PDA

View Full Version : Bradford to get Record Deal?


BeerBaron
07-16-2010, 06:30 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/07/16/rams-dont-seem-reluctant-to-do-record-deal-with-bradford/

"Adam Schefter of ESPN.com reports that negotiations between the franchise that has won six games in three years and the agents for quarterback Sam Bradford began on Friday, and that the two sides are "expected to lay the groundwork for what will be the richest deal in NFL history."

$45-$50 million guaranteed.....honestly, it's absurd.

As far as I'm concerned, a rookie wage scale can't come soon enough. With any luck, this will be the last year for this kind of BS. No rookie in any sport should ever make more than any other player in the league is currently getting.

In fact, I'd say no rookie, even the #1 pick, should make any more than the average of the players at his position gets in a yearly salary, with a reasonable part of it guaranteed for injury.

Please tell me I'm not the only person who has a major problem with this? I mean...I knew Bradford was going to get a lot of money, but form him to be highest paid player in NFL history? Sam ************* Bradford? Seriously?

How did the NFL ever get to this point? I just read yesterday that the most a team is required to offer a draft pick is a 1 year deal at the rookie minimum (~$300,000.) How did that grow to this point? Anyone???

wicket
07-16-2010, 06:35 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/07/16/rams-dont-seem-reluctant-to-do-record-deal-with-bradford/



$45-$50 million guaranteed.....honestly, it's absurd.

As far as I'm concerned, a rookie wage scale can't come soon enough. With any luck, this will be the last year for this kind of BS. No rookie in any sport should ever make more than any other player in the league is currently getting.

In fact, I'd say no rookie, even the #1 pick, should make any more than the average of the players at his position gets in a yearly salary, with a reasonable part of it guaranteed for injury.

Please tell me I'm not the only person who has a major problem with this? I mean...I knew Bradford was going to get a lot of money, but form him to be highest paid player in NFL history? Sam ************* Bradford? Seriously?

How did the NFL ever get to this point? I just read yesterday that the most a team is required to offer a draft pick is a 1 year deal at the rookie minimum (~$300,000.) How did that grow to this point? Anyone???

lack of balance in the negotiations. the team has all the importance in the world to not only get a deal done but to get a deal done soon whilst the player has little to no interest in a quick deal. in the long run getting on the field early is not of great interest cuz by the time a new contract comes around the player will have enough years under their belt anyway

tenorx
07-16-2010, 06:35 PM
I completely agree with you, this is destroying the league. I'm a big fan of Bradford, but seriously? Draft picks shouldn't earn this much, it's just ********. This just helps them to lose their mind with all the money they get.

TitanHope
07-16-2010, 06:45 PM
I'm in favor of a slotted rookie salary. It'll stop this inflation, and prevent holdouts (unless someone wants to pull an Elway or Eli Manning).

But, I still think they should get very good money. Because believe it or not, high price rookie contracts help the veteran players. Since the vets will come with cheaper contracts, teams will be more willing to sign them in FA rather than drafting a rookie to fill the position. If the rookie contracts are cheaper than the vet contracts, then teams will always draft rookies instead of signing vets because they'll not only get a cheaper player but also a younger one.

So should Bradford be the richest player in history? Hell to the no. But he and all the rookies still need big enough contracts to keep the balance fair between young rookies and older vets. Although it needs to be stated that outside the Top 10 1st RD picks, the contracts aren't obscene at all.

CC.SD
07-16-2010, 06:48 PM
I'm okay with this because the white man stole all of his people's land.

BeerBaron
07-16-2010, 06:50 PM
lack of balance in the negotiations. the team has all the importance in the world to not only get a deal done but to get a deal done soon whilst the player has little to no interest in a quick deal. in the long run getting on the field early is not of great interest cuz by the time a new contract comes around the player will have enough years under their belt anyway

I'll give you that to an extent.....but I just don't get how it was allowed to get this far. There was once a time when many teams didn't even keep their rookies on their team. I remember watching a show on NFLN a few years ago about the Redskins back in the 70s and out of something like 16 rookies drafted over 12 rounds, they didn't keep a single one of them out of camp.

