Divide and conquer were the words from Robert Smith on this morning's Mike & Mike Show.
Mort said earlier in the show there is about $ 400 million left collectively between the 32 teams on unused salary cap money. Robert Smith said later that the the reason the Union will not go for the rookie salary cap is because there is still unused monies out there for most, if not all the teams. By capping its only going to put that money in the pockets of the owners. He said that Goodell is sending his message out to the fans, and the players as a "Divide and Conquer" tactic to try and force the Union to comply or at least force them to the negotiating table.
Anyone else with a slant on this, and could this be the real motivation for Goodell to say what he did the other day ?
Page 1 of 2
-
I think you've got a solid idea there, but as for any ideas why GoodHell said what he said, how about simply the rookie salaries are out of control and its not fair to the teams or to the veteran players who have shown they've earned it and are worth the big money? Seems simple enough to me, but you've got an interesting theory there, definitely worth exploring a little.
DOLPHAN1 likes this. -
Im all for the rookie salary cut or whatever he has in mind for it. I would like to see the numbers for all the money that was wasted on first round talent that just came up total busts the past 10 years.
-
-
Well their take on it was interesting. I think it was Eric Beselius (not sure of the spelling he is sitting in for Greeny) said what he thinks should happen is if you have a salary cap for the 1st and 2nd rounders you need to also make sure there is more money given to the 3-5th rounders too. That would make sure the guys in that 3rd to 5th aren't the ones that end up vastly underpaid their whole careers
Say you are a 4th round guy, and sign a 6 year contract for $ 700,000 a year, and by year 2 are a Pro Bowler. You then are waaaay underpaid and only have one option and that is to sit out.
However if you did this, limit the length of 3rd or lower draft picks contracts to 3 years, and then they can become FA's, they could then make their money if they play hard and deserve it. Since most guys peak of their career is around 4th to 7th years (I am guessing) that would allow them to make their money and not be caught in the contract trap they are in now.
Any of that make sense ?xer0 likes this. -
PMZQ likes this.
-
To me it sounds like there is $400 million in cap space by the teams, which is only $12.5 million per team on the average. If that is the case I'm all for the owners keeping that and not being forced to pay. They own the team, it is a business, and they have all the right to profit as much as they possibly can. -
I think they should solve this problem as well. -
-
-
Since the cap approximately gone up 7-9 million over the last few years, they could settle on one number and they wouldn't have that problem. Settle on a cap that is the same ever year and lets say that there is an X amount of million left over after the first season under that new cap, they could adjust the rookie salaries for the second year so they don't have the left-overs. In that sense, you would have no left-overs for the owners like Goodell wants and the cap would be somewhat fair.
Does that make any sense?Last edited: Jul 2, 2008 -
Is this, in the long run a strategy that could work, or could it lead to a messy and long drawn out work stoppage by strengthening the unions resolve ? -
-
alen1 likes this.
-
-
-
DOLPHAN1 Premium Member Luxury Box
NFLN was talking about this and the group all thought that the issues were in the top 7-10 players drafted and that that is were the league should impose some kind of cap.Last edited: Jul 2, 2008PMZQ likes this. -
We're not advocating taking food out of their mouths. They can still get tens of millions of dollars. Lets just get it under control. Rookies at the top will still get their millions. More money left for veterans. Teams aren't hampered by bad or unlucky draft choices. Everyone wins.
What's wrong with that? Give me one reason that this isn't a good goal? Again, If you say the #1 rookie can only get $45M over 6 years instead of the $60M Jake just got, and have it indexed slightly up, would anyone argue that the rookie just got his livelihood taken away from him? I don't think so. Then if someone argues that owners will get cheap and not spend any money, well that is somewhat the owners prerogative in my opinion (Baseball has this problem, but they are having one of the greatest years despite steroids scandal) but all you need is a couple owners who will spend, and all the good FA's will flock to those teams. I digress, anyways one way to take care of that is to concede a higher salary floor. -
When this was first brought up by Goodell, Upshaw said he liked it the way it was. I think he is saying that to get something in return during negotiations. THe union could be completely in favor of doing this, behind closed doors, which I believe to be the case, but they are not going to give the owners ANYTHING for free. It is just a bargaining tool/ ploy. This can be used by the union, during contract negotiations, to get something like higher pensions, or a higher % going to the players from the owners, or whatever. IMHO, this is nothing but posturing. It is what BOTH sides do. Goodell is just making waves to get the public involved. That almost never helps or works. One side wants to fix it now, the other side is willing to wait until thely can get something in exchange. It is nothing new
-
Samphin Κακό σκυλί ψόφο δεν έχει
I would like to see there whole system overhauled. Guarentee the salaries and the ridiculous signing/roster bonuses will go away. Plus, it will make it easier to have trades occur, which will add an element that is missing in the NFL. I would also move the trade deadline back to at least mid-season.
Have the rookies make money like the MLB rookies or NBA rookies. Good money, just not surperstar money that they have no right to have. There is no reason why Matt Ryan should have more money right now than someone like Trent Green or Jeff Garcia.Themole, PMZQ, gafinfan and 1 other person like this. -
Have said this before and still believe that All rookie contracts should be for 3 years with the 3rd year being the RFA year. The cream always rises to the top and then that 6th or 7th rounder that turns out to be great can get his money also. It won't hurt the guys at the top of the draft as long as they turn out to be the stars they are expected to become. If not you just let them go or at least pay them what they are truly worth. The pressure would then be where it should be, on the player. I'm not saying they shouldn't get an ok salary but nothing like what the top guys are getting now.
I also think it would make coaches look at players more evenly. Guys that now fall thru the cracks and really don't get a chance until their 3rd or 4th year might get noticed sooner.Themole likes this. -
Also, I like the lack of trades in the NFL. I want to root for players, not jerseys. -
Bottom Line
Cheaper Salaries=slightly cheaper tickets,
slightly higher salaries= Much higher ticket costs -
I don't think it's a "Divide and Conquer" approach. It's not like players don't already know what everyone is making. So, telling veterans that the rookie pay is too high is of absolutely no surprise to them and IMO does nothing to alter how they already feel about it.
Also, it's not like the $400M is going into the owner's pockets either. Just because there's that much left in cap space doesn't mean that it actually exists. Meaning, just because the owners aren't paying it doesn't mean they're keeping it. It just means that they don't have to pay it. If they did, then they'd have to find a means to pay it, probably resulting in increasing ticket prices, etc. -
The owners know they lost the last round of negotiations and they are just trying to win the next round. The owners dont want to cap rookie salaries to pay veterans more, they want to cap rookie salaries to drive down overall salaries. They dont want to pay the players 59% of all revenue.
Lets not forget the owners were the ones who starting paying these outrageous salaries. Just look at how much the Falcons threw at Matt Ryan this year. -
PMZQ likes this.
-
-
I mean, slot the rookies, and rookie holdouts are eliminated forever. -
-
I'm in agreement with what you say 100%. Yet, I'm not a big fan of the NFL business structure. Congress gives them a pass on Anti Trust laws. We the fan, fall victim to them through the NFL dictating to us what teams we are allowed to watch on TV through the franchising of viewing area.(the NFL, nor any other business has the right to force the public to follow a certain team or business, just because THEY have invested in a certain area) I say let the free market determine the success of a team . Not only do they hold hostage TV viewers, but now they want us to pay to listen to games on the radio. No, I have run out of sympathy for players and owners. I remember a much better (tv) game back in the 60s & 70s when there wasn't a commercial everytime the game clock stopped. I remember when the press actually visited the locker rooms after the games for interviews with players and coaches. We the people are the ones getting screwed in this deal. -
Page 1 of 2