Goodell concerned about rookie salaries - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Goodell concerned about rookie salaries

Moderator: Football Moderators

Re: Goodell concerned about rookie salaries

Postby Humpback » Mon Jul 07, 2008 9:22 pm

Mooch, if I'm reading you correctly, your main point is that you think the owners want to lower rookie salaries so they can make more money. As has been said over and over, that just isn't the case- better yet, it CAN'T be the case (on a percentage basis). The amount they spend on players is set in the CBA. If revenues go up, the owners make more and the players make more, but the percentage remains the same. Vice versa if they go down.

Yes, the owners make a lot of money, yada, yada. However, I think you're stretching things when you think the reason why they want restrictions on rookie contracts is because they want to make more money. The fact that they want to pay out 54% to players in the new CBA, that shows that they want to make more money. The fact that they want to pay rookies less (and therefore veterans more) just shows that they want to pay for performance.

You're obviously anti-owner, and that's fine, but I think you're off base with this portion of the discussion. It's fine if you have an issue with the owners wanting to keep a higher percentage of the overall pie, but the owner/player pie is separate from the rookie/veteran player sub-pie. If rookies make less, veterans will make more- the owners will make the same %.
Humpback
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Fantasy Expert
Posts: 3333
Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Goodell concerned about rookie salaries

Postby dgan » Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:08 pm

I have a better question, mooch. Why NOT have a cap on rookie contracts? Why are you so defensive on this topic?

Let me also point this out: a rookie is only a rookie for one year. He is then officially a veteran. So if he wants to hold out after a superb rookie year to get a bigger contract, he is entitled to do so, just like every other veteran. And since the team won't be spending most their remaining cap money on new rookies, maybe - just maybe! - they could afford to reward said player. (Not to mention, the cap I think most of us are talking about is a guaranteed signing bonus and base salary cap. They can put all the performance based incentives in there they want.)

Would this hurt the Ki-jana Carters of the world? Yeah. But for every one of those tragic stories, we have dozens of Cedric Bensons, Akili Smiths, and Ryan...wait...no, there really was only ONE Ryan Leaf. :-b
Image
dgan
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Eagle Eye
Posts: 2941
Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: The frozen tundra of Lambeau Field

Re: Goodell concerned about rookie salaries

Postby moochman » Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:06 am

Humpback wrote:Mooch, if I'm reading you correctly, your main point is that you think the owners want to lower rookie salaries so they can make more money. As has been said over and over, that just isn't the case- better yet, it CAN'T be the case (on a percentage basis). The amount they spend on players is set in the CBA. If revenues go up, the owners make more and the players make more, but the percentage remains the same. Vice versa if they go down.

Yes, the owners make a lot of money, yada, yada. However, I think you're stretching things when you think the reason why they want restrictions on rookie contracts is because they want to make more money. The fact that they want to pay out 54% to players in the new CBA, that shows that they want to make more money. The fact that they want to pay rookies less (and therefore veterans more) just shows that they want to pay for performance.

You're obviously anti-owner, and that's fine, but I think you're off base with this portion of the discussion. It's fine if you have an issue with the owners wanting to keep a higher percentage of the overall pie, but the owner/player pie is separate from the rookie/veteran player sub-pie. If rookies make less, veterans will make more- the owners will make the same %.


No, Humpback, I am not anti-owner. I am pro footbal and anti-deceit. Tell me then how does the owners saying they don't want to pay rookies big contracts means they want to pay for performance. Show me the actions that the league has done that backs that.
Guaranteed contracts? Nope.
Contracts terminated at will. Yep.
Vets paid for performance. Yep-often after long hard fought negotiations and/or hold-outs that use other player salaries as leverage to prove that the vet deserves to be paid.
Oh, and do you think that the money paid to rookies isn't brought up in those negotiations?
Do you think that rookie contracts have had no influence in helping a veteran player negotiate a better contract?
Do you think it would be easier to pay a vet less if you aren't paying rookies so much, or if that vet had to start his career at a lower salary?
I don't really think the owners have the vets best interest in mind. They simply want more of the money we pay to watch the players go into their pockets. While they contribute little to nothing to the game.

