Ramius Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 The owners have been consistently blocked by NFLPA in their attempt to institute a rookie cap. Of course anyone with a rudimentary understanding of math & law would see that mid-tier vets are the ones feeling the biggest impact from the high rookie salaries. So much for protecting the interests of your constituents. FWIW, on nfl network the other day, they said that the general sentiment among many players is that they would agree to a rookie cap if the total amount of $ paid to the players stayed the same, meaning a redistribution of cash from rooks to vets. But, isn't that how it is now? There's a salary floor that teams need to spend to. I personally think a rookie cap is coming in the next CBA battle. No way these owners want to keep paying 30-40 mil guaranteed to the top picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoner7 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 (Yet again), if players are to be absolutely bound to a contract then the contract has to be guaranteed like it is in all other sports. The owners like to express moral outrage (as do the multitude of easily duped fans) when a player wants to have his existing deal renegotiated early. What people here continue to miss is that a team can cut a player at any time to renege on their contractual obligation. The player gets no further money when he is cut. The only money guaranteed is the signing bonus. Why is it that owners are allowed to break a contract but players are vilified when they want to renegotiate early? They are not. A player at any time can quit and go play in one of the other pro football leagues.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dog14787 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Gleason's point is correct but he's wrong that it was the substantial factor in Peters' discontent. Nope, that was 100% Marv's fault. His idiotic decision to give huge contracts to two inferior players (Walker and Dockery) set this team back years, and led directly to Peters' demands for a new contract. The Marv era will go down as a colossal failure, and possibly the final nail in the coffin for this franchise's tenure in Western New York. Sad. Its what happens when he you plug in the wrong guy for the wrong job, we could have made Marv a head coach with a good qualified GM backing him up and everything would probably be different right now. I still think your wrong about Marv Levy's second tenure with the Bills going down as a complete failure. Trent Edwards is a championship caliber QB in my opinion, something we haven't had in a decade. Buffalo hasn't seen the playoffs in almost a decade, funny how them two seem to go together. The verdict is still out and if the FO pulls off a good draft and the coaching staff gets this team to the playoffs. Hmmmm, all of the sudden Marv didn't do such a bad job after all, especially considering he never should have been a GM to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLynchTrain Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Blame Donahoe. If he had not let Pat Williams go away, perhaps Levy and Co. would not have been so concerned about losing another player on the DL (Kelsay). If Kelsay had not received the ridiculous contract, then Schobel would not have had his contract -- one with three years left -- redone. If the Bills had not renegotiated Schobel's contract, then maybe they would have an easier time putting off Peters' new contract. haha good string of events there that screwed over the bills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 haha good string of events there that screwed over the bills eagles fixed - the bills didn't get screwed over, the eagles did they're now stuck with an overpaid, stupid, fat load of a left tackle that probably won't see another good season for the rest of his career Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 FWIW, on nfl network the other day, they said that the general sentiment among many players is that they would agree to a rookie cap if the total amount of $ paid to the players stayed the same, meaning a redistribution of cash from rooks to vets. But, isn't that how it is now? There's a salary floor that teams need to spend to. I personally think a rookie cap is coming in the next CBA battle. No way these owners want to keep paying 30-40 mil guaranteed to the top picks. Yes, that is how it works now. Whose fault is it that NFLPA can't communicate it to its rank & file? The only rational explanation for this stupidity is that the union is holding this up as a bargaining chip for guaranteed contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybob Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Nobody "misses" anything. This is exactly how it should be and how other sports should do it too. In any other job, if you half ass it right after you get a big bonus and your performance drops considerably, you get fired, contract or no. In employment law it's called "cause". Well except if you are upper management for the banks then you can screw up as much as you want with no consequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Jabber Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Bucky Gleason makes an excellent point in his article in today's Buff News. Why in the world do the NFL owners agree to pay rookies so much money in the first place? Peters did not make his final decision until he watched how much un-deserved un-earned money the Dolphins paid Jake Long after picking him number 1 last year. So why do they pay the rookies so much? The Players Union? The agents? Fear of a "strike" by college kids who already make nothing but the quiet dirty money funneled to them from dirty coaches and/or dirty alumni? They certainly can't live off those few bucks per season. With the economy bottoming out deeper every day, now is the perfect time to stop the insanity. Come up with a real rookie cap, one that awards veterans for their years of service, while still allowing the best rookies to buy their mom's homes and buy their SUV's and their bling. For example: Nobody can pretend to know just how arrogant and selfish and egotistical Jason Peters is. That has been beaten to death out here. However, since he was an undrafted free agent, perhaps if Jake Long, the number one pick in the entire draft, was paid only 3 Million Dollars per season for two years, with just a 4 Million dollar signing bonus, Peters would have not become