Yahoo Shutdown Corner: The Real Story Behind Rookie Wage Scale

[Spartacus87]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/The-real-story-behind-the-rookie-wage-scale?urn=nfl-260642

Over the last year, the dialogue between the NFL and the Players' Association has featured enough "he said, she said" to fill out the script of a really bad Telemundo soap opera. But due to the public uproar surrounding the rookie contracts of recent first overall picks JaMarcus Russell(notes), Matthew Stafford(notes), and Sam Bradford(notes), both parties involved in current negotiations understand that some sort of rookie wage scale must be put into effect.

As with everything else under the sun, the league and the NFLPA have not been able to agree on the parameters of such a scale. The NFLPA put forth the idea of a "Proven Performance Plan", which would lower the length of rookie deals to three years from the old four years, and the current six years under the post-CBA sky.

NFL general counsel Jeff Pash went on the "Mike and Mike in the Morning" radio show on July 22nd, one day after NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith did the same thing. One of the things Pash discussed was the notion that the NFLPA was unbending on this issue.

You really haven't gotten the full story. What happened is we went to the union and we said we have a number of issues that are tough issues that we have to work out, but we think there is one issue that we have a common purpose on, and that is addressing the rookie system.

We proposed to put the new rookie system in for 2010 with this year's draft class, and we would commit that the first $100 million of savings from the rookie system would be used for retiree benefits. We'll put them into pensions; we'll put them into disability (assistance); and we'll improve the ADA plan. We were open to anything the retirees think would be helpful to them.

We thought that it was a perfectly logical place to start. The union came back to us and they said, ‘Well, first of all, we don't like the (rookie) wage scale, so we reject that. Second of all, we want money to go to proven veterans.' And we said, ‘That's fine. Within the context of an overall economic system, we're on board with that.'

Then they added two other conditions, which I don't think you heard about yesterday (when Smith went on the show). One was that rookies would be limited to signing a three-year contract, and the second was that at the end of the three-year contract, they would be unrestricted free agents.

Now that completely undermined the whole system of competitive balance in this league ... I can't believe that the union would seriously think we would entertain something like that.

But that wasn't the end of the story, and Pash should have known that when he went on the radio. Yahoo! Sports has obtained a document - a correspondence from Executive Director DeMaurice Smith and President Kevin Mawae(notes) to the NFL's Management Council and Commission Roger Goodell dated February 18, 2010. In part, the letter said this:

The players are also still willing to restrain the compensation committed to rookie players before they have proven their performance, by limiting rookie contract length. The NFLPA previously proposed that rookie contracts be limited to three-year terms, which would have substantially restricted rookie pay. In response to the expressed concern of the owners that such a contract length is too short, the NFLPA is prepared to stand by its proposal, but to adjust the maximum permitted rookie contract to four years if that's what the owners prefer.

Last half of the article is at the link. I strongly recommend reading it.

Sounds like the NFL execs aren't handling these discussions with the NFLPA very well.

Fletcher's comments about Goodell's meeting with the Redskins being "a waste of time" make a lot more sense now.

[MattFancy]

After reading that, a lockout seems more and more possible. These guys can't even agree on something they both want to fix.

I do think there needs to be a rookie wage scale. I understand why the players want the rookies to be out of their contract after 3 years, but I agree with the NFL, it will affect the competitive balance. Say Sam Bradford is the real deal for the Rams, but they still have a horrible record after 3 years. Why would he want to re-sign there? So good players on bad teams definitely won't stay there.

Its a big mess and I hope it gets sorted out before there is a lockout. But they seem to have a long way to go.

[Hitman21ST]

After reading that, a lockout seems more and more possible. These guys can't even agree on something they both want to fix.

I do think there needs to be a rookie wage scale. I understand why the players want the rookies to be out of their contract after 3 years, but I agree with the NFL, it will affect the competitive balance. Say Sam Bradford is the real deal for the Rams, but they still have a horrible record after 3 years. Why would he want to re-sign there? So good players on bad teams definitely won't stay there.

Its a big mess and I hope it gets sorted out before there is a lockout. But they seem to have a long way to go.

Things could start looking like the NBA...stud rooks having a meeting to determine where to go once they all become free agents.

Of course, that in no way means a team can't extend after year one, right?

[MattFancy]

Things could start looking like the NBA...stud rooks having a meeting to determine where to go once they all become free agents.

Of course, that in no way means a team can't extend after year one, right?

The teams could give an extension, but that doesn't mean the player will agree to it.

[Hitman21ST]

The teams could give an extension, but that doesn't mean the player will agree to it.

God help us and save us

[illone]

It's not complicated.

Progressive wage scale based on draft position.

2M for #1

1.9M #2

1.8M #3

1.7M #4

1.6M #5

and so on.

If the player proves his mettle and deserves a bigger deal, then the agent and player will get paid when that happens.

Otherwise none of this creating a new record every year with bonus dollars on a player who might be flipping pancakes in a year a la JaMarcus or Leaf.

Ridiculous.

Edit: If you saw something like this implemented you would see WAY more trades and the draft would be far more exciting.

:2cents:

[MattFancy]

It's not complicated.

Progressive wage scale based on draft position.

2M for #1

1.9M #2

1.8M #3

1.7M #4

1.6M #5

and so on.

If the player proves his mettle and deserves a bigger deal, then the agent and player will get paid when that happens.

Otherwise none of this creating a new record every year with bonus dollars on a player who might be flipping pancakes in a year a la JaMarcus or Leaf.