Now had the owners just had their pimp Goodell simply say that we are trying to find a way to pay players less becuase we aren't making enough as Exxon and we are having a hard time squeezing more out of fans, while I would hate it, I could at least respect their honesty. Instead we have the pimp trying to sell us on the costs of doing business in these troubled economic times threatens the solvency of teams and rookies get too much (though oddly enough the Packers, when explaining their disappointing ecomonic season where they only made $37 mil profits, don't cite rookie contracts, but the money they had to pay to veterans as the reason they didn't make as much as in prior seasons. Sounds like the Packers will soon have to fold if we don't get these salries under control, eh? Or maybe their share in the $270 mil that a 6% reduction in the players portion of the revenue pie would make their bottom line a bit more palable.

I guess what bothers me more, though, is how so many fans just swallow what the league is doing. Tell them about how high contracts and while they all stand in protest we will grab a bigger portion of the pot. Let's all stand and applaud.
Image


I think, therefore I am. I think fantasy, therefore I am unreal?
moochman
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterSurvival Of The Fittest WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 16300
(Past Year: 80)
Joined: 20 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Living in the shame only a Lions fan knows

Re: Goodell concerned about rookie salaries

Postby moochman » Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:16 am

dgan wrote:I have a better question, mooch. Why NOT have a cap on rookie contracts? Why are you so defensive on this topic?

Let me also point this out: a rookie is only a rookie for one year. He is then officially a veteran. So if he wants to hold out after a superb rookie year to get a bigger contract, he is entitled to do so, just like every other veteran. And since the team won't be spending most their remaining cap money on new rookies, maybe - just maybe! - they could afford to reward said player. (Not to mention, the cap I think most of us are talking about is a guaranteed signing bonus and base salary cap. They can put all the performance based incentives in there they want.)

Would this hurt the Ki-jana Carters of the world? Yeah. But for every one of those tragic stories, we have dozens of Cedric Bensons, Akili Smiths, and Ryan...wait...no, there really was only ONE Ryan Leaf. :-b


Two things:
1) If Jake Long gets a $30 million bonus he makes $30 million. If he gets $4 million for being the top pick, has a great season, how much do you think he will make if he holds out? My point is that he will likely never approach the $30 mil he has right now. And that is assuming that the owners don't put wording into the CBA that makes rookie contracts binding until they reach a FA in year 3 or 4. (I think 4 times 4 is 16. So that leaves Long only $41 million shy of his original deal. Does he have a chance to recoup that money? No.
2) If I am in school and I know that my rookie year will be at a discount, then wouldn't I want to get that rookie year over with as soon as I could. So how many more juniors would come out of school early so they don't lose a year of earning potential. Don't bother with the logic of they won't be as good so they won't get paid as much. It doesn't work becuase they don't know that another year in school will help them. Healthy egos, have they. But the product on the field could be affected, no? Is that what we want?
Image


I think, therefore I am. I think fantasy, therefore I am unreal?
moochman
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterSurvival Of The Fittest WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 16300
(Past Year: 80)
Joined: 20 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Living in the shame only a Lions fan knows

Re: Goodell concerned about rookie salaries

Postby Humpback » Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:15 pm

moochman wrote:
Humpback wrote:Mooch, if I'm reading you correctly, your main point is that you think the owners want to lower rookie salaries so they can make more money. As has been said over and over, that just isn't the case- better yet, it CAN'T be the case (on a percentage basis). The amount they spend on players is set in the CBA. If revenues go up, the owners make more and the players make more, but the percentage remains the same. Vice versa if they go down.

Yes, the owners make a lot of money, yada, yada. However, I think you're stretching things when you think the reason why they want restrictions on rookie contracts is because they want to make more money. The fact that they want to pay out 54% to players in the new CBA, that shows that they want to make more money. The fact that they want to pay rookies less (and therefore veterans more) just shows that they want to pay for performance.

You're obviously anti-owner, and that's fine, but I think you're off base with this portion of the discussion. It's fine if you have an issue with the owners wanting to keep a higher percentage of the overall pie, but the owner/player pie is separate from the rookie/veteran player sub-pie. If rookies make less, veterans will make more- the owners will make the same %.


