rookies
is it just me or does everything think rookies are getting paid too much. matt ryan does not deserve 72 mil with 30 mil guaranteed 35 mil. hes a rookie. he hasnt proven himself in front of the elites yet. and what if he fails. thats a lot of money top throw at someone who hasnt played a snap of NFL football yet. i think there should be a rookie salary limit, maybe 30-35 mil at the most, but unproven rookies should not be making more than seasoned vets. tell me what you think.
0 recs |
8
comments
Comments
The owners agree...
which is part of the reason they voided the CBA.
Yes, I am a nerd.
by TexSkins on May 21, 2008 12:13 AM EDT 0 recs
Then why...
did an owner extend this contract to Ryan?
Does anyone else find this strange? They cite to the need to curb rookie salaries as one reason to void the CBA… yet they willingly play a part in the gross expansion of rookie salaries.
by Skin Patrol on
May 21, 2008 8:46 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Could be
a case of catch 22 or double bladed sword or between a rock & a hard place. I do think Arthur Blank pushed this signing b/c 1) he needs to get his franshise in another direction 2) even if the CBA was changed to make more rational rookie salaries, that wouldn’t change the “now. So Blank’s damed if he does damed if he doesn’t ink Ryan.
by CptChaosSidekick on
May 21, 2008 9:00 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I don't disagree
I just think that the owner’s claim that rookie contracts are growing as reason for voiding the CBA is only part of the problem. The real issue is that the players get 60% of the revenue, and if the owners want that decreased so be it. The vast majority of the NFLPA’s membership are not rookies, so it is conceivable that you could shave 2-3% off the 60% revenue merely by lowering rookie contracts, which wouldn’t fluster veterans nearly as much since it would mean their share of the pie either increases or remains largely unaffected.
The real way for ownership to combat the growing rookie salary burst is by calling the bluff of young players who won’t show up for camp. That’s a pretty effective strategy especially when used against rookies, who are (at least per the opinion of many) by necessity overpaid.
by Skin Patrol on
May 21, 2008 2:28 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Length of contract
The problem is that rookies, especially highly sought after (read: top draft picks) ones, know they can make good money. Plus, if they do perform as expected, then we will think they deserve the money (and soon). The teams want to wrap up their future, in draft picks, for a long term. The players want money, and the security that comes from it.
If you cap the rookie’s salaries, then you have to cap the length of the contracts. In the NFL your shelf life is very short (compared to the NBA, or MLB) so there aren’t a lot of years to make back the money if you do, in fact, deserve it.
Besides, it is only the top 10 or so draft picks (and skill players at that) that get ridiculous money every year. Maybe the teams will get smart and only draft them later, picking OL and DL earlier. They make teams better anyways.
by matthiasstephan on May 21, 2008 6:58 AM EDT 0 recs
ummm
jake long still made 57 mil i believe. hes an oline and if he makes that much than other guys will want to. so no matter the posistion they still want a LOT of money.
by skinsrgods on
May 21, 2008 5:47 PM EDT
up
0 recs
The NBA
does it right with the way they pay their rookies (some sort of pay scale for rookies). I agree with the owners ( and more importantly with Chris Cooley), unproven players shouldn’t be getting payed more then proven vets. That being said I agree and like what the owner is trying to do. He needs a new face of the franchise and wasn’t about screw around with any type of holdouts.
by CptChaosSidekick on May 21, 2008 7:04 AM EDT 0 recs
If I had my druthers...
more of the money paid to rookies would be contracted out in incentive bonuses. Something about getting compensated for actual performance milestones is intuitive to me.
by Skin Patrol on May 21, 2008 8:47 AM EDT 0 recs










