Goodell concerned about rookie salaries

[steelerfan513]

Not quite, Buffalobillsrul. Rookie contract become small, all players lose. Not today, but in the future. Rookie gets $10 and vet make $5. Vet goes to the renegotiate his deal and says “why is he making more than me”? Vet gets $11. Other vet renegotiates and says “if he is getting $11, why am I only making $1”? He gets $1.25. Everybody makes more eventually. Rookie doesn’t get paid, pressure to increase other players salaries is reduced. They have less bargaining power. That is the crux of my incredibly hard to fathom assertion.

This post actually helped me to understand your position a lot more mooch. I still disagree for a couple of reasons.

1. That pressure will still exist to pay players based on other contracts. There are a lot of massive veteran contracts out there, and they are getting bigger every year. Maybe it's because of rookie contracts, maybe it isn't. But even if veterans use massive rookie contracts to ask for better pay (which is something I doubt), they don't need them anymore because of the enormous amount of money spent in free agency. To provide a few examples:

Why do you think Plaxico Burress is unhappy with his contract? Is it because rookies like Calvin Johnson are signing massive deals? Or is it because Bernard Berrian and Javon Walker are getting boatloads of money through free agency?

What contract do you think Tony Romo used to bargain for his 6 year, $64 million contract from the Cowboys? Was it JaMarcus Russell's 6 year, $61 million contract with the Raiders? Or was it Marc Bulger's 6 year, $65 million deal with the Rams?

Veterans don't have to use rookie deals to negotiate for more money; they can use deals that other vets sign. Even if the rookie contracts disappear, the vets can point to other veteran deals already in place to bargain for more money. Then those veterans will get new deals, and the cycle of veterans getting massive contracts will continue.

2. Let's say that you're right and that the owners will attempt to use lowered rookie contracts to lower the percentage in the new CBA. You're assuming that the NFL Players Association would allow this. They'll be hesitant to agree to larger contracts for rookies in the first place. They would never allow owners to pocket that money instead of giving it to other players. They wouldn't agree to lower rookie salaries unless that money is going to the veterans and not the owners.

[Humpback]

We're back to the same basic argument- yes, obviously players look at other player's contracts when negotiating their own. However, your point of view only works if you think that the money taken from the top few rookie contracts would go directly into the owners pockets and not to the veterans. That just can't be the case per the current CBA. If the rookies make less, the veterans HAVE to make more, at least enough to get above the minimum cap. If Miami didn't have to give Jake Long so much money upfront, they most likely would've given it to another player or players, and those contracts would be used as a negotiation point instead. They would have HAD to pay out some of it to someone.

My contention is that any lowering of rookie contracts would be offset by increases in veteran contracts. That can't be proven obviously until it happens, but the fact that most teams are right at the cap max when all is said and done every year certainly points in that direction. Do you really think that most teams would be near the min. cap if they lowered rookie contracts? So many players have to be cut or restructured every year just to get beneath the max. By the way, that link to salary cap figures from dgan is from 2006, so it's irrelevant. Things change so much with FA signings, cuts, restructurings, etc. anyway, so any number from March is going to be much different than the final numbers at year end.

The fact that the owners want to reduce the payouts to 55% is completely separate from this one. Yes, they want to make more money, just like the players want to make more money and all business owners and employees want to make more money. It's all part of the negotiation process. They'll end up settling on some %, but no matter if that ends up being 40% or 70%, Goodell, the owners, most of the players and most of the fans want the veterans to make more and the top few rookies to make less of their share. From a purely financial standpoint, once that % is settled, it doesn't matter to the owners how much the rookies get vs. the veterans. They have to spend the money one way or the other. From a business standpoint, they'd rather spend their money on more proven commodities than on totally unproven ones, just as most business owners would. It's in everyones best interest to continue to increase revenues, and putting proven quality players on the field instead of unproven rookies is the best, safest way to do that IMO. Yes, rookies add excitement, but who do you think the Falcons fans would dish out more money in ticket sales, jersey sales, etc. to see- Matt Ryan or Tom Brady, Carson Palmer, Tony Romo, etc?

I don't really want to bring it up because it is a separate issue, but the veterans could actually make more money even if their % is lowered to 55% by increasing the veteran mix of the player pie. Also, NFL revenues have been growing by more than the 4.5% decrease the owners want, so the cap would almost certainly increase even if they reduced the number to 55%, which I doubt they will agree to. The cap was $85.5MM in 2005, and it's $116.729MM in 2008. I'm not advocating them only paying out 55%, just showing how the players probably would still make more $ at a lower %.