No, Humpback, I am not anti-owner. I am pro footbal and anti-deceit. Tell me then how does the owners saying they don't want to pay rookies big contracts means they want to pay for performance. Show me the actions that the league has done that backs that.
Guaranteed contracts? Nope.
Contracts terminated at will. Yep.
Vets paid for performance. Yep-often after long hard fought negotiations and/or hold-outs that use other player salaries as leverage to prove that the vet deserves to be paid.
Oh, and do you think that the money paid to rookies isn't brought up in those negotiations?
Do you think that rookie contracts have had no influence in helping a veteran player negotiate a better contract?
Do you think it would be easier to pay a vet less if you aren't paying rookies so much, or if that vet had to start his career at a lower salary?
I don't really think the owners have the vets best interest in mind. They simply want more of the money we pay to watch the players go into their pockets. While they contribute little to nothing to the game.

Now had the owners just had their pimp Goodell simply say that we are trying to find a way to pay players less becuase we aren't making enough as Exxon and we are having a hard time squeezing more out of fans, while I would hate it, I could at least respect their honesty. Instead we have the pimp trying to sell us on the costs of doing business in these troubled economic times threatens the solvency of teams and rookies get too much (though oddly enough the Packers, when explaining their disappointing ecomonic season where they only made $37 mil profits, don't cite rookie contracts, but the money they had to pay to veterans as the reason they didn't make as much as in prior seasons. Sounds like the Packers will soon have to fold if we don't get these salries under control, eh? Or maybe their share in the $270 mil that a 6% reduction in the players portion of the revenue pie would make their bottom line a bit more palable.

I guess what bothers me more, though, is how so many fans just swallow what the league is doing. Tell them about how high contracts and while they all stand in protest we will grab a bigger portion of the pot. Let's all stand and applaud.


No offense, but your comments sure as heck come off as anti-owner. I'm not even saying I disagree with you necessarily, but it's tough to have a discussion with someone when you can't even be honest with yourself.

There is both a salary floor and a salary cap. Most teams spend close to the max trying to put the best product on the field that they can. If they pay the rookies less, they HAVE to pay the vets more. Do you not see that? The fact that almost every team spends the most they can should lead you to believe they would continue to do so regardless of the rookie contract situation- remember, only a few teams have a huge rookie salary burden each year, yet most teams spend up to the cap each year.

Your bias is blinding you from the facts here. I've said over and over, there are two separate issues. The fact that the owners want a bigger piece of the overall pie is one (and I haven't even discussed that issue really, but I don't think the owners should necessarily get more).

The one we're talking about is the vet vs. rookie pie, which is 100% separate. You've yet to acknowledge that your theory is impossible, since the almost 60% that the players get is the same regardless of whether it's the rookies or the vets getting it. You really need to stop and think about it for a second, it's really not even debatable. If the rookie salaries go down, the veteran salaries MUST go up. It's simple math.

What part of that do you not understand yet?
Humpback
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Fantasy Expert
Posts: 3333
Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Goodell concerned about rookie salaries

Postby moochman » Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:32 pm

Humpback wrote:No offense, but your comments sure as heck come off as anti-owner. I'm not even saying I disagree with you necessarily, but it's tough to have a discussion with someone when you can't even be honest with yourself.

There is both a salary floor and a salary cap. Most teams spend close to the max trying to put the best product on the field that they can. If they pay the rookies less, they HAVE to pay the vets more. Do you not see that? The fact that almost every team spends the most they can should lead you to believe they would continue to do so regardless of the rookie contract situation- remember, only a few teams have a huge rookie salary burden each year, yet most teams spend up to the cap each year.

Your bias is blinding you from the facts here. I've said over and over, there are two separate issues. The fact that the owners want a bigger piece of the overall pie is one (and I haven't even discussed that issue really, but I don't think the owners should necessarily get more).

The one we're talking about is the vet vs. rookie pie, which is 100% separate. You've yet to acknowledge that your theory is impossible, since the almost 60% that the players get is the same regardless of whether it's the rookies or the vets getting it. You really need to stop and think about it for a second, it's really not even debatable. If the rookie salaries go down, the veteran salaries MUST go up. It's simple math.

What part of that do you not understand yet?


