PDA

View Full Version : insight to the CBA concerning rookies



arapaho2
02-14-2011, 04:18 PM
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/The-Rookie-Sacrifice-NFL-NFLPA-proposals-unveiled.html


One of the major issues in the NFL-NFLPA collective bargaining negotiations has been compensation to rookie players. Unlike a lot of intricate issues of the bargaining process, this one resonates with fans and media.
As I have said often (http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Russells-enormous-cost-to-the-Raiders.html), rookies will be sacrificed in this negotiation. With so many other tough issues to iron out, the “rookie issue” should go smoothly. Owners think rookies make too much; veteran NFL players think rookies make too much; and save for a handful of player agents, no one is advocating for incoming players.
The truth is that not all rookies make too much. In fact, very few do. And the proposals of each side primarily address that group, albeit with some demands from ownership that affect the entire incoming class.


read the full story

Juriga72
02-14-2011, 05:14 PM
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/The-Rookie-Sacrifice-NFL-NFLPA-proposals-unveiled.html


One of the major issues in the NFL-NFLPA collective bargaining negotiations has been compensation to rookie players. Unlike a lot of intricate issues of the bargaining process, this one resonates with fans and media.
As I have said often (http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Russells-enormous-cost-to-the-Raiders.html), rookies will be sacrificed in this negotiation. With so many other tough issues to iron out, the “rookie issue” should go smoothly. Owners think rookies make too much; veteran NFL players think rookies make too much; and save for a handful of player agents, no one is advocating for incoming players.
The truth is that not all rookies make too much. In fact, very few do. And the proposals of each side primarily address that group, albeit with some demands from ownership that affect the entire incoming class.

Rookies should make SQUAT.... Sorry kids.... but becoming millionaires before you have played one snap?

Go have more illegitimate kids... and bring your shine box

arapaho2
02-14-2011, 05:27 PM
Rookies should make SQUAT.... Sorry kids.... but becoming millionaires before you have played one snap?

Go have more illegitimate kids... and bring your shine box

rookies need to make something....teams just shouldnt have to pay a top rookie more than a proven vet

JaxBroncoGirl
02-14-2011, 06:16 PM
So someone like Percy Harvin should not be paid good money. What about the team that drafts the rookies? The team should be able to set the pay and not the NFL. Just my opinion here, but it seems logical that the team that drafts all or any rookies should set the pay scale. If the rookie does not work out, shame on the team that drafts them. Not all rookies are great yet some rookies are fantastic. I do not want to see a Rookie Standard Pay scale. If we do that then we need a pay scale for all the players. I just do not see this as a win-win situation at all.

arapaho2
02-14-2011, 06:30 PM
So someone like Percy Harvin should not be paid good money. What about the team that drafts the rookies? The team should be able to set the pay and not the NFL. Just my opinion here, but it seems logical that the team that drafts all or any rookies should set the pay scale. If the rookie does not work out, shame on the team that drafts them. Not all rookies are great yet some rookies are fantastic. I do not want to see a Rookie Standard Pay scale. If we do that then we need a pay scale for all the players. I just do not see this as a win-win situation at all.

i guess the raiders paying jamarcus russel 31 million would tend to disagree

clearly though you dont understand the basics of the former cba

and clearly you dont see the issue of paying mega millions to a unproven rookie while forced to cut proven players to accomidate the rookies salary

nevcraw
02-14-2011, 08:46 PM
careful what you wish for boys and girls..

If they are not careful and try to go cheap with the rookie salaries the NFL will lose the talent to MLB, NBA, and the NHL ;-).
They need to better than competitve cuz the others sports promise less bodily harm.

PAINTERDAVE
02-15-2011, 12:40 AM
Crikey.. the base pay for ANY player is like 900,000..

so any rookie gets a ton of cash.

The first rounders will get more...

I agree... adjusting the rookie numbers will be the EASIEST part of the deal.

sneakers
02-15-2011, 12:59 AM
Once you get into the second round, rookies pay scale is a little more realistic. It is just the first round rookies that need to be more realistic,.

Dirk
02-15-2011, 06:46 AM
A rookie pay scale would do more good than bad. The rookie contracts have gotten out of hand.

