Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL

         While the Patriots are in the process of trying to get a long term extension done with Tom Brady, along comes the woeful St. Louis Rams...who yesterday   mortgaged their franchise by signing number one overall draft choice, QB Sam Bradford, to a 6 year, $78mil. deal, with a whopping $50mil. of that money guaranteed: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5425041

         Now that the unproven, injury ravaged of late Bradford scored such a lick, what is the proven, albeit much older, Tom Brady worth? What's the proven, albeit much older, Peyton Manning worth? How much is a young stud QB like Joe Flacco worth? What about a great defender like Darrelle Revis? Certainly, this can't help the Jets' negotiating position when an unproven commodity like Bradford gets $50mil. guaranteed? 

         What type of affect could the Bradford deal have on the upcoming NFL-CBA fight? While everybody agrees that unproven rookies should not instantaneously become among the highest paid players in the league, the NFLPA must understand that a deal like Bradford's has rippling, positive (from their standpoint) affects upon the contract structures of every team. Accordingly, it is not in the interest of the NFLPA to agree to the imposition of a rookie salary cap...unless it is tied to unfettered free agency after a relatively brief period of NFL play. 

         What would unfettered free agency do to teams like the Green Bay Packers, Buffalo Bills, Seattle Seahawks, Cincinnati Bengals, Baltimore Ravens, Pittsburgh Steelers, and Indianapolis Colts? Will the NFL become like the MLB or the NBA, where the star players will gravitate to California, NYC, Florida, Washington, and Dallas? Will mega-contracts prevent the average guy from going to see an NFL game live? 

         Can you say "work-stoppage"?? I'm not optimistic about football in 2011.

         Thoughts?               


     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davedsone. Show Davedsone's posts

    Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL

    They MUST fix this.  I say set rookie contracts for a percentage of the top 10 salaries at their position for the first 2 years.  This gives the team the ability to see if they will or won't play, and an opportunity to opt out.  If they hold out, they can't be put back in the next years draft, and STILL can only make the same percentage in the first 2 years when they DO get signed.  Also, allow NO guaranteed money for any player, rookie or not.  NONE.  BUT do not allow a team to sign, then cut a player.  Upon signing, the next year MUST be paid. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from JohnHannahrulz. Show JohnHannahrulz's posts

    Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL

    With looming labor unrest and the sword of Damacles hanging over another season I can see this deal being irksome to both sides of the CBA. The Owners will (as expected) push for a hard rookie cap and will receive some encouragement from veteran players. The Bradford deal just reinforces the perception that owners are paying far to much money for unproven talent or that they are gambling with too much of the their franchise's money on a single player.

    What also comes into play is the current use of the franchise tag and transition tag(s) . The NFLPA could want the tag abolished completely; the owners don't want "unfettered free agency". WHich leaves the league east of the rock and west of the hard place. Front-loaded contracts vs. back-loaded contracts, guaranteed money, deferred salary, revenue sharing etc....all issues that will be examined.

    Bradford's deal is gratuitous for a QB that has not played a down in the NFL and has had recent health issues. The Rams went ahead and essentially made him their franchise player for the next 6 years, regardless of how well he plays (incentives excluded). The obvious is that Revis, Brady and Manning have the resume that backs up (provides leverage for) their contract demands.

    A better idea than a hard rookie cap (because any mention of a cap and the NFLPA will go into hissy fit) would be adding more restrictive elements to the current rookie contracts. Decrease the term limiting the number of years a player gets; good players have a shot at being RFAs sooner; mediocre or bad players will have to struggle to maintain employment. Increase the incentive structure: Player Agents cringe when they hear the incentive term during a contract negotiation because it can put, what would normally be easy money, into jeopardy. Roster bonuses, player bonuses can be manipulated by the team at times. I have always felt that performance should be directly linked to salary. Problem is, GET THE MOST MONEY UP »FRONT....seems to be the mantra of players and agents.

    I don`t begrudge a player wanting the most money up front. If the owners want player salaries to escalate; then player salaries will escalate. This would destabilize the competive balance in the NFL and further polarise the cash rich franchises from the struggling small market franchises. Having said that, teams that are able to spend their money wisely will remain competitive and teams that waste money frivolously (raiders) will struggle. This is my polite way of saying that we will see a lock out before we see the owners agree to no cap or unrestricted free agency for everyone with X number of years in the league. 

