- 02/17/2009, 05:47PM ET
LanaLikesBrady said 02/17, 05:47 PM
I say definitely.
These amounts these rookies are getting are outrageous.
Seriously, I honestly believe that a player who has proven himself should make more money then a rookie who has yet to play a down in the NFL. Some of these top 15 picks actually make more money then some of the more accomplished players at their respective position.
Are we not sick of these spoiled rotten brats, holding out for a bigger payday, instead of hitting the field and doing everything they can to ensure they earn that payday?
While their already is a cap on rookies, they usually sign a deal for 4-6 years, how is it possible to put a figure on what they will be in the future?
Some key examples of complete and utter overpayment for a rookie.
Alex Smith - 49.5 mill, 24 guaranteed. (Never threw more TD then INTS)
8th biggest contract for a QB.
Jamarcus Russell 6 yr, 68 mill, 31.5 guaranteed.(AVg 147 ypg, 15 total td, 12 INT.
Joe Thomas took 9.46 mill from the cap of the Browns last year.
Jake Long is now the highest paid Tackle, before him it was Thomas....both of these guys signed the richest contract for their positions. 2 yrs in a row.
This has got to stop.
Bigalke said 02/18, 12:11 AM
The philosophy of the rookie salary cap is sound, as written. As per the CBA, each team is allotted a certain amount in dollars of their salary cap to sign new rookies. This is determined on a sliding scale -- if you have more draft picks, you have more money to sign 'em; if you have more high draft picks, you again get more money...
Simple enough, right?
So each team has X amount of dollars to sign their draft picks. High draft picks are naturally going to command the bulk of that rookie salary cap... and seventh-round guys aren't going to get nearly as much...
The problem with your cap argument inre: Joe Thomas is the fact that last year... HE WASN'T A ROOKIE!
A salary cap is a tricky thing... contracts are often back-loaded to take the hit later. It would be far more reasonable to put a cap not on rookie salaries but rather on the number of years allowed on a first contract and/or a restriction on guaranteed money (Thomas was guaranteed $23 million over six years... hardly unreasonable).
Some players are ALWAYS going to fuss and moan for every last cent. New restrictions would only have each guy fighting to get the maximum...
LanaLikesBrady said 02/18, 07:32 AM
"The problem with your cap argument inre: Joe Thomas is the fact that last year... HE WASN'T A ROOKIE!"
He signed this deal as a rookie. When he signed the deal, he was the richest tackle in the NFL, only until Jake Long got signed.
"(Thomas was guaranteed $23 million over six years... hardly unreasonable)."
Are you for real? Giving a kid $23 million dollars before he has ever taken one snap, blocked one big name d-man., that is quite unreasonable.
"It would be far more reasonable to put a cap not on rookie salaries but rather on the number of years allowed on a first contract and/or a restriction on guaranteed money"
So aren't you just agreeing with me?Isn't it your position to fight for the rookies and their despicable contracts? All this is doing is enabling attitudes that will not grown into great leaders.
Take a look at Jamarcus Russell, this guy had the gull to sit out OTA and training camps until he got the richest contract in rookie history. I say can him. He doesn't deserve it. Nor should he have the rights to have leverage over their teams.
There should be a cap on everything to do with a rookie. They should have a 3 yr deal limit, to become a RFA.
Bigalke said 02/18, 09:45 AM
Look at the wording on this throwdown. It does NOT say "rookie contract" or "first contract"; it ONLY deals with the salary a player makes in his first year in the NFL. Nothing more, nothing less...
So to try to skew this in your favor by twisting the reality of the throwdown and trying to set my burden of proof "to fight for the rookies and their despicable contracts" is a distortion of the wording YOU chose to use in the topic sentence...
You must defend a restriction on the first-year salary a player receives. What I have logically laid out in my first argument is that a better means of restriction is not to curb that first-year salary (which it already is) but rather the guaranteed money and/or the length of contract...
If anything, YOU'RE agreeing with me when you say "There should be a cap on everything to do with a rookie." YOU are going outside YOUR field of engagement to take up my side of the debate...
And I didn't even have to bring emotion into play. In the end, it is not the NFL's job to police a GM's good or bad decisions, nor is it their job to try to dampen their mistakes. Each team has their rookie allotment... and they should use it!
LanaLikesBrady said 02/18, 05:25 PM
"In the end, it is not the NFL's job to police a GM's good or bad decisions, nor is it their job to try to dampen their mistakes."
How is it not the league's job to ensure that this tidal wave of rookie contracts doesn't endanger teams from not even being able to use their top 15 pick?
You wasted your whole second argument telling me the wording of the TD is not in my favor, when you know as well as I do is we picked a TD that was already chosen for us.
In essence, the contract a rookie signs before he starts is egregious. The fact that the word salary is in there and not contract, doesn't mean I can only talk about an entry level salary.
The fact that Alex Smith became the 8th highest paid QB in the NFL without even playing a down is the problem. Coupled with a guy like Jamarcus Russell who holds out the entire offseason, misses all of the OTA's and training camp sessions to guarantee himself more money is ridiculous.
The cap I talk of, doesn't necessarily mean on their initial season, because in most rookie cases, they don't play the majority of their rookie season.
The fact someone could be guaranteed $30 Mill without EVER PLAYING A DOWN in the NFL is wrong.
Bigalke said 02/18, 08:54 PM
The problem here is not in the league's rookie cap structure. There already IS a finite amount of money that any & all teams get to use on their draft picks. By the wording of the topic, SALARY is what we are debating...
"How is it not the league's job to ensure that this tidal wave of rookie contracts doesn't endanger teams from not even being able to use their top 15 pick?"
Teams CAN and DO use their picks. That is a moot point. Further, it is not the league's job to assess the talent on offer, nor is it their job to police its franchises' personnel decisions. Goodell & crew can't fix this problem with a simple restriction. If a team's scouting department valuates a guy to be worth the money, they should have every right within the current rookie cap structure to spend that money.
"The fact someone could be guaranteed $30 Mill without EVER PLAYING A DOWN in the NFL is wrong."
The market will bear what it chooses... and it is a blight on individual franchises, rather than the NFL itself, if a team chooses to put all its rookie cap into one player who may or may not pan out. GMs & scouts are paid to make these calls, NOT rules committees...
- Fantasy baseball Weekend Primer: Stream Axelrod, Colon
- Fantasy baseball Prospect Watch: Miller looks like an ace
- Fantasy baseball Stat Focus: Cabrera's wOBA proves dominance
- Fantasy baseball Trade Tips: It's time to sell Rickie Weeks
- Fantasy baseball Roundtable: Is Cardinals' pitching slowing?
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia