CBA clause I didn't know about

[Guiness]

Saw an article over at PFT about Russell Wilson's contract situation.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-new-contract/
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ussell-wilson/

Seems that the new CBA prohibits renegotiating the contact until 3 of the mandatory 4 years have been fulfilled! What an awful clause for 3rd rounders and later (2nd rounders as well, really) that greatly outperform their contracts! Off the top of my head, I can think of 3 players who will pay dearly for this - Wilson, Kaepernick and Alfred Morris, the Redskins rookie RB.

Morris maybe worse than the others, given the lifespan of RBs it's possible he only has 3 good years. If the 'skins detect any drop off in year 3, they could ride his through year 4 of the contact and let him walk.

[pbmax]

Saw an article over at PFT about Russell Wilson's contract situation.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-new-contract/
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ussell-wilson/

Seems that the new CBA prohibits renegotiating the contact until 3 of the mandatory 4 years have been fulfilled! What an awful clause for 3rd rounders and later (2nd rounders as well, really) that greatly outperform their contracts! Off the top of my head, I can think of 3 players who will pay dearly for this - Wilson, Kaepernick and Alfred Morris, the Redskins rookie RB.

Morris maybe worse than the others, given the lifespan of RBs it's possible he only has 3 good years. If the 'skins detect any drop off in year 3, they could ride his through year 4 of the contact and let him walk.

I think, roughly speaking this is the price they paid to get shorter contracts for most of the draft picks. It was the NFLPA's big win while overall money to draft picks was lowered.

[Guiness]

I think, roughly speaking this is the price they paid to get shorter contracts for most of the draft picks. It was the NFLPA's big win while overall money to draft picks was lowered.

Then they really sold out late rounders (those guys don't have much of a voice) that greatly outplay their contracts - mostly, I guess, to shorten contracts for the 1st and 2nd rounders, who would've been millionaires anyways. At least, that's the view I get from here.

[mraynrand]

you can always hold out

[Patler]

Then they really sold out late rounders (those guys don't have much of a voice) that greatly outplay their contracts - mostly, I guess, to shorten contracts for the 1st and 2nd rounders, who would've been millionaires anyways. At least, that's the view I get from here.

Players drafted in Rounds 3-7 have a "Proven Performance Escalator" that increases their 4th year salary if they participate in 35% or more of the offensive or defensive plays in two of their first three seasons, or on average for all three seasons. Essentially, their salary is escalated to that of the qualifying offer for a RFA in that season at the right of first refusal level.

[Guiness]

Players drafted in Rounds 3-7 have a "Proven Performance Escalator" that increases their 4th year salary if they participate in 35% or more of the offensive or defensive plays in two of their first three seasons, or on average for all three seasons. Essentially, their salary is escalated to that of the qualifying offer for a RFA in that season at the right of first refusal level.

Qualifying offer for what level? There are three RFA tenders. From Wikipedia:

Tender amount	Compensation required
$2.742 million	First-round
$1.927 million	Second-round
$1.26 million	Determined by RFA's original draft status (see below)

I assume Wilson has participated in >90% of Seattle's offensive snaps, so he'll qualify based on average around week 3 of next season. If his salary increases to $1.26 million, that's still pretty much chump change for a starting QB. For the next two years he's going to be afraid to take his OL out for supper!

[mraynrand]

I assume Wilson has participated in >90% of Seattle's offensive snaps, so he'll qualify based on average around week 3 of next season. If his salary increases to $1.26 million, that's still pretty much chump change for a starting QB. For the next two years he's going to be afraid to take his OL out for supper!

Can he buy them Isotoner gloves, or is that considered passé?

[Patler]

Players drafted in Rounds 3-7 have a "Proven Performance Escalator" that increases their 4th year salary if they participate in 35% or more of the offensive or defensive plays in two of their first three seasons, or on average for all three seasons. Essentially, their salary is escalated to that of the qualifying offer for a RFA in that season at the right of first refusal level.

Qualifying offer for what level? There are three RFA tenders. From Wikipedia:


[/table]

I assume Wilson has participated in >90% of Seattle's offensive snaps, so he'll qualify based on average around week 3 of next season. If his salary increases to $1.26 million, that's still pretty much chump change for a starting QB. For the next two years he's going to be afraid to take his OL out for supper!

As I said, "at the right of first refusal level". Those words are taken directly from the CBA, although I left out the word "only" at the end, because all levels include the right of first refusal and generally the tender is referenced by the highest element of compensation (1st round tender, 2nd round tender, draft round tender, right of first refusal tender.)

Don't know about your Wikipedia reference, I look directly at the CBA for answers.

