Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should the NFL adopt the NBA's rookie contract system

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Smokey Joe View Post
    my idea:


    For the NFL rookie signings, I would combine where the player gets drafted along with arbitration. So, my idea is that for each draft position there will be a different signing bonus and salary for one year, followed by 2 years, 3 years, or 4 years of arbitration. First day picks get automatically get at least 3 years of arbitration and first rounders 4 years. 2nd day picks can be signed to either length. The arbitration years will follow after the players rookie season. After the arbitration years, the player will become a free agent. If a team declines to offer arbitration on a player, that player becomes a free agent.

    So, no matter where you are drafted you must sign to the bouns and first year salary of your draft spot. If a player refuses to sign, a la baseball, the team gets a compensation pick in the following draft at the same spot. However, the player refusing to sign CAN NOT re enter the draft for 2 more years. For example:

    John X was drafted in the first round, 10 overall. For that draft spot, the player must sign a bonus of 5 million per year and their first year salary of 1 million. The team and agent/player come to an agreement of 4 years of arbitration, so, that player will recieve a 5 million bonus his rookie year, and 5 million for each of his arbitration years. If a team decides not to offer a player arbitration in one of those years, the player receives at least 1/2 of his signing bonus. The exact amount the player recieves will be determined by an arbitration officer.
    This is ridiculous, only 2 player in the draft are paid this kind of money now, the #1 and #2 overall picks, the rest receive far less guaranteed money than 5 million a year. The NFL would be out of business under this plan. Secondly, if the NFL tried to ristrict players who don't sign when drafted to a 2 year wait, the courts would take a very dim view of such a course of action and the NFL would be sued left and right and have little chance of winning.
    And proud of it!!!

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by njx9
      that's ridiculous. so teams are better off signing guys like akili smith to massive contracts and not being able to sign their veteran players than they would be slotting rookies and re-signing proven studs after 3-4 years and not being able to sign agining vets? that's just a bizarre notion.

      some teams who were unable to manage their cap would end up losing quality veterans. but then, that happens now. what's the difference? with the NBA draft compensation, a team would know after 3 years that the guy they're giving a big contract to is actually worth it.

      regardless, slotting the draft pick money would mean there's MORE money available for vets. i fail to see why the NFLPA would oppose that.

      finally, your last point is absolutely backwards. what NFL team expects its rookies to contribute immediately? what NBA team sent lebron james to the practice squad for a few years to improve his game? what, exactly, are you talking about?
      The NFLPA would oppose restrctions because its reducing how much money its members get. Sure most of the money would go instead to veterans, but its teh image that its working with the Owerns to reduce wages. Plus those rookies and future rookies will be members of the NFLPA and won't be too happy with the leaders who took millions from them.

      Agents would fight the move and theres no way NFLPA would want to side with Owerns to fight agents to reduce salaries. They could trade it for higher salary cap limit in the next bargaining agreement, but they'd have ot get something in return.
      "We're only going to score 17 points?" Brady said before chuckling about it. "OK. Is Plax playing defense? I wish he had said 45-42 and gave us a little credit for scoring more points."

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by ks_perfection View Post
        IF Pacman were a bust the Titans would be fightning to take his signing bonus money back, but since he's a great young player there letting it slide.
        Then why exactly did the Dolphins try get $8.6 million from Ricky Williams? It's not exactly the same situation as Pacman, but Ricky was still a very talented player. Also Fred Evans, who would have been our primary back up NT and very likely our NT when Traylor retired, was cut the day after he got in trouble. He was an extremely talented player that the organization and players were very high on, but he was released because he messed up and because his cap hit was practically nothing.

        That is correct comahan
        I ******* LOVE YOU DG
        <3 dg

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Iamcanadian View Post
          This is ridiculous, only 2 player in the draft are paid this kind of money now, the #1 and #2 overall picks, the rest receive far less guaranteed money than 5 million a year. The NFL would be out of business under this plan. Secondly, if the NFL tried to ristrict players who don't sign when drafted to a 2 year wait, the courts would take a very dim view of such a course of action and the NFL would be sued left and right and have little chance of winning.
          I was just using that as an example. I was just throwing numbers out there.

          ^Thanks to Eaglez.Fan for the sweet sig!

