Thread: Rookie Salary Cap? Help?

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

It's not that easy. As I've asked in the OP.. you can't expect them to play out their "only so much of a raise" contracts their entire career, thats not a "rookie" salary cap. Thats extending into veteran play.

So how long does this "x max pay" go? Can't keep paying a veteran under "rookie salary cap" rules. They aren't a rookie after their first year, technically, and we know the vets aren't going to agree to the NFL sanctioning they "max" amount of money they can get paid for their time in grade based on a rookie salary cap.

So if it's not a hard concept, and I believe it is, I was just hoping for some ideas from some of the smart posters on here that understand this stuff.

Seems to me most players realize their 2nd contract and beyond is where they make their money.

Rooks will prolly be maxed out at 3-4yrs, so they can get into the big bucks quicker than now. That is where the NFLPA will draw their line in the sand, imo.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

Interesting.

I think the owners are using the economic times to get the public in on their sides on this, but this was NEVER a big deal to the owners for many many years.

But really. Im just truly interested, to learn what might be the ins-and-outs of how it would work if one is installed.

There's not much "ins and outs" to it Rav. The owners simply want to impose an overall cap percentage on the amount that can be paid to rookies in order to drive down the cost they have to pay draft picks.

They are willing to negotiate the percentage, but they want a hard number.

They might even be able to cut BACK on their overall salary cap if they did that or at least more teams would NOT spend all the money available to them under the cap.

It will NOT result in more team or league "competitiveness" but it WILL result in more revenues flowing to the Owners -- which is the main point.

If the rookies get more under a total cap, that means your average veteran gets less. The NFL wage scale is highly tilted towards a few key performers and away from paying a LOT of players something closer to the average salary.

That income inequality is reflected throughout society today, and it is NOT (surprisingly) based solely, or even exclusively, on performance.

For instance, S's make much less money that starting DL or CBs. Why is that? Well, S is a less important position.

So, they get paid a lot less. What a player will get in a salary depends a LOT on:

1. what position he plays.
2. WHEN in his career he becomes a FA. If he's still relatively young, then it's a BIG pay-day.
3. If he has to wait until he's 32 and on the declining side of his career, that's going to affect his FA contract.

So, the owners really want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to put all the burden and risk onto the player "Pay for play."

If the player plays well, then the team can franchise him and force him to play rather than becoming a FA. And during his franchise year, he bears all the risk of injury -- which will destroy his value in FA.

If the player is injured or gets old and plays poorly, then he gets cut and there's no guaranteed money.

If the player simply is declining in performance, the team will often demand that the player "renegotiate". If the player suddenly blossoms and does BETTER than expected and the team is getting a STEAL compared to what they'd have to pay him as a FA, they will NOT "renegotiate" his contract.

They WILL expect him to play out his contract at the old low rate. The ONLY time they will renegotiate is if the player is close to the end of his contract, and the team realizes that he'll walk unless they sign him to a new extended contract.

In that case, they offer him a deal that is a LOT LESS than he'd get in FA, but MORE than he's getting now. If they do this before his final season the player will often take the deal so he doesn't bear the entire risk of injury.

If you remember the Clinton Portis situation, Portis and the team had a conflict because Shanahan insisted they just had "a policy" against re-negotiating rookie contracts (except downward).

Originally Posted by dogfish

don't quote me on this, but my understanding was that under some of the initial proposed structures rookie deals might be three years, possibly with the provision of restricted free agency in the fourth year still in place-- or not. . .

if you want to see a "hard" proposal you're asking the wrong people, though-- unless you think someone here is intimately involved in the negotiations, no point asking us for the details. . .

a rookie wage scale works in both the NHL and NBA-- no reason to think it wouldn't work in the NFL in some form. . .

Wasn't looking or anything definite, dog. Not at all, but I was wanting to get some ideas as to what MIGHT happen from people that understsand.

The simple "pay them for performance" isn't realistic. Expecting them not to get money up-front, isn't realistic. Thinking the NFLPA, or the vets, are simply going to allow players to come in out of college, be picked in the first round and play purely on incentive contracts, isn't realistic. Its just NOT going to happen.

So knowing that, and knowing there are other rookie caps out there, how do those systems deal with the questions of which I asked? I don't know, and was honestly asking for something insightful as to a "possibility" as how they might be handled. Obviously, a question like this wasn't looking for 'hard' answers or definits.. but something more than the " how hard is it, you pay less for lower round picks." We already have that in the current system.

I don't know why its being argued with me as though I'm trying to pick a fight. I'm honestly looking for some intelligent input as to POSSIBLE answers as to how it would work. The "lets not worry about it" isn't really that educational.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

I don't know why its being argued with me as though I'm trying to pick a fight

Because some of your comments are coming across as arrogant and some people don't take kindly to comments like those...mainly your "smart people" comment.