To clarify: I am not anti-owner. ON this issue I am dead against the views of the owners and on the disingenuous way they present their case. There is a difference there. So, no offense, but don't confuse my inability to express my views clearly enough for you to comprehend as a lack of self-honesty. Statements like those about someone you know so little about seem more like attempts to strengthen one's arguement by a personal attack. Only serves to weaken you own opinion, IMO. But that could be my bias blinding me again. Not your best stuff, Humpback, you're better that that. Okay, I am done being insulted.
Now lets both stop and think for a minute and will discuss my impossible theory, or maybe just a thought I haven't been able to make clear enough. (guess I am still a bit put off). The salary cap is not static, but dynamic, as I've mentioned before. It is subject to change. Are we okay so far?
If so, read on. The cap was elevated in part due to the increase in the amount of money being paid to players. Still with me?
That amount of money increased because pressure was put on ownership during contract negotiations by comparing what player Z and X are making. Now if player R, a rookie comes along and gets a big contract what do you suppose happens the next time Z and X go for a negotiation? Do they ask for less or more?
Now do you think it is possible, not impossible or non-debateable, that this has had and effect on the CBA when it was time to re-up?
Now here is the tough concept-the future. If we stop paying rookies so much then vets can't use them to hike up their pay. Plausible, or merely more biased-blind mouse musing? So even if the owners had full intention to give the money to vets, it would be done in such a way as to eliminate top end salary pressures that cuase inflationatory pressures on the whole cap.

And we won't even burden ourselves with what this would mean to vets. Will ignore for now that if you paid rookies less and vets more that there would be more pressure to cut vets, or low-ball them, and fill your roster on younger, cheaper players. This would make it much easier for a team to save millions by meeting the bottom of the salary cap too. Bonus!

Are you getting anything I am saying yet? I am still too blindly biased in my sheer hatred of the owners to make any thought clear? It is not about the vets or the rookies. the owners couldn't care less about them, it's about the pie. (now I sound like Metroid :-b ) If we can keep teams from having to max out their cap space we can keep the pressure to increase the cap away.
Image


I think, therefore I am. I think fantasy, therefore I am unreal?
moochman
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterSurvival Of The Fittest WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 16300
(Past Year: 80)
Joined: 20 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Living in the shame only a Lions fan knows

Re: Goodell concerned about rookie salaries

Postby stomperrob » Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:40 pm

Once again people are ignoring the fact we are only talking about he top 15 or so rookies of the 224 drafted that are getting the really obscene contracts - even the rest of the first round contracts aren't too bad. So most rookies aren't even gonna be affected.

I like the NBA model of rookie salary cap - really great when everyone reports to camp on time (and as previously stated most rookies would be under the cap anyway, we're talking about the obscene salaries, but for some reason I have to keep repeating that). I really don't think we have to worry about these young men struggling to make ends meet on $3-$4 million/year - I'm sure they won't be lining up at the food bank, $3 million buys a lot of Hamburger Helper if ya budget carefully. If the rookies don't like $3-$4 million, let them go pursue other avenues - hey, Charlie Ward went into basketball and Bo Jackson went into baseball - or hey, here's a novel idea, how 'bout really putting that college education to work and hitting the job market like the rest of us working stiffs (but here's a tip - don't tell the personnel guy you want to be paid more than the highest paid employee in the company!).

Another problem with the obscene salaries of the highest draft picks is the problem it creates for truly crappy teams, ones who remain cellar dwellers for a few years - a team like the Raiders who had to sign high picks Russell last year and McFadden this year - if it happens again next year, they're gonna have a lot tied up in rookie salaries and what if say 2 of those 3 don't pan out - that's a lot of money they're on the hook for. How do they pay the rest of their players???

NFL franchises are worth a lot on paper, but that doesn't always translate into money. My house has gone up close to 50% in the 2 years since I bought it, but that hasn't put a single cent in my pocket. In fact if anything, the inflationary pressure has caused my monthly bills to rise. I don't see any profit unless I sell. Teams like the Vikings are in a position like that - I'm sure there's others, but I don't have the numbers. Owners who have recently or who will be purchasing a team expect a decent profit on a $1 billion investment.

And to keep calling Goodell a pimp is offensive and cheapens the debate - it's hard to take you seriously when you resort to name calling. That kind of epithet has no place in a mature discourse! Of course he was elected by the owners and of course he represents their interests - we're all aware of that - that's his job! The owners have their rep and the players have theirs - big deal, get over it already. Ya really need to get over this paranoia that everything that comes out of Goodell's mouth is part of some conspiracy, some diabolical master plan because he hates players.