    We all knew that some of this year`s draftees came out early because a hard rookie cap could occur in the future and the 2010 draft would be an ideal time to cut a lucrative deal before more restrictions are placed on rookie salaries. So while I can say this deal looks ridiculous compared to what Brady and Manning should get, Bradford has to get the most he can with the resources he has and we all knew he would get big money eventually; so none of us should be surprised if and when Suh becomes one of the highest paid D Linemen.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from capecodwilly. Show capecodwilly's posts

    Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL

    I've never understood why owners from all major sports continue to shoot themselves in the foot by giving out ridiculous contracts. This is just another example. It would serve the Rams right if he was a bust. They've got to fix the system. It might not be such a bad thing if there was a work stoppage. Maybe this country (myself included) would be less sports oriented if they didn't play for a while. I'd like to see interest drop significantly and force ticket, parking, and concession prices to drop to something reasonable. I know, that's just wishful thinking on my part.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL

    In Response to Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL:
    With looming labor unrest and the sword of Damacles hanging over another season I can see this deal being irksome to both sides of the CBA. The Owners will (as expected) push for a hard rookie cap and will receive some encouragement from veteran players. The Bradford deal just reinforces the perception that owners are paying far to much money for unproven talent or that they are gambling with too much of the their franchise's money on a single player. What also comes into play is the current use of the franchise tag and transition tag(s) . The NFLPA could want the tag abolished completely; the owners don't want "unfettered free agency". WHich leaves the league east of the rock and west of the hard place. Front-loaded contracts vs. back-loaded contracts, guaranteed money, deferred salary, revenue sharing etc....all issues that will be examined. Bradford's deal is gratuitous for a QB that has not played a down in the NFL and has had recent health issues. The Rams went ahead and essentially made him their franchise player for the next 6 years, regardless of how well he plays (incentives excluded). The obvious is that Revis, Brady and Manning have the resume that backs up (provides leverage for) their contract demands. A better idea than a hard rookie cap (because any mention of a cap and the NFLPA will go into hissy fit) would be adding more restrictive elements to the current rookie contracts. Decrease the term limiting the number of years a player gets; good players have a shot at being RFAs sooner; mediocre or bad players will have to struggle to maintain employment. Increase the incentive structure: Player Agents cringe when they hear the incentive term during a contract negotiation because it can put, what would normally be easy money, into jeopardy. Roster bonuses, player bonuses can be manipulated by the team at times. I have always felt that performance should be directly linked to salary. Problem is, GET THE MOST MONEY UP »FRONT....seems to be the mantra of players and agents. I don`t begrudge a player wanting the most money up front. If the owners want player salaries to escalate; then player salaries will escalate. This would destabilize the competive balance in the NFL and further polarise the cash rich franchises from the struggling small market franchises. Having said that, teams that are able to spend their money wisely will remain competitive and teams that waste money frivolously (raiders) will struggle. This is my polite way of saying that we will see a lock out before we see the owners agree to no cap or unrestricted free agency for everyone with X number of years in the league.  We all knew that some of this year`s draftees came out early because a hard rookie cap could occur in the future and the 2010 draft would be an ideal time to cut a lucrative deal before more restrictions are placed on rookie salaries. So while I can say this deal looks ridiculous compared to what Brady and Manning should get, Bradford has to get the most he can with the resources he has and we all knew he would get big money eventually; so none of us should be surprised if and when Suh becomes one of the highest paid D Linemen.
    Posted by JohnHannahrulz


         Great post, Hog!

         A rookie cap on base and guaranteed pay...but that allowed incentive clauses, sounds like a good idea. If would provide rookies an opportunity to earn, would reduced the risks accepted by the team that drafted the player...which would in turn lead to more draft day trades of high picks, and wouyld still free up more money for the veteran players. As you correctly pointed out, the continuation of the "franchise" tag, and how soon players will be allowed to become UFAs. 