Ridiculous.

Edit: If you saw something like this implemented you would see WAY more trades and the draft would be far more exciting.

:2cents:

Totally agree. Why should Bradford make more than Stafford? Why should either of them make more or near what Brady/Manning/Brees make? I think the NFL is the only job where you can be unproven and make more than guys with 10+ years of experience.

[illone]

Totally agree. Why should Bradford make more than Stafford? Why should either of them make more or near what Brady/Manning/Brees make? I think the NFL is the only job where you can be unproven and make more than guys with 10+ years of experience.

How sweet it would be for a normal civilian like us to graduate college and make more than our boss makes.

In the real world this would never happen, and does NOT happen in other sports or other career paths. NFL is the only career path where you are rewarded BEFORE being proven.

It's ass backwards.

[pjfootballer]

Good article. I'm afraid a lockout is inevitible. How about RFA after 3 years and UFA after 4? The team that signs the RFA to an offer sheet will have to give up their pick in that round to the team that doesn't match it. So, if for example, Stafford's contract is up and he's a RFA and the Patriots sign him for an aging Brady, they'd give Detroit their 1st pick in this years draft. The Lions would then have two firsts. Their own and the Pats.

[gkekoa]

I'm with the NFL on this one. It's not complicated. Competitive balance is one of the most important things involved in these negotiations. 3 years is laughable considering many QBs and WRs take at least that long to develop. I like the idea of four years and then RFA and finally UFA. It is a great system. Now we just need to adjust the scale and limit the guaranteed money and the overall payments.

[Hitman21ST]

Good article. I'm afraid a lockout is inevitible. How about RFA after 3 years and UFA after 4? The team that signs the RFA to an offer sheet will have to give up their pick in that round to the team that doesn't match it. So, if for example, Stafford's contract is up and he's a RFA and the Patriots sign him for an aging Brady, they'd give Detroit their 1st pick in this years draft. The Lions would then have two firsts. Their own and the Pats.

That could lead to some iffy situations...what happens if a team has already traded away that pick that they would have needed to give away?

That also means after three years, if I had a player you liked and you had one I liked, we could just switch first round picks and get them...that could lead to some bad jujubeans.

[TheLongshot]

Now, the beneficial part of the three-year contract idea that the owners have completely failed to grasp is that teams would be able to bail out of bad contracts with expensive draft busts - essentially protecting the owners from themselves.

Except that with whatever scale that they go with, there is going to be signing bonus money. If there is a system like the current CBA, owners are going to want to be able to extend that bonus money to limit cap hits.

[Hitman21ST]

Does incentive money go against the cap?

[illone]

Does incentive money go against the cap?

Yea, it's prorated across the term of the deal.

[brianm23]

Totally agree. Why should Bradford make more than Stafford? Why should either of them make more or near what Brady/Manning/Brees make? I think the NFL is the only job where you can be unproven and make more than guys with 10+ years of experience.

It's going the same path that the NBA did back in the days of Glenn Robinson. He initially held out for a 100 million dollar contract at the time, and ended up with 68 million. That was stupid money back in the early 90's, especially when guys like Jordan were getting paid 3-4mil per season. Needless to say, the NBA came out with the rookie salary cap soon after, and the rest is history.

It was the best move I've seen the NBA make in my lifetime. Three year contracts are the way to go.

I imagine the NFL will follow suit. Bradford can sleep good knowing he made history as a rookie because I seriously doubt it'll ever be topped again by a non-veteran.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I don't think you need to limit the contract lengths, just limit the $$ involved. If some 21-year old is pissed off next year because he's only making $2M per year for 5 years as the #1 pick, I'll live and so will he. If he hates that money so much, he can try his luck as a teacher, cop, or salesman.

Capping the annual salary and signing bonuses of these rookies SHOULD make the current players and owners happy. The only people upset would be the college athletes and they are a pretty small group.

[pjfootballer]

That could lead to some iffy situations...what happens if a team has already traded away that pick that they would have needed to give away?

That also means after three years, if I had a player you liked and you had one I liked, we could just switch first round picks and get them...that could lead to some bad jujubeans.

If you don't have the pick, you don't get to sign them to an offer sheet.

Well, if Detroit wants to move from #3 to #27, that's the price they pay. Point is, the teams picking at the top of the first round will (supposedly) have the better players. My idea was to keep the good teams from picking off the drafted players of the lower teams after 3 years so the lower teams would be able to hold on to their players.

I know it was a crude idea, but eh, I tried.

[C26 Run]

Without a doubt, the NFL is in desperate need of a rookie wage scale. It is completely silly that Bradford sets the scale for Brady, Manning and even McNabb to sign. A performance based rookie scale would ensure that money is going in the right hands. I mean seriously why would anyone need to work hard on their craft when they're guranteed $50 million?

:helmet:

[alleycat]

Who represents the FANS !!!

How bout pay them ALL less...Players AND owners...

Make the game day a lil less than a days salary !!!

F both sides....Who represents US !!!

Bunch of frigin rich folk !

[ncr2h]

I think it's a little more complicated.

In my opinion, top 10 draft picks are some of the only players in the NFL that actually get paid fair market value.

The rest of the league gets completely shafted because of the salary cap. That's why proven vets make so much less than these top 10 rookies - teams can't afford to pay $10 mil a year to a player that is "pretty good" but not "outstanding"...even though if you lifted the salary cap, you bet your ass there would be a team willing to shell out the $10 mil. These college kids have unlimited potential, so they should be paid accordingly.