I realize times have changed quite a bit, but how players who have never played a down started getting paid more..and more...and more...until they're now being the highest paid player in the league? It baffles me.

bored of education
07-16-2010, 07:29 PM
It's what the market is creating. Every year a thread on the first overall pick will be created saying zomggzzz biggest contract everzzz

BeerBaron
07-16-2010, 07:35 PM
It's what the market is creating. Every year a thread on the first overall pick will be created saying zomggzzz biggest contract everzzz

Right but.....this one literally will be the biggestzzzzzz everzzzzzz. Sam Bradford will be making more money than any current player. The multi-time SB winners, the future HoFers....all of em.

keylime_5
07-16-2010, 07:40 PM
that's a lot of money for a guy who was hurt all last year. the rams are basically betting five years of their club's future that they got the pick right.

LonghornsLegend
07-16-2010, 07:43 PM
I think this is hilarious actually. 50 million dollars, and he could suck everytime he steps on the field, but for 50 million dollars he's set for life.

bored of education
07-16-2010, 07:43 PM
meh it is what it is. the owners pay it the agents want it the player gets it etc

BeerBaron
07-16-2010, 07:44 PM
I think this is hilarious actually. 50 million dollars, and he could suck everytime he steps on the field, but for 50 million dollars he's set for life.

It's so true....once he puts pen to paper, he could throw a pick on every one of his pass attempts and be rich beyond most people's wildest dreams.

Mr. Goosemahn
07-16-2010, 07:59 PM
I also want a rookie scale, and fast. It's downright preposterous that a franchise is financially tied to a player who has not only not participated in any games, but in any significant team activity (be it practice, training camp, etc.) The point of the draft is to help struggling teams improve by allowing them to pick high, but struggling teams need cap room to sign free agents and improve.

The league should simply define how much a player earns depending on where they're drafted. Every single first overall pick gets the same deal, every second overall pick gets the same deal, and so on. That way, there are no stupid rookie holdouts, and there are virtually no obstacles when it comes to signing them.

zachsaints52
07-16-2010, 08:03 PM
I saw this and laughed. Scaling system start then add 3-5% each year to the picks to grow with it.

bored of education
07-16-2010, 08:05 PM
so an inflationaryesque wage scale?

Paul
07-16-2010, 08:09 PM
Am I the only one who thought Bradford was getting a music contract after reading the title?

zachsaints52
07-16-2010, 08:31 PM
so an inflationaryesque wage scale?

Im pretty sure thats how the NBA does it. they set the scale and every year increase the pick so that way the pick makes a little more then last years, I guess for the economy reason or something.

Per wikipedia, I am wrong. The only thing for rookies is the 1st pick had to make more then the 2nd, and the 2nd more then the 3rd, etc.

killxswitch
07-16-2010, 09:07 PM
That is outrageous. No rookie should get that much guaranteed. I don't think the whole contract should be that high, much less just the guaranteed portion.

BeerBaron
07-16-2010, 09:29 PM
Am I the only one who thought Bradford was getting a music contract after reading the title?

Haha......I didn't think that one through....oh well, gets the point across.

21ST
07-16-2010, 09:39 PM
Am I the only one who thought Bradford was getting a music contract after reading the title?

I was thinking the same thing

Paranoidmoonduck
07-16-2010, 10:01 PM
Even the guaranteed money figures in a contract like that are misleading. Just like Russell, Ryan, and Stafford, Bradford's guaranteed figure is above and beyond what he'll actually get from that contract.

CJSchneider
07-16-2010, 10:05 PM
I agree it is ridiculous. No rookie should make that much money.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
07-16-2010, 10:17 PM
Next Pro Bowl QB to have his contract expire will get a bigger one. Next year's top pick will get a bigger one too if there's no scale. It's how the NFL works.

BeerBaron
07-16-2010, 10:23 PM
Next Pro Bowl QB to have his contract expire will get a bigger one. Next year's top pick will get a bigger one too if there's no scale. It's how the NFL works.

The pro bowl QB has at least done something to earn it. The rookie scale can't come soon enough imo.....I can't imagine another CBA being reached without one.

jrdrylie
07-16-2010, 10:48 PM
For those of you wondering when all this ridiculousness started, it was pretty much with Michael Vick. Peyton Manning and Tim Couch received $8 and $7 million per year, including 11.6 and 12.5 million bonus respectively.