Juriga72
02-15-2011, 08:29 AM
rookies need to make something....teams just shouldnt have to pay a top rookie more than a proven vet

THATS what endorsement deals are for.....

Look at Cam Newton.... MORE than 1.5mill/year with Under Armour for 5-6 years....

Let him make squat from the NFL untill he proves NOT to be a bust...

I could live off 1.5 for 5 years..........for about a month

JaxBroncoGirl
02-15-2011, 10:20 AM
i guess the raiders paying jamarcus russel 31 million would tend to disagree

clearly though you dont understand the basics of the former cba

and clearly you dont see the issue of paying mega millions to a unproven rookie while forced to cut proven players to accomidate the rookies salary

I agree that the Rookie is a gamble, I just do not see capping rookies verses not capping the rest of the players. Because I am a rookie, and I am Percy Harvin, I should be capped because someone like Russell loves his cool-aid and could not make into the big time because he cannot give up the cool-aid. Do you think Russell just started the cool-aid when he got to the NFL, No he has been drinking it since college.

rcsodak
02-15-2011, 10:38 AM
I agree that the Rookie is a gamble, I just do not see capping rookies verses not capping the rest of the players. Because I am a rookie, and I am Percy Harvin, I should be capped because someone like Russell loves his cool-aid and could not make into the big time because he cannot give up the cool-aid. Do you think Russell just started the cool-aid when he got to the NFL, No he has been drinking it since college.
College grads hired in their 1st jobs. Havd to prove their worth, move up the ladder and THEN realize bigger payouts. Same should go for guys that play a game for a living.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Lonestar
02-16-2011, 01:48 AM
College grads hired in their 1st jobs. Have to prove their worth, move up the ladder and THEN realize bigger payouts. Same should go for guys that play a game for a living.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Just way to logical for folks to understand the real world.

Ravage!!!
02-16-2011, 02:28 AM
Other jobs don't bring in MILLIONS to their business purely because the kid is hired. In the NFL, as soon as that player's name is pronounced on stage as being drafted, that franchise can make MILLIONS off his name alone. So stop trying to compare the normal working force with the NFL. Its not the same, will never be the same, and the sooner people realize this and get past their jealous perspective the easier it is. But then, that might be TOO logical for people in the REAL world to get. :rolleyes:

Lets also realize that most rookies are more valuable to the franchise when young and early years. What happens to a RB that helps lead his team to a SB with in his first 3-5 years of the NFL. After that, its pure decline for the player.

Don't expect their to be much change for rookie salaries. There just won't be. In fact, if there is one thing I expect the owners to 'cave' majorly on, it will be the rookie salary cap issue. Its something they can use now as something to "give in" on.

Money saved on rookies will NOT go to veteran players. Thats already been shown as teams that are WAY under the salary cap don't give more money to vet players. So the lessening of money to the rookies won't put more money into the vets pockets, it will only put more money into the owner's pockets.

Many vets have explained that the large rookie contracts are what drives up the value of the vet contracts.

Dirk
02-16-2011, 07:26 AM
I think a 2 year rookie salary cap is fine. Let the rooks come into the NFL and prove themselves for 2 years. After 2 years, they can get their payday.

I'm all for someone grabbing a payday for their talent, but giving someone a 60+ million dollar contract with millions in guarenteed money without ever being on an NFL field is rediculous.

And no I am not jealous. I know that there are only a handful of players in the country that can be an NFL QB versus the thousands that can be a corporate manager of sorts. It's just crazy that a rookie should get that kind of jack without even stepping foot on the NFL field.

A rookie salary cap is a good thing for teams. Both the owners and the players. If a player like Jamarcus would have been capped, they wouldn't have kept trying to get their money back from him. They could have just cut him and moved on. The team as a whole is better off.

claymore
02-16-2011, 07:47 AM
careful what you wish for boys and girls..

If they are not careful and try to go cheap with the rookie salaries the NFL will lose the talent to MLB, NBA, and the NHL ;-).
They need to better than competitve cuz the others sports promise less bodily harm.

Very few athletes have what it takes to play 2 sports proffesionally. Truth is, if 50,000 dollars a year were the starting salary, the vast majority of the players wouldnt have a better option.