And, no you still have done nothing to disprove Rod Woodson, a witness for the defense with first hand evidence - you have not proven him wrong, thus his evidence stands!

And I still get a chuckle out of the complete and total misuse of the word "exploited" when it comes to NFL players - as my old prof would say, that is truly wallowing in the mire of intellectual mediocrity and unbefitting serious consideration. Somewhere in a cemetery in London, Karl Marx is rolling over in his grave laughing about that one...
Image

But we shall never agree as long as you think Goodell is the boogeyman and everything that originates from his office is part and parcel of some massive conspiracy!
Image
Fantasy Football: "Luck is where preparation meets opportunity"
stomperrob
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 13579
(Past Year: 160)
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Steeler Nation!!!

Re: Goodell concerned about rookie salaries

Postby Humpback » Tue Jul 08, 2008 7:14 pm

moochman wrote:
Humpback wrote:No offense, but your comments sure as heck come off as anti-owner. I'm not even saying I disagree with you necessarily, but it's tough to have a discussion with someone when you can't even be honest with yourself.

There is both a salary floor and a salary cap. Most teams spend close to the max trying to put the best product on the field that they can. If they pay the rookies less, they HAVE to pay the vets more. Do you not see that? The fact that almost every team spends the most they can should lead you to believe they would continue to do so regardless of the rookie contract situation- remember, only a few teams have a huge rookie salary burden each year, yet most teams spend up to the cap each year.

Your bias is blinding you from the facts here. I've said over and over, there are two separate issues. The fact that the owners want a bigger piece of the overall pie is one (and I haven't even discussed that issue really, but I don't think the owners should necessarily get more).

The one we're talking about is the vet vs. rookie pie, which is 100% separate. You've yet to acknowledge that your theory is impossible, since the almost 60% that the players get is the same regardless of whether it's the rookies or the vets getting it. You really need to stop and think about it for a second, it's really not even debatable. If the rookie salaries go down, the veteran salaries MUST go up. It's simple math.

What part of that do you not understand yet?


To clarify: I am not anti-owner. ON this issue I am dead against the views of the owners and on the disingenuous way they present their case. There is a difference there. So, no offense, but don't confuse my inability to express my views clearly enough for you to comprehend as a lack of self-honesty. Statements like those about someone you know so little about seem more like attempts to strengthen one's arguement by a personal attack. Only serves to weaken you own opinion, IMO. But that could be my bias blinding me again. Not your best stuff, Humpback, you're better that that. Okay, I am done being insulted.
Now lets both stop and think for a minute and will discuss my impossible theory, or maybe just a thought I haven't been able to make clear enough. (guess I am still a bit put off). The salary cap is not static, but dynamic, as I've mentioned before. It is subject to change. Are we okay so far?
If so, read on. The cap was elevated in part due to the increase in the amount of money being paid to players. Still with me?
That amount of money increased because pressure was put on ownership during contract negotiations by comparing what player Z and X are making. Now if player R, a rookie comes along and gets a big contract what do you suppose happens the next time Z and X go for a negotiation? Do they ask for less or more?
Now do you think it is possible, not impossible or non-debateable, that this has had and effect on the CBA when it was time to re-up?
Now here is the tough concept-the future. If we stop paying rookies so much then vets can't use them to hike up their pay. Plausible, or merely more biased-blind mouse musing? So even if the owners had full intention to give the money to vets, it would be done in such a way as to eliminate top end salary pressures that cuase inflationatory pressures on the whole cap.

And we won't even burden ourselves with what this would mean to vets. Will ignore for now that if you paid rookies less and vets more that there would be more pressure to cut vets, or low-ball them, and fill your roster on younger, cheaper players. This would make it much easier for a team to save millions by meeting the bottom of the salary cap too. Bonus!

Are you getting anything I am saying yet? I am still too blindly biased in my sheer hatred of the owners to make any thought clear? It is not about the vets or the rookies. the owners couldn't care less about them, it's about the pie. (now I sound like Metroid :-b ) If we can keep teams from having to max out their cap space we can keep the pressure to increase the cap away.


First off, I don't mean to insult you. You have to admit (I think you even did :-S ) that your posts have come across as very anti-owner. If you say it's only on this issue, then I'll take your word for it, since this is the only issue we're talking about anyway.

