Goodell: NFL rookie pay scale ‘ridiculous’

[Patler]

My favorite was Brady Quinn when his agents argued that he should be paid where he was "projected " to be picked. That was a beauty.

The same thing was said by Aaron Rodgers' agent. What they really mean is that first round slots don't apply to QBs, because they are "special"!

[pbmax]

There is a rookie salary cap pool that you cannot exceed, but the cap number only applies to the first year of the contracts. There are limits as to how much base salary can grow per year (25% I believe). However, it does not effectively limit bonuses after the cap limit expires. So agents and players get large bonuses paid to them after the first cap year is over. Many of the top first round contracts contain almost no singing bonus so they can max out the amount of base salary and then collect options and roster bonuses that may be guaranteed.

Second, comparatively speaking, the large contracts are for the first 15 or 16 picks of the first round. After that, they are very reasonable and can run as long as five years (six for the top of the draft I think, Patler can correct the details in a subsequent post ). So this is not as big an issue as it seems if you were thinking ALL rookie contracts are out of whack.

Third, it will be a big deal to the Union even if veterans would agree to a stricter rookie wage scale. Without guaranteed contracts, football players short careers are best compensated by upfront money and any guarantees they can get. These first round deals DO represent real money and are a significant part of the total dollars teams spend on player costs each year. That figure is much more important than the idiotic numbers floated by agents and teams after a new contract is signed or the cap dollars a team is carrying. Player costs are checks actually written.

Florio thinks the Union is against a tighter rookie scale because agents would lose dollars with smaller contracts. I think that is a real, but secondary issue. The bigger issue is money paid to the players. If the savings from this were to go to actual player costs elsewhere, then it wouldn't be a problem. But there is nothing in any rookie wage scale proposal that says teams must spend the saved money on other players. If you tell a veteran that we are getting a new, more restrictive rookie wage scale AND you aren't going to see any new money, then he isn't as likely to vote for it.

The cap numbers for the rookie contracts are pretty low. The Packer draft salary cap pool for Hawk's rookie class was $6,647,633 for 12 players. That's peanuts cap wise. The real number everyone is worries about is actual cash spent on bonuses, etc.

A new rookie wage wouldn't seek to lower the cap numbers, it would seek to lower actual rookie player costs. And there has been no proposal I know of that would enable the union to ensure that even a portion of that saved money will go back to the veterans.

y'know, everyone complains about it - how did it happen??? Can someone enlighten me how we got to this point? It just doesn't make sense.

[Merlin]

I've never been a fan of the huge contracts that rookies from the draft sign. The first things any employer look for in a newly acquired employee is if they show up for work, show up on time, and show up able to do the job with which they were hired for. If you hold out, see ya. If you are physically unable to perform, see ya. Teams that overpay created this mess and now the owners are whining. Seems to me though doth protest too much.

[Scott Campbell]

A new rookie wage wouldn't seek to lower the cap numbers, it would seek to lower actual rookie player costs. And there has been no proposal I know of that would enable the union to ensure that even a portion of that saved money will go back to the veterans.

The saved money would go by default back to more veteran players. The CBA requires that roughly 60% of NFL total income goes to players. If the rookie pool becomes a smaller portion of that 60%, there is more leftover that Ted and others have to spend on free agents, or signing their own.

[pbmax]

Not necessarily. For two reasons. One, the 60% figure is the number the owners want reduced.

But the more important reason is the the 60% of Total Revenue produces the cap number. Teams actually never spend just the cap amount in actual dollars, usually they are well over it. Think signing bonuses in year one and dead cap money for two examples.

Reducing the total amount of money a rookie deal can provide would be a precise way of reducing some teams expenditures without necessarily having ANY affect on the cap. The cap, in terms of actual money spent, is just an accounting tool, a way to count what you MAY spend, past, present and future on recent contracts.

But since the large money deals we are talking about happen for only the top half of the first round, this isn't going to benefit many veterans at all. Not saying it shouldn't be done, but the idea that vets will be all for it and the union can't oppose it is overestimating how much money and how many players this will affect.

A new rookie wage wouldn't seek to lower the cap numbers, it would seek to lower actual rookie player costs. And there has been no proposal I know of that would enable the union to ensure that even a portion of that saved money will go back to the veterans.

The saved money would go by default back to more veteran players. The CBA requires that roughly 60% of NFL total income goes to players. If the rookie pool becomes a smaller portion of that 60%, there is more leftover that Ted and others have to spend on free agents, or signing their own.

[pbmax]

And the CBA does not require the teams to spend 60%, the minimum cap number is a lower percent.

The saved money would go by default back to more veteran players. The CBA requires that roughly 60% of NFL total income goes to players. If the rookie pool becomes a smaller portion of that 60%, there is more leftover that Ted and others have to spend on free agents, or signing their own.

[Patler]

And the CBA does not require the teams to spend 60%, the minimum cap number is a lower percent.

The saved money would go by default back to more veteran players. The CBA requires that roughly 60% of NFL total income goes to players. If the rookie pool becomes a smaller portion of that 60%, there is more leftover that Ted and others have to spend on free agents, or signing their own.

In 2008, the minimum team salary is 86.4% of the team salary cap. It started at 84% in 2006, and was to go up 1.2% each year to a max of 90%.