DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum NFL Czar to Address First-Round Windfalls

For the good of all, the players and union if they don't want to kill the Golden Goose better lay it on the line to these greedy agents that it's time that common sense prevailed. JMHO


COMMISH PLANS TO ADDRESS FIRST-ROUND WINDFALLS

As NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell approaches his one-year anniversary, it occurs to us that we have agreed with virtually every decision that Goodell has made.

And we think we're going to agree with most of his decisions in year two. Especially if one of them is to try to address the ongoing problem regarding the payment of enormous windfalls to rookies who have never worn an NFL helmet except when trick-or-treating.

This year, for example, safety LaRon Landry received more guaranteed money than any safety in the history of the league, simply because his name was the sixth one called on draft day.

"It's a concern," Goodell said in a Thursday interview with the Detroit media. "I think it's a concern also for other reasons that are less obvious that came out when we talked to the players this year. It's difficult when a rookie comes in to a locker room and has that kind of a signing bonus. It's difficult [for] the veterans to provide that kind of leadership that's so important on teams. Money changes that dynamic a little bit. We'll talk to Gene [Upshaw]. We're not trying to save the dollars, we just think the dollars should go to players who have earned that on the field through their accomplishments and leadership. It's a system we have and we'll do the best we can with it right now.''

The only problem, as we see it, is that the union needs to want change, too, or else the union will expect some type of a concession from the league.

But both sides should want it. For the league, it will lessen the financial risk that arises from having (and using) a high draft pick. As JaMarcus Russell tries to break the bank in Oakland, for example, is the worst team in the league from a year ago really getting any better?

For the players, it provides more money in the future to current members of the union, at a cost only to guys who aren't in the union yet. Like a guy who suddenly favors a military draft the day after he becomes too old to be drafted, players already in the league have no reason to object to limitations on the money to be paid to guys who aren't there yet. The fact that the extra money would flow through to the current players gives such an approach even more appeal.

The reality is that the agents who pull the strings of the union don't want to give up their percentage of the lottery prizes that are paid out each and every year. And until the players stand up and demand that something be done, the NFLPA will continue to ignore the problem.

Source

More power to the Commish but I do think it is going to be difficult to pull this one off..

I feel that there should be some way to keep these guys in check. Something along the lines of you where picked # 7 this is the set amount you will earn, you where picked # 117 this is the amount you will earn. Regardless of position. Yes, you may be better than the guys that where drafted before you but hey you didnt go untill #22...get used to it, here is #22 money. Prove yourself first and the money will come. I dont want to here but if he gets hurt he wont be set for life, becouse last I checked neither is 99.95% of the rest of the population. I dont think what they are doing now is wrong by asking for as much as they can get, becouse after all isnt that what you would do in there position. But that is why there needs to be a system set up to keep them from doing this. Just my .02

Kudos to the Commish!

I think the difficulty will be getting this to the point where the union members vote on it. If it comes to a vote it would be surprising to me if the majority of players (ie veterans) didn't vote in favor of such an initiative as they are the ones getting screwed by the teams they put it on the line for.

This is one area where the NFLPA and Commish should be able to get something done.

Rookies that get paid more than established players does not make sense to me.

The NBA has pre-established limits, the NFL should try to obtain a similar working arrangment.

I have often maintained that if a top draft choice does not pan out, the team loses twice, once on the player and second on the salary cap implications. Sometimes having a top 10 draft choice is a curse rather than a blessing. (Warren)

I don't see the union having any problem...as long as the dollars don't decrease as Goodell says.

Here is how I would change the system.

Set all rookie contracts for a duration of 3 years with a slotted system...both salary and bonus. Set these at 50% of the last 5 years average with a agreed upon annual percentage boost....maybe 2-3%.... and these contracts would be guaranteed providing the rookies some financial security. If you draft them and sign them, you got them provided they make the team that first year.

The draft would be reduced to 5 rounds. This would free more players early in their career, and in theory would make a veterans job even more secure as some teams wouldn't seek FA players once the draft ended....

All contracts would basically be the same, so the need for an agent in the first contract wouldn't be necessary.

League minimums would be bumped starting with 4 year players, and rosters would be increased by 2-3 players....one would assume this would mostly benefit the 4-8 year veteran.

Agents need a bone since they are pretty much cut out of the process in the beginning...the amount they are paid would increase once the 2nd contract cycle comes around.

A way to keep teams from going heavy with the undrafted guys as a way to drive down salaries would have to be in place. Maybe those become guaranteed deals as well over 2 years upon making the team that first year, the rate set in line as if it was a 6 round draft......practice squad rules would remain the same.

great job peen! send that off to the man... that's a hell of an idea!