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by njx9
            that's ridiculous. so teams are better off signing guys like akili smith to massive contracts and not being able to sign their veteran players than they would be slotting rookies and re-signing proven studs after 3-4 years and not being able to sign agining vets? that's just a bizarre notion.

            some teams who were unable to manage their cap would end up losing quality veterans. but then, that happens now. what's the difference? with the NBA draft compensation, a team would know after 3 years that the guy they're giving a big contract to is actually worth it.

            regardless, slotting the draft pick money would mean there's MORE money available for vets. i fail to see why the NFLPA would oppose that.

            finally, your last point is absolutely backwards. what NFL team expects its rookies to contribute immediately? what NBA team sent lebron james to the practice squad for a few years to improve his game? what, exactly, are you talking about?
            You use LeBron James as your example? Arguably the most talented prospect EVER in the NBA? I believe that's more the exception than the rule.

            For every LeBron James' there are many Kwame Brown, Darko Milicic (Sp?), Devin Harris, Luol Deng, Chris Bosh, Shaun Livingston, etc that are drafted in the top 10 with no expectations for playing significant minutes for several years.

            These guys aren't just 1st round draft picks, but top 10. You could go on and on, and look at guys drafted on what they will be like in 3-4 years in the first round of the NBA.

            In the NFL, a first round draft pick is expected to be on the field contributing in their first year. Even QB's aren't likely to sit much anymore. The NBA's contract system allows you to develop players and keep them if they do develop. Their contracts also are guaranteed so if the player is a dud, you don't have to sit on his massive deal for years. The NFL has no such guaranteed contract basis. The guaranteed money is much less than the total compensation reported so it doesn't cripple a team if they don't develop. If the players DO develop and turn into the stars you hope for, under the NBA system every team would have to pay their 25 year old STUD so much money that it would drastically reduce the money available for the run of the mill veteran.

            The NFL's rookie salaries make up a small portion of their overall salary cap. Signing the rookies under the current system leaves a tremendous amount of money on the table for the middle of the road veterans. If you churned the 25 year old salaries again, it would mean alot more veterans getting cut.

            I'll use this example. Terrance Newman is signed through 2009 for the Dallas Cowboys from his rookie deal. Had he been eligible for FA earlier a much greater portion of the Cowboys' cap would have been used, which means more 'cap casualty' players would have been cut. This means a player like Greg Ellis, making decent money coming off an injury and on the wrong side of 30, would have been cut. Or Al Singleton would have been cut two years ago. Those guys, when they get cut at their age, don't go on to sign contracts with other teams for more money. It REDUCES the money paid to veterans under a hard cap. The NBA has a soft cap. I don't know why this seems so foreign to you.

            Designs by Thule



            Originally posted by DMWSackMachine
            I just wanna warn you guys not to take TNew41 too seriously. He's....let's just say, special. He's fairly harmless, though. He just needs several years of seasoning before he tries to make any more points, is all.

            Comment


            • #36
              i dont like the fact that you make them the highest paid WR/RB and they havent even touched the Field since college.

              Comment


              • #37
                I think for the first year they should be paid the league minimum and then do what they normally do the first year, the second year. It would give time for teams to assess the talent. If a player showed a lot of promise, they would get a decent size contract, if they looked bad, they can be signed for less, regardless of position.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by njx9
                  what? sorry to cherry pick, but this is clearly not true. paying jamarcus russell more than nearly any QB in the NFL (in that guaranteed money you keep preattling on about, as if signing bonuses weren't guaranteed) does not in any way, shape or form help veterans. i think you're absolutely right that it won't happen, but your logic is flawed here.
                  I beg to differ. Russell's contract will hasve a huge impact on what veteran QB's will be asking for in their FA year. Their agents will use Russell's contract to demand far higher pay for their players. Russell's contract also applies to the franchise tag limits automatically driving up the price for tagging your veteran QB.
                  So I cannot agree that Russell's contract has absolutely no impact on veterans. During FA, the contracts given to rookies has a direct impact on what veterans will be asking for and getting. Think about it.
                  And proud of it!!!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    i think 1 to 2 year contracts defined by draft position would work out best, then after a year or two of evaluation the teams can then hold exclusive rights to the players to decide if they are worth the mega bucks

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X

                    Debug Information