I would sacrifice the the top tier educated players that could actually have another career if it meant cheeper ticket prices.

Ravage!!!
02-16-2011, 02:18 PM
Very few athletes have what it takes to play 2 sports proffesionally. Truth is, if 50,000 dollars a year were the starting salary, the vast majority of the players wouldnt have a better option.

I would sacrifice the the top tier educated players that could actually have another career if it meant cheeper ticket prices.

Not me, because I can watch the game on TV. I want the BEST talent available to give me the BEST football. Going to the game means squat to me since I don't live near a stadium. You can see the game better from the big screen, hi-def TV and surround sound anyway. Cheaper food, softer seats, and instant replay at my touch and choosing. Not to mention a streaming set of stats and other games right at eye-level.

Juriga72
02-16-2011, 02:29 PM
Not me, because I can watch the game on TV. I want the BEST talent available to give me the BEST football. Going to the game means squat to me since I don't live near a stadium. You can see the game better from the big screen, hi-def TV and surround sound anyway. Cheaper food, softer seats, and instant replay at my touch and choosing. Not to mention a streaming set of stats and other games right at eye-level.

Even Rodger understand that because the NFL has its highest TV rastings ever.... THIS ^ is going to kill owners very soon.

WHO wants to spend 500.00 for every home game 8 times a year? I would rather sit alos on my couch watching my NFL package HDTV. I spend less on the Direct TV for the whole year and all 256 NFL games I can tape/re-watch when I want to.... as opposed to driving 8 hours ONE way, paying for a hotel room, food, gas, Parking, beer, beer,beer,beer,beer.... then going to game and buying more beer......

THEN driving 8 hours home.

IMHO the rising costs of going to the game will kill this golden goose very soon.

vandammage13
02-16-2011, 04:54 PM
Other jobs don't bring in MILLIONS to their business purely because the kid is hired. In the NFL, as soon as that player's name is pronounced on stage as being drafted, that franchise can make MILLIONS off his name alone....

There are very few players that come out in each draft that a team makes "millions" off of their names. For every 1 Tim Tebow, Ndumukong Suh or Sam Bradford, you have about 25 Tyson Alualu's, Jared Odrick's, or Jarry Hughes' coming out. Do you really think teams are making millions off their names?

vandammage13
02-16-2011, 04:59 PM
Money saved on rookies will NOT go to veteran players. Thats already been shown as teams that are WAY under the salary cap don't give more money to vet players. So the lessening of money to the rookies won't put more money into the vets pockets, it will only put more money into the owner's pockets.

True...Less money spent on rookies doesn't mean more for the vets. But one way or another, owners are going to be spending less money, so the cut in spending is going to have to come from somewhere. I'm sure the vets prefer the rookies getting shortchanged rather than them.

The vets won't be making more with this change in the rookie payscale, but at least they won't be making less....

Poet
02-16-2011, 06:05 PM
Other jobs don't bring in MILLIONS to their business purely because the kid is hired. In the NFL, as soon as that player's name is pronounced on stage as being drafted, that franchise can make MILLIONS off his name alone. So stop trying to compare the normal working force with the NFL. Its not the same, will never be the same, and the sooner people realize this and get past their jealous perspective the easier it is. But then, that might be TOO logical for people in the REAL world to get. :rolleyes:

Lets also realize that most rookies are more valuable to the franchise when young and early years. What happens to a RB that helps lead his team to a SB with in his first 3-5 years of the NFL. After that, its pure decline for the player.

Don't expect their to be much change for rookie salaries. There just won't be. In fact, if there is one thing I expect the owners to 'cave' majorly on, it will be the rookie salary cap issue. Its something they can use now as something to "give in" on.

Money saved on rookies will NOT go to veteran players. Thats already been shown as teams that are WAY under the salary cap don't give more money to vet players. So the lessening of money to the rookies won't put more money into the vets pockets, it will only put more money into the owner's pockets.

Many vets have explained that the large rookie contracts are what drives up the value of the vet contracts.
This.

Drawing 'real world' conclusions is silly and illogical. No team has ever lost money on a rookie. JaMarcus Russell sold a lot of jerseys and brought a lot of excitement and fans back to the stadium to watch him play. He ended up failing miserably as a player, but after being cut and what not, he MADE Al Davis money.