Quote:

---

A way to keep teams from going heavy with the undrafted guys as a way to drive down salaries would have to be in place. Maybe those become guaranteed deals as well over 2 years upon making the team that first year, the rate set in line as if it was a 6 round draft......practice squad rules would remain the same.

---

Good job Ballpreen. The UDFA's would be my concern re your proposal, as I would be concern that the rich and more attractive site teams would have an unfair advantage over the say teams from the "Rust Belt" and northern latitude areas. JMHO

I agree that the "three year" clause would only serve to be quite disruptive to teams developing continuity.

I like Peens basic concept in regards to "base salary" being pretty much set in stone depending strictly by where you are chosen and not silly salaries that compensate rookies more than veterans.

But it would seem to me that by placing "escilators based on performance" in years 4 and 5,it would compensate these players fairly according to their value and permit five year deals to keep continuity on NFL teams.

I also believe these incentive bonuses based on performance should be structured according to a certain formula to keep them realistic and help keep the agents incentive and need to a minimum.

As many veterans as there are in this league and as much as these contracts are out of line,I doubt it would be extremly difficult for them to agree something needs to be done in this regard. Now agreeing on the details of exactly how they're worked out may be a long and complicated process.

And with having a salary cap and a minimum percentage each team must spend of that cap space,it helps to insure that the overall payroll will not be going down. Just more equatibly distributed among those who have earned it.

JMHO

Simply by being drafted LeRon Landry is now the HIGHTEST PAID SAFETY IN THE HISTORY OF THE NFL. Makes no sense.

The problem is anything longer would be harder to pass. Players today know that in the long run 5 year deals under a reduced plan would drive down the overall wage scale.

Face it...rookie contracts drive veteran contracts when they hit the next cycle. If you locked guys into 5-6 year deals at a lower rate, that would dig into veteran jobs. It would be much easier to cut guys in their 10th year because you don't have as much turnover on the front end.

There has to be some give and take in this process. You can't just take from the players without giving something back. And that IMO is where it is going to have to happen.

This isn't about reducing overall payroll, it is about getting the money to players who have proven a little something. Players are never going to give up basically half their career, or someone else's career before they can get into the money, which is in the second contract.

To the point on rustbelt....maybe it would, but again....nothing is perfect. I think you have to show the potential for fewer players making squads to prove to players the experienced guys are actually going to get the cash v just getting cut in favor of cheap paid players on a rookie contract.

I don't see any way around that....if a guy wants Hollywood, Hollywood is what he is going to get.

I guess you could add a provision limiting the number of FA a team could sign...and when you get down to it...there aren't that many guys drafted after the 5th round or signed as FA under the current system that would really alter the completive balance of the league under the idea I present.

It's time to cap the rookies

Adam Schein
FOXSports.com



The NFL needs to take a page from the NBA.

Seriously.
There is only one example you can point to in making a statement like that. The NBA's system of slotting salaries for draft picks is brilliant. In fact, it is the only way to treat rookies. It is an absolute must for the NFL to follow suit.

Now I have argued this point for years for a plethora of reasons. But now, there is a sense of urgency to get this done after watching events this summer.

Slotted salaries for first rounders is a must after watching Brady Quinn's holdout for no apparent reason, after watching Darrelle Revis and the Jets come to a deal that could've been reached weeks ago, and after listening to the Raiders brass talk about how the club is worlds apart with top overall pick JaMarcus Russell on Thursday.

It's Week 2 of the preseason and Quinn cannot truly compete with pedestrian gunslingers Charlie Frye and Derek Anderson. Revis, a brilliant pick by the Jets, is now way off schedule to start against the rival Patriots on Opening Day after missing 2 weeks of practice. And Russell is an afterthought. Levi Brown missed some valuable time in Arizona. Jon Beason was absent for key practices in Carolina.

That's counterproductive to the players, teams and fans.

There are no holdouts in the NBA. Rookies get guaranteed money based upon where they are picked, regardless of the position they play, a concept that was lost on Quinn and his agents.

And these rookie salaries and contracts in the NBA don't break the bank.

When NFL neophytes finally sign, they get millions upon millions of dollars in guaranteed money. For what exactly?

Look, I love the NFL Draft. It's a national holiday. But let's face it; a portion of these players in the first round will be total busts while laughing all the way to the bank. I'd much rather see the guaranteed cash go to veterans who have proved something in the NFL.

Revis, while I admire his talent and think he can be a star, should not be making Nathan Vasher money.

Calvin Johnson should not be paid like Chad Johnson.

