Atlanta Skins Fan Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 As a lot of people are aware, the NFL has instituted a "rookie salary cap" within each team's larger salary cap. This cap is set by the league on a team-by-team basis, and is calibrated to reflect the number and ranking of each team's draft choices. In other words, teams who drafted the first few players in Round One generally have a larger cap than those who drafted the last few players in that round (assuming the overall number of picks are equal), and teams with more picks generally have a larger cap than those with fewer picks. The rookie cap is apparently about the same size as last year, which means that draft picks are likely to be signed for about the same money as last year for the same draft order. Despite all these known variables, it seems inevitable that there will be holdouts by high draft picks, as there seem to be every year. I don't understand the point of this "negotiating" exercise. With the current system, the league has more or less assigned rookie salaries based on draft order. There's a bit of wiggle room between bonus money and number of years in the contract, and there is room for incentives. But the team has a finite cap hit for rookies, so there is very little left to be discussed. Why not just assign rookie salaries and be done with it? The salary structure could be determined via collective bargaining based on a formula. Both sides would seem to come out ahead in this scenario. The rookies wouldn't need agents (or wouldn't need to pay agents very much) if their salary is assigned, and thus would net more money from their deals. Teams could count on all their rookies showing up on time. LaVar Arrington's rookie year was set back by his holdout. So was Westbrook's rookie year, when he missed all but one day of pre-season (if I recall correctly). These high draft picks end up creating tension between themselves and their teams, lose valuable practice and learning time, and ultimately everyone loses. I'm not really worried about holdouts this year for the Redskins, since I think Ramsey won't dare hold out, and holdouts by lower-round picks are rare. But the issue seems easily avoidable, and I don't understand why the league and the union don't fix the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddha Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 It's my understanding that it isn't a salary "cap" so much as it's a salary "pool." Teams must reserve a minimum amount in the pool specifically to sign their draft picks, but can easily exceed this amount and access the rest of their cap if needed to sign a pick. If the pool approach weren't used, there would be no protection for rookies with the drafting team holding their rights. Teams could simply offer bare bones contracts and say take it or don't play in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 Buddha, You sure about that? I got the impression that the pool said that a team can pay a rookie no less than the league minimum, and no more than its rookie pool allotment. This was set up, I believe, to reduce the number of holdouts. Not to protect rookies from being screwed by their drafting team. In a sense, it allows the team to say - we cannot pay your more than x dollars because our allotment for rookies is limited. I dont know if that is right though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 This is from FF mastermind...about the rookie salary pool... "The rookie pool is, essentially, a cap within a salary cap. It represents the maximum in aggregate salary cap value that a team is permitted to invest in its draft choices and also the undrafted free agents it signs. It is included in, not exclusive of, the team's overall spending limit of $71.101 million for the 2002 campaign." Just to clarify that above sentence, the only thing that counts towards the pool when dealing with undrafted rookies, is their signing bonus. This is per the NFL CBA. As for Atlanta Skins suggestion - it makes sense and works well for the NBA. Why couldn't it work in the NFL? The only reason that I could see is that after Round 3 - there are extra picks added in that screw things up as to order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddha Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 You're absolutely right, EG-- you can't exceed the rookie pool. There is apparently a secret formula for determining a rookie's salary allotment, but you can spend more than this allotment if you have the funds available in your rookie pool. This apparently guarantees that rookies only compete for salary with other rookies and not with veterans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottb Posted July 17, 2002 Share Posted July 17, 2002 To complicate matters further, I believe the postion (i.e. QB, RB etc) also impacts the pool allocation. You would think that having a pool would hasten signings. Afterall, the last guy signed has to take whatever is left which often resulting in creative contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GZSkins Posted July 17, 2002 Share Posted July 17, 2002 Two factors which can delay things are the usage of bonus clauses and the like and the fact that in the NBA the contracts are guaranteed, which they are not in the NFL. That makes for more bargaining on incentives that can be used in lieue of salary figures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.