PDA

View Full Version : 2010 rookie wage scale adjustment (per ESPN)



texaschief
12-27-2008, 11:30 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3795154

This should impact the draft HEAVILY!! This could be a VERY deep draft if juniors believe if they stay for their senior year, it could and probably will impact their wallets and their family's future.

This decision SHOULD have a major impact on the Chiefs and who they should draft. LTs and QBs are THE TWO highest paid positions in the NFL. This should only reinforce the idea that the Chiefs should stay away from these two positions this April.

Big Daddy Tek
12-28-2008, 12:46 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3795154

This should impact the draft HEAVILY!! This could be a VERY deep draft if juniors believe if they stay for their senior year, it could and probably will impact their wallets and their family's future.

This decision SHOULD have a major impact on the Chiefs and who they should draft. LTs and QBs are THE TWO highest paid positions in the NFL. This should only reinforce the idea that the Chiefs should stay away from these two positions this April.

A friend of mine has been on this theory for the past two years and it will happen, just not next year. Considering the time of the meetings and all of that, it makes sense, but if you really look into it, it would be a huge push to determine a change that fast. Nobody in the players association or the NFL front office have EVER officially discussed this. Now, of coarse this will be discussed during the next CBA meeting, but it would be atleast 1 year before this rule would take effect. Alot of agents are saying that this notion of having to come out this year are ridiculous and they are telling their players to stay, if that is whats best for them. From what I've heard, the 2011 season would be the earliest for a rookie pay scale, even if the rule was passed after the 09' season. Another huge point to be made is that the only players that this will really effect is the top 10 guys. The 1st round will change a little bit, but for the most part its these top 10 guys that they are targeting. The guy who signs in the the third round for 670k a year wont be touched. These players have to think. Am I a top ten guy? Or even a first round guy? The answer is usually no and thats why I think that this anticipation of a huge draft class is all speculation.

Sorry Tex, not tryin to argue with ya. Just already kinda had an opinion on it. Your still the man.

texaschief
12-28-2008, 01:34 AM
A friend of mine has been on this theory for the past two years and it will happen, just not next year. Considering the time of the meetings and all of that, it makes sense, but if you really look into it, it would be a huge push to determine a change that fast. Nobody in the players association or the NFL front office have EVER officially discussed this. Now, of coarse this will be discussed during the next CBA meeting, but it would be atleast 1 year before this rule would take effect. Alot of agents are saying that this notion of having to come out this year are ridiculous and they are telling their players to stay, if that is whats best for them. From what I've heard, the 2011 season would be the earliest for a rookie pay scale, even if the rule was passed after the 09' season. Another huge point to be made is that the only players that this will really effect is the top 10 guys. The 1st round will change a little bit, but for the most part its these top 10 guys that they are targeting. The guy who signs in the the third round for 670k a year wont be touched. These players have to think. Am I a top ten guy? Or even a first round guy? The answer is usually no and thats why I think that this anticipation of a huge draft class is all speculation.

Sorry Tex, not tryin to argue with ya. Just already kinda had an opinion on it. Your still the man.

I'm interested to see where you get this from. Underclassmen shouldn't have "agents" yet. :lol:

The CBA is going to have to be resolved this spring. Otherwise, they will run the risk of there being an uncapped year or even a stike/lockout in 2010. You could be right. Once more things get published and the more we learn about the situation, it may not affect this class. But everything that's being PUBLISHED right now says the exact opposite.

Either way, I'd still stay away from drafting a QB or LT in the top 3. We got an absolute steal IMO in Branden Albert. We might have drafted the best LT at 15 and I think moving that guy to guard would kill the value we got with that pick. Also, if we get another LT or QB in the top 3, we'd get the last QB/LT to get that kind of money and it would result in a competitive disadvantage when you think that the following season, teams would be getting equal talent for much less. All I'm saying is that THIS YEAR, we should avoid drafting the two highest paid positions in football. That's all. When you think about it, THIS season is a season where you could go and fill other positions of need and not HAVE to go out and grab that franchise LT or QB.

Big Daddy Tek
12-28-2008, 02:45 AM
I'm interested to see where you get this from. Underclassmen shouldn't have "agents" yet. :lol:

The CBA is going to have to be resolved this spring. Otherwise, they will run the risk of there being an uncapped year or even a stike/lockout in 2010. You could be right. Once more things get published and the more we learn about the situation, it may not affect this class. But everything that's being PUBLISHED right now says the exact opposite.

Either way, I'd still stay away from drafting a QB or LT in the top 3. We got an absolute steal IMO in Branden Albert. We might have drafted the best LT at 15 and I think moving that guy to guard would kill the value we got with that pick. Also, if we get another LT or QB in the top 3, we'd get the last QB/LT to get that kind of money and it would result in a competitive disadvantage when you think that the following season, teams would be getting equal talent for much less. All I'm saying is that THIS YEAR, we should avoid drafting the two highest paid positions in football. That's all. When you think about it, THIS season is a season where you could go and fill other positions of need and not HAVE to go out and grab that franchise LT or QB.

Hahaha nice one on the agents thing. Yeah I twisted that one up, but honestly, I read about this in the Denver Post today and agents were saying its a bad idea to come out. Good ideas on the rest though Tex.

theaxeeffect4311
12-28-2008, 06:28 AM
I still say you take the best player available. Any player taken that high will demand high money. While I think a rookie wage cap would benefit everyone, I see it back firing sort of. Rookies may opt to sign for less years in their first contract, so they will be re-signed sooner for more money. However, that is not entirely bad because they could show potential and talent by that amount of time. The problem comes when that contract expires, that rookie will demand a high contract for being paid like one of the top at his position when he does show the talent, you may have used a first round for him, but he actually hit his peak already. But how can you tell? Do you hit him with the franchise tag. Or he goes to free agency and another team may end up paying him big money. I don't know really, I'm just speculating. Bottom line, it is a good idea, but it should not influence how you draft this season.

texaschief
12-28-2008, 06:40 AM
I still say you take the best player available. Any player taken that high will demand high money. While I think a rookie wage cap would benefit everyone, I see it back firing sort of. Rookies may opt to sign for less years in their first contract, so they will be re-signed sooner for more money. However, that is not entirely bad because they could show potential and talent by that amount of time. The problem comes when that contract expires, that rookie will demand a high contract for being paid like one of the top at his position when he does show the talent, you may have used a first round for him, but he actually hit his peak already. But how can you tell? Do you hit him with the franchise tag. Or he goes to free agency and another team may end up paying him big money. I don't know really, I'm just speculating. Bottom line, it is a good idea, but it should not influence how you draft this season.

The system works in the NBA. There's no reason to think it can't work in the NFL. There's even "slot money" in MLB who doesn't even have a salary cap. There needs to be something in place for the NFL. All this would really do is put pressure on the coaching staff and GM to identify the talent that the team should hold on to.

I think the opportunity to get to free agency sooner to perhaps sign a bigger contract would be offset by the prospect of not being able to reach maximum potential in the allotted years in that rookie contract. This could render those rookies as free agents in limbo.

Also, the rookie "cap" probably wouldn't just apply to rookies. It would probably follow the model of the NBA pretty closely. You'd probably only be able to reach "max deals" after a certain amount of time in the league or after spending a pre-determined amount of time with your original team.

theaxeeffect4311
12-28-2008, 07:04 AM
The system works in the NBA. There's no reason to think it can't work in the NFL. There's even "slot money" in MLB who doesn't even have a salary cap. There needs to be something in place for the NFL. All this would really do is put pressure on the coaching staff and GM to identify the talent that the team should hold on to.

I think the opportunity to get to free agency sooner to perhaps sign a bigger contract would be offset by the prospect of not being able to reach maximum potential in the allotted years in that rookie contract. This could render those rookies as free agents in limbo.

Also, the rookie "cap" probably wouldn't just apply to rookies. It would probably follow the model of the NBA pretty closely. You'd probably only be able to reach "max deals" after a certain amount of time in the league or after spending a pre-determined amount of time with your original team.

I do think it is a good idea. No doubt about it. I guess it does boil down to how the structure it. Even then it may take a few years to refine it.

Coach
12-28-2008, 11:22 PM
We got an absolute steal IMO in Branden Albert. We might have drafted the best LT at 15 and I think moving that guy to guard would kill the value we got with that pick.

I could not agree more. Albert has played well. Why screw it up? We can get other OL players much later in the draft. The only part that I might disagree with is about Albert being the best LT in last year's draft. Jake Long has been great. I've also been very impressed with Ryan Clady, LT Denver. Otah played great as well.




I do think it is a good idea. No doubt about it. I guess it does boil down to how the structure it. Even then it may take a few years to refine it.

