Mickalino Posted June 19, 2002 Share Posted June 19, 2002 2002 NFL Rookie Pool Team..........................Picks.........Rookie Pool Houston Texans.........13...........$6,350,000 Buffalo Bills.................10...........$5,139,000 Carolina Panthers.......9............$5,078,000 Detroit Lions...............9............$4,972,000 San Diego Chargers....8...........$4,778,000 Dallas Cowboys..........9...........$4,577,000 New Orleans Saints....9...........$4,564,000 Oakland Raiders.........8...........$4,254,000 Jacksonville Jaguars...9...........$4,230,000 Tennessee Titans.......10........$4,149,000 Minnesota Vikings.......7.........$4,035,000 Seattle Seahawks.......10......$3,876,000 Indianapolis Colts.......8........$3,762,000 Arizona Cardinals........8........$3,750,000 Washington Redskins..10......$3,701,000 Baltimore Ravens.........10......$3,661,000 Cleveland Browns.........8.......$3,606,000 San Francisco 49ers.....10......$3,473,000 Kansas City Chiefs........5.......$3,389,000 Cincinnati Bengals.........6......$3,349,000 Philadelphia Eagles.......8......$3,318,000 Denver Broncos.............8......$3,306,000 Chicago Bears...............9......$3,304,000 New York Giants...........7......$3,215,000 St. Louis Rams..............8......$3,211,000 Pittsburgh Steelers......8.......$3,071,000 Atlanta Falcons............8.......$3,059,000 New England Patriots...6..... $2,620,000 Green Bay Packers........6.....$2,527,000 New York Jets................5.....$2,525,000 Tampa Bay Buccaneers..8.....$2,144,000 Miami Dolphins...............5.....$1,443,000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 19, 2002 Share Posted June 19, 2002 Finally someone gets it - look at the last few paragraphs. Pie chart by Pat Kirwan, CNNSI.com Every June, without fail, we hear about how difficult it will be for teams to sign their rookies, particularly those selected in the top half of the first round. Agents, who always are the source for this buzz, want significant increases compared to those negotiated for last year's draftees. I think they believe the threat of a long holdout will get a deal done. But history shows that these players most likely will sign for an increase that matches the growth of the salary cap. Some will sign early, most will report the day camp starts and a few stragglers will show up in mid-August. After all, there's no other place for them to go, no other league to turn to and absolutely no other profession that will pay these kids this kind of money. For the life of me, I don't know why the NFL pays rookies so much. They haven't proven a thing, every high-priced rookie contract usually causes two veterans to lose their jobs and the whole shakedown causes a tremendous amount of unnecessary stress on the cap. Agents are judged by their peers and the recruitment of college players as future clients is based largely on the size of today's rookie contracts. Hence, agents are driven to turn the biggest deals possible. For instance, some agents are licking their chops over the fact that contracts can now be amortized over seven years (the past limit had been six years). It used to cost a club $166,000 of cap space per year if a player received a $1 million bonus. Now, with seven years to amortize, that hit will just be $142,857 a season. But here's the agent's logic: The club was already paying $166,000 per year -- take that same number apply it to the new seven-year span. That equals $1,162,000. Then add a 10 percent increase to eclipse last year's rookie number. An agent would conclude that the old $1 million bonus should now be $1,282,600. It sounds absurd, but I promise you, it will happen. Any club that lets an agent dictate those kinds of terms deserves what it gets. Now consider that most of these players will never see seven years of NFL action -- the club will get stuck again at the back end with unamortized signing bonuses to pay off. That all adds up to some really bad business practices for the teams. As it turns out, the overall rookie pool was not increased but the minimum rookie salary was upped $16,000 per player (from $209,000 to $225,000). The Buffalo Bills, for example, have 10 draft picks to sign; at the very least that's $160,000 of extra cap space to make up. Half the teams in the league have more money in their rookie pools than they do space under the cap. Here are the four clubs with the least amount of cap space. It will be a tight fit to get the youngsters all under the cap: Inside the Numbers Team Cap Space # Rookies Rookie Pool $ to Sign Carolina $984,000 9 $5,078,000 $4,094,000 Baltimore $966,000 10 $3,661,000 $2,661,000 San Diego $925,000 8 $4,778,000 $3,853,000 N.Y. Jets $886,000 5 $2,525,000 $1,659,000 It's important to remember that clubs get some space back into the cap every time they sign a high-round rookie. The league only counts the top 51 salaries on a roster when it determines the cap. For example, let's say the Jets' last four salaried players being counted under the cap make $400,000 each. When the top four drafted players sign deals and their cap charges are bigger than $400,000, the veteran charges get dropped from the top 51 and the rookies get added. The Jets would get to reuse $1.6 million of space on their top four picks. They already have $886,000 on the cap and therefore would have just enough space to sign their choices. That accounting "give back" is the margin of space about half the teams need to order to fit in their rookies. Teams that need more than $2 million of cap space to sign their rookies -- clubs like Carolina and San Diego -- still need to cut veterans or renegotiate contracts. Remember, this is just an accounting procedure to stay under the cap with a team's top 51 salaries right now. Real salaries are not paid until after the first week of the season. Don't get me wrong, players deserve their fair share of the pie. I just don't believe much of the just desserts should go to the rookies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted June 19, 2002 Share Posted June 19, 2002 EG, You should say, "Finally, some writer gets it," because this type of analysis has been offered on these boards for months. Fans have gotten it long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 19, 2002 Share Posted June 19, 2002 Yes Art - thats what I meant. Didn't mean to imply that no one here understood...I thought that was implied (that we understood here!)? Will try to word it better next time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted June 19, 2002 Share Posted June 19, 2002 No worries EG. I'm with you. It does amaze me that on the whole, writers fail to see what is so clearly known by so many others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.