Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bradford to get Record Deal?

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

  • #46
    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.

    Comment


    • #47
      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.
      Last edited by OzTitan; 07-18-2010, 07:07 AM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Bengalsrocket View Post
        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.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by BeerBaron View Post
          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.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Bengalsrocket View Post
            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.

            Comment

            Working...
            X

            Debug Information