Fast-forward two years, Michael Vick is getting over $10 million per year. Then it got even worse with Eli Manning. He got $9 million per year, but his guaranteed money doubled what Carson Palmer got the season before to 20 million.

Job
07-16-2010, 10:58 PM
For those of you wondering when all this ridiculousness started, it was pretty much with Michael Vick. Peyton Manning and Tim Couch received $8 and $7 million per year, including 11.6 and 12.5 million bonus respectively.

Fast-forward two years, Michael Vick is getting over $10 million per year. Then it got even worse with Eli Manning. He got $9 million per year, but his guaranteed money doubled what Carson Palmer got the season before to 20 million.

Are you somehow arguing that Peyton and Couch's contracts weren't ridiculous to start with?

Giantsfan1080
07-16-2010, 11:09 PM
I can't see how the vets like this so I'd have to think they'd go along with the owners to create a rookie pay scale.

NGSeiler
07-17-2010, 08:29 AM
Agreed, the NFL needs a rookie wage scale desperately.

Brent
07-17-2010, 08:40 AM
Am I the only one who thought Bradford was getting a music contract after reading the title?
yes, because he capitalized 'record' for some reason.

HawkeyeFan
07-17-2010, 09:21 AM
Are you guys actually surprised? This should be expected, they didn't implement a Rookie Wage Scale this year and the contracts are just going to keep going higher without it.

RealityCheck
07-17-2010, 09:24 AM
Alright. He may be one hell of a QB prospect.

But he's now worth it at all.

falloutboy14
07-17-2010, 09:25 AM
The worst part of this is that, the rams might have been able to avoid some of this if they'd done their contract stuff before the draft. They could have offered Suh and Bradford the same contract and see if either of them would accept it. Pit them against each other and hope to drive the price down. Once they made their pick they lost all their leverage.

Regarding the rookie wage scale, my best idea is to use a percentage of the total salary cap. 1st pick gets 6% of the total cap ($7.2M a year on a $120M cap), 2nd pick gets 5.9%, and you can estimate the rest from there. By the 2nd round, it should be down to 1%.

Along with this, the rookie contracts should be shorter, so that the late first round picks aren't locked into a long-term low-pay contract (Chris Johnson). Perhaps as low as 3 years once the late 1st round happens, allowing teams to work with them as RFA's. Of course this is all pending what the new CBA looks like.

HawkeyeFan
07-17-2010, 09:25 AM
No player is worth this much, but it's what the NFL is coming too!

RealityCheck
07-17-2010, 09:49 AM
No player is worth this much, but it's what the NFL is coming too!
Uh, no. I'm pretty much some guys like CJ and Revis are.

brat316
07-17-2010, 10:04 AM
Uh, no. I'm pretty much some guys like CJ and Revis are.

Yeah but they didn't get picked first overall and who knew they would bow up like that?

HawkeyeFan
07-17-2010, 10:14 AM
Uh, no. I'm pretty much some guys like CJ and Revis are.

Great players yeah, but no player should earn $50mil guaranteed. It's absolutely ridiculous.

It's just the way business is going now.

King Carls 5 Year Plan
07-17-2010, 10:27 AM
I previously posted this in a different thread. I believe it would solve a bunch of issues, overpaying rookies (Jamrcus Russell), underpaying top players with bad contracts (Chris Johnson). It's a win win. Teams aren't set back years by drafting the wrong guy, players can escalate their contracts more than 3-5% a year if they preform. Players would earn what they are worth. What a novel idea.

I agree with you 100% and I think its more than "a good chance" that Eric Berry is the highest paid Safety ever. His signing bonus alone, for being a top 5 pick, will put him in a different stratosphere.

