Gene Upshaw hears the complaints like clockwork. “Every year at this time, I hear it again. They don’t like how the rookies are paid,” the executive director of the NFL Players Association said of owners and front-office personnel. “ ‘They need some kind of pay scale.’ Well, I’m not going to limit how the rookies are paid because it has a huge impact on veterans. I’m not going to agree to it.” With the NFL salary cap continually growing, the pay scale for rookies drafted in the first few picks is increasing as well – at a pace seemingly uncomfortable for a number of franchises. Last year, quarterback JaMarcus Russell eventually got a record $29 million in guarantees from the Oakland Raiders after being taken No. 1 overall. In order to keep from matching or surpassing that total this year, the Miami Dolphins have already begun negotiations with at least two prospects (offensive tackle Jake Long from Michigan and defensive end Vernon Gholston from Ohio State) and reportedly are close to inking a deal with Long. In a year when there is no clear-cut best prospect, the thought of spending $30 million or more in guaranteed money for an unproven player is troublesome to many NFL executives. “We’re not paying based on the real talent level, but based on the fact that somebody just happens to have to go first or second and whatever,” Indianapolis Colts president Bill Polian said in February. That comment echoes previous statements made by Polian. “The system is a mess. It’s broken and we have to fix it,” Polian said in the fall. One thought has been the implementation of a rookie scale. The NBA has a system where rookie contracts are essentially predetermined. However, the key differences between the NBA and the NFL are that NBA players can get to free agency after three years and the career for a basketball player is potentially much longer than in football. Furthermore, because NBA contracts are fully guaranteed, veteran players don’t run the same risk of being cut when younger players enter the league. Upshaw is against additional structuring because the union has already given teams a rookie cap within the overall salary cap, effectively putting limits on how much guaranteed money goes to rookie players. He noted that while the amount of guaranteed money has increased for the top five and 10 overall picks, the amount guaranteed in the second round has decreased. Much of that is because players selected after the first round can only sign four-year maximum contracts. Good read link to rest of story http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_y...=jc-rookiecontracts042108&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
If Upshaw can't see that this system is broken and is going to cause issues in the future, then he's not as smart a union leader as he should be. This needs to be 'fixed' as Polian says. It'll have to be fixed....outside the box....for lack of a better term, but it needs attention and soon...otherwise it'll be a part of the reason they go on strike in a couple of years...
Yea, they have to do something, the top player in the draft is already getting paid equal or greater money that the top player at his position in most cases. The only issue I see here is the length of average career versus the fact that football contracts aren't guaranteed. In the NBA players generally stay healthy longer, which gives them a better chance at a longer career. Also, their contracts are guaranteed. In the NFL, so many careers are over by the end of the rookie contracts that a big group of players would never have a chance to get that second, unregulated contract. I don't know what the compromise is on that, but the players union won't accept a rookie salary cap unless there is something they see as being exchanged for the limitations on the rookies.
That's not really the issue. I think Upshaw knows pretty well that this system is broken and in need of a fix. The problem is that the proposed fix (rookie salary cap) isn't in the best interest of the players he's supposed to represent. If a rookie salary cap is instituted, it's in the best interest of the teams but not necessarily in the interest of veteran players. The thing is that as long as exploding rookie salaries actually benefit the players as a whole, Upshaw would be rather stupid to agree to a rookie salary cap. And he probably would not have a job any longer. The owners have to come up with a way to pay veterans more money before the union will agree to any kind of salary cap.
Would it be out of the realm of give and take to guarantee rookie contracts if they agree to set specific wage parameters on every pick? Of course, not for 6 years but, maybe half that? There has got to be something done about this. If we don't take Glenn Dorsey, it will have been because of the money to be payed to him and not because he wasn't the best player available. That is a broken system. The whole point of giving the first pick to the worst team is so that they can sign the best player. Notice there are no grey areas in the equation. First , worst, and best, no questions, no doubts, no confusion. To have to settle on a lesser prospect because he plays a position that is more in-line with the pay scale for the pick which was used, ruins the perfection and effectiveness of the draft itself.
It wouldn't be out of the realm per se but it wouldn't be in the interest of the union. The thing is: Veteran players actually benefit from the exploding rookie contracts because it enables them to ask for a lot more money. Why should the union be interested in abolishing a system it actually benefits from? The league has to give the union some kind of incentive. Unfortunately, the owners don't seem willing to do that. Look at it from Upshaw's perspective: He couldn't care less about the rookies (after all, they are not yet among the guys who are actually paying his bills) but he does care about the veterans who have an interest in high rookie contracts. Why would he agree to a salary cap? I wouldn't either if I were him. I agree. However, it's the responsibility of the league to come up with a system that a) puts some limits on rookie salaries and b) doesn't dimnish the value of veterans. I'm all for a rookie salary cap but the problem runs a lot deeper than just the paying scale of rookies.
I would not at all be surprised if this issue is one of the key reasons why the owners will lockout the players in a couple of years. The system is absolutely ridiculous right now. The league is all about parity. And yet the #1 pick in the draft has become as much a curse as it is salvation for the worst team in the league.
How do you, and Upshaw, see that the First round rookie salarys are in the best interest of the veteran players? The CAP is set every year by TV money intake and 86% + is earmarked for players salarys. That has nothing what so ever to do with what the #1 pick in the draft gets. Upshaw just doesn't want to give an inch to the owners, and to hell with the league, as far as he goes. All he sees is the money rolling in today, as do the owners, and if there is a lock out, and no games played because of all this short sightedness the real losers in all of this is you and I. I would, in fact, submit to you that a rookie salary cap is in the best interest of the vets and the league as a whole. It might also get some of those kids, that the NFL always says that it cares about, to stay in school and get that piece of paper that is so important to their future.
Not a bad idea. I think a rookie cap actually helps the vets. Since the whole team is capped, if you limit what the rookies can make, there is just that much more available for the vets.