Ed Reed shouldn't strive to make LaRon Landry money.

The new players need to actually prove it on the NFL gridiron before getting paid.

The system is ridiculously flawed and backward.

As one veteran defensive player told me during our training camp tour, "You can tell right away which rookie first rounders are here to play and work and which rookies are sitting on their fat contracts. The system actually hurts these rookies because it equals laziness or complacency for some of them. They've never seen this money before. And meanwhile, the five-year veteran who is the third defensive tackle but incredibly important to the team, is forced to take a pay cut. It's a joke. And everyone knows it. That's the guy who deserves the money."

If you ever want to get Colts general manager Bill Polian going, ask him about this topic. Polian's face will turn red and he will dive right into a classic, incredibly intelligent, and passionate monologue on the subject. He just cannot fathom why you have rookies making all of this guaranteed money.

And he really cannot understand why the union would ever object.

Jets general manager Mike Tannenbaum, who has brilliantly negotiated contracts for years, is in line behind Polian.

Tannenbaum said, "I agree 1,000 percent. It should be a meritorious system. I don't understand why it would be pushed back from the union because we are talking about a total sense of dollars. We are not putting more dollars to one side of the table. We are talking about shifting dollars from rookies to veterans. I agree with Bill on that point."


And here's a key part of the point; the established players, the general managers, and now the commissioner all agree. It was Roger Goodell who addressed this issue on Thursday in Detroit speaking to the media in Motown. A change absolutely has to be made.

Frankly, these holdouts are getting to be somewhere between embarrassing and foolish.

We have learned that when Goodell speaks, people listen. And Gene Upshaw needs to realize that this shift only aids his constituents.

Tannenbaum hopes for change.

"We will see what happens. I know there are other issues from the collectively bargained relationship," Tannenbaum said. "I think that is a win-win for players and management. Simply put, the players that deserve it should get it."

Imagine that concept.

It's about time. ..As a "Union Leader", I think that these guys should be able to "WORK" their way to the "Bank" so to speak.. ..Many of us rely on people like nyself to get the best in health benefits,wages,etc. And to see what these guys are making as opposed to the players of yesterday, I would like to think that the NFL by now would have set up a "fund" to care for and compensate the players who have retired / died without ANY help from the league or Union.. .JMHO, I know that this might set off a firestorm, I hope not....

It shouldn't.

If players and the league in general was in poor shape there wouldn't be any cry to do much....but as the league has grown, it is shameful the players, owners, and union haven't done more.

But that won't change in my eye...I think they all have dorked around for 15 years and are now only taking steps now that many of these guys have died.

The NBA was the same way.

George Mikan was sick and died in poverty. He was the NBA's first big man superstar.

At least Shaq stepped up and paid for the guys funeral a few years back.....he knew...without a George Mikan, there would have been no NBA.

Shaq is a stand up guy. Too bad we don't have more like him.

That would be Cleveland luck wouldn't it? After all the high draft picks that have held out and gotten massive paychecks, the year they think about changing the rule is the year the Browns don't have a 1st rounder!

Its funny that the national media is finally realizing how much money a top 5 pick can hurt the team. Nobody on Foxsports was writing about it when the last place Browns were in cap hell because they signed Couch, Brown, and Warren 3 years in a row. They were all paid better then season vets, and when you throw players like that on a team that was put together in months, you expect those players to play like season vets. I know every year there is a different team that cant get a pick signed or is hurt cap wise because of a high priced top pick that dont produce like one. Until it happens to a certain national writers favorite team, we only read about it in our local papers.

You wont find stories like this in New Englands, Dallas, or Pittsburghs local papers because they have organizations that dont get in cap hell from prennial losing teams that have to pick so early every year. They draft cheaper starters in the mid to late first round, have decent later round picks and can be in cap hell from signing FAs or by spending to keep their own. Not having to overspend on a mediocre FA to come there, like the Browns had to in the first 5 years, also helps.

The idea with a 3 year contract is that after the second year if you like what you see, resign them early and extend their contract.

But it gives you a couple years to see if they are worth anything, while not breaking the bank on a flop.

I like Peens suggestions. While I'm sure in some cases a player will bail out to a bigger market or something after 3 years, but the trade off of not tying up big money for several years over a guy that you released after year 2 because he sucked or was always injured, would offset any possible loss of talent.

I'd be irate if I put in my time and worked my way up, only to see some snot-nosed punk fresh off the street get hired for 10x what I am currently paid.

Hey FloridaFan,

What get's me is the endorsement deals these guys get even before they don a uniform or even attend a practice with the team......