Veteran players do not get cut because of rookies. That's another myth. I have never heard of a good veteran getting cut because a team drafted a high priced rookie. Ever.

Also, the myth about young college kids coming in and earning their worth and then getting paid is not linkable to this. For instance, journalists get fired or replaced by younger guys fresh out of college. There's no 'you get paid' later unless you become an editor or something like that.

How is that applicable? I'm sure all the LB's coming out of college are going to get signed, instantly replace all the old LB's and then get a pay raise when they become a quarterback?

Rookies are not typically overpaid. In fact, look at the veteran's getting overpaid. Richard Seymour is worth ten million dollars for his production? Nate Clements was worth that 90 million dollar deal? Justin Smith is living up to his contract in San Fran?

Players get overpaid for a variety of reasons. Sometimes teams are just stupid, look at what the Redskins paid Archuletta and Randle El. Sometimes the FA class is weak at a position. Other times the FA class only has one true stud that everyone is fighting for, see Julius Peppers last year.

Other times a player has a stud year and gets paid for it. Then they don't live up to it.

Other times a player gets more money than they should because they draw in fans.

I'm not on either "side" on the CBA because I think the players and the owners are both dipshits, but the rookie wage scale is stupid.

I'm going into a hazardous profession with employers who are always looking to replace me, and I've worked all my life, 18 years or so for this contract after beating the odds AND I will make the team a ton of money just by being there, and I shouldn't get paid?

The teams will throw you away in a SECOND if they think it suites them better.

A better idea would be that rookie contracts don't ever count against the cap. That would make more sense to me.

zbeg
02-16-2011, 08:27 PM
Even Rodger understand that because the NFL has its highest TV rastings ever.... THIS ^ is going to kill owners very soon.

WHO wants to spend 500.00 for every home game 8 times a year? I would rather sit alos on my couch watching my NFL package HDTV. I spend less on the Direct TV for the whole year and all 256 NFL games I can tape/re-watch when I want to.... as opposed to driving 8 hours ONE way, paying for a hotel room, food, gas, Parking, beer, beer,beer,beer,beer.... then going to game and buying more beer......

THEN driving 8 hours home.

IMHO the rising costs of going to the game will kill this golden goose very soon.

At which point, ticket prices will drop. Owners aren't required to raise ticket prices by some sort of law. They raise them because people keep paying them.

When people stop paying the prices, the ticket prices will go down until people find them affordable again.

Also, if you have to drive 8 hours each way and spend $500 per game, you are not really their target demographic. I spend roughly $100 per game for two people. That includes parking, ticket prices, and gas. I also tend to eat before the game so that I don't have to buy stadium food at the higher prices. $50 per person is pretty reasonable for what I get.

And if it's not reasonable or stops being reasonable, then I won't pay it. And if enough people stop paying it, then the prices will go down. No golden geese are getting killed here.

Juriga72
02-17-2011, 08:20 AM
At which point, ticket prices will drop. Owners aren't required to raise ticket prices by some sort of law. They raise them because people keep paying them.

When people stop paying the prices, the ticket prices will go down until people find them affordable again.

Also, if you have to drive 8 hours each way and spend $500 per game, you are not really their target demographic. I spend roughly $100 per game for two people. That includes parking, ticket prices, and gas. I also tend to eat before the game so that I don't have to buy stadium food at the higher prices. $50 per person is pretty reasonable for what I get.

And if it's not reasonable or stops being reasonable, then I won't pay it. And if enough people stop paying it, then the prices will go down. No golden geese are getting killed here.

Concessions are what turns the world for the NFL.... They don't have the luxury of 81 home games to make all the money. I AM the "Target demographic" ... They want people to come and spend money there. Heck... I bet they make more from concessions/game than baseball does.

BTW.. When was the last time they lowered ticket prices? WHICH NFL team has lowered them ever?

Poet
02-17-2011, 02:52 PM
Concessions are what turns the world for the NFL.... They don't have the luxury of 81 home games to make all the money. I AM the "Target demographic" ... They want people to come and spend money there. Heck... I bet they make more from concessions/game than baseball does.

