Because ultimately they paid the money, bottom line. The players were gonna take what they could get, hard to blame them for that. There was no reason the owners couldnt have imposed their own cap. Im not sure if collusion could apply here though. Think Bill Simmons actually had some words on the subject before the NBA finals, which leads me to a final point, wonder if Goodell was just stirring the NFL interest pot in the offseason. We will see what happens.
Who started the system? I would say the agents and the rookies? You think any owner wouldn't love to pay this year's #1 the same or less than last years? You think the agent or the player would be ok with that? Find me one owner that said, "shoot I'd love to pay you 3-6% more than the #1 last year." You won't. This isn't free agency where the owners are tripping overthemselves and bidding salaries up. It's the team vs. rookie/agent. To try and place blame on the owners is wrong. They didn't create the "system" they're just forced to play along with it, and now it's gotten out of hand. "The most powerful force in the world is compounding interest." Albert einstein never said this (even though a lot of people quote him as such) but it illustrates what happens when you keep compounding. It gets out of hand really fast, and that's what's happening now.
If the owner doesn't pay it, the player holds out. How is it the owner's fault if he pays? Should the owner just not have paid it and lose the player altogether?
Makes perfect sense. Not only does the player have no choice where he plays, but he also must accept whatever salary his employer chooses. If you eliminated the draft, and the players were free to sign with anyone, you would still see the same ridiculous contracts being handed out.
Oh no! The top players for the next five years must accept 20 million guaranteed, 40 million over 6 years. The horror! The travesty! How will they eat?????
Uh .. maybe where you and I work, but not in the NFL. The player can hold out, thereby forcing more pay. Or he can hold out altogether and go back in the draft the next year. Either way, the owner doesn't choose the salary. At best, there's a negotiation where the owner has little leverage. I don't propose getting rid of the draft. But, I'm all for a slotted system where the contracts are pretty much predetermined. I'd also like to see contract clauses that protects the team against injury or player "busts". And I'd like to see players rewarded for play, not before you play.
And the players did play. They played well enough to be considered the best of their college class. Jake Long earned his money when he gave up 2 sacks in 4 seasons. We are talking about owners of a business that generates $30B of revenue a year. The players shouldn't insulate the owners from the inherent risk of owning a business. Do actors return the money if their movie flops? It seems like the owners need to worry about proper management instead of restricting player salaries.
Depends how much of a socialist system you are comfortable with. I'm comfortable with players being forced to where to play, so long as they are given the freedom to negotiate the terms of the contract which they sign.
So you only like the free market aspect of it as it supports your view. But as stated above, it isn't a free market. THe player doesn't get to choose where to play, the team doesn't get to choose if the player holds out. It's not a free market, so sometimes it isn't advantageous to try and apply "free market" principle to just one aspect. Plus, there is a salary cap, another limit on free market.
No they haven't played. Playing in college is not the NFL. I think you and I can agree on that. To make Jake Long the highest paid lineman when he hasn't played a down in the NFL is wrong IMO. Particularly when his paycheck is greater than perennial pro bowl players have actually proven it at the NFL level. Yes, there is some inherit risk involved. And you have to have general managers and personnel people who are good at what they do. The owners must accept and manage that risk. But, there also has to be a better "common ground" when all of that money invested can set a franchise back many years if the wrong player is chosen or if that player is injured and never plays.
No, I am in favor of a 100% free market. If it were up to me, there would be no draft. Teams, not players, would be held responsible for the business decisions. If you believe that a socialist system is beneficial for the sport, that is fine. But don't let the owners benefit from it exclusively. You would be better off allowing the government to run it (like GB).
But they don't have GMs and personnel people who are good. There are owners in the NFL who could really care less about anything other than their profit. And thats fine by me. But don't try to hold the rookies responsible. A rookie's development is just as much the responsibility of the team as it is the player. You can't argue that Jake Long shouldn't be the highest paid OL, when Tommy Kelly is the highest paid DT. The Raiders have had top-5 picks the past two years, and they have still been able to sign Tommy Kelly to the richest contract for a DT in the history of the league.
I can definitely argue that Jake Long shouldn't be the highest paid OL. The bottom line here is that you're arguing for players that have not done anything to prove their worth on an NFL level to be paid as top professionals. I believe in a system where you have to prove you're worth what your paid and I don't see any reason anyone would disagree with that. You can run out all this stuff to veer off that fact like talk of a "Socialist system" and take us down the "owners are taking advantage of players" route but it has nothing to do with rookies getting paid top salaries before they've proven anything. I have no problem with top players being paid top dollar (although the level all of them is paid at this point is absurd) but rookies shouldn't be given top pay before proving their worth.
I have no problem with players having to prove themselves before receiving top money. But the owners have proven time and time again that they will give money to veterans that do not deserve it. Once owners stop making guys like Nate Clements and Tommy Kelly the highest paid at their position, then their argument for a rookie cap will be valid.
There's no way that Jake Long should by the highest paid OL. He hasn't played a down in the NFL. And I agree that Tommy Kelly shouldn't be the highest paid DT either. In Jake's case, I believe it's the system that is at fault. In Kelly's case, it is all on the owner. I don't hold the rookies responsible at all in this. It really is the system. They're just trying to get as much money as they can. Heck, I would too. The problem is the system, not the players or the owners.
The problem is poor management. Mushin Muhammed....7 years, $42M....for a WR that has never had a 1000yard season...I can't take the owners argument that rookie salaries are hurting the salary cap, when they are continuously wasting money. Putting a rookie cap in place will do nothing but allow teams to operate closer to the 85% salary cap minimum.
The problem with free agency is poor management. No argument there. Are the owners overpaying? Absolutely. But, they have that choice. With the draft and how rookies are paid, the owner's don't have much choice. And that's what I believe is the problem. The rookie cap or a slotted system is more in tune with "pay for play". Thereby allowing your best players to be paid the best, and so forth down the line.
You continue to dodge points that adress your arguments. The owners won't benefit from this exclusively. They can still pay the high bucks. They can still have the huge salary cap and move up the salary floor, so they don't have as much unused cap space. Rookies can still get paid at maximum tens of millions of dollars, and at minimum hundreds of thousands of dollars. This has all been addressed.
Why in the world would the owners want to raise the floor? They dont want the huge salary cap, thats the point that you are missing.
Concession. It's not a one way street. You know, anticipate the arguments/wants of the other side?? The owners want to pay the players minimum wage, the players want 100% of revenue. That's the usual case, and is of the extreme ends of the spectrum. They meet in the middle. Those of us who are proponents of a rookie scale/cap, understand it is a concession of the union if doing so, so they need one in return. One argument is that owners will not pay out the money and get cheap. That is understood and a valid concern. If the owners can see that the huge rookie contracts are killing the teams if the pick doesn't turn out right, well they can see that changing the way it's done now, even if it doesn't save any money off the front end, won't handcuff the team if the pick is a bust. And allows them to rewards players that have proven themselves for the team. It can even be an ex post facto bonus system for unused salary cap. There can be formulas etc. The NFL is smart, they can figure this out. And again, top rookies will still get paid millions. They won't hurt for luxuries that's for sure.
