PDA

View Full Version : Are you for or against a rookie wage scale?


wordofi
12-21-2009, 12:24 AM
I'm personally against one because I feel that players deserve to be rewarded for their work in college. As for those who complain, they should have worked harder.
I screwed up the poll. Yes means for a rookie wage scale, and no means against a rookie wage scale.

CashmoneyDrew
12-21-2009, 12:26 AM
Yes I'm for a rookie wage scale.

foozball
12-21-2009, 12:28 AM
They need to bring 1st round salaries down (really it's only the top 10 picks or so) and bring up 2nd round salaries.

TimD
12-21-2009, 12:43 AM
the top 10 salaries are ridiculous. guys like jamarcus russell and vernon gholston just took advantage of huge signing bonuses

Crickett
12-21-2009, 01:02 AM
No, I am absolutely against a rookie wage scale. These guys deserve to be among the highest paid players in the NFL before they ever play a down.


























That's what I'd say if I was a lock to be drafted in the top 10 of the NFL draft. But I'm not, so I am absolutely for a rookie wage scale.

RealityCheck
12-21-2009, 06:05 AM
the top 10 salaries are ridiculous. guys like jamarcus russell and vernon gholston just took advantage of huge signing bonuses
Pretty much this. I'm all for it.

eagles6606
12-21-2009, 07:36 AM
The money the top 10-15 players get that haven't played one NFL down is ridiculous. You wonder why teams get setback when they miss on a top draft pick, it's because they are making so much damn money.

Scott Wright
12-21-2009, 07:48 AM
I certainly don't begrudge the players getting the money over the billionaire owners but I'd rather see it go to established guys. Matt Stafford should not be getting paid more than Peyton Manning and Tom Brady.

Also, money is starting to pervert the draft process, which I don't like.

Brent
12-21-2009, 08:40 AM
My concern be if a running back got a meager contract from being in the 3rd round, then played amazing for a few years, but never got a better contract. The position he plays is one of the shortest, as far as careers can go, and he'd get screwed out of money he may very well deserve. The problem is the first round. I dont see issues with the rest.

Brent
12-21-2009, 09:30 AM
nothing would prevent that player from holding out after a couple of seasons, just like he'd do now. clinton portis comes to mind immediately, and he was a high second round pick.
You are correct; I forgot about Portis, it's been so long. Well played, sir, well played.

Bills2083
12-21-2009, 09:55 AM
the top 10 salaries are ridiculous. guys like jamarcus russell and vernon gholston just took advantage of huge signing bonuses


Couldn't have said it any better.

ElectricEye
12-21-2009, 10:48 AM
I certainly don't begrudge the players getting the money over the billionaire owners but I'd rather see it go to established guys. Matt Stafford should not be getting paid more than Peyton Manning and Tom Brady.

Pretty much sums it up. There's no reason for that craziness.

dolphinfan2k5
12-21-2009, 10:51 AM
I'd be for a rookie wage scale but I wish that a large portion of the contract could be based on incentives. Seems good for both the player and the organization to me, and then that avoids players not earning what they are worth. Of course there's probably a reason that I'm not understanding that they don't do this.

Supporting Caste
12-21-2009, 12:25 PM
[insert stupid defense of outrageous rookie contracts based in irrational, foam-mouthed worship of capitalist dogma]

You people hate freedom.

HawkeyeFan
12-21-2009, 12:28 PM
I voted NO as in no I'm not against it. And then I look again and realize I should have voted YES I'm for it.

SickwithIt1010
12-21-2009, 12:33 PM
I'd rather see it go to established guys. Matt Stafford should not be getting paid more than Peyton Manning and Tom Brady.

Those are my thoughts.

STsACE
12-21-2009, 12:55 PM
Totally for a rookie wage scale. Making a couple wrong choices can set a team back for years. These kids have proved nothing at the NFL level and most get paid better than the best NFL players do that are established.

Having a wage scale for the rookies could actually help balance some of the teams making each division more competitive.