[Patler]

Realistically, in the past how often did a rookie with a four year contract get anything before the third or fourth year anyway? I doubt Wilson would have had much success renegotiating after just one season under the old CBA either. All Seattle has to do is think back to Rick Mirer. Full year starter, rookie records galore, rookie of the year, relegated to backup roles just a few years later. I don't think that will happen to Wilson, but his career path could follow Greg Cooks, or any number of QBs that looked like the real thing but didn't pass the test of time due to injuries or ability. Teams now know Wilson, and will adapt. He has to prove himself year after year, just as others do, and just as he would have had to under the old CBA.

A single good season just isn't and really never has been enough to tear up a multi-year contract.

[pbmax]

Realistically, in the past how often did a rookie with a four year contract get anything before the third or fourth year anyway? I doubt Wilson would have had much success renegotiating after just one season under the old CBA either. All Seattle has to do is think back to Rick Mirer. Full year starter, rookie records galore, rookie of the year, relegated to backup roles just a few years later. I don't think that will happen to Wilson, but his career path could follow Greg Cooks, or any number of QBs that looked like the real thing but didn't pass the test of time due to injuries or ability. Teams now know Wilson, and will adapt. He has to prove himself year after year, just as others do, and just as he would have had to under the old CBA.

A single good season just isn't and really never has been enough to tear up a multi-year contract.

QBs are probably the exception because their success speaks far louder to the public. But good luck if you are an ILB or Guard.

[Patler]

QBs are probably the exception because their success speaks far louder to the public. But good luck if you are an ILB or Guard.

Of course most successful 1st year QBs have been high first round picks with good contracts anyway, but I can't think of a QB or any player that renegotiated after just one season. Not saying there haven't been some, but I sure can't think of any.

[Guiness]

I don't think he would or should get something after 1 year, I was thinking more after the second if he's the starter for two full seasons. Kaepernick will probably renegotiate after next year, after 1.5 years starting. Russell will likely be the lowest paid starting QB in the league during his 3rd season if he continues to succeed.

I was more looking at the fact that Seattle CAN'T renegotiate even if they would like to. Of course, the owners probably want it that way so they can say "We'd love to, but..."

[Patler]

Looking at the CBA provisions for rookies, there are some interesting distinctions in terminology, such as "extended" vs "renegotiated". The most obvious provision states that a rookie contract may not be "renegotiated, amended or altered in any way" until after year three. Two paragraphs later it states that any permissible renegotiated or extended player contract shall not be considered a rookie contract and shall not be subject to the limits for rookie contracts.

If a rookie contract can not be "renegotiated, amended or altered in any way" does that prohibit "extending" it? Probably, but a new term entered just four lines of text later, in a clause specifically referencing permitted acts is intriguing.

For example, a second contract could be written so as to not alter anything in the initial contract. It could be written to become effective immediately after the first one expires, but during the time period in which the former club has exclusive negotiating rights. A totally separate and independent contract with a guaranteed payment due after expiration of the current contract. It doesn't give him the money now, but it does guarantee that it will be paid in the future.

This of course could make for interesting situations, such as a player being released and a free agent, but for a limited time only. Sounds crazy, I know, but that is where a lot of new personal service contract provisions come from, arguments that are initially crazy sounding.

"Curt Flood is refusing to be traded? What are he and his agent smoking?" Even if the original argument fails, it can lead to changes.

[Guiness]

Looking at the CBA provisions for rookies, there are some interesting distinctions in terminology, such as "extended" vs "renegotiated". The most obvious provision states that a rookie contract may not be "renegotiated, amended or altered in any way" until after year three. Two paragraphs later it states that any permissible renegotiated or extended player contract shall not be considered a rookie contract and shall not be subject to the limits for rookie contracts.

If a rookie contract can not be "renegotiated, amended or altered in any way" does that prohibit "extending" it? Probably, but a new term entered just four lines of text later, in a clause specifically referencing permitted acts is intriguing.

For example, a second contract could be written so as to not alter anything in the initial contract. It could be written to become effective immediately after the first one expires, but during the time period in which the former club has exclusive negotiating rights. A totally separate and independent contract with a guaranteed payment due after expiration of the current contract. It doesn't give him the money now, but it does guarantee that it will be paid in the future.

This of course could make for interesting situations, such as a player being released and a free agent, but for a limited time only. Sounds crazy, I know, but that is where a lot of new personal service contract provisions come from, arguments that are initially crazy sounding.

"Curt Flood is refusing to be traded? What are he and his agent smoking?" Even if the original argument fails, it can lead to changes.

Good find! That's some pretty deep digging and you found a nugget. I'm not sure what it means...to my (IANAL!) mind, extending is a form of amending. What does that other paragraph mean? If it can be extended, and is then no longer considered a rookie contract, can it then be renegotiated? Doesn't add up real well to me.