Geoff_K Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-goodell-rookiepay&prov=ap&type=lgns <snip> CHAUTAUQUA, N.Y. (AP)—NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said its “ridiculous” to reward untested rookies with lucrative contracts and wants the issue addressed in contract talks. “There’s something wrong about the system,” Goodell said Friday. “The money should go to people who perform <snip> <snip> “He doesn’t have to play a down in the NFL and he already has his money,” Goodell said during a question-and-answer period at the end of a weeklong sports symposium at the Chautauqua Institution. “Now, with the economics where they are, the consequences if you don’t evaluate that player, you can lose a significant amount of money. <snip> I completely AGREE .. too much money to a guy who MAY not be worth a dime i the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 The union WILL NOT go for this and they shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGreenistheBest Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Sucks, because he's right, but you're right about the union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Sucks, because he's right, but you're right about the union. The reason I don't like this is because contracts are so much in the favor of the teams. If the player outplay the contract, the team don't have to re-negotiate and many times they refuse to, but if you underperform, they have every right to waive/cut the player and have done so on numerous occasions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Goodell is right, the pay scale is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isifhan Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 So the union is for supporting untested rookies, giving them insane contracts while the vets that proved their worth see significantly less? I think you overestimate the unions stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ucfSKINS Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Agreed. When you have an unproven rookie making more than a probowler, there is something seriously wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Sorry, but the title of the thread is a little misleading, that it seems like Goodell thinks the rookie pay scale is ridiculous, but after reading that he is in favor of it, I agree with Goodell that something needs to be done. These guys are getting $30 million + up front before they even play a down. I think this will be a major sticking point with the union in the next CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 So the union is for supporting untested rookies, giving them insane contracts while the vets that proved their worth see significantly less? I think you overestimate the unions stance. I think I've read that since the rookies get big contracts, the union believes that leads to vets getting bigger contracts down the road. I still think that's stupid though. The union is basically saying they want players to consistently have to hold out every season for bigger contracts, and risk looking bad to the fans and not to mention possibly hurting their standing with the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bware_Dware Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 So the union is for supporting untested rookies, giving them insane contracts while the vets that proved their worth see significantly less? I think you overestimate the unions stance. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure I read somehwere that the union is looking to decrease these crazy rookie contracts so the proven vets can get their paydays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDoyler23 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure I read somehwere that the union is looking to decrease these crazy rookie contracts so the proven vets can get their paydays. Exactly. The Union has a ton of players who have paid their dues and don't like the fact that guys who haven't played a down get 20M guaranteed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure I read somehwere that the union is looking to decrease these crazy rookie contracts so the proven vets can get their paydays. Not disputing you, but I haven't seen that in the coorespondence put out by the Union. I have read what Jnhay put out. Maybe they could compromise on three year contracts. Besides QB's that is usually enough time to learn about a player. A player should also be able to sign a 4, 5, 6 year contact if they choose. I don't like arbitration like in baseball, but that is an option. Reference the article, it is about time they put that in the CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 The union WILL NOT go for this and they shouldn't. If it is wrapped in raising the pay for the veterans, I think the Union will jump in with both feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmchairRedskin Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 I think it should be something like a 2 year rookie contract with a limited pay scale. Then, the drafting team has the right to extend and give the player a lucrative deal after the second year. If the team chooses not to extend, the guy becomes a free agent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 I think it should be something like a 2 year rookie contract with a limited pay scale. Then, the drafting team has the right to extend and give the player a lucrative deal after the second year. If the team chooses not to extend, the guy becomes a free agent. 2 years is too short of an investment. It makes the draft obsolete. 4 years and the rookie could renegotiate after his 3rd year making him a RFA in his 4th year, so the team can match it. 5th year he could become an UFA. Also, I'd give the team the right to tear up his rookie contract after 2 years if they found a true superstar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmchairRedskin Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 2 years is too short of an investment. It makes the draft obsolete. 4 years and the rookie could renegotiate after his 3rd year making him a RFA in his 4th year, so the team can match it. 5th year he could become an UFA. Also, I'd give the team the right to tear up his rookie contract after 2 years if they found a true superstar. I could go for that. Either way, the rookie scales are way too high and it's ridiculous that guys that haven't stepped one foot on an NFL field could be payed the same or better than veterans. Something needs to be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VCDefectors Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 It will be interesting to see how this plays into the upcoming CBA war. Things are looking like they are going to get really ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 There should be tiered contracts w/ performance bonuses that don't count against the cap for drafted rookies. All the extra money can go towards an increase in pay for all verterans. Revenue neutral change. The owners do want a change in the %'s though and thats going to be the sticking point for the renegotiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.