Originally Posted by SeeingRed

Because some of your comments are coming across as arrogant and some people don't take kindly to comments like those...mainly your "smart people" comment.

Wait.

I said I ws looking for the smart people of this message board. Not saying those that responded weren't some of them. I'm saying there are SMART people on this message board of which I was looking to ask about this, hence the point of the thread to begin with. I'm asking the SMART PEOPLE of the message board to give me some answers to the questions of which I'm not smart enough to know.

So if it's not a hard concept, and I believe it is, I was just hoping for some ideas from some of the smart posters on here that understand this stuff.

THIS is the comment of which you are referring. The comment after of which you told ME " its not a hard concept to understand" (pretty condescending). Its so easy, yet you haven't answered anything that fits the NFL.

Since Ravage wanted the details, here they are:

URL --->The Real Story Behind the Rookie Wage Scale: The league wanted to reduce the amount paid under rookie contracts. The NFLPA came back and offered all rookies get 3 year contracts. That saves the league $200 million that it spends on year 4 and longer contracts (shorter contracts = less money committed to rookies). But, the NFLPA proposed that rookies become UFAs after their 3 year contracts expire. The NFL said "no way."

I'm not sure what the league is screeching about. Normally, when a player's contract expires, he's an UFA -- unless the team franchises him in which case he gets the average of the top 10 players at his position. If he refuses to sign the deal then he becomes an UFA at the end of the season.

The league has now dropped any further negotiations around this issue and came back with the proposed 18 game season. You can bet that if they declare an "impasse" that a revised rookie wage scale will be part of the "last best deal" they impose unilaterally on the players.

Analysis of how the rookie cap works under the current CBA:

Purpose:

Each year, as mandated by the CBA, the league-wide salary cap rises in accordance with increases in league revenues. The Rookie Cap rises in tandem, keeping rookie salaries from rising more quickly than their veteran peers. Created by the NFL Management Council, the formula of exactly how each team's Rookie Cap number is determined is unknown. However, it is based on the number and round of each franchise's draft selections. Article XVII of the amended 2006 CBA states: "The list of each Formula Allotment attributed to each draft selection shall be agreed to by the NFL and the NFLPA, and shall not be disclosed to Clubs, Players, Player Agents or the public."

It's ALL ABOUT MONEY. The owners think they are paying the players too much revenue and want a bigger piece of the overall pie.

Lockouts and CBA Negotiations:

In essence, this is a fight about money. The owners think the players are getting too big a share of the money, which is set in stone in the CBA in the form of a salary floor and cap. The fact that the economy collapsed and servicing debt became a lot more expensive means that the NFL is less profitable for the owners now than they expected it to be when they signed the agreement. So the owners want the players to accept a lower salary cap and floor to lower their own costs, and obviously the players don't want to do that. You'll hear about a rookie salary cap, pensions for veterands, medical coverage for retired players and several other measures that are trumped up as 'key issues'. But in my opinion, none of those are key issues: they're side-issues invented to create ways for the NFL and NFLPA to compromise.

The most likely scenario is the owners declaring an impasse and then unilaterally instituting their last best offer, including a revised rookie wage cap:

If a new agreement isn’t reached by March 4, the owners aren’t required to lock out the players. . . .at some point, the league can declare an impasse in the talks — and implement its last, best offer as the new set of rules, pending a formal agreement.

The union then would have to decide whether to work under those rules, or whether to strike. . . . By implementing the last, best offer, however, the league would be getting what it wants, at least in the short term.

Likewise, the league would be able to claim the moral high ground in the event of a work stoppage. No longer would the owners be locking out the players; if football goes away for all or part of the 2011 season, the players would be the ones to make that happen.

Still, the players could strike at any time. . . .

Interesting Cugal, I havent' seen this article when looking.

But does the last "best offer" include this "rookie salary cap" that has the headlines? Do you know?

Ravage..you dumb ass..quit being a smart ass..

sorry I had to do it...

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

Interesting Cugal, I havent' seen this article when looking.

But does the last "best offer" include this "rookie salary cap" that has the headlines? Do you know?

This "best offer" stuff is only declared when the League declares an impasse so nobody can saw for sure what's going to be IN the offer.

But, you can bet that when the NFL declares an impasse, they will then unilaterally reinstate the old CBA with certain refinements -- an 18 game season, a reduced salary cap, a reduced rookie salary cap, an entire smorgusboard of everything they want.

Then it will be "game on." Unfortunately not a FOOTBALL game, the only game in town will be the legal maneuvering between the NFLPA and the league.

THat will continue to August at least and possibly longer unless the players fold. The owners are counting on the players to fold just as they did in the 80's when the league started using scabs ("replacement players") for about 4 or 6 games.