Point 1- yes, the salary cap is dynamic, but the % allocated to the players is not. It's purely a function of revenues. So, we have some confusion already. The actual dollar amount paid out is dynamic, but the % is not.

Point 2- no, the cap isn't elevated due to the increased contracts given to players, it's elevated due to increased revenues. The increased amount given to players is due to the increased cap, which is due to the increased revenues. I think you have the cause and effect wrong.

All other points are kind of tough to evaluate since they're based on these two, which I feel you have wrong. If they stop paying the rookies so much but they pay the veterans more (which they would have to do, again), then they would just use those higher veteran contracts when they went to renegotiate instead of the rookie ones. What's the difference? I also don't think that the owners want to meet the bottom of the cap. Most teams have guys on their staff whose only job is to structure contracts in a way to get under the cap, not minimize the spending. The younger, cheaper players you claim the vets would be replaced with wouldn't be cheap for long if they performed well.

I could go on and on how bad I think it is that the top few rookies get paid like future HOFer's before they even take a snap, but that's not the point. We don't even know what the next CBA is going to look like. Obviously, if they said the #1 draft pick is going to sign a 6 yr, $6MM contract, that would be ridiculous. But, the players would never agree to that, so it's not going to happen. What I've said would make more sense would be to cap the guaranteed part. For instance, if you give Long the same basic deal as he signed, but "only" gave him $10MM guaranteed instead of $30MM+, it turns it into more of an incentive based deal. If he performs, he'll either get the entire amount that he signed for by Miami, or he'll have the opportunity to sign a big FA deal somewhere else if they choose to let him go. If he doesn't perform, he'll "only" get $15MM or so, which isn't too bad for a bust (hypothetically).

Anyway, my intent certainly wasn't to insult you, sorry if you took it that way. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this part of the issue. It's obvious to me that there are two separate issues here, and in my opinion, you seem to be carrying over your despise for ownership wanting a higher % of the overall pie into the rookie vs. veteran % breakdown. They are distinctly different issues IMO. You see it as rookies vs. owners, while I (and most of the rest of us) see it as rookies vs. veterans.
Last edited by Humpback on Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Humpback
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Fantasy Expert
Posts: 3333
Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Goodell concerned about rookie salaries

Postby moose_ffc » Tue Jul 08, 2008 8:10 pm

I heard Chris Mortenson talk about this. I agree that this is just smoke from the NFL owners b/c they know that players and fans think it is sill for a rookie tackle from Michigan to make more money than some of the leagues good QBs.
"Well, um, actually a pretty nice little Saturday, we're going to go to Home Depot. Yeah, buy some wallpaper, maybe get some flooring, stuff like that. Maybe Bed, Bath, & Beyond, I don't know, I don't know if we'll have enough time."
moose_ffc
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff

User avatar

Posts: 303
(Past Year: 3)
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Panama City, FL

Re: Goodell concerned about rookie salaries

Postby dgan » Tue Jul 08, 2008 8:57 pm

2) If I am in school and I know that my rookie year will be at a discount, then wouldn't I want to get that rookie year over with as soon as I could. So how many more juniors would come out of school early so they don't lose a year of earning potential.


So you're saying kids will come out early to get a discounted contract, but they won't come out early to get a 30 mil contract? I think that is pretty much a wash. If anything, I think you'd get kids making the right LIFE decisions regarding their education because the money won't be as much of a factor.

Sorry mooch, but at this point I can't even talk to you about this. You've got about 40 people in this thread arguing your logic, yet you think all of us are wrong and you're right. You can have any opinion you want, but you can't argue the facts.

- There is a fixed percentage of how much money will be paid to players
- Out of the 1400 players or whatever are in the league, (x) amount is paid to rookies
- If you reduce the value of (x), that means all non-rookies (veterans) must be paid more

If you think there is more to it than that and there are other reasons the owners have, fine. (I disagree - they didn't void a permanent contract - they simply ended it a couple years earlier which was their option. Just like a player who has the option to void a 5 year contract after 3 years. But you're entitled to your conspiracy theory...I'm always up for a good one. :-b ) But can you at least admit that this is a legitimate argument, and something they should fix?
Image
dgan
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Eagle Eye
Posts: 2941
Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: The frozen tundra of Lambeau Field

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 11:34 hours
(and 42 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact