in my opinion. I have been an advocate of trading out of the first round at every opportunity for this very reason. A few bad choices in the first round and a team is handcuffed for years.

I been saying the same...I think the Vikes gave up a lot for JA, but could they have hit a JA with the picks they gave up?? And how much would they have paid a couple of first round busts? I wouldn't be heart broken if we had traded the Hawk and Harrell picks for a top 5 DE in the league. As a matter of fact I was hoping the pack would drop a high pick or 2 for fat albert (WAshington is where players go to die), but he didn't get tagged.

[pbmax]

That plan has no chance currently. The owners want cash back, not cash shifted to other players. Virtually no team in the league was near their cap total at the start of the season, so the argument that rookies are getting money that veterans would otherwise would be getting is nonsense under the game's current economics. This both confirms part of the Union's argument against the "need" for a rookie wage scale and it confirms that the owners simply want to have lower play costs, not redistributed player costs.

The Union has likely hatched this plan to smoke out the Owners on this issue, so they might retreat from the popular high ground that rookies are being paid at the expense of more deserving vets.

Read this article (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4793411) by Mortenson (from an email memo by the NFLPA) to see what the owners have actually asked for.

[pbmax]

A three year set rookie contract that increases at the same rate as the salary cap each year with a team option for a fourth would be great. Set UFA rights to 5 years service, allowing the drafting team to compete for the players' service as a RFA after that fourth year.

No more rookie holdouts. No more self important posturing. No more missed TC.

The biggest problem I would see is just how many rounds and picks there are to scale through, and then the rules for undrafted free agents. Well that and treating the next few years worth of rookies for the depression stemming from them comparing their contracts to Ryan Leaf's rookie deal.
I wonder what agents will try to do to get around this. I'm just wondering, for example, if rookie X (say, some guy named Manning or Elway) doesn't want to play for the team that drafted him. On top of this he knows he's getting furshitzen for a salary his first contract. So would he threaten to just not report if Team A drafts him - the team he doesn't want to play for?

I'm just speculating if the imposition of a rookie cap would be an incentive for the rooks to then try to finagle their way onto the teams they want to play for.

I am in favor of a rookie cap, by the way. And that they should be hazed and forced to sing their college football songs and all that crap, too.
PFT indicates agents are ticked at Roger Goodell who went on record recently to tell college players not to leave school early due to fears that a coming Rookie Wage Scale would limit their first contract. Goodell insisted that any rookie wage scale would be for the 2012 season at the earliest and not before, but the recent proposal called for the wage scale immediately.

[SkinBasket]

A three year set rookie contract that increases at the same rate as the salary cap each year with a team option for a fourth would be great. Set UFA rights to 5 years service, allowing the drafting team to compete for the players' service as a RFA after that fourth year.

No more rookie holdouts. No more self important posturing. No more missed TC.

The biggest problem I would see is just how many rounds and picks there are to scale through, and then the rules for undrafted free agents. Well that and treating the next few years worth of rookies for the depression stemming from them comparing their contracts to Ryan Leaf's rookie deal.

I wonder what agents will try to do to get around this. I'm just wondering, for example, if rookie X (say, some guy named Manning or Elway) doesn't want to play for the team that drafted him. On top of this he knows he's getting furshitzen for a salary his first contract. So would he threaten to just not report if Team A drafts him - the team he doesn't want to play for?

I'm just speculating if the imposition of a rookie cap would be an incentive for the rooks to then try to finagle their way onto the teams they want to play for.

I am in favor of a rookie cap, by the way. And that they should be hazed and forced to sing their college football songs and all that crap, too.

I'm assuming if they're being slotted into contracts like the NBA, they could also change the draft so that teams own the rights to the player regardless of whether he reports or not. No more of his nonsense of threatening to sit around for a year and re-enter the draft - where you'll be drafted by a different crappy team.

If they don't want to play for the team that drafted them, they can always go try that new 4 team league and see how they like their salary and endorsement deals there.

[cheesner]

That plan has no chance currently. The owners want cash back, not cash shifted to other players. Virtually no team in the league was near their cap total at the start of the season, so the argument that rookies are getting money that veterans would otherwise would be getting is nonsense under the game's current economics. This both confirms part of the Union's argument against the "need" for a rookie wage scale and it confirms that the owners simply want to have lower play costs, not redistributed player costs.

The Union has likely hatched this plan to smoke out the Owners on this issue, so they might retreat from the popular high ground that rookies are being paid at the expense of more deserving vets.

Read this article (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4793411) by Mortenson (from an email memo by the NFLPA) to see what the owners have actually asked for.Most teams have cap space at the start of the season, like the Packers. Most teams, however, restructure, resign, extend, sign new players throughtout the season. Very little cap space is lost each season by most teams.

This is definitely a push to reduce a team's financial risks when they draft early. I can't see how all NFL teams wouldn't be for this as well as 95% of players. Besides, the only ones who are going to be affected, aren't even members of the union yet.

[pbmax]

That plan has no chance currently. The owners want cash back, not cash shifted to other players. Virtually no team in the league was near their cap total at the start of the season, so the argument that rookies are getting money that veterans would otherwise would be getting is nonsense under the game's current economics. This both confirms part of the Union's argument against the "need" for a rookie wage scale and it confirms that the owners simply want to have lower play costs, not redistributed player costs.

The Union has likely hatched this plan to smoke out the Owners on this issue, so they might retreat from the popular high ground that rookies are being paid at the expense of more deserving vets.