Basically in neither baseball or football have the players ever WON any negotiations, rather they have won in court because the owners keep acting in collusive bargaining in violation of federal labor laws.

Most recently the league got spanked again by the Supreme Court which rejected their claim for a wide-spread anti-trust exemption.

THose ******** ought to have their entire anti-trust exemption revoked and be forced to compete just like any other industry. Let them eat THAT cake!

P.S. That's NOT "an article" that's THREE separate articles on various topics about the labor dispute. Click on ALL THREE LINKS for differing perspectives.

Originally Posted by Cugel

Since Ravage wanted the details, here they are:

URL --->The Real Story Behind the Rookie Wage Scale: The league wanted to reduce the amount paid under rookie contracts. The NFLPA came back and offered all rookies get 3 year contracts. That saves the league $200 million that it spends on year 4 and longer contracts (shorter contracts = less money committed to rookies). But, the NFLPA proposed that rookies become UFAs after their 3 year contracts expire. The NFL said "no way."

I'm not sure what the league is screeching about. Normally, when a player's contract expires, he's an UFA -- unless the team franchises him in which case he gets the average of the top 10 players at his position. If he refuses to sign the deal then he becomes an UFA at the end of the season.

The league has now dropped any further negotiations around this issue and came back with the proposed 18 game season. You can bet that if they declare an "impasse" that a revised rookie wage scale will be part of the "last best deal" they impose unilaterally on the players.

Analysis of how the rookie cap works under the current CBA:

Purpose:


It's ALL ABOUT MONEY. The owners think they are paying the players too much revenue and want a bigger piece of the overall pie.



The most likely scenario is the owners declaring an impasse and then unilaterally instituting their last best offer, including a revised rookie wage cap:

Well.... bloggers' opinions, I guess.


There is also another possibility, though highly unlikely.

The league could decide to play 2011 under the old CBA.

Just throwin' that factoid out there as fodder....

Originally Posted by rcsodak

Well.... bloggers' opinions, I guess.

There is also another possibility, though highly unlikely.

The league could decide to play 2011 under the old CBA.

Just throwin' that factoid out there as fodder....

Look. If they wanted to do that they could simply have had a 2 minute negotiation with the players LAST year.

Somehwere in an ALTERNATE UNIVERSE, the Bizarro Roger Goodell has a blinding revelation:

Goodell: "Hey! Here's a thought! What do you say instead of us declaring an impasse, then imposing a wage roll-back and triggering a bitter strike, we just agree to reinstate the existing CBA?"

NFLPA: "What? You're serious?"

Goodell: "Yup! I just had a conversion on the road to Tarsus, and suddenly it occurred to me, 'why do we need to screw all the fans and endanger the season just in order to get more money? After all, we owners are all billionaires, we can afford a little loss in revenues without having to give up any of our chauffeur-driven Rolls Royces.'"

NFLPA: "Where do we sign?"

Goodell: "Wow! That really went quick! It just took us about 2 minutes to reach agreement! Now we won't have to go into 2011 with no CBA and piss-off all the fans!"

NFLPA: "Sounds good to us Roger."

I think we all know that the owners are going to get what they want.

They get paid by the networks whether they play or not.

the players get NADA and most are morons anyway because they spend it almost as fast as they bring it in.

They will get it afte missing the 3rd pay check.. then they will figure out they will never get those paychecks back, because they are going to be making less than they did before.. like 98% of all strikers..

Originally Posted by Cugel

Look. If they wanted to do that they could simply have had a 2 minute negotiation with the players LAST year.

Somehwere in an ALTERNATE UNIVERSE, the Bizarro Roger Goodell has a blinding revelation:

Goodell: "Hey! Here's a thought! What do you say instead of us declaring an impasse, then imposing a wage roll-back and triggering a bitter strike, we just agree to reinstate the existing CBA?"

NFLPA: "What? You're serious?"

Goodell: "Yup! I just had a conversion on the road to Tarsus, and suddenly it occurred to me, 'why do we need to screw all the fans and endanger the season just in order to get more money? After all, we owners are all billionaires, we can afford a little loss in revenues without having to give up any of our chauffeur-driven Rolls Royces.'"

NFLPA: "Where do we sign?"

Goodell: "Wow! That really went quick! It just took us about 2 minutes to reach agreement! Now we won't have to go into 2011 with no CBA and piss-off all the fans!"

NFLPA: "Sounds good to us Roger."

Where's Tarsus?

I'm not one of the "smart people" on this board that Ravage was looking for answers from, so I'll refrain from answering the question about Tarsus.

Originally Posted by SeeingRed

I'm not one of the "smart people" on this board that Ravage was looking for answers from, so I'll refrain from answering the question about Tarsus.

....sigh...we're simply mortals....