Playing in the NFL

[Shane]

Is a PRIVELEDGE not A GOD GIVEN RIGHT!

These players coming out of college have the primadonna attitude that they deserve to be paid when quite frankly they dont deserve squat!

Granted a lot of the mentality has been the fault of the owners who have steadily and and more frequently shelled out huge contracts to players who have not proven a thing in the NFL!

But a day is coming when the NFL will have a rookie salary structure similar to the NBA IMO. It is really a matter of time before the teams get fed up giving 10 million dollar signing bonuses to a guy who is out of the league in three years and didnt see the field 60% of the time.

What will these players do then? Refuse to play because the guys drafted the year before got 10 million but due to new rules you can only recieve lets say 4 million? I THINK NOT!

These guys will sign the contract and play instead of going to get a real job based on principle!

Somebody in this league needs to take a stand and if must be Bill Bidwill then I commed him for that and at least respect the man for standing by his principles!

These players are PRIVELEDGED to be where they are at and should thank god everyday for the blessing and opportunity that they have been given and get there butts on the field because before you know it that opportunity can be swiped out from under your feet!

It is not a RIGHT!

 

[jw7]

Shane,

Yes, I agree to an extent. I would love to see an NBA like slotted fixed salary for rookies. I get frustrated with $10M Ryan Leaf - don't-do-squat contracts.

The problem is that unlike the NBA, it is hard to do "3 yrs performance", then earn your money contracts, because severe injuries are so prevalent in the NFL, and an NFL career is typically much shorter than an NBA one. I don't think the union would ever agree to an NBA-like structure for rooks.

But I understand their point of view. An NFL career is so risky due to injuries, that of course they want to get as much up-front money as possible.

 

[Shane]

Originally posted by jw7
Shane,

Yes, I agree to an extent. I would love to see an NBA like slotted fixed salary for rookies. I get frustrated with $10M Ryan Leaf - don't-do-squat contracts.

The problem is that unlike the NBA, it is hard to do "3 yrs performance", then earn your money contracts, because severe injuries are so prevalent in the NFL, and an NFL career is typically much shorter than an NBA one. I don't think the union would ever agree to an NBA-like structure for rooks.

But I understand their point of view. An NFL career is so risky due to injuries, that of course they want to get as much up-front money as possible.

The players union might not have a choice in the longrun! This could be one off the issues that leads to another labor fight and a strike/lockout in the NFL!

My money would be on the owners to come out on top in such a situation!

 

[jw7]

Originally posted by Shane H
The players union might not have a choice in the longrun! This could be one off the issues that leads to another labor fight and a strike/lockout in the NFL!

My money would be on the owners to come out on top in such a situation!

I think you may be right. One of the disparities is that due to the veteran minimum salaries, journeymen vets can get cut for cap room to sign unproven players - and voids are filled by rookie minimum UDFAs.

If the owners presented it in a manner that shows how the reduction in $ to rookies get redistributed to vets at the expense of unproven rookies, that would be their best strategy.

 

[Shane]

Originally posted by jw7
I think you may be right. One of the disparities is that due to the veteran minimum salaries, journeymen vets can get cut for cap room to sign unproven players - and voids are filled by rookie minimum UDFAs.

If the owners presented it in a manner that shows how the reduction in $ to rookies get redistributed to vets at the expense of unproven rookies, that would be their best strategy.

Your right that would be a good startegy and one the owners just might use.

But inevitably I feel an NBA type system will eventually be in place and rightly so!

 

[SweetD]

Originally posted by Shane H
Your right that would be a good startegy and one the owners just might use.

But inevitably I feel an NBA type system will eventually be in place and rightly so!

The prob with NBA is the guaranteed money. ALA Penny.. I like the NFL's Produce at your worth or you can be cut!

 

[Shane]

Originally posted by SweetD
The prob with NBA is the guaranteed money. ALA Penny.. I like the NFL's Produce at your worth or you can be cut!

I agree when it comes to the veterans salaries but the rookie salary structure is something the NFL needs to emulate!

 

[SECTION 11]

Originally posted by Shane H
I agree when it comes to the veterans salaries but the rookie salary structure is something the NFL needs to emulate!

absolutely.

nba style for rookies
nfl style for vets
*********** for the weekend

 

[Cheesebeef]

Nothing the NBA has done wil effect the NFL for one simple reason - The NBAPA is weak and stupid and got fleeced by the owners in almost every way, while the NFLPA has always been the strongest and the anti-NBA union.

 

[Sack Daddy]

Man with a plan. Oh, yeah!

 

[Shane]

Originally posted by SECTION 11
absolutely.

nba style for rookies
nfl style for vets
*********** for the weekend

LMAO!

Man Section11 You never cease to amaze me!

 

[kerouac9]

This is the dumbest thread that I've ever seen. Take Macroeconomics 101, and you'll see that the way that rookies are paid is exactly equal to what the market will allow.

If the team or league is fed up with the "prima donna" attitude of a player, they can release him, or the league can suspend or exclude him.

Players get drafted that don't even want to play football, like Drew Henson.

There's a reason that teams draft player, because they need their talents. It's a symbiotic relationship: the team needs the players to put a (hopefully) competitive product on the field, and the player needs the team because he wants to get paid. Either party is welcome to opt out of the arrangement if they find it disagreeable. It may not make us very happy as fans when there's disagreement between the parties, but we're the spectators.

To suggest that the NFL has anything to learn from the NBA or MLB, or world soccer, or any other league is absolutely ridiculous. The NFL is by far the most successful professional sports organization in the world. The players association and the administration of the league work almost in harmony. If you think that Carson Palmer's rookie contract is too big, or that our rookies are asking too much for their play, look at what Donnie McNabb is making next year, or Aaron Brooks. They have yet to win anything, either. Donnie did worse than either of his backups, but he's making 10-50 times more than they are. Aaron Brooks orchestrated a late-season collapse two years straight.

There's a market for these players, teams are willing to pay the price, and fans and television is willing to subsidize this arrangement with their money. Ask Ricky Watters what happens when you try to buck the market.

It has nothing to do with "right" vs. "privilege." Get off your high horse. What do you want, for the players to thank the Bidwills for bringing them to one of the worst teams in the league and offer to play for free? Please. They're doing some of the hardest work in the world. You have no idea what these players sacrifice once they're out of the league. This money might be the only money that they'll make in their lives. Their signing bonus may have to last for the next 30 years. I don't blame them for trying to get as much money as they can. I try to get as much money as I can, and if I was in the position to hold my company hostage if I couldn't get the money I felt I deserved, I'd do it. And so would you.

 

[SECTION 11]

Originally posted by kerouac9
This is the dumbest thread that I've ever seen. Take Macroeconomics 101, and you'll see that the way that rookies are paid is exactly equal to what the market will allow

And Microeconomic 101 would tell you that from the owners' perspective, their product is dependent on purchasing players services, and the accepted structure to those purchases is overseen by player unions and collective bargaining agreements, not by supply and demand theory.
The format of player service contracts from drafts or any other assignment system is complete independent of the end value of the contract itself. You can stand on your soap box all day regarding the value of the contract, but it still doesn't apply here.

Is the money guaranteed or not?
How much money? It doesn't matter. It's not the question.

 

[40yearfan]

I tend to side with Section 11 on this issue. The collective bargaining agreement is what determines the drafted rookies salaries. That's why the NFL tells all of the teams how much money they have to spend for signing their draft picks (rookie pool).<p> At the next negotiating session, the owners could present a proposal for a more uniform salary schedule with a descending value as you get further into the draft. They could ask to have the rookie pool dollars reduced significantly and that reduction used to retain veteran players who would otherwise have to be released because of the cap. Since the majority of players in the players union are veterans, this proposal would have a great chance of passage. Then instead of $10 million dollar signing bonuses for kids who have never played a down in the NFL, a set amount for signing bonuses depending on the position the rookie was picked in the draft, could be established (something like starting at $2 million and going down to a minumum of $250,000.00). <p> They could also establish a first year salary level and in the best interest of the player, have only a one year contract. At the end of that year, the player is free to negotiate a new contract with his team comensurate with the ability he had shown in the previous season. He would be a restricted free agent at that point with a guaranteed salary, but the team would have the ability to extend his contract to any length, pay him the guaranteed salary for the 2nd. season, or release him. If the team only paid the guaranteed salary for the second season, the player would become an unrestricted free agent at the end of year 2.

 

[AntSports Steve]

I think the NFL Players would love that Free Agency at 2 years idea.

I don't think the NFL needs to do anything that radical. My simple solution would be :

All rookies must sign 3 year contracts. The 4th year they are restricted (as per the rules now).

That's it. That would fix most problems. If teams can't spread the signing bonuses over 5,6 or 7 years, then they can't have those huge signing bonuses with the voidable years. After 3 years, team basicly have 1 year to sign the players they like to long term contracts. By then they should know the players value.

Oh, the vet problem is now taken care of. If a vet signs for the min contract (7-10 year vet min contract is like $800,000), the only $400,000 (or so) counts against the teams cap. The difference is now paid by a pool of money that's in reserve by the NFL itself.

 

[cardsunsfan]

To tell you the truth I think that Professional Sports leagues are unlike almost any entity known in business and go against the values of Macroeconomics. They really have a type of Monopoly among many other advantages. For example, What other businesses have the right to have tax payers pay for their infrustructure even when many do not want to pay for it and then the organization can allow a black out and not allow the people who paid for it to see it if the new infrastructure isn't full of paid customers! There are other major advantages they have over other businesses but I'm too tired to think of them all right now. I know some companies get tax breaks like Intel and Motorola for their contribution to the state but not to the extent Professional sports do!!!

Also, I get a little tired when players/people say they have to make these huge contracts (and I mean high first round money or bigger type contracts) because if they get injured they may not be able to work again. Well if you guys have taken Micro and Macro Economics you should know a little about finance too. If you get a signing bonus worth several million dollars and you save most of it you should have more than enough to live on for the rest of your life!!!! When star players want their third contracts and they say they are looking forward to securing their future and well being for their family they should have already done that already. If they spend all of their money and get hurt earlier on in their career and they have no money to live on for the rest of their lives they are stupid!!!! I may be wrong about this but didn't the players league make up a special fund for people who aren't playing in the NFL anymore? Not that most should need it....

I'm not condoning Bidwill for what he's doing though, he's making enough money already. I think the players should do what is best for their overall future. The people who are really stupid are us fans who continue to pay high prices to go to the games and to pay for the hotdogs and drinks. If as group and I mean fans across the nation stopped going to games as often and stopped watching the games on tv, things would change. Prices for games could become lower, no games would be blocked out if we fought it hard enough, and players would probably appreciate even more the salaries they get because they'll be reminded of how we the public pay for them.

I know my post was a little convoluted but I'm a little tired right now, hopefully the Card fans reading these posts get the jist of what I'm saying.

 

[JasonKGME]

Originally posted by 40yearfan
Then instead of $10 million dollar signing bonuses for kids who have never played a down in the NFL, a set amount for signing bonuses depending on the position the rookie was picked in the draft, could be established (something like starting at $2 million and going down to a minumum of $250,000.00).

Look at the Cards picks this year under above scenario:

#17 - $1.4M
#18 - $1.3M
#54 - $750k
#70 - $500K
#141 - $320k
#177 - $280k
#210 - $250K

Total rookie pool under your scenario: $4,900,000, actual Cards rookie pool : $3,950,000. We would actually end up spending more I think doing it your way.

It's not the amount of money spending that ridiculous is the layout of the money(i.e. the guarenteed cash in signing bonus thats ridiculous). When you give a guy a 6 year contract with base salaries every year of $250K and a signing bonus of $10.5M its the $10.5 that sucks. Lets be honest look at the breakdown of the contract:

Year 1 - $10.5M + $250K = $10.75M
Year 2 - $250K
Year 3 - $250K
Year 4 - $250K
Year 5 - $250K
Year 6 - $250K Grand total = $12M

Now assume for a second the player ends up being a bust and cut after year 3, in above scenario he would have earned without proving anything = $11.25M

Now on the other hand if you gave the player mostly salary with low bonus, say 6 years @ 1.5M a year and $3 signing bonus:

Year 1 - $3M + $1.5M = $4.5
Year 2 - $1.5M
Year 3 - $1.5M
Year 4 - $1.5M
Year 5 - $1.5M
Year 6 - $1.5M Grand total = $12M

Same total but now after 3 years if he is a bust he has only earned $7.5M which is still a crap load of money to the rest of us, but then not as horendous as $11.25M under the current system

 

[SECTION 11]

Originally posted by kerouac9
The NFL is by far the most successful professional sports organization in the world.

How are you defining successful?


Manchester United is the wealthiest, winningest, most popular professional sports team in the world, in the most successful sports league in the world.

The league has no labor problems like strikes and lockouts.

Rupert Murdoch tried to purchase Man U in 1998 for about $1B, which would have been the most money paid for a professional sports team, even today.
They're worth more than double the Redskins and almost the same amount more than the Yankees.

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by SECTION 11
How are you defining successful?

I'm speaking "successful" in the most general terms. My understanding of Euro soccer (limited as it is) is that players make tons of money, and the same teams win every year, which is a similar problem to what MLB is facing right now. Just as with baseball, there are a ton of teams in Europe who begin the season (or whatever) with no chance of getting anywhere.

The NFL is successful because ownership makes a ton of money, players make a ton of money (yes, stars make a lot more than role-players, but you don't hear a lot of haves/have not arguments, and the NFLPA just started a system for giving players bonuses that have overplayed their contracts), every single game is important and has drama, every team (except the Cards, now) has stars, the player's union and the administration work together to make the league better, making the playoffs means something, and virtually every team has the opportunity to make the playoffs, if not win the Super Bowl, at least on a three-year cycle. I'm not sure if there's a precedent for this kind of total success and competitiveness anywhere in the world.

Everybody seems to be finesseing my arguement too much. All other things aside, there is a supply of talent (rookies drafted and wanting money) and a demand for that talent (teams needing players who have money), and a matrix in which negotiations take place (rookie pool and salary cap). There are strictures, but these were made in the best intrests of the league, so that it wouldn't become like major league baseball. The fact that contracts are made and players play is evidence of the success of the system.

What I was mostly advocating against was the argument that Shane seemed to make that draftees should "just be happy to be here" and sign for whatever's offered. That's BS.

Sec, do you look at MLB or the NBA and say, wow, that's a great league, that's doing a great job of managing the sport, and the NFL should adopt their policies? I know I don't look at empty NBA fora and see Detriot on pace to lost 95% of their games and wish the NFL was like that, too.

 

[Ed B]

Originally posted by Shane H

But inevitably I feel an NBA type system will eventually be in place and rightly so!

I agree. It will happen and it should happen.

But until it <b>does</b> happen, Bidwill can't act like a cowboy and try to "teach these rookies a lesson" on his own.

 

[Shane]

Originally posted by kerouac9

What I was mostly advocating against was the argument that Shane seemed to make that draftees should "just be happy to be here" and sign for whatever's offered. That's BS.

Call it what you will BS or whatever!

The bottom line is thats your opinion and you are entitled to it. Wether you want to believe it or not there will always be a demand for football because of the exciting sport that it is!

These college player should feel priveledged that there is a venue for them to play a game as a living and to be able to make millions doing so!

It isnt a RIGHT for them to be able to play in the NFL period regardless of what you say!

 

[Ed B]

Originally posted by Shane H
These college player should feel priveledged that there is a venue for them to play a game as a living and to be able to make millions doing so!

That's not realistic.

The owners need the talented players as much as the players need a "venue" for their skills.

I'd like to see the TV ratings if the NFL told all these players to go to hell and replaced them with NFL Europe guys. You act like the owners have all the leverage here. Truth is, about 0.000001% of the population is physically gifted to play professional sports, and the owners need those guys to make money on as much as the guys need the owners to get paid.

You talk like there are 100 warren sapps that the owners can turn to if warren sapp makes an exorbitant contract demand. The truth is, there is only one Warren Sapp just like there is only one NFL for Warren to play in.

Your argument gets to one of the problems with the labor situation in sports. Everything is always "pro owners" or "pro players" when the reality is that they both need each other very badly and need to get off their high horses and compromise.

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by Shane H
Call it what you will BS or whatever!

The bottom line is thats your opinion and you are entitled to it. Wether you want to believe it or not there will always be a demand for football because of the exciting sport that it is!

These college player should feel priveledged that there is a venue for them to play a game as a living and to be able to make millions doing so!

It isnt a RIGHT for them to be able to play in the NFL period regardless of what you say!

Dude, I guess. Perhaps the Cards should feel privileged that we, as fans, grace them with our presence at Sun Devil Stadium on Sundays and just let us in for free? Or they should feel privileged that Emmit Smith comes to practice every day, and so should hand him a blank check, because he's arguably our best player (whether is this exactly what we did is an argument for another thread)?

The RIGHT is that, because they were drafted and have no opportunity to "shop their wares" on the open NFL market, they can negotiate the best possible contract that they can, for as much up-front money as they can get. I, for one, do not want guaranteed salaries for players, as they have in the NBA and MLB, and is the worst way to orchestrate a league, because the players have absolutely no motivation to play for anything until their contract year.

There will always be a demand for football, but what makes the NFL the best football league is that they have the best players. If you don't like they system, and want to watch players who have no leverage in contracts, watch the CFL, or Arena League, and you'll see crappy football (in comparison), but at bargain-basement prices.

 

[SECTION 11]

Originally posted by kerouac9
Sec, do you look at MLB or the NBA and say, wow, that's a great league, that's doing a great job of managing the sport, and the NFL should adopt their policies?

No. Not at all.

That being said, how many other leagues have rookie holdouts? That's the only problem I can see with NFL salary structure. It's not killing the sport, it's just unnecessary and annoying.

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by SECTION 11
No. Not at all.

That being said, how many other leagues have rookie holdouts? That's the only problem I can see with NFL salary structure. It's not killing the sport, it's just unnecessary and annoying.

This, I think we agree on. I think that what happened with Chris Simms and Bryant McKinnie and Wendell Bryant and Quentin Jammer was ridiculous. It's annoying and a little embarassing. The problem though, as I see it, is with the agents. On these long-term holdouts, it hurts them in the long run because a bad rookie year contributes to a perception of being a bust, and they have less exposure and leverage for the big payday, the second contract. But, because agents know that nothing guaranteed for them after the first deal, are working short-sightedly for today, against the long-term interests of their clients, who don't know any better because all they know how to do is play football.

I think that if rookies start holding out into Week 4 or 7 with regularity, the league, in concordance with the NFLPA, will do something about it, but until it starts happening to more high-profile franchises than Arizona, Minnesota, and San Diego, nothing will happen because the perception around the league will be that it's a problem with old-school owners.