How the NFL is Cheating Rookies out of Millions of Dollars

[RunKC]

http://ble.ac/2tU9cdS

Not able to post on my phone but this a really interesting article.

What do you think? Should NFL players strike? If you were an NFL rookie, what would your mindset be?

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.

You want proof that it's bullshit?

The New England Patriots.

Now, stop it.

So just because the Patriots spend well under the salary cap, they wouldn't spend more without a cap? They are conservative with their cap because it's their advantage to spend wisely. Without a cap, the advantage goes to those with deep pockets. Jerry Jones would drive the price up on everyone. The top 5 salaries at every position would skyrocket. The Patriots, if they had more money to spend, probably wouldn't mind bringing in top athletes and they are in a big enough market to do so. Maybe Brady would stay for a hometown discount, but you can bet Rodgers, Luck, etc... would make a shitload more money for an owner willing to spend more money.

Players would make a lot more money without a salary cap. So it stands to reason that every CBA they fight like hell to get every bit of share of the pie. And they are justified in doing so because they could make a lot more without a salary cap.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

So just because the Patriots spend well under the salary cap, they wouldn't spend more without a cap?

Good ****ing god, you verbose moron.



Players routinely sign deals way under their market value in order to play for a championship.

Again, just stop.

[jaa1025]

I think all sports should go from their current contracts to performance based contracts. The players would never go for this but guaranteed contracts are horrible for teams. I agree that cutting players for no reason but saving money is also bad as well.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by jaa1025

The players would never go for this but guaranteed contracts are horrible for teams.

No, they are not.

It's part of what makes building a champion more difficult and should be part of the game.

It shouldn't be about the "wealthiest owner wins it all".

[Red Dawg]

The way I see it the 2 big problems with the cba in the players eyes is one: Roger has too much power and two: Young studs that have outplayed their deals after two years can't get paid.

The vets did the second. They bitched and moaned about rookies getting more money than them.

When they reach the renegotiation year it will be interesting.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Red Dawg

When they reach the renegotiation year it will be interesting.

Nah, it'll be the same. The young guys won't have enough representation to outvote the veteran players.

In terms of Goodell, the owners look at it as a Give & Take.

If the owners grant the players a specific wish, they take something away from them.

The NFLPA will never win.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

If there was no salary cap, players would be compensated at the market rate. Overall payrolls would go up because they'd all be competing with Jerry Jones and owners who aren't afraid to give big contracts to good players. Veterans and rookies would all make a lot more money. As long as there is a salary cap, all players have a right to bitch about being underpaid.

And that salary cap is set by a bullshit number about how much owners actually make. Every time the CBA rolls around, the owners claim they're struggling for money. Every single time the players union demands that they open their books. Every single time, the owners shut up and keep their books closed. It's because they are making an obscene amount of money but don't want to spend it on players.

While it's true that veterans are "stealing" from the rookies, the truth is that the overall salary cap and rookie cap would be significantly higher if the owners opened their books up. That is an agreement that benefits both veterans and rookies. So yes, technically the NFL is cheating all players including rookies out of money.

Jesus Christ. Just stop.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Good ****ing god, you verbose moron.



Players routinely sign deals way under their market value in order to play for a championship.

Again, just stop.

JFC. Yes, because today there is a salary cap.

And JFC, just because some players take a contract below market value doesn't mean the majority wouldn't go to the highest bidder.

Am I really having to argue that without a salary cap, player salaries will go up? Seriously?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

The veterans threw the rookies under the bus knowingly. It was obvious when it happened.

Teams should be allowed to vote one player into free agency every year from each division. If a player is seriously outperforming his contract, the other teams in the division can vote him into freedom. It would be good for parity, too, because other teams could dismantle the first-place team one player at a time if you get a huge imbalance like the AFC East.

I like that idea.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

JFC. Yes, because today there is a salary cap.

And JFC, just because some players take a contract below market value doesn't mean the majority wouldn't go to the highest bidder.

Am I really having to argue that without a salary cap, player salaries will go up? Seriously?

You're such a ****ing idiot.

Ka'Do's.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I like that idea.

It would be a fun experiment. Theoretically, you wouldn't necessarily vote out the best player, but rather you'd vote out the most underpaid player, right? And it should be the most underpaid player from the team that's the favorite to win the division. I wonder if it would play out that way.

And given the contract systems, it should be most likely to be a third-year player or second-year player, I think, because you'd want to vote a guy into free agency to take as many years of production away as possible. But in the real world, maybe that wouldn't happen because teams have such a short-term outlook. Maybe you vote off a fourth-year guy if he's the best player to get the biggest immediate advantage.

Who would the Chiefs vote into free agency for the 2017 season? Would it be Derek Carr? He's a logical choice, but he also just signed an enormous contract. Von Miller, the barroom killer? I don't know his contract structure. Or after Season 1, maybe you go for Joey Bosa, but I don't think the Chargers are enough of a threat.

Who would other teams pick? It would be tempting for them to vote for Tyreek, but he may be unproven as of yet. Maybe they'd vote Peters or Berry off of the Chiefs, but I suspect the Broncos and Chargers might vote Carr off first, just due to positional value.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

You're such a ****ing idiot.

Ka'Do's.

It's a simple question. If you got rid of the salary cap, would player payrolls and salaries go up. You're the ****ing idiot if you think the answer is "no."

[Mile High Mania]

So, the last contract system was too crazy, paying these guys way over the top for doing nothing. Now, this version is screwing them over.

Hmmm...

Maybe, they would agree to a true performance based model where they all come out with baseline guarantees given their selection. And then, if they over-perform OR under-perform, they are paid (not paid) accordingly.

There is no perfect system. Carr is entering his 4th year and is now making what, $25m a year... he's totally getting screwed.

[Amnorix]

This is really stupid.

The Union negotiated for a split between the owners and the players of the revenue as between them. That split is what results in the salary cap number. There are also provisions for teams to engage in a minimum spend.

To the degree rookies are getting screwed, it's to the advantage of the older players. In other words, if you assume NFL revenues are $1.00, and the players get .55, then this article is more about how that .55 is being shared between rookies versus older players.

And the reason for this is obvious -- many older players and teams were incredibly annoyed that massive contracts were going to players that sometimes were complete busts.

As for NFL versus NBA, spare me. The entire economic system is vastly different due to the different nature of the sports and team-building.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

The veterans threw the rookies under the bus knowingly. It was obvious when it happened.

Teams should be allowed to vote one player into free agency every year from each division. If a player is seriously outperforming his contract, the other teams in the division can vote him into freedom. It would be good for parity, too, because other teams could dismantle the first-place team one player at a time if you get a huge imbalance like the AFC East.

One player from each TEAM, regardless, sure. But to "unbuild" a team for parity reasons? Really?

And I can't even imagine the bribe system this could trigger. I'm highly confident this is one of those "looked good on paper but what a bad idea that turned out to be" kind of things due to unintended consequences. Humans are human.