Read this article (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4793411) by Mortenson (from an email memo by the NFLPA) to see what the owners have actually asked for.Most teams have cap space at the start of the season, like the Packers. Most teams, however, restructure, resign, extend, sign new players throughtout the season. Very little cap space is lost each season by most teams.

This is definitely a push to reduce a team's financial risks when they draft early. I can't see how all NFL teams wouldn't be for this as well as 95% of players. Besides, the only ones who are going to be affected, aren't even members of the union yet.
If teams have additional cap space, it makes sense to push it forward to use the following year. But this year, there was no cap relief to be found as next year there will be no cap absent a new agreement. Teams still spent well under the cap limit. So that logic does not explain most team's behavior.

Furthermore, teams aren't just under the cap, they are well below the total number of dollars that could be alloted by the CBA to player costs. So they are not simply using CBA accounting magic to manage the team better and prepare for the future, they are trying to spend less cash as well.

Which is what puts the lie to this proposal. This proposal moves money from rookies to veterans. While this is the popular argument for why the NFL needs a rookie wage scale, that is not why the owners want the scale. They want total cost lowered. They do not want to save money in one player area and then spend it on other players. They want total costs lowered. Which is a reasonable argument for any business. But this Union proposal does not do that.

There will be no management types who agree to this deal to shift player spending from one group to another. The only way that kind of agreement will be made is if players give back money somewhere else. This proposal does not accomplish what the owners want. Which makes sense. The Union proposed it.

As for most players being for it, possibly. But several veterans (including Robert Smith, formerly of the Vikings) have been at pains to point out that a Rookie Wage Scale alone will not shift one dollar to veterans, unless other steps are taken.

[Patler]

That plan has no chance currently. The owners want cash back, not cash shifted to other players. Virtually no team in the league was near their cap total at the start of the season, so the argument that rookies are getting money that veterans would otherwise would be getting is nonsense under the game's current economics. This both confirms part of the Union's argument against the "need" for a rookie wage scale and it confirms that the owners simply want to have lower play costs, not redistributed player costs.

The Union has likely hatched this plan to smoke out the Owners on this issue, so they might retreat from the popular high ground that rookies are being paid at the expense of more deserving vets.

Read this article (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4793411) by Mortenson (from an email memo by the NFLPA) to see what the owners have actually asked for.

I think the owners want both, lower player costs overall and redistribution of those lowered costs, primarily as it relates to the top of the first round of the draft. The first is for direct and immediate impact on profitability, and I agree is probably their primary goal. The second is more of a long range impact on profitability by promoting competitiveness of all teams, and to eliminate the headache of trying to get the top rookies into camp.

It used to be that high draft picks were good to have, and many teams traded up to get them. Then, the high picks were good so long as you didn't make a mistake and commit a lot of guaranteed money to a player who didn't contribute. Now, some owners feel shackled by the guaranteed money given to the high picks whether or not the player succeeds. Unless he becomes a true super star, he is often overpaid.

[pbmax]

The second is more of a long range impact on profitability by promoting competitiveness of all teams, and to eliminate the headache of trying to get the top rookies into camp.
This may be a goal, but I am not convinced that this group of owners are seriously interested in any balance. They have already opted out of local revenue sharing. I think their interest in competitive balance ends when its their dime.

The only reason small market clubs would agree to this (to essentially give up a significant stream of revenue) would be a promise to extract cost savings from the players. That, and the fact that with the uncapped year the low revenue teams will be able to escape the salary minimum in 2010. So they will realize an immediate benefit even with the revenue hit. After that, before fans can realize that their franchise is no longer competing to win on an equal footing (that football suddenly looks much more like baseball), there is the threat of a lockout.

If the players concede the money, then some of that might be put to use for the sake of league-wide health. Short of that, this ownership group does not like propping up low-revenue franchises.

What we really need is for someone to chart the actual money realized on all the first round contracts, and compare it to the public numbers. I would bet that number is not growing as fast as it looks.

[mraynrand]

This cannot be understated in my opinion. I have been an advocate of trading out of the first round at every opportunity for this very reason. A few bad choices in the first round and a team is handcuffed for years.

I been saying the same...I think the Vikes gave up a lot for JA, but could they have hit a JA with the picks they gave up?? And how much would they have paid a couple of first round busts? I wouldn't be heart broken if we had traded the Hawk and Harrell picks for a top 5 DE in the league. As a matter of fact I was hoping the pack would drop a high pick or 2 for fat albert (WAshington is where players go to die), but he didn't get tagged.

Seems like a bad year to make this stand. Want to trade away Raji and Matthews?

And trade the Hawk pick (#5) and the Harrell pick (#16) for a top 5 DE? That seems like wishful thinking.

[cheesner]

This cannot be understated in my opinion. I have been an advocate of trading out of the first round at every opportunity for this very reason. A few bad choices in the first round and a team is handcuffed for years.

I been saying the same...I think the Vikes gave up a lot for JA, but could they have hit a JA with the picks they gave up?? And how much would they have paid a couple of first round busts? I wouldn't be heart broken if we had traded the Hawk and Harrell picks for a top 5 DE in the league. As a matter of fact I was hoping the pack would drop a high pick or 2 for fat albert (WAshington is where players go to die), but he didn't get tagged.

Seems like a bad year to make this stand. Want to trade away Raji and Matthews?

And trade the Hawk pick (#5) and the Harrell pick (#16) for a top 5 DE? That seems like wishful thinking.

Its easy to pick the poor draft picks several years after the fact. To add to Mr. Aryn's message - how about trading AR also?

There is also risk with JA. He is his 3rd DUI away from spending a year at home.