As far as rookies getting paid what they are worth, I think baseball has it the best. Here is what I would do. Combine the best parts from the NBA and MLB and make it best for the NFL. You have a certain number of manditory years that a drafted player spends with a team that drafts him (the NFL can makeup their own length of time 4-6 years most likely). The player is given a "signing bonus" based upon the selection he was drafted (being the #1 overall pick should count for more than the #27 overall). The bonus is nowhere near what they receive today, but it is a nice payday. Your 1st years salary is based upon draft slot. Every following year, your salary is negotiated by the player and team based upon performance and players of like positions and stats salary. If a negotiated salary can't be agreed upon, then an arbitrator is brought in to determine the worth of a player based upon performance and like players of the position. After the determined time of indenturement (4-6 years) is over, the player becomes an unrestricted free-agent is is free to sign with any team for any price. The new CBA may allow teams to use franchise tags or transition tags and all those rules would apply to unrestricted free-agent players and the original team that drafted them.

I think this is the best way for everyone. Teams don't waste money on players that don't perform (JaMarcus Russell, Akili Smith) and gets players that out perform their draft slot (CJ, Jared Allen) the money they earned.

The only arguement I could see agianst it would be how a team would have to adjust their salary cap every year based upon players performance. To me, it would be pretty easy. Take the Titans and CJ for example. CJ is clearly worth more than he is being paid and the Titans know that. If his performance dictated that he would be paid more, they would have a good idea what that amount would be 1 year ahead of when the payment would be due. Plus, players like Vince Young would be paid less than the rookie contract he signed and the teams payroll would almost even itself out. My plan would also due away with the NFLs arbitrary rookie salary cap that they impose on each team every year.

BeerBaron
07-17-2010, 11:12 AM
yes, because he capitalized 'record' for some reason.

Well, in the title of something, you're supposed to capitalize all of the key words.....

RealityCheck
07-17-2010, 11:15 AM
It's easy. Just ban money from the NFL and start paying players with bacon.

I tried.

Brent
07-17-2010, 11:20 AM
Well, in the title of something, you're supposed to capitalize all of the key words.....
You mean like 'get'? Or should it read Bradford to Receive Record Deal?

:D

ThePudge
07-17-2010, 11:29 AM
Of course these deals are ridiculous. Every #1 pick since Eli Manning has had me cringe in a similar way. Like others have suggested, the rookie wage scale can't come fast enough. I think Bradford will be a very good player but he'd have to reach the very top of his potential to warrant such money. I must say, though, that Quarterback is the only position I'd even consider deserving of this money... Meaning I think this deal would look far more crazy with Ndamukog Suh or Gerald McCoy's name attached. So, unless they fix this problem within a year, I believe we'll continue to see #1 picks at Quarterback regardless of the team's absolute, most-pressing needs.

descendency
07-17-2010, 11:43 AM
The worst part of this is that, the rams might have been able to avoid some of this if they'd done their contract stuff before the draft. They could have offered Suh and Bradford the same contract and see if either of them would accept it. Pit them against each other and hope to drive the price down. Once they made their pick they lost all their leverage.

They lost all leverage when they started sucking and couldn't get a QB.

The difference between a franchise QB and a franchise DT is simple: potential super bowl contender in 3-4 years versus 8-8 over the next 10 and no hope of getting a top pick to get a chance at that top tier QB.

Suh was the wrong pick even if Bradford busts. Throughout the NFL, very few teams ever win games without QBs.

Paranoidmoonduck
07-17-2010, 01:41 PM
It's easy. Just ban money from the NFL and start paying players with bacon.

I tried.

Then Sam Bradford would be on the verge of being awarded the most bacon-rich contract in NFL history.

Job
07-17-2010, 01:43 PM
Then Sam Bradford would be on the verge of being awarded the most bacon-rich contract in NFL history.

10 million pigs in bacon.

dannyz
07-17-2010, 06:43 PM
Bradford is not even that good of a QB. This is wrong.

Bengalsrocket
07-18-2010, 04:46 AM
You realize that if the rookies don't get the money, then no one does right? The owners aren't going to drop ticket prices or reduce commercial time or spread the money around. They'll pocket every penny they save and get that much richer while these players make them bank.

If there was some sort of compromise to lower ticket costs as they lower rookie salaries I would be all for it. But as it stands now, I would much rather let these players get an opportunity at the money then let it float back into the owner's pockets.