I'm not saying which side I prefer since we have no idea what the CBA is going to look like. If they lower rookie salaries substantially but don't give them the chance to make that up quickly if they perform by becoming a FA sooner, that wouldn't be good. Likewise, if they don't work it in that the veterans would have to make more if the rookies made less, that wouldn't be good either. However, I don't think the players will just agree to get totally screwed over in the next CBA. Time will tell.

[moochman]

Seelerfan, I don’t mean to say that contract pressure will go away, or that vets don’t use other vets deals to leverage better contracts. That has always been there and will. All I mean is that taking away the big money paid to rookies is removing one tool in the negotiating tool-belt. That, I feel, will help reduce the inflationary pressures in the league, in a way that the owners think they can get away with.
Okay, the owners obviously cannot tell vets that they aren’t going to pay Berrians and Walkers crazy coin any more. But they can use fan and player sympathies to say that they will not pay rookies, who after-all (they say) have not proven their worth, (merchandise sales beg to differ) and we will instead pay that money to vets.
So now we remove an inflationary pressure and replace it with some razzle~dazzle--a money shift. We aren’t going to increase our payroll, just give more of it to vets. The effect is to stop the increase in salaries and lower the future earnings potential of players, re: future salaries. So the owners will be able to maintain salaries at the lower end of the cap, which would help to lower or keep caps % levels from rising.

Why Plax is unhappy with his deal is unimportant in this discussion, only that he would use rookies contracts in addition to Berrian contracts to plead his case. My arguement isn't as much about the Plaxicos, but of future players. See Calvin Johnson’s contemporaries will benefit from his contract like you point out that Plaxico does from Walker, and Berrian; think of how those negotiations would be if Johnson didn’t get a big contract? So not only would Calvin’s earning potential go down, so too his contemporaries. They couldn't say "Cal is getting a gillion and I had a better year". So I think that when rookies who don't have big contracts to compare and contrast will end up making less money as vets than they would have if today's current economic model is kept in place.

I have no idea what the PA will do with the leagues’ demands. All I know is that they haven't had much success when a commish has played hardball.

Do you see how that could work, Humpback? The owners wish simply to take some money out of the rookie pile and place it into the vets pile. Rookies will never earn as much over the course of their career because their initial contract pays them less to start. I am not talking today’s dollars, but tomorrows. A monetary amount that is grows season by season. That, I feel, is what the owners and Goodell are after here, slowing or stopping that growth. So they say they want to pay vets more, but in reality, mine at least, what they want is to slow the growth of all players’ wages.

[BigBadBrawler]

For the record, I just wanna say that I've been following this whole thing from the start and I've loved the discussion. I understand exactly where you guys are coming from and I actually agree with Mooch on almost all counts. I just wouldn't have had the energy to continually engage in this process like he has. So big ...

[moochman]

For the record, I just wanna say that I've been following this whole thing from the start and I've loved the discussion. I understand exactly where you guys are coming from and I actually agree with Mooch on almost all counts. I just wouldn't have had the energy to continually engage in this process like he has. So big ...

Thanks. Realize, though, that following this whole thread and agreeing with me both bring your sanity into question

[BigBadBrawler]

For the record, I just wanna say that I've been following this whole thing from the start and I've loved the discussion. I understand exactly where you guys are coming from and I actually agree with Mooch on almost all counts. I just wouldn't have had the energy to continually engage in this process like he has. So big ...

Thanks. Realize, though, that following this whole thread and agreeing with me both bring your sanity into question

Crossed that bridge a loooong time ago, my friend...

[Humpback]

Mooch, I see what you're saying, but I still disagree. If rookie salaries were to be cut tomorrow, yes, that rookie might not earn as much as they would have over the course of their career (assuming everything else remains the same). But, they also might sign an even bigger 2nd and 3rd contract (assuming they stay healthy and perform, etc.) than they would have because more money will theoretically be going to veterans than rookies. So, if he has a long career, he could make the same or even more with a new rookie/veteran mix. Any rookie who's a bust or has his career cut short for some reason won't make as much, but guys who go on to long, productive careers could make even more money under a new system.

