combatbengal Posted July 1, 2008 Report Share Posted July 1, 2008 I've been saying for years that I think these newbies need to prove themselves before they receive big contracts. Now, the big guy is addressing it, and I agree with what he's saying. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said its "ridiculous" to reward untested rookies with lucrative contracts and wants the issue addressed in contract talks. "There's something wrong about the system," Goodell said Friday. "The money should go to people who perform." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TippCityRick Posted July 1, 2008 Report Share Posted July 1, 2008 This is a NSS (no sh** Sherlock) type of situation, however any changes to the system will have to fly through collective bargaining. What do you think the chances are of that happening? Slim to none! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregstephens Posted July 1, 2008 Report Share Posted July 1, 2008 This is a NSS (no sh** Sherlock) type of situation, however any changes to the system will have to fly through collective bargaining. What do you think the chances are of that happening? Slim to none!Actually, I heard a couple of veterans interviewed today on ESPN radio and the veterans aren't any more happy about the money for rookies than anyone else, including NFLPA Pres. Kevin Mawae. You might be surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalPimp Posted July 1, 2008 Report Share Posted July 1, 2008 I've been saying for years that I think these newbies need to prove themselves before they receive big contracts. Now, the big guy is addressing it, and I agree with what he's saying. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said its "ridiculous" to reward untested rookies with lucrative contracts and wants the issue addressed in contract talks. "There's something wrong about the system," Goodell said Friday. "The money should go to people who perform."I agree, However, there are TWO things that you have to consider.......#1 The career of an NFL player can end before it begins...Its a violent game, If the rooks didnt make any money in their first contract, they may not be around(injury) to sign a lucrative deal.....Good for teams yes, but bad for players.#2 NFL contracts are NOT guaranteed like MLB & the NBA....If you were a player...Seriously...If you were a player and you knew that the team can terminate your contract at any time, wouldnt you want to extract as much as possible from them? I would...Once again Good for the team, bad for the player.The main problem here is...The contracts generally have very little guarantees 1 or 2 years(if any)....Thats why teams can release you 2 years into a 6 year deal, and players feel they can re-negotiate 2 or 3 years into a 5 or 6 year deal......MLB or NBA players CANNOT re-negotiate because their deals are guaranteed.See the problem? Can it be fixed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TippCityRick Posted July 1, 2008 Report Share Posted July 1, 2008 Most veterns see see the immediate inequity, however I believe the outrageous sums paid to rookies actually increase the amounts paid to the top-paid vaterns. Most salary negociation is predicated on comparison to what others are making. So when Jake Long gets $30M guaranteed the next top OL that goes into negociation will use this contract as a comp. It all builds on itself. Remember since they instituted the rookie caps in the NBA (which is what many, including Goodell would like to see happen) the maximum paid to the veterns has decreased and not just those who change teams. Remember when guys like Webber and such were given such outrageouse sums. Doesn't happen anymore except for the very top two our three. Just my opinion though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
combatbengal Posted July 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 You're right, playing football is a tough game and a career can be over before it starts. However, an 18 year old kid can pick up a weapon, walk a post in a hostile area to defend this nation, and he isn't offered a huge salary. He'll be lucky to get 3 hots and a cot every day. As a matter of fact, what he'll make in 20 years serving this great Nation, won't compare to what these rookies will make in a half of a season. One more thought, serving a combat tour is more dangerous then playing football! You can't tell me that David Pollack isn't set for life. He earned a but load of money playing the year that he did. Plus he has a college education to fall back on. That's a heck of a lot more then that 19-20 Soldier who lost an arm or leg in combat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAPPYJAQ Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 You're right, playing football is a tough game and a career can be over before it starts. However, an 18 year old kid can pick up a weapon, walk a post in a hostile area to defend this nation, and he isn't offered a huge salary. He'll be lucky to get 3 hots and a cot every day. As a matter of fact, what he'll make in 20 years serving this great Nation, won't compare to what these rookies will make in a half of a season. One more thought, serving a combat tour is more dangerous then playing football! You can't tell me that David Pollack isn't set for life. He earned a but load of money playing the year that he did. Plus he has a college education to fall back on. That's a heck of a lot more then that 19-20 Soldier who lost an arm