         Another huge issue will be over the proposed increase of the NFL season to 18 games. If the players are going to be asked to play two more games, won't  they want to see their current contracts adjusted to include payment for two extra games? Won't the players' union correctly argue that two extra games require that rosters must be increased from 53 to at least 55 players...which would create 64 more jobs? Studies will be needed to determine how the addition of two more games per season could work to shorten a players' career, as well as lead to a greater risk of injury to the player...as these factors must be considered when addressing salary structures and negotiations.       
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL

    In Response to Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL:
    Tex, I'm a simpleton when it comes to the business end of the NFL and don't have the knowledge and experience in this area but I do have a lot of common sense. In my opinion (like most people I would guess) it's completely ridiculous to pay a kid this kind of money with absolutely no idea what kind of ROI you'll recieve. There should be a rookie base salary for everyone for one year. How a team decides to see what they bought is up to them but they have one year to make that determination. The agents will have to wait a year before scoring large on the talent of these kids. For the rest of the league it should be based on more of a commission basis. Give them a modest base salary per position and then everything else from there on is incentive based. TD's are worth money, 100 yd rushing games are worth money, 10 receptions per game is worth money, made FG's are worth money, sack are worth money, caused fumbles are worth money....... On the other hand fumbles take away money, INT's take away money, penalties take away money, missed FG's take away money........ Some positions aren't tied directly to big plays so their base would be adjusted accordingly. This way the player makes what he deserves and not a penny more. It's not fair that weaker players make more than better ones just because they have a better agent.
    Posted by Sam-Adams

    In a perfect world I would like this idea.  The problem is the players union wouldn't go for it because they would worry that owners woud manpulate the game to keep overhead down.  As soon as a RB gets 90 yards he could be subbed out.  A player that gets injured could lose a ton of money.  A WR who has an injured QB would lose money.  It puts all the risk on the player and none on the owners so the NFLPA would never agree.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL

    In Response to Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL:
    [QUOTE]     ....What would unfettered free agency do to teams like the Green Bay Packers, Buffalo Bills, Seattle Seahawks, Cincinnati Bengals, Baltimore Ravens, Pittsburgh Steelers, and Indianapolis Colts? Will the NFL become like the MLB or the NBA, where the star players will gravitate to California, NYC, Florida, Washington, and Dallas? Will mega-contracts prevent the average guy from going to see an NFL game live?       Can you say "work-stoppage"?? I'm not optimistic about football in 2011.      Thoughts?               
    Posted by TexasPat3[/QUOTE]

    The owners will never agree to anything like unfettered free agency.  Don't worry about them.  They're holding the cards in this one.  And you do know that nearly all revenues are shared, right?  That's not changing.  If there's a lockout (which is practically assured at this point), it's because the owners want one.  The players would just renew the existing deal if they could, but no way will the owners agrre to that and they're going to get paid in 2011.  Guaranteed that the new CBA, whenever it is done, will end up better for the owners.   

    And don't worry about those teams you mentioned, they're all fine.  The Rooneys in Pittsburgh, they own that town and have an amazing deal on their stadium, better than Kraft.  They're just frugal when it comes to free agents and such.  How can you blame them?  They sell out every game and have a pretty good W-L record. 

    Buffalo is maybe the one to be concerned with, just because why would anybody ever want to play there?  I don't even want to drive through there, it's a pit.  They should move to LA or Toronto.

    Green Bay will never not sell out.  Paul Allen has more money than 10 Bob Krafts.  Cincinnati, see Pittsburgh (without the track record on the field).  They have plenty of money, they just like to keep it in their pockets.  I've never heard of the Ravens having financial troubles.  Indy, are you kidding, they have a money printing machine.  

     And the average fan argument, it's been the case that the average Joe can't afford to go to games for years.  They're already priced out, and not just in football.  I go to 8 or 10 Rays games every year and they're considered the best value in pro sports.  If I take just my kid, it's a $120 night just to sit in the press level.  That's baseball.  So I'm spending $1,000 or so to go to a few games.  Frankly I'd rather stay home and watch them on HD on my big screen, but my kid likes to go.

