PDA

View Full Version : Rookie wage scale



dogfish
03-09-2011, 05:59 PM
okay, let's try this again. . .



According to two sources familiar with the negotiations, the league and the union have reached a basic compromise on a rookie wage scale that will replace the current rookie salary cap. The owners backed off the idea of requiring first-round picks to sign five-year deals, instead limiting the contracts to four years before a player could become a free agent. The agreement is also expected to include a stipulation limiting the amount of guaranteed money and signing bonus offered to draft picks.

In addition, the league agreed that all players drafted after the first round would be limited to three-year deals, but teams would be allowed to put restricted free agent tags after the three years. That’s essentially similar to the current process where players can be tagged as restricted free agents after a three-year deal, although the existing rule allows players drafted after the first round to sign four-year pacts.

The key change is for the players in the first round. Currently, the first 16 players taken in the first round can sign for up to six years. The next 16 players taken can sign up to five years.


In addition to the rookie wage scale, the NFLPA is also expected to agree on stronger language to allow teams to recoup money from players who get in trouble with the law, such as then-Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick(notes) or Plaxico Burress(notes) with the New York Giants. In the Vick case, he was allowed to keep approximately $20 million in signing-bonus money despite going to prison for dog-fighting and related charges.

In essence, the NFLPA received strong support from other players who said that players such as Vick and Burress should not be allowed to keep money in those situations.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-rookiewagescale030911


i scoff at a couple of you that kept insisting this wouldn't be part of the new CBA-- **** were you thinking? pretty much the first thing settled-- this one was a no-brainer. . . it'll be interesting to see where the ultimate numbers are for the top ten picks, but any improvement in that fundamentally flawed system is very welcome. . .

shank
03-09-2011, 06:07 PM
zomg, i feel informed.

UnderArmour
03-09-2011, 06:24 PM
This was definitely a no-brainer but this does suck for players who could have jumped last year and are now going to have to actually earn their second contract to be rich. At least the players association is now looking for ways for teams to be more efficient in spending their money to free them to allocate more funds towards larger veteran contracts. I expect for the maximum contract for rookies to be around the transition tag number for their position(average of top 10 players at their position's salaries per year).

Ravage!!!
03-09-2011, 06:43 PM
okay, let's try this again. . .






http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-rookiewagescale030911


i scoff at a couple of you that kept insisting this wouldn't be part of the new CBA-- **** were you thinking? pretty much the first thing settled-- this one was a no-brainer. . . it'll be interesting to see where the ultimate numbers are for the top ten picks, but any improvement in that fundamentally flawed system is very welcome. . .

:lol: wow.. you scoff at us. Now my feelings are hurt.

So far the only thing that has been said is "In the process, the NFL backed off its desire for what would have been potentially onerous contracts."

What does "back off" mean?

dogfish
03-09-2011, 06:53 PM
:lol: wow.. you scoff at us. Now my feelings are hurt.

So far the only thing that has been said is "In the process, the NFL backed off its desire for what would have been potentially onerous contracts."

What does "back off" mean?

it means this year's top pick won't get jamarcus-type money. . .

bcbronc
03-09-2011, 06:58 PM
This was definitely a no-brainer but this does suck for players who could have jumped last year and are now going to have to actually earn their second contract to be rich. At least the players association is now looking for ways for teams to be more efficient in spending their money to free them to allocate more funds towards larger veteran contracts. I expect for the maximum contract for rookies to be around the transition tag number for their position(average of top 10 players at their position's salaries per year).

You don't need to get $50m to get rich off your first contract.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

UnderArmour
03-09-2011, 07:02 PM
You don't need to get $50m to get rich off your first contract.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

True. But let's just say Sam Bradford is sitting boatloads richer than this year's #1 guy and has to be breathing a huge sigh of relief that he decided not to return for his last year of eligibility.

KCL
03-09-2011, 07:36 PM
So in other words...Eric Berry should be glad he was signed in last season's
draft.

rcsodak
03-09-2011, 07:43 PM
:lol: wow.. you scoff at us. Now my feelings are hurt.

So far the only thing that has been said is "In the process, the NFL backed off its desire for what would have been potentially onerous contracts."

What does "back off" mean?
Also, the NFL has said nothing is final until the CBA is final.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
03-09-2011, 07:44 PM
So in other words...Eric Berry should be glad he was signed in last season's
draft.

Who?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

T.K.O.
03-09-2011, 07:47 PM
cover your mouth when you "scoff":D

KCL
03-09-2011, 07:48 PM
Who?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Go ask the TT lovers..they'll tell you...or maybe you saw the thread.
Also rc...he is someone you would love to see playing for the Broncos...;)

Lonestar
03-09-2011, 10:06 PM
okay, let's try this again. . .


http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-rookiewagescale030911


i scoff at a couple of you that kept insisting this wouldn't be part of the new CBA-- **** were you thinking? pretty much the first thing settled-- this one was a no-brainer. . . it'll be interesting to see where the ultimate numbers are for the top ten picks, but any improvement in that fundamentally flawed system is very welcome. . .

I have always said this would be a HAVE TO have for the owners as so much money was being given to kiddies that had never played a down.

Also said that the current players would throw the rookies under the bus in a heart beat as it did not affect them..Rookies have no vote in the matter.

This one is the easy one..

now time for them to compromise on the rest of it.

WARHORSE
03-09-2011, 11:41 PM
:deal:




I scoff at the rookies.:throwrock:

This makes it easier to trade the top picks which means the potential for more exciting drafts is greater......possibly leading to us gaining more picks.....therefore ......

I scoff at the Ratturds, Chefs and Chiggers.:spy:



And while Im at it, Im scoffing at Maurice Smith and the NFLPA too.


:fish:



I like scoffing.
Scoffing is liberating.:salute::salute::salute:

dogfish
03-09-2011, 11:49 PM
feels good, doesn't it?


:D

WARHORSE
03-10-2011, 04:27 AM
feels good, doesn't it?


:D

Yes. We scoff at those who choose not to do so.:beer: