Bears saved 20.5 million by not having a 1st or 2nd pick

[bradjock]

As per the trib

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...0,2279764.story

 

Is that an eye-popping number to anyone else? The 2nd round was only 2.5 million, but the first rounder was 18 million. Hell, lets trade our first rounder every year and spend that coin on a proven veteran. Seriously.

[ChileBear]

As per the trib

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...0,2279764.story

 

Is that an eye-popping number to anyone else? The 2nd round was only 2.5 million, but the first rounder was 18 million. Hell, lets trade our first rounder every year and spend that coin on a proven veteran. Seriously.

Sounds logical to me. You'd think that owners, and those proven vets, would be all for a limit on rookie contrct numbers. I've thought that from the day we got Cutler that I'd rather have him than the roll of the dice on first rounders, who often end up very well paid busts.

[Connorbear]

Sounds logical to me. You'd think that owners, and those proven vets, would be all for a limit on rookie contrct numbers. I've thought that from the day we got Cutler that I'd rather have him than the roll of the dice on first rounders, who often end up very well paid busts.

Agreed. I think the issue comes down to the risk of the sport (much more so than the NBA or MLB). If they put in a rookie cap and a guy has a career ending injury during that contract, how does he recoup. They need to work that out somehow.

 

Peace

[madlithuanian]

Hard to argue against!

 

Or at least trade down to the end of the round... One the other hand, why not just win the Super Bowl and draft at 32 every year?

 

 

As per the trib

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...0,2279764.story

 

Is that an eye-popping number to anyone else? The 2nd round was only 2.5 million, but the first rounder was 18 million. Hell, lets trade our first rounder every year and spend that coin on a proven veteran. Seriously.

 

[Guest TerraTor]

Hard to argue against!

 

Or at least trade down to the end of the round... One the other hand, why not just win the Super Bowl and draft at 32 every year?

 

Funny, Seattle spent at least 60mil guaranteed in the 1st two rounds... I think Ill take Peppers, HA!

[nfoligno]

I read on PFT where they talked about a post-draft Q&A w/ Goodell, where he talked about how teams would spend $600m in guaranteed dollars on draft picks this year, and that half (or more) would be busts and thus better than $300m would be wasted money.

 

He pointed to Stafford specifically and talked about how Stafford would get between $40 and $45m guaranteed, yet has never stepped onto a NFL field, much less proven himself.

 

It really is a joke. An unproven rookie drafted at the top of the 1st round is going to be amont the top paid players at his position, if not the top paid, and yet he has proven nothing. Manning, Brady and the like should be the top paid QBs in the game. Not some kid who has yet to throw his first NFL pass.

 

As per the trib

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...0,2279764.story

 

Is that an eye-popping number to anyone else? The 2nd round was only 2.5 million, but the first rounder was 18 million. Hell, lets trade our first rounder every year and spend that coin on a proven veteran. Seriously.

 

[chwtom]

Agreed. I think the issue comes down to the risk of the sport (much more so than the NBA or MLB). If they put in a rookie cap and a guy has a career ending injury during that contract, how does he recoup. They need to work that out somehow.

 

Peace

 

The natural solution is to do something along the lines of the NBA rookie deals. They get shorter, smaller guaranteed deals (say 3 years). At the end of the 3 years, the drafting team has an advantage in signing them--they get to offer a slightly larger deal than the rest of the league can.

 

This way nobody gets paid big dollars without proving themselves, there is still an advantage to staying within the draft, and player on average would get their big deal sooner after the draft.

 

It is completely unfair to the players that a third round pick could be at the pro bowl on a salary close to the minimum and Jamarcus Russell is using 100 bills as napkins. I think this would solve that problem.

 

[nfoligno]

I agree change is necessary, and think it will happen. What I am not sure I agree with is the idea of 3 year deals.

 

Thing is, it often takes 2 to 3 years for players to develop in the NFL. Players seem to develop faster in the NBA. But if a player takes 2 or 3 years to develop in the NFL, then you really are not getting much value for that top pick if you have to re-sign him the first time he plays at a high level.

 

The rookie salaries are going to be reduced, but they are still going to be significant. I just can't see limiting contracts to 3 year deals when it often takes that long for players to develop in the NFL, especially when you are talking about QBs who often sit the first year or so.

 

The natural solution is to do something along the lines of the NBA rookie deals. They get shorter, smaller guaranteed deals (say 3 years). At the end of the 3 years, the drafting team has an advantage in signing them--they get to offer a slightly larger deal than the rest of the league can.

 

This way nobody gets paid big dollars without proving themselves, there is still an advantage to staying within the draft, and player on average would get their big deal sooner after the draft.

 

It is completely unfair to the players that a third round pick could be at the pro bowl on a salary close to the minimum and Jamarcus Russell is using 100 bills as napkins. I think this would solve that problem.

 

[balta1701-A]

I agree change is necessary, and think it will happen. What I am not sure I agree with is the idea of 3 year deals.

 

Thing is, it often takes 2 to 3 years for players to develop in the NFL. Players seem to develop faster in the NBA. But if a player takes 2 or 3 years to develop in the NFL, then you really are not getting much value for that top pick if you have to re-sign him the first time he plays at a high level.

 

The rookie salaries are going to be reduced, but they are still going to be significant. I just can't see limiting contracts to 3 year deals when it often takes that long for players to develop in the NFL, especially when you are talking about QBs who often sit the first year or so.

Part of the reason for that is the depth of the rosters though. In the NFL, you've got a 53 man roster, and there are probably teams who use nearly all of those guys in a game if they need the backup QB. The "practice squad" is limited, and other teams can grab players you try to put on there. Basically, there's very little room to keep developmental guys on the roster without crowding out guys you actually need.

 

In the NBA, you have a 12 man active roster, and very few teams go 10 deep in a game unless it's a blowout. Then, you have 3 additional roster spots. All of those, you can use to keep extra people on your list for development or as a player/coach or as a backup in case of multiple injuries. Then you throw in the NBDL on top of that.

 

If a player takes 2-3 years to develop in the NFL...you're dumping him because you can't afford the roster spot.

[Daventry]

I would bet if JA could be coerced to tell the truth he would admit that he had figured out that 1st round picks are poor value generally. Personally, I would be happy to trade away first round picks consistently and pick up FA and later picks, and I would bet that will happen more in the future with many teams, which the free market economy will cause the picks to be less expensive...the beauty of capitalism.

[defiantgiant]

I would bet if JA could be coerced to tell the truth he would admit that he had figured out that 1st round picks are poor value generally.

Yeah, you look at what teams like the Patriots do: they love having late-1st round picks, and they stockpile 2nds like nobody's business. The best value in the draft seems to be in the late 1st to mid 2nd round, when you can still get blue-chip players, but they're much cheaper.

 

Personally, I would be happy to trade away first round picks consistently and pick up FA and later picks, and I would bet that will happen more in the future with many teams, which the free market economy will cause the picks to be less expensive...the beauty of capitalism.

Top picks won't get any less expensive unless the new CBA implements a rookie salary cap. The rookie pay scale is more like two monopolies negotiating than like a competitive free market economy: the rookies can't negotiate with any other teams, and the teams can't redo their draft pick if a guy holds out. So there's no labor market to set a rookie's market value, which is why it has to be set by the value of the contract in the same draft spot the year before, with a small percentage increase on top. It's more like the lockstep raises you see in employer-labor union negotiations, which is exactly the relationship between the NFL and the players. That's why those high picks are expensive, but it's something that has to be fixed in the new CBA, not by any kind of market forces.

 

Market forces won't work because, like any bilateral monopoly, the rookie signing process is prone to negotiation breakdowns - as it is now, if a team decides that the slotted value is more than it wants to pay, it can't get a substitute good and the player can't find a substitute buyer. Instead, that player will hold out and the team will eventually lose his rights if they can't get him under contract. Then the player has to enter the draft again, and the whole process starts over with whatever team picks him next. So if teams started doing what you suggest, they'd just get a bunch of holdouts and risk wasting their draft picks entirely. They wouldn't get to sign their rookies any cheaper, unless the rookies themselves decide to forgo the chance to get redrafted by a team willing to pay the slotted value.

[nfoligno]

One. I think I read it is somewhere around picks 12 - 15 where you see the end of the ridiculous contracts. That is why most talks I have read regarding a rookie wage scale revolve around the initial dozen picks. You don't need to set rules for all picks as the rest fall into place after these.

 

Two. It sounds like the rookie wage scale is something both sides actually agree on. Union doesn't want to talk about it too much as it is a bargaining chip, but the union represents veterans, not unsigned draft prospects. The union will likely push to raise the floor by the amount teams will save from the cap (or something to that effect) to make sure the money is still spent, but in the veterans pockets rather than the rookies.

 

Sucks to be next years #1 pick (if all this plays out) as he will about cry when he see's his contract and compares it to Staffords.

 

Yeah, you look at what teams like the Patriots do: they love having late-1st round picks, and they stockpile 2nds like nobody's business. The best value in the draft seems to be in the late 1st to mid 2nd round, when you can still get blue-chip players, but they're much cheaper.

 

 

Top picks won't get any less expensive unless the new CBA implements a rookie salary cap. The rookie pay scale is more like two monopolies negotiating than like a competitive free market economy: the rookies can't negotiate with any other teams, and the teams can't redo their draft pick if a guy holds out. So there's no labor market to set a rookie's market value, which is why it has to be set by the value of the contract in the same draft spot the year before, with a small percentage increase on top. It's more like the lockstep raises you see in employer-labor union negotiations, which is exactly the relationship between the NFL and the players. That's why those high picks are expensive, but it's something that has to be fixed in the new CBA, not by any kind of market forces.

 

Market forces won't work because, like any bilateral monopoly, the rookie signing process is prone to negotiation breakdowns - as it is now, if a team decides that the slotted value is more than it wants to pay, it can't get a substitute good and the player can't find a substitute buyer. Instead, that player will hold out and the team will eventually lose his rights if they can't get him under contract. Then the player has to enter the draft again, and the whole process starts over with whatever team picks him next. So if teams started doing what you suggest, they'd just get a bunch of holdouts and risk wasting their draft picks entirely. They wouldn't get to sign their rookies any cheaper, unless the rookies themselves decide to forgo the chance to get redrafted by a team willing to pay the slotted value.

 

[AZ54]

I would bet if JA could be coerced to tell the truth he would admit that he had figured out that 1st round picks are poor value generally. Personally, I would be happy to trade away first round picks consistently and pick up FA and later picks, and I would bet that will happen more in the future with many teams, which the free market economy will cause the picks to be less expensive...the beauty of capitalism.

 

Have you been talking with Belichick?

[Mongo3451]

One. I think I read it is somewhere around picks 12 - 15 where you see the end of the ridiculous contracts. That is why most talks I have read regarding a rookie wage scale revolve around the initial dozen picks. You don't need to set rules for all picks as the rest fall into place after these.

 

Two. It sounds like the rookie wage scale is something both sides actually agree on. Union doesn't want to talk about it too much as it is a bargaining chip, but the union represents veterans, not unsigned draft prospects. The union will likely push to raise the floor by the amount teams will save from the cap (or something to that effect) to make sure the money is still spent, but in the veterans pockets rather than the rookies.

 

Sucks to be next years #1 pick (if all this plays out) as he will about cry when he see's his contract and compares it to Staffords.

A rookie pay scale would be a great thing for the NFL. The only losers in this are the rookies and their agents.

 

Here are the benefits:

 

Teams would be able to slot their pick and sign them relatively easy.

 

Teams would have players signed and in camp, on time.

 

Teams would be able to part ways with a JaMarcus Russell type player.

 

More money out of the pie goes to the veteran players who have earned it.

 

Can you imagine the trades that would occur? Teams would be more likely to try to trade up again. As of now you have the quad whammy of paying a rookie a huge amount of money, he may be a bust, you’ve given a ton of picks to move up and you can’t get rid of him. At least with the rookie scale, you don’t get creamed on money and saddled with JaMarcus Russell.

 

Most important for the NFL as a whole: if the rookies come in and have to earn their stripes, we will see greater work ethic out of our young players trying to get their big payday. It will funnel down through the college ranks as well. It may even get rid of some of the entourages a little sooner with athletes thinking they haven’t earned their nest egg yet.

 

So many positives, so little negatives.

 

[balta1701-A]

Two. It sounds like the rookie wage scale is something both sides actually agree on. Union doesn't want to talk about it too much as it is a bargaining chip, but the union represents veterans, not unsigned draft prospects. The union will likely push to raise the floor by the amount teams will save from the cap (or something to that effect) to make sure the money is still spent, but in the veterans pockets rather than the rookies.

There's 1 thing the Union doesn't want to do though...and that's to get a rookie pay scale without getting the money being spent on rookies transferred to the players currently playing. If teams just pocket the money that was going to rookies, the Union is decidedly unhappy.

[nfoligno]

No question. I mentioned the union will want to take any "savings" and will likely try to increase the salary floor and/or up the veteran minimum contracts. But from what I have heard from Goodell and other owners, it doesn't sound like they are opposed to this. It isn't that the owners are trying to save money off this, but more they are trying to limit the money thrown at unproven players.

 

 

There's 1 thing the Union doesn't want to do though...and that's to get a rookie pay scale without getting the money being spent on rookies transferred to the players currently playing. If teams just pocket the money that was going to rookies, the Union is decidedly unhappy.

 

[Pixote]

Exactly. All the owners want to do is shift some of the money that would be paid rookies to the vets.

 

(These figures are TOTALLY for example only, not real)

 

If the owners are now giving 10 percent of the salary cap to rookies and 90 percent to the vets, they are looking to give 5 percent to the rookies and 95 percent to the vets. (all imaginary numbers)

 

That should make the vets happy.

 

Rookies still get a huge payday when you consider they have proved nothing and still getting millions of dollars.

 

Owners are happy because they are not throwing away so much money on unproven rookies that may never play a down in the NFL.

[madlithuanian]

The plan is SO logicial I fear it won't happen!

 

It should be a slam dunk already... Or should I say, a 1 yard Payton leap over the top! (Lord knows it ain't a McKie plunge up the middle!)

 

Exactly. All the owners want to do is shift some of the money that would be paid rookies to the vets.

 

(These figures are TOTALLY for example only, not real)

 

If the owners are now giving 10 percent of the salary cap to rookies and 90 percent to the vets, they are looking to give 5 percent to the rookies and 95 percent to the vets. (all imaginary numbers)

 

That should make the vets happy.

 

Rookies still get a huge payday when you consider they have proved nothing and still getting millions of dollars.

 

Owners are happy because they are not throwing away so much money on unproven rookies that may never play a down in the NFL.