The NFL desperately needs a rookie salary cap.

jmlamerson
12-29-2008, 03:55 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3795154

This should impact the draft HEAVILY!! This could be a VERY deep draft if juniors believe if they stay for their senior year, it could and probably will impact their wallets and their family's future.

This decision SHOULD have a major impact on the Chiefs and who they should draft. LTs and QBs are THE TWO highest paid positions in the NFL. This should only reinforce the idea that the Chiefs should stay away from these two positions this April.

We're going to be paying our 3rd pick the same no matter the position, more than likely. Maybe a couple million in difference, but we're not going to get a major discount for drafting LB or WR or anything. We paid Dorsey this year based on his draft position a whole lot more than we did based on his field position.

jap1
12-29-2008, 05:13 PM
I thought I read something on ESPN that the Commish said no rookie salary cap until 2011 at the earliest. They have never discussed it officially and they wont until the off-season meetings this year.

texaschief
12-29-2008, 06:09 PM
We're going to be paying our 3rd pick the same no matter the position, more than likely. Maybe a couple million in difference, but we're not going to get a major discount for drafting LB or WR or anything. We paid Dorsey this year based on his draft position a whole lot more than we did based on his field position.

Do you honestly think Mario Williams was paid as much money as Leinart or Young would have been at the first pick? That doesn't make sense. QBs and OTs OBVIOUSLY get paid more than other players, so yes... you would get a discount if you take certain players over others with the top picks. What's even going to be worse is that the Lions will take a QB first and that is going to set the pay scale for the rest of the draft class. So, taking a LT or another QB is REALLY going to blow.

jmlamerson
12-29-2008, 06:36 PM
Do you honestly think Mario Williams was paid as much money as Leinart or Young would have been at the first pick? That doesn't make sense. QBs and OTs OBVIOUSLY get paid more than other players, so yes... you would get a discount if you take certain players over others with the top picks. What's even going to be worse is that the Lions will take a QB first and that is going to set the pay scale for the rest of the draft class. So, taking a LT or another QB is REALLY going to blow.

One of the reasons the Texans drafted Mario Williams was specifically because he wanted less money than Bush. Young wasn't in the conversation, really.

Again, drafted players get paid more in terms of the draft slot than the position. If we had drafted Clady or Flacco at the 5 spot this year, we'd be paying them the same (basically, with different incentives obviously) than Dorsey, but the contracts would be within 5% of each other.

The pay scale for the number one pick will be last year's number one pick + the __% increase in the salary cap. Not whether a QB or LT is drafted.

LTs and QBs get more money in their 2nd contracts. But it doesn't cost us any more to draft Oher than Curry at the 3 spot.

theaxeeffect4311
12-29-2008, 06:41 PM
Do you honestly think Mario Williams was paid as much money as Leinart or Young would have been at the first pick? That doesn't make sense. QBs and OTs OBVIOUSLY get paid more than other players, so yes... you would get a discount if you take certain players over others with the top picks. What's even going to be worse is that the Lions will take a QB first and that is going to set the pay scale for the rest of the draft class. So, taking a LT or another QB is REALLY going to blow.

So what you are saying is that it would then be stupid to draft a quarterback if the Lions choose to draft one with the first overall pick?

The thing I see about it is that an OT is worth every penny. If an OT is the BPA at the third pick, then you take the OT. It is rare to miss with O-linemen.

texaschief
12-29-2008, 06:42 PM
One of the reasons the Texans drafted Mario Williams was specifically because he wanted less money than Bush. Young wasn't in the conversation, really.

Again, drafted players get paid more in terms of the draft slot than the position. If we had drafted Clady or Flacco at the 5 spot this year, we'd be paying them the same (basically, with different incentives obviously) than Dorsey, but the contracts would be within 5% of each other.

The pay scale for the number one pick will be last year's number one pick + the __% increase in the salary cap. Not whether a QB or LT is drafted.

LTs and QBs get more money in their 2nd contracts. But it doesn't cost us any more to draft Oher than Curry at the 3 spot.

Why do you think it takes some mid-1st players so long to sign contracts? They wait for the players who play their positions immediately drafted in front and behind them to sign so that they have a slotted contract. Yes, Williams wanted less money than Bush, but that has to do with him playing a lesser paid position than RB.

texaschief
12-29-2008, 06:44 PM
So what you are saying is that it would then be stupid to draft a quarterback if the Lions choose to draft one with the first overall pick?

The thing I see about it is that an OT is worth every penny. If an OT is the BPA at the third pick, then you take the OT. It is rare to miss with O-linemen.

It's going to be stupid to draft a QB with the third pick anyway, but especially damaging to the Chiefs if they have to take the 2nd best QB only 2 picks later than the Lions would have given a record contract to a guy who plays the same position as our pick.

theaxeeffect4311
12-29-2008, 06:50 PM
It's going to be stupid to draft a QB with the third pick anyway, but especially damaging to the Chiefs if they have to take the 2nd best QB only 2 picks later than the Lions would have given a record contract to a guy who plays the same position as our pick.

So if the Lions pick an OT then the Chiefs should not draft an OT, even if that the BPA?

texaschief
12-29-2008, 06:52 PM
So if the Lions pick an OT then the Chiefs should not draft an OT, even if that the BPA?

No. OTs are a completely different story. OTs don't have a 70% miss rate. OTs are worth every penny. It'll just suck to take an OT in one of the last seasons of the non-rookie salary cap age.

jmlamerson
12-29-2008, 06:53 PM
Why do you think it takes some mid-1st players so long to sign contracts? They wait for the players who play their positions immediately drafted in front and behind them to sign so that they have a slotted contract. Yes, Williams wanted less money than Bush, but that has to do with him playing a lesser paid position than RB.

No, it had to do with Bush thinking himself a much better player than he was. Premier DEs are paid as much or more than RBs in the NFL today.

The first pick usually sets the dominos in motion for the rest of the picks because he will set the starting price. The rest will decrease by an unstated, but usually determinable percentage each pick further down. Again, it doesn't matter who we pick at the 3rd spot, whether it's a QB, LT, MLB, or FS. When a FS or TE (like Sean Taylor or Kellen Winslow) is taken higher than usual for their position, they don't give a discount. We won't get a discount for taking something other than a QB or a LT. We will not save money by passing on Stafford or Oher in favor of a LB.

texaschief
12-29-2008, 06:54 PM
No, it had to do with Bush thinking himself a much better player than he was. Premier DEs are paid as much or more than RBs in the NFL today.

The first pick usually sets the dominos in motion for the rest of the picks because he will set the starting price. The rest will decrease by an unstated, but usually determinable percentage each pick further down. Again, it doesn't matter who we pick at the 3rd spot, whether it's a QB, LT, MLB, or FS. When a FS or TE (like Sean Taylor or Kellen Winslow) is taken higher than usual for their position, they don't give a discount. We won't get a discount for taking something other than a QB or a LT. We will not save money by passing on Stafford or Oher in favor of a LB.

I disagree.

jmlamerson
12-29-2008, 06:55 PM
No. OTs are a completely different story. OTs don't have a 70% miss rate. OTs are worth every penny. It'll just suck to take an OT in one of the last seasons of the non-rookie salary cap age.

I agree. But it will suck to pick anyone at the 3 spot, no matter the position, in one of the final years of the non-wage scale era. That's why we have to suck it up, pick the best player available, and try not to be in the top 5 next year.

jmlamerson
12-29-2008, 06:57 PM
I disagree.

That's your privilege, obviously. But look at the 1st round salaries for the past decade or so - the numbers don't lie.

texaschief
12-29-2008, 07:03 PM
I agree. But it will suck to pick anyone at the 3 spot, no matter the position, in one of the final years of the non-wage scale era. That's why we have to suck it up, pick the best player available, and try not to be in the top 5 next year.

If we HAVE to take someone at the 3rd spot in on of the final NWS years, WHY in the WORLD would you take a QB and risk spending that kind of money on the next Alex Smith or David Carr or heaven forbid, Ryan Leaf? The risk just doesn't outweigh the reward. Peyton Manning isn't in this draft class and we don't have the line right now to protect another immobile QB.

Taking a QB would be the biggest gamble even in the history of the Chiefs and could ultimately continue this road of a new coach every third year if it doesn't pan out.

jmlamerson
12-30-2008, 10:52 AM
If we HAVE to take someone at the 3rd spot in on of the final NWS years, WHY in the WORLD would you take a QB and risk spending that kind of money on the next Alex Smith or David Carr or heaven forbid, Ryan Leaf? The risk just doesn't outweigh the reward. Peyton Manning isn't in this draft class and we don't have the line right now to protect another immobile QB.

Taking a QB would be the biggest gamble even in the history of the Chiefs and could ultimately continue this road of a new coach every third year if it doesn't pan out.
I never said pick a QB. I've been arguing for Thigpen and against Bradford all year. One of Andre Smith and Oher will be the best on the board next year. We need to pick one of them.