or leg in combat.Great Post! Shows you what a screwy world we live in, especially when you consider that the NFL Veteran MINIMUM is $77,000 more than what the president makes and A-Rod is baseball will make 70 times more than that this year. I said 70 TIMES!!!!!!......Or 3 games salary, at $28,000,000 a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ickey44 Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 Most veterns see see the immediate inequity, however I believe the outrageous sums paid to rookies actually increase the amounts paid to the top-paid vaterns. Most salary negociation is predicated on comparison to what others are making. So when Jake Long gets $30M guaranteed the next top OL that goes into negociation will use this contract as a comp. It all builds on itself. Remember since they instituted the rookie caps in the NBA (which is what many, including Goodell would like to see happen) the maximum paid to the veterns has decreased and not just those who change teams. Remember when guys like Webber and such were given such outrageouse sums. Doesn't happen anymore except for the very top two our three. Just my opinion though.I, for one, don't really care if they make less money. I think it's ridiculous that they all make that much money. However, the wages in football won't go down if a rookie scale is put in because the owners HAVE TO spend a certain percentage of their revenue on player salaries. Players will still get the money, but untested rookies won't get it all. Which is the way it should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAPPYJAQ Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 One of the the NFL and especially MLB is facing, is that they are beginning to lose NFL and MLB talents to the NBA, because of the salary structure, the "3 years removed from HS" rule and chances of injury. If you doubt that, look at what teams in the NBA are doing, just to have LeBron, D.Wade and others consider them......In 2010. The shorter contracts really work for everyone, even in the NFL; talented players get a chance to maximize their contracts (by NBA policies) after 3 seasons in most cases and sign for the max allowed. Players who are busts are removed from the payroll after that same length of time, without wasting more than 9-10 million guaranteed (and only if they were a top 5 pick). Guaranteed contracts like in the NBA would never work in the NFL because you're dealing with 53 instead of 15 and the top players in both leagues are nearly compensated the same, per year. The unfortunate thing is that all of this is probably going to lead to an uncapped year in '10, that will devestate teams like the Bengals and likely lead to a lockout. I guess the hope is that the owners bite the bullet and leave the status quo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 Most veterns see see the immediate inequity, however I believe the outrageous sums paid to rookies actually increase the amounts paid to the top-paid vaterns. Most salary negociation is predicated on comparison to what others are making. So when Jake Long gets $30M guaranteed the next top OL that goes into negociation will use this contract as a comp. It all builds on itself. Remember since they instituted the rookie caps in the NBA (which is what many, including Goodell would like to see happen) the maximum paid to the veterns has decreased and not just those who change teams. Remember when guys like Webber and such were given such outrageouse sums. Doesn't happen anymore except for the very top two our three. Just my opinion though.Very, very, very good point. I hadn't thought of that. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlainThePain Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 I hope they keep the current rookie pay scale. Changing it would only give teams more money for free agency, and with Mike Brown holding the checkbook, that would only put the Bengals at a larger disadvantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COB Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 Most veterns see see the immediate inequity, however I believe the outrageous sums paid to rookies actually increase the amounts paid to the top-paid vaterns. Most salary negociation is predicated on comparison to what others are making. So when Jake Long gets $30M guaranteed the next top OL that goes into negociation will use this contract as a comp. It all builds on itself. Remember since they instituted the rookie caps in the NBA (which is what many, including Goodell would like to see happen) the maximum paid to the veterns has decreased and not just those who change teams. Remember when guys like Webber and such were given such outrageouse sums. Doesn't happen anymore except for the very top two our three. Just my opinion though.Very, very, very good point. I hadn't thought of that. Thanks.A lot of veterans see the rookie salaries as taking money away from them. With a finite pool of cash, the more that teams spend on rookies, the less they have available to spend on proven vets. Or so the thinking goes. The point made above about rookie salaries being the base line for vet salaries is the point agents keep trying to pound into the heads of their vet clients. Unfortunately, it doesn't stand up to even cursory scrutiny. If JeMarcus Russel's rookie deal was the baseline for Derek Anderson's deal up in Cleveland, someone forgot a few zeroes on Anderson's paper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.