OzTitan
07-18-2010, 06:05 AM
The reason this is spiraling out of control is because the #1 pick this year never takes the same or less than the #1 last year, and when you combine that with unregulated numbers, it's natural for control to be lost eventually. It's like an exponential rate of growth.

Each year the #1 team had been doing what it takes to sign their guy (well, most teams did). On their own, they're not so bad, but together they multiplied until we get to this point. Events like Eli's, where the Giants basically played their hand and obviously desperately wanted the guy, made it easy to up the price significantly (they wouldn't trade like they did and then let a holdout occur).

It's been growing so quickly relative to NFL veteran contracts because every year there is a #1 draft pick, but only a handful of vets get a new contract in any given offseason, and only a handful of those set any benchmarks

If NFL contracts were redone every offseason for every player, then naturally the rookie deals wouldn't look so big. That would achieve a better balance, but obviously the practical solution is rookie contract slotting.

BeerBaron
07-18-2010, 11:10 AM
You realize that if the rookies don't get the money, then no one does right? The owners aren't going to drop ticket prices or reduce commercial time or spread the money around. They'll pocket every penny they save and get that much richer while these players make them bank.

If there was some sort of compromise to lower ticket costs as they lower rookie salaries I would be all for it. But as it stands now, I would much rather let these players get an opportunity at the money then let it float back into the owner's pockets.

Um.....false. The way CBA's have worked in the past, and likely will continue to work with a few minor changes, is that owners have to spend so much on the players. The old "salary floor" that all teams had to be over. Most, if not all teams, usually spent far more than that, up to the salary cap if they wanted.

And the floor and cap were based on certain percentages of the total shared revenue of all the teams iirc....

So if that money isn't being spent on rookies, and the CBA is set up in a similar fashion, it WILL go to other players.

The reason the owners opted out of that last CBA is because they felt the players % was too high. So, in this new CBA they'll likely make some concessions to the players (fewer years required to hit unrestricted FA? No or limited use of the franchise tag? etc...)

So...as least as far as I understand everything, your argument doesn't work. The players might get less money overall in a new CBA, but if a rookie salary structure is part of that, then the veteran players will get the most of the money saved.

Bengalsrocket
07-18-2010, 10:17 PM
Um.....false. The way CBA's have worked in the past, and likely will continue to work with a few minor changes, is that owners have to spend so much on the players. The old "salary floor" that all teams had to be over. Most, if not all teams, usually spent far more than that, up to the salary cap if they wanted.

And the floor and cap were based on certain percentages of the total shared revenue of all the teams iirc....

So if that money isn't being spent on rookies, and the CBA is set up in a similar fashion, it WILL go to other players.

The reason the owners opted out of that last CBA is because they felt the players % was too high. So, in this new CBA they'll likely make some concessions to the players (fewer years required to hit unrestricted FA? No or limited use of the franchise tag? etc...)

So...as least as far as I understand everything, your argument doesn't work. The players might get less money overall in a new CBA, but if a rookie salary structure is part of that, then the veteran players will get the most of the money saved.

Right. But the majority of the teams in the league don't have any trouble getting over the salary floor now. In fact, some have trouble staying under the cap.

Certainly some of this money will get spread to veterans, but I don't think it will change much.

This might give veterans who are on bad teams a break, which could be a good thing. But I highly doubt owners like Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder are nervous about getting over the salary floor right now.

BeerBaron
07-18-2010, 10:25 PM
Right. But the majority of the teams in the league don't have any trouble getting over the salary floor now. In fact, some have trouble staying under the cap.

Certainly some of this money will get spread to veterans, but I don't think it will change much.

This might give veterans who are on bad teams a break, which could be a good thing. But I highly doubt owners like Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder are nervous about getting over the salary floor right now.

Well, the floor is what they were required to spend on the players, and they all spent it. They mostly all spent well over it. So paying the players wasn't actually a problem.....and if anyone but the unproven rookies has a say in the matter (owners, fans, veteran players) they'd all much, much, much rather see that money invested in guys who've actually proven themselves.

And if you can cut back what those top rookies are making.....even by half would be a big help....then the bad teams picking at the top won't have to invest so much in those unproven players, and could use the rest to get better by attracting proven FA's and by extending what good players they do have more easily.