If this were to happen, would Miami fall back to another pick or are they allowed to submit their pick anytime during the rest of the first round? I don't really remember what happened to Minnesota when this happened to them.

 

They can make their pick anytime during the 1st round. But, I don't believe we could do this and get the player to sign for less than 1st overall money. No agent would let us do it and the players union would also have a calf about it!

 

Maybe it would be good if this were to happen and the NFLPA threw a fit. Maybe then something can be worked out like a pay scale. Rookies should not be getting paid more than the vets of the game.

 

not a good idea imo.

 

I've never understood why the players union doesn't allow rookie contract caps.. and spend the liberated money on the proven players.

 

I think that's one or two years away

 

no agent would let us get away with that

 

I agree. You are starting to hear a lot of talk about this issue lately, especially from former players on NFL NETWORK and ESPN. It's something I feel will be changed in the next few years. It needs to be!!

 

Most likely because they're too anxious to keep Gene Upshaw from having to do anything for his Godforsaken salary! He gets more money than 90% of the veterans each year and lets the Agents run the union, seems like to me!

 

Seriously!! It makes no sense! Its absurd that people who have proven nothing in the league can make so much money. They are basically getting paid for their college careers.. Did Ryan Leaf deserve all that money? NO!

 

The problem with a rookie cap is as follows:
1. Different positions command different money. A QB at #1 overall will command more than a DE/OLB at that spot.
2. The NFL already has a rookie cap alloted by team; i.e. a pool of salary from which rookie contracts are paid.
3. Upshaw is under pressure (unfairly, IMHO) from union members who think he isn't doing enough. A major concession like that would be tough to sell, unless it came with a dramatically increased salary floor...which the owners probably wouldn't buy.
4. The next collective bargaining session is going to be tough enough without another major issue on the table.

 

I should add that I'm not sold on the "pass at #1" philosophy. If we pass on Chris Long at #1, the Rams will probably grab him. The "pass" philosophy only works if you're sure you can still get the player you want, or alternately, you're indifferent between a few players. And I don't think either is the case here.

 

A QB doesn't HAVE to be paid more. The NBA has set money that's paid out in relation to where you're drafted. Just because you're a QB doesn't mean by default you should be paid more than someone else only by the position they play.

If there's a pay scale based on draft position it will make signing the player much easier, and affordable, and will also get their *** in camp on time.

 

Totally agree on this! As rookies just entering the league it shouldn't matter what position they play, just their draft position. You then worry about their payscale when they measure up to being worthy of a contract extension when their rookie contract is ending.

 

No, they don't HAVE to be, but they are. The NBA rookie scale isn't a great example, because in basketball, the job a center does may be different from that of a point guard, but nowhere near the difference between a quarterback and a defensive tackle. (If that makes any sense.) The NFL acknowledges this in the differentiation of the franchise player values.

 

I agree with your point, but that's where my theory comes into effect. They receive their NEW contract , commensurate with the differential for position played, after they have concluded their rookie contract. That way it is not financially crippling for a franchise if their #1 choice happens to pull a "Ryan Leaf".

 

Well, then qb's are going to have to curb the ego if they want to come into this league. I'm pretty sure if there was a pay scale implemented none of the quarterbacks coming out of college would say forget this and go get a job at the local hardware store. Just because in the past qb's have been paid a certain number doesn't mean it has to continue. The #1 overall pick shouldn't be getting a 40 million dollar contract regardless of his position.

 

I agree with you, players who have yet to take a snap or even sit on a professional bench are making 9+ million a year is ridiculous. Do you think they will iron that out when they get rid of the salary cap in 2010 or will it be worse?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if it got worse. Look at baseball without the salary cap.

 

Good read thanks..

 

Are you saying he is the Jimmy Hoffa of the NFLPA? :up:

 

As close as you can get without going to jail! I can't stand Upshaw in that capacity. He was a good player, but put a suit on a dog and it's still a dog!

 

I was thinking about that ... it sucks when you have big market teams who can buy thier way into being competitive yet small market teams are forced to try & win via smart drafting and then selling off thier top talent to the highest bidder (Marlins are the perfect example) and starting all over again. Although how Miami is considered a small market I dont get. I guess they just dont support baseball like they do football.

 

Apologies, but I'm now thoroughly confused. On one hand, you think Upshaw's a complete tool, but on the other, you want the union to make an absolutely mammoth concession to the owners?

The biggest criticism of Upshaw is that he's been too willing to work with the owners to get things done, and that is a criticism you seem to be echoing. Yet you want him to make a concession that would be as huge as any he's ever made.