    I


     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from patriots44. Show patriots44's posts

    Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL

    All very good Points. The NFLPA is going to get run over if there is a work stoppage in 2011. Billionaire Owners can outlast any of these free spending morons. After Bradford gets hit, and then inevitably  Injured with his slight Frame. The Owners and many Vet Players will cry out for a Rookie Cap. The Owners will be 100% together on this point, we will not see the type of unfettered free agency such as baseball. The Union does not have 100% solidarity on this, from it's Members. The Owners know this. Unfortunately the Price of Contracts is forcing Owners into looking at other ways to create revenue streams, like 18 game Seasons. Which would make each Game less relevant, which is all why we love Football so much. Also the Injury factor in an extended season.Unfortunately we need a work stoppage, not just in Football. When a Baseball player like Ryan Howard thinks no-one desrves a 50 MILL per year/ but his 25 MILL is very deserving, we have a problem with Pro Sports.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL

    The deal is insane. But the NFLPA wants a rookie cap. The NFLPA is run by veterans who don't like the fact that kids who have never played a down in the NFL get larger portions of the cap figure than vets who are looking for a last deal,but have paid their dues.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Grogan77. Show Grogan77's posts

    Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL

    The Bradford deal is huge, but it's what the market commands.  The NFL is the most popular sport in America by far.  From tickets sales to jerseys, the NFL is a moneymaker.

    As far as Brady goes, the Pats have not choice but to dig deep into the wallet and pay Brady the big bucks.   Without Brady, there would be no Patriot place or three superbowl rings.
     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman2. Show Patsman2's posts

    Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL

    This deal is great for the owners (you do know there the ones that signed off on the deal right?)  It's great because as stated above, vertern players are sick of rookies getting all this big money.

    I think there is a good chance there is a work stoppage but in the end there will be a compromise and the salary structure will be just like it is in other sports.

    The compromise will be the rookie salary cap for the owners, and the players will get guarenteed contracts for the full length of the deals.  (so no need to front load with sigining bonus because the whole deal will be guarenteed).
     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from rickrand3. Show rickrand3's posts

    Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL

    what I don't get is that an unproven rookie coming off a major injury last year gets 50 million guaranteed without ever taking a snap in the NFL and we constantly hear the owners say they "it's complicated" when trying to get Brady's,Manning's and Brees deal done and talking about guaranteed money and getting penalized in the future.Why can't these teams guarantee a big bonus to these 3 superstars this year just like the Rams just did for Bradford?They all deserve it alot more than Bradford!!I mean even with no labor agreement the market is already set for these 3.Labor agreement or not just get the deals done!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL

    Ticket prices are a supply vs demand issue, not a reflection of overhead.  Even if all the players played for free they would still try to gouge you for every dime. 

    Player price is related to their ability to create revenue (sell tickets, jerseys, etc.)  Winning and good players are good for business generally, but big name college picks can do the same without actually accomplishing anything.  The reality is Bradford will sell more Jerseys than most proven commodities this year.  The draft manufactures a unique situation.  The Rams either sign Bradford, or get nothing.  That creates a situation of huge leverage for the player, hence inflated contracts. 

    The union and the NFL are less concerned about one contract than they are about the total player contracts.  Player contracts represent a percentage of NFL profits.  If that percentage is around 50% (I don't know) than the players want to move it higher.  The rookie pay scale will be popular for both owners and players but the worry for players is that the owners will not use that savings to pay vets, but instead pocket it.  In order for the NFLPA to agree to a rookie payscale there would almost definitely have to be an established minimum roster payroll to ensure money saved goes to veteran contracts.

    Then there is the question of spending money to grow the NFL, and increase total profits.  This is the reason the owners terminated the last CBA.  Any investment by owners to grow the NFL puts the risk on the owners.  The owners argue that they need the players to take a smaller profit percentage to grow the NFL, but because the NFL's total profit will grow that percentage will ultimately be more (i.e. 48% of 5 billion is more than 50% of 4 billion.  They say they will use the other percentage to grow the NFL pie which helps everyone.  Players are hesitant to take the "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a cheeseburger today" deal, and whether the pie actually grows or not they are locked into that percentage they agree to. 

    It's in everyones interest to grow the NFL and salary caps are generally considered good for competitive balance and therefore the sport.  However players may have short sighted vision and attempt to keep a capless NFL.  In the short term some teams will pay huge, but in the longterm a non competitive NFL will shrink the pie.

    At least the Bradford deal establishes a price point for Brady's negotiations, it may not be all bad.  Hopefully they come to some agreement because I just want to watch football.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sam-Adams. Show Sam-Adams's posts

    Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL

    In Response to Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL : In a perfect world I would like this idea.  The problem is the players union wouldn't go for it because they would worry that owners woud manpulate the game to keep overhead down.  As soon as a RB gets 90 yards he could be subbed out.  A player that gets injured could lose a ton of money.  A WR who has an injured QB would lose money.  It puts all the risk on the player and none on the owners so the NFLPA would never agree.
    Posted by shenanigan[/QUOTE]

    You're right, but wouldn't it be fun to watch?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL

    In Response to Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL:
    [QUOTE]Tex, I'm a simpleton when it comes to the business end of the NFL and don't have the knowledge and experience in this area but I do have a lot of common sense. In my opinion (like most people I would guess) it's completely ridiculous to pay a kid this kind of money with absolutely no idea what kind of ROI you'll receive. There should be a rookie base salary for everyone for one year. How a team decides to see what they bought is up to them but they have one year to make that determination. The agents will have to wait a year before scoring large on the talent of these kids. For the rest of the league it should be based on more of a commission basis. Give them a modest base salary per position and then everything else from there on is incentive based. TD's are worth money, 100 yd rushing games are worth money, 10 receptions per game is worth money, made FG's are worth money, sack are worth money, caused fumbles are worth money....... On the other hand fumbles take away money, INT's take away money, penalties take away money, missed FG's take away money........ Some positions aren't tied directly to big plays so their base would be adjusted accordingly. This way the player makes what he deserves and not a penny more. It's not fair that weaker players make more than better ones just because they have a better agent.
    Posted by Sam-Adams[/QUOTE]

         Sam...through the mind set of fans and the owners, what you say makes complete sense. But, the players would never agree to it...nor should they. Football is the most violent of sports. On any given play, a players' career could end. Football careers are relatively short...yet the injuries suffered while playing the game usually last a lifetime. I can't blame the players for getting all they can, when they can. Once a severe injury occurs, their ability to earn is over, and they are yesterdays' news.  
     
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL

    The main problem with the rookie wage scale is this, The Players union(led by veterans) want a rookie wage scale but only with certainties. They want guarantee's that the money saved from the rookie pool will go back to the veterans and not just pocketed by the owners. As in each team doesn't have to spend to the cap every year. Teams are kind of forced to spend close to the cap now because young guys like Matt Ryan/BRadford are breaking the banks from year one. So what would stop the owners from taking millions oof dollars in extra money (as soon as next year) and just keeping it. They get by with what they pay veterans now so what is the big deal?

    Brady and Robert Kraft talked about this for a while yesterday. They both agreed a wage scale has to be in effect. Kraft said he think it will happen sooner then later and the owners can give "Certain Guarantee's" that the veterans will get that money back. He also said it should be every teams goal to spend as close to the cap as possible in today's highly competitive NFL.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL

         The insane Bradford deal will make both Tom Brady and Peyton Manning more difficult to resign: http://www.necn.com/07/16/10/Bradfords-fat-deal-will-make-Pats-gag/v1_landing_patriots.html?blockID=272612&feedID=4945
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman2. Show Patsman2's posts

    Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL

    In Response to Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL:
    [QUOTE]     The insane Bradford deal will make both Tom Brady and Peyton Manning more difficult to resign: http://www.necn.com/07/16/10/Bradfords-fat-deal-will-make-Pats-gag/v1_landing_patriots.html?blockID=272612&feedID=4945
    Posted by TexasPat3[/QUOTE]

    Thats why there will be a work stoppage after this year.
    Thats why when all is said and done there will be a rookie salary cap.
    Thats why Brady and Manning and Brees are not signed yet.

    It was the same conditions before the Bradford deal as it was after the Bradford deal.  Nothing has changed.  The NFL was headed down this road well before this deal got done.

    And in no way does it make it harder to resign Brady or Manning.  Do you really think the ownership of either the Pats or Colts is going to say hmmm, I would have paid 45 million but not 50!!  Both guys will get the market rate from NE and Indy.

    What it would make it harder to do is hold on to other players since the QB spot will have eaten up a large piece of the cap.  But that will be taken care of during the work stoppage.  In the end the Owners hold all the cards, and the players will eventually cave.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL

    Good posts everyone. It shows there's no simple solution.

    2010 STL QB Sam Bradford
    2009 DET QB Matthew Stafford
    2008 MIA OT Jake Long
    2007 OAK QB JaMarcus Russell
    2006 HOU DE Mario Williams
    2005 SFO QB Alex Smith
    2004 SDG QB Eli Manning
    2003 CIN QB Carson Palmer
    2002 HOU QB David Carr
    2001 ATL QB Michael Vick
    2000 CLE DE Courtney Brown

    Being a #1 overall pick should get the player a boatload of cash.
    But $50 million guaranteed is, like z said, insane.
    Bradford may very well be worth it, or he could be a Vick or a Russell.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from CarveMaster. Show CarveMaster's posts

    Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL

    Yea, the Bradford deal does seem insane on the surface. However, I'm not too worried about most of the other teams you have mentioned. Buffalo may be in the most trouble, maybe Cincy too. Indy, Seattle, and Baltimore are large enough to ride this out. 

    I'm least worried about Pittsburgh. It may be a "small market" Baseball town (that's even debatable when you look at the population of it's extended Market Area), but it certainly isn't small market in Football or Hockey. With the exception of the immediate Philly area, the Steelers OWN all of PA. The also own eastern OH, eastern KY, all of WVa, western MD, parts of Va, and a chunk of western NY. Not to mention all their national and international fans. Dan Rooney was simply very frugal. However, Art Rooney II knows he is sitting on a gold mine, and I expect to see much more aggressive income generation from the Steelers market area in the future (much like what Kraft is doing with the Patriots).
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188. Show Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188's posts

    Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL

    In Response to Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL:
    [QUOTE]They MUST fix this.  I say set rookie contracts for a percentage of the top 10 salaries at their position for the first 2 years.  This gives the team the ability to see if they will or won't play, and an opportunity to opt out.  If they hold out, they can't be put back in the next years draft, and STILL can only make the same percentage in the first 2 years when they DO get signed.  Also, allow NO guaranteed money for any player, rookie or not.  NONE.  BUT do not allow a team to sign, then cut a player.  Upon signing, the next year MUST be paid. 
    Posted by Davedsone[/QUOTE]

    I like the idea - it's well-designed incentives-wise.  Force them to play for less until they prove themselves and prevent them from holding out until the next year's draft.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sam-Adams. Show Sam-Adams's posts

    Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL

    In Response to Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL : I like the idea - it's well-designed incentives-wise.  Force them to play for less until they prove themselves and prevent them from holding out until the next year's draft.
    Posted by Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188[/QUOTE]

    What if they get hurt in the first year and can't play anymore?
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL

    In Response to Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bradford Deal Detrimental to Patriots, and NFL : What if they get hurt in the first year and can't play anymore?
    Posted by Sam-Adams[/QUOTE]

    This is the crux of the biscuit right here.

    Injury is the harsh reality -- in the NFL moreso than any other major sport. The game is designed around violent collision. Sooner or later, you ARE going to get hurt. The owners don't want guaranteed contracts, and they don't want unfettered free agency, and now they don't want to dole out signing bonuses either. The big red flag here is that at least part of the union wants what the owners want -- that is, to limit rookie salaries. The big question is (as has been noted), how do you insure that the owners then ration that money out to veteran players instead of just folding it over once and putting it in their pocket?

    The union is going to have to come up with some form of pro-rated guaranteed contract that the owners find acceptable. To do this, they're going to have to give up some of the bonus bonanza in favor of long-term security. The idea that someone like JaMarcus Russell can waltz in, effectively steal $30 million dollars from the Raiders and waltz back out is simply not acceptable. The flipside, of course, is that cutting perfectly serviceable players because you offered them a retarded contract you no longer wish to pay is not acceptable either.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share