DoWnThEfiElD
12-21-2009, 01:40 PM
It's a serious problem when teams literally do not want the top pick because of the ridiculous salary you need to give out. That goes against everything the draft is suppose to be.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-21-2009, 01:51 PM
I haven't heard any teams say that they don't want a chance at the next John Elway or Peyton Manning. Also, a lot of people want the rookie salary scale, but I haven't seen anyone with some sort of proposed framework for it. It works in the NBA because they all have long careers. The same thing the NBA does won't work in the NFL because the average career is so much shorter. So let's here some solutions. If the best solution is to just delay holdouts by a couple of years, I'm not so sure it's the best solution. It's not like rookie money is taking away from other guys who would make as much. It gives agents a precedent for a contract for their guy. Vernon Davis became the highest paid TE after the draft. Then Antonio Gates built on that to take the highest paid title away.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-21-2009, 01:52 PM
[insert stupid defense of outrageous rookie contracts based in irrational, foam-mouthed worship of capitalist dogma]

You people hate freedom.

If these guys risk their future health for our entertainment, which they do, they deserve whatever money they get. Don't forget, it's us as fans who are paying rookies and everyone else. If you don't like it, stop watching football, buying merchandise and whatever.

Babylon
12-21-2009, 01:55 PM
For a wage scale. Also let's not think that these rookies are going to be hurting for money all of a sudden. From the looks of things rookies would get to free agency a couple of years earlier than how it works now. Bottom line the guys that prove themselves probably make more in the long run.

Prowler
12-21-2009, 01:58 PM
For a wage scale. Also let's not think that these rookies are going to be hurting for money all of a sudden. From the looks of things rookies would get to free agency a couple of years earlier than how it works now. Bottom line the guys that prove themselves probably make more in the long run.

that would be best for everybody. no longer will we be forced to watch horribly overpaid 4th year players as starters simply because they make 12 million a year.

PossibleCabbage
12-21-2009, 03:38 PM
"Are you for or against a rookie wage scale"

Yes, I am for or against a rookie wage scale. I am absolutely not ambivalent. I have strong, definite opinions.

CC.SD
12-21-2009, 03:43 PM
"Are you for or against a rookie wage scale"

Yes, I am for or against a rookie wage scale. I am absolutely not ambivalent. I have strong, definite opinions.

I had this same thought. This poll question is worded very ambiguously. I now suspect that you are not a cabbage. Or, alternatively, that I am also a cabbage.

In other news, cabbage is a fun word and it's clear that a rookie wage scale will prevent top 5 picks that do not pan out from becoming anchors that weigh down teams for years, possibly catapulting entire rebuilding programs off course, and furthermore a wage scale will re-introduce the concept of trading up into the top picks, currently a lost art in the modern NFL.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-21-2009, 03:46 PM
I had this same thought. This poll question is worded very ambiguously. I now suspect that you are not a cabbage. Or, alternatively, that I am also a cabbage.

In other news, cabbage is a fun word and it's clear that a rookie wage scale will prevent top 5 picks that do not pan out from becoming anchors that weigh down teams for years, possibly catapulting entire rebuilding programs off course, and furthermore a wage scale will re-introduce the concept of trading up into the top picks, currently a lost art in the modern NFL.

You just blew my mind. How do we know we aren't all cabbages with super brain powers that make us think we're human? Or what if the aliens that have discovered us and will colonize us in 2012 call us "cabbages"? Will it become "our word"?

Not the best thoughts to be having 2 hours before the last final of the semester

energizerbunny
12-21-2009, 03:49 PM
I'am all for it, but contracts need to be shorter, maybe 3+1 like the NBA, or even 4 guaranteed. However if you are going to bring a scale you will have to pay more guaranteed money to those guys (maybe guarantee 80% or more of the contract for the rookies).


Big time money should be given out once you've established yourself.


Another thing I would like about a rookie scale is that position would no long matter in the draft, only talent... you'd see alot more Interior Lineman and Safties being taken alot higher then they are currently.

Staubach12
12-21-2009, 04:06 PM
Absolutely. Paying someone who's never played a down as much as they do simply because you waste your pick otherwise is ridiculous. There needs to be some kind of regulation. A scale that inflates along with the salary cap is what needs to be done, based on some percentage of the cap.

OaklandRaider56
12-21-2009, 09:34 PM
As a Raiders fan, I'm all for a rookie wage scale.

Iamcanadian
12-21-2009, 11:42 PM
For a wage scale. Also let's not think that these rookies are going to be hurting for money all of a sudden. From the looks of things rookies would get to free agency a couple of years earlier than how it works now. Bottom line the guys that prove themselves probably make more in the long run.