Understand, a rookie cap (and I note, again, that there already IS a rookie cap of sorts) would be a big concession for the NFLPA. Just because that money's not going to be spent on rookies doesn't mean it's going to be spent on veterans. It might simply go into the owners' pockets. I'm not necessarily opposed to a rookie cap, but I don't think it's going to happen, and I'm not even sure it's all that practical.

 

This is an argument that has raged for about as long as the FH Other Sports forum has been opened...and probably much longer than that. In the interest of promoting site unity, I won't rehash it here.

 

And if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his rear end when he jumped. What possible incentive does the NFLPA have to allow this to happen, apart from the rather vague notions of "paying your dues" and "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps", and other down-home sayings that have little to do with life in the millionaire-laden NFL?

 

I can't believe that we'd end up paying less no matter where we ended up picking. Who ever we eneded up with would demand first pay pick.

I'm on that bandwagon CNC! If you are not proven then you don't deserve the kind of money an early pick is currently getting.

 

No, I don't want the owners to get the extra cash, I'd much rather the Veteran players get the larger paychecks- because they've earned it! That is the part that chaps me, rookies and their agents get the big bucks and the guys that have sweated and worked for years can't cash in because too much of the salary cap is being eaten up by contracts written just to get kids to sign. Then, only just over 50%, I believe, ever get a second contract, or you have to release better veterans so you can afford the next round of over-priced rookies.

I thought that there was a minimum of the salary cap that had to be utilized? Wouldn't that preclude the owners from pocketing the extra cash? Maybe I'm wrong, if so, I apologize for my ignorance. (Being ignorant of something is not the same as being stupid, it just means uninformed/ unaware of the facts).

 

Well it has to stop at some point, it's not possible that the first round pick each year can demand more money than the previous year's respective choice. Look at JaMarcus Russell and his ridiculous deal last season, the guy played in maybe two games? The Raiders are no way near closer to finding out if he is going to be the successful guy they need to lead the franchise, and if he doesn't work out they will likely be stuck shelling out top five salaries each year until he does.

 

No, you're right, there is a salary floor. But if the rookie cap is instituted, and less money is paid to rookies, it doesn't necessarily follow that the veterans get more. Most teams are over that salary floor by a fair amount, meaning that they could easily just pocket the savings unless the salary floor were significantly increased. And increasing the salary floor is not a concession I think the owners are all that eager to grant.

 

That maybe so, but it still pushes you even further over the cap for those that already are and therefore takes longer for them to get back under it. Lets say you had top five picks three out of the last five years that can add up to a lot of extra on your cap.

 

At some point, it may change, but remember also that the salary cap has been increasing significantly every year too. You can't look at the increasing signing bonuses in a vacuum.

 

Will this matter once we get rid of the cap in 2010?

 

They really do need to change the way they manage the rookie cap. I think this is just the begining, Salaries are bound to continue to go up unless somthing is done.

 

Welcome me guys...

 

Glad to have you here! Help us make this a special place. Btw, great sig.

 

I'm sure something can be worked out if the owner's came together and made a case for how ridiculous it is for paying the #1 pick over $30 million. The first thing that needs to happen is a stink needs to be raised. That could be exactly what Parcells will do if no one will trade with him.

 

I agree. But, someone has to start somewhere and work from there, don't you think? It won't get fixed until someone actually tries to do something to fix it. We certainly don't have all the answers. I don't even know all the variables involved in salary cap management!

Someone with more expertise than me has to at least grab hold of this runaway freight and try to at least slow it down before it all goes up in smoke!

 

If 2010 is an uncapped year, it will probably be followed by a lockout, because that will be the signal that the NFL intends to opt out of the CBA, and at that point, the **** will most certainly hit the fan.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe Bill Parcells and Jeff Ireland intend to place the future of their franchise on the line just to prove a point to the NFLPA.

Remember that these large signing bonuses are paid out over several years. And in any event, if you're repeatedly picking in the top 5...perhaps it's time to re-evaluate how you're spending the rest of your salary cap. I don't mean for that to sound smart-mouthed, but the fact is, teams atop the NFL draft ought to be in much better position to take those large salary bonuses, since there should be few (if any) sacred cows on the roster. It's really not tremendously different from a big time free agent signing. For crying out loud, Calvin Pace got something like $22 million guaranteed! I can't believe Chris Long won't be a much better pro than Calvin Pace.

Well, to keep with the metaphor, if salaries are a runaway freight train, then revenues are a track that's expanding with ever-growing speed. Again, I cannot imagine that Bill Parcells, a man with no small amount of expertise in looking out for Number One, is going to take a grand, magnanimous stand on behalf of the billionaire NFL owners, many of whom still have tens of millions of cap room on hand, potentially at the expense of his own team.