BTW.. When was the last time they lowered ticket prices? WHICH NFL team has lowered them ever?

In recent years the best you will find is Mike Brown of the Bengals not raising them. Largely because we suck ass. :lol:

KCL
02-17-2011, 03:19 PM
Not me, because I can watch the game on TV. I want the BEST talent available to give me the BEST football. Going to the game means squat to me since I don't live near a stadium. You can see the game better from the big screen, hi-def TV and surround sound anyway. Cheaper food, softer seats, and instant replay at my touch and choosing. Not to mention a streaming set of stats and other games right at eye-level.

This is my way of thinking Rav...I live close to Arrowhead but I haven't been to a game in years and as much as I love football I don't care to go.

As far as what rookies make...The Chiefs signed Berry to a big money contract..I can't remember what it was and I don't feel like looking it up but I remember it was quite a bit

KCL
02-17-2011, 03:33 PM
Other times a player has a stud year and gets paid for it. Then they don't live up to it.


Larry Johnson

rcsodak
02-17-2011, 03:43 PM
This.

Drawing 'real world' conclusions is silly and illogical. No team has ever lost money on a rookie. JaMarcus Russell sold a lot of jerseys and brought a lot of excitement and fans back to the stadium to watch him play. He ended up failing miserably as a player, but after being cut and what not, he MADE Al Davis money.

Veteran players do not get cut because of rookies. That's another myth. I have never heard of a good veteran getting cut because a team drafted a high priced rookie. Ever.

Also, the myth about young college kids coming in and earning their worth and then getting paid is not linkable to this. For instance, journalists get fired or replaced by younger guys fresh out of college. There's no 'you get paid' later unless you become an editor or something like that.

How is that applicable? I'm sure all the LB's coming out of college are going to get signed, instantly replace all the old LB's and then get a pay raise when they become a quarterback?

Rookies are not typically overpaid. In fact, look at the veteran's getting overpaid. Richard Seymour is worth ten million dollars for his production? Nate Clements was worth that 90 million dollar deal? Justin Smith is living up to his contract in San Fran?

Players get overpaid for a variety of reasons. Sometimes teams are just stupid, look at what the Redskins paid Archuletta and Randle El. Sometimes the FA class is weak at a position. Other times the FA class only has one true stud that everyone is fighting for, see Julius Peppers last year.

Other times a player has a stud year and gets paid for it. Then they don't live up to it.

Other times a player gets more money than they should because they draw in fans.

I'm not on either "side" on the CBA because I think the players and the owners are both dipshits, but the rookie wage scale is stupid.

I'm going into a hazardous profession with employers who are always looking to replace me, and I've worked all my life, 18 years or so for this contract after beating the odds AND I will make the team a ton of money just by being there, and I shouldn't get paid?

The teams will throw you away in a SECOND if they think it suites them better.

A better idea would be that rookie contracts don't ever count against the cap. That would make more sense to me.
You act like this" dangerous profession" is being forced on them....they don't have other options.
Talk about myth busting.
They knew the possible consequences of injury. But let's be real here....they're not sacrificing their lives. Todays equipt isn't the same from yesteryear, or 10yrs even.
And I'd venture to guess that for every player that 'worked their 18yrs to get there', there's 5-7 that were born with the size/speed/skill/talent and took the easy road.

A person doesn't need to be jealous to differentiate between challenges of the meek vs the priviledged.

.02
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

zbeg
02-22-2011, 05:18 PM
Concessions are what turns the world for the NFL.... They don't have the luxury of 81 home games to make all the money. I AM the "Target demographic" ... They want people to come and spend money there. Heck... I bet they make more from concessions/game than baseball does.

BTW.. When was the last time they lowered ticket prices? WHICH NFL team has lowered them ever?

Sorry about the delayed reply - I was out of town.

You live eight hours away. You really think you're the target demo?

"Sure, we have all these people who live in the area, but screw those guys. Let's get the Nebraska crowd!"

...

JaxBroncoGirl
02-22-2011, 07:12 PM
I feel if any team wants to make an investment into any rookie, they should. All rookies are a gamble, I think bringing up Russell is a bit extreme but it did bite the owners in the butt. Maybe restructure the contracts for the rookies but not cap them would be fair enough.