The NFL will never agree to a shorter length of original contracts. They love that rookies sign for 5 years and have no intention of shortening it. There will be no FA after 2 or 3 years and that is why I don't think you'll ever see a rookie salary scale. I think it will easily be bargained away in the discussions over an expanded schedule and how much the players will get to play those 2 extra games.
Why would the NFL destroy a system they love over the pay of maybe 10 rookies a year. Never going to happen!!!

Supporting Caste
12-21-2009, 11:45 PM
If these guys risk their future health for our entertainment, which they do, they deserve whatever money they get.


So what would your reaction be if every draft pick next year demanded the same amount of money--$80 million guaranteed--and held out the whole season if they didn't get the offer?


Don't forget, it's us as fans who are paying rookies and everyone else. If you don't like it, stop watching football, buying merchandise and whatever.

No. YOU watch more football, buy more merchandise and whatever, cuz the owners are gonna crush the poor little top 10 picks you weep for with a barbarous pay scale in the near future.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-21-2009, 11:49 PM
So what would your reaction be if every draft pick next year demanded the same amount of money--$80 million guaranteed--and held out the whole season if they didn't get the offer?

LMAO. That couldn't happen, and if it did, well, they'd sit the whole season. Owners only have one person to blame for the rookie salaries, and it's themselves.


No. YOU watch more football, buy more merchandise and whatever, cuz the owners are gonna crush the poor little top 10 picks you weep for with a barbarous pay scale in the near future.

Wait, what? I don't even know what you're saying here. The poor little top 10 picks I weep for? Wow, what the **** is this ****?

Iamcanadian
12-21-2009, 11:50 PM
I certainly don't begrudge the players getting the money over the billionaire owners but I'd rather see it go to established guys. Matt Stafford should not be getting paid more than Peyton Manning and Tom Brady.

Also, money is starting to pervert the draft process, which I don't like.

I disagree. Stafford will only make more money than Peyton and Brady if he succeeds in becoming a solid NFL starting QB otherwise he will never see the non guartanteed portion of his contract.
I think you are dead wrong on money perverting the draft process. I think it is a myth. As far back as I looked up, there has never been many trades out of the top 5, 2 or 3 per decade going back quite a bit and like last year's trade by the Jets, teams are quite willing to trade up for a QB, the money didn't turn the Jets off. Trades for top 5 picks have always been rare, now and in the past unless a franchise QB is available.

CC.SD
12-21-2009, 11:50 PM
If these guys risk their future health for our entertainment, which they do, they deserve whatever money they get. Don't forget, it's us as fans who are paying rookies and everyone else. If you don't like it, stop watching football, buying merchandise and whatever.

What about fire fighters...they risk their future health to prevent people from burning alive. That's way better than entertainment. They should be the millionaires.

...

You know if you figured out a scoring system for saving victims and putting out fires, and then filmed it, I'd watch. You could have different fire stations duke it out for city supremacy.

Super Bowl they just start a massive fire somewhere. I think I'm really onto something here.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-21-2009, 11:55 PM
What about fire fighters...they risk their future health to prevent people from burning alive. That's way better than entertainment. They should be the millionaires.

...

You know if you figured out a scoring system for saving victims and putting out fires, and then filmed it, I'd watch. You could have different fire stations duke it out for city supremacy.

Super Bowl they just start a massive fire somewhere. I think I'm really onto something here.

Yeah I agree about the firefighters, doctors, policemen, soldiers etc. It's a shame that the real heroes don't get money. Unfortunately it just boils down to the fact that no one's thought about putting that **** on TV(well, except for COPS). **** CC, I'll have my people call your people, we'll get some storyboards together and **** and put it on MTV. It'll be just like jersey shore, except instead of the bottom rung of society, we have the best there is to offer. So the exact opposite of Jersey Shore. We'll be rich!--er, and so will all the poor firefighters... and stuff.

Seriously though it is a shame they don't get more money, unfortunately firefighting doesn't draw 70,000 people per week in 16 cities. It is a shame, but unfortunately it's just how things work.

WMD
12-22-2009, 03:13 AM
I am for a rookie wage scale. Give the left over money to me.

wordofi
12-23-2009, 02:56 PM
This argument about not being able to keep star players due to paying a top 5 picks a huge sum of money is ridiculous. Last I checked, the salary cap was over $150 million.