Of course, it's all going to come down to the parameters of the new CBA. They're not just talking about capping rookie salaries in a vacuum, it's just one part of a new system they want to include. Another part is possibly shortening the length of the rookie contracts, which will allow them to become free agents sooner, theoretically allowing them to get their hands on the larger vet pie sooner and making as much or more money over the course of their careers. I don't think the NBA scale is perfect for the NFL, but they could certainly use it as a blueprint and tweak it to better suit a shorter playing career. That's why I can't say which side it favors, because we're just in the initial stages of negotiations on a new CBA.

I keep going back to the fact that the wages are dictated by a fixed percentage of revenues. The fact that the owners want to pay out a lower percentage of those revenues, that obviously points to them wanting to make more money. The fact that they want more of the player pie to be given to veterans, that doesn't IMO. The same amount of money is being paid no matter if rookies get more or veterans get more, and that % will be defined for the duration of the CBA (I'm assuming anyway, that's how it's been with prior CBAs). They would rather pay the big contracts to the established players over the unproven rookies, and I agree with that. I'm going with the assumption that the teams would still be at or close to the max cap if they lowered rookie contracts. If they work something else into the CBA that would hurt the rookies while not benefiting the veterans, then I would be opposed to it, but I haven't heard anything about that so far. Once we see the fine print, then we'll know more, but that probably won't be for quite a while.

[moochman]

Mooch, I see what you're saying, but I still disagree. If rookie salaries were to be cut tomorrow, yes, that rookie might not earn as much as they would have over the course of their career (assuming everything else remains the same). But, they also might sign an even bigger 2nd and 3rd contract (assuming they stay healthy and perform, etc.) than they would have because more money will theoretically be going to veterans than rookies. So, if he has a long career, he could make the same or even more with a new rookie/veteran mix. Any rookie who's a bust or has his career cut short for some reason won't make as much, but guys who go on to long, productive careers could make even more money under a new system.

Of course, it's all going to come down to the parameters of the new CBA. They're not just talking about capping rookie salaries in a vacuum, it's just one part of a new system they want to include. Another part is possibly shortening the length of the rookie contracts, which will allow them to become free agents sooner, theoretically allowing them to get their hands on the larger vet pie sooner and making as much or more money over the course of their careers. I don't think the NBA scale is perfect for the NFL, but they could certainly use it as a blueprint and tweak it to better suit a shorter playing career. That's why I can't say which side it favors, because we're just in the initial stages of negotiations on a new CBA.

I keep going back to the fact that the wages are dictated by a fixed percentage of revenues. The fact that the owners want to pay out a lower percentage of those revenues, that obviously points to them wanting to make more money. The fact that they want more of the player pie to be given to veterans, that doesn't IMO. The same amount of money is being paid no matter if rookies get more or veterans get more, and that % will be defined for the duration of the CBA (I'm assuming anyway, that's how it's been with prior CBAs). They would rather pay the big contracts to the established players over the unproven rookies, and I agree with that. I'm going with the assumption that the teams would still be at or close to the max cap if they lowered rookie contracts. If they work something else into the CBA that would hurt the rookies while not benefiting the veterans, then I would be opposed to it, but I haven't heard anything about that so far. Once we see the fine print, then we'll know more, but that probably won't be for quite a while.

Okay, we disagree. I hope that you are right and I am a paranoid conspiracy mongerer! I would hate to see these players who give up so much of their physical well-being to play this game end up making less money for it. I just have a hard time seeing how weakening their bargaining position will lead to more money, but like you say we don't know what the next CBA will look like.

For any hard feelings I apologize. You got under my skin a bit and I know I was a little short and snide. Sorry.

[Humpback]

Okay, we disagree. I hope that you are right and I am a paranoid conspiracy mongerer! I would hate to see these players who give up so much of their physical well-being to play this game end up making less money for it. I just have a hard time seeing how weakening their bargaining position will lead to more money, but like you say we don't know what the next CBA will look like.

We're actually kind of on the same page, at least for part of it. I don't want the rookies to be hurt financially if the benefit doesn't go to the veterans either. But, I have to assume as of right now that the veterans would be the beneficiaries of it. That's been the owners stance so far, and most of the veteran players have supported it. The way it works in the existing CBA, it would have to be the case. Obviously there are going to be a lot of other issues in the new CBA, but we just don't know what they will be at the moment. It's not like the players just sit down individually and sign the CBA- they have some pretty savvy individuals representing them in the negotiations as well. They will go over all of the fine print and make sure that it makes sense for them before they agree to the changes.

For any hard feelings I apologize. You got under my skin a bit and I know I was a little short and snide. Sorry.

Right back at 'cha .