so angry and jealous! At the same time, Long could have used his 2 Million dollars after taxes, from his signing bonus, and done some of the things the young rich athletes love to do. WIN WIN. If he earned the big contract after two years of being worth the number one pick in the draft, then sign him to the mega-deal. I guess this just makes too much common sense for the NFL owners to actually do. All we can hope is they agree to pay less money then what they are paying for top 5 to 10 picks today, when they re-do the collective bargaining agreement. I agree that it's ridiculous that rookie's make more than a lot of NFL veteran's. The NFL needs a rookie salary cap like in the NHL. IMO, rookie's should not make more than $1 Mil a year. Have a rookie sign a 3 year deal, then they can go for a bigger contract after they proved themselves. I wish we could have done that with Mike Williams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfreak Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Jake Long was 10 times better than Peters last year... 10 time better? I would say 30 or 40 times better at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 They are not. A player at any time can quit and go play in one of the other pro football leagues.... I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I'd be grateful if you could elaborate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwws9999 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 (Yet again), if players are to be absolutely bound to a contract then the contract has to be guaranteed like it is in all other sports. The owners like to express moral outrage (as do the multitude of easily duped fans) when a player wants to have his existing deal renegotiated early. What people here continue to miss is that a team can cut a player at any time to renege on their contractual obligation. The player gets no further money when he is cut. The only money guaranteed is the signing bonus. Why is it that owners are allowed to break a contract but players are vilified when they want to renegotiate early? because most people are stupid and can't read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VJ91 Posted April 23, 2009 Author Share Posted April 23, 2009 fixed - the bills didn't get screwed over, the eagles did they're now stuck with an overpaid, stupid, fat load of a left tackle that probably won't see another good season for the rest of his career Or....the Eagles paid fair market value for a two time Pro Bowl LT that will anchor their OL for the next 8 years. Only time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 If the owners tried it, the players union would be all over them, for just the reasons above. The union wants players like Peters to be able to get ever-increasing salaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 I think there should be a rookie cap---but not like in the NBA. Football carreers are shorter--so the players need to be paid more upfront. They should 'modify' compensation in the first 2 years and provide for a steep step up later....avoiding disasters while still protecting the young player in this dangerous and shortlived profession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 i agree with this.. the rookie contracts are out of control and need to be brought back to reality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 The owners have been consistently blocked by NFLPA in their attempt to institute a rookie cap. Of course anyone with a rudimentary understanding of math & law would see that mid-tier vets are the ones feeling the biggest impact from the high rookie salaries. So much for protecting the interests of your constituents. I think the NFLPA is aware that the bulk of their members are getting screwed (as much as NFL players can be) becasue of the rookie salary situation. IIRC, the new players union president mentioned, in his opening pc, that there would be some effort to come up with a rookie pay structure. So, maybe some good news there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwws9999 Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 i agree with this.. the rookie contracts are out of control and need to be brought back to reality why do you care,most teams payrolls are covered by the tv money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 I think the NFLPA is aware that the bulk of their members are getting screwed (as much as NFL players can be) becasue of the rookie salary situation. IIRC, the new players union president mentioned, in his opening pc, that there would be some effort to come up with a rookie pay structure. So, maybe some good news there? I believe so too. I think Upshaw was seriously leading the NFLPA astray, and they are much better off with new leadership. Smith has also stated he wants the NFLPA to do a ton more for retired players, a group largely ignored by Upshaw. As a union leader, Upshaw was nothing more than an asshat. One big fight i forsee is that the NFLPA wants the owners to open their books to everyone. Currently, the NFL books are open, but individual franchise keep a tight lid on their own numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 why do you care,most teams payrolls are covered by the tv money In the grand scheme of most of our lives it makes no difference. Like many of the discussions here it's an academic discussion about fairness. If you don't care... I believe so too. I think Upshaw was seriously leading the NFLPA astray, and they are much better off with new leadership. Smith has also stated he wants the NFLPA to do a ton more for retired players, a group largely ignored by Upshaw. As a union leader, Upshaw was nothing more than an asshat. One big fight i forsee is that the NFLPA wants the owners to open their books to everyone. Currently, the NFL books are open, but individual franchise keep a tight lid on their own numbers. Very true. It's a very deep and broad subject and there's much more that we could talk about. For instance, both sides seem to agree it's out of whack. But neither side wants to necessarily make it a big issue. They would rather the other side make it an issue so they can bargain against it for further gains in the CBA. Also the ridiculous amount of influence that agents have in the NFL salary structure. They want big rookie contracts for the big commissions and also so that veterans get PO'd and want their contracts redone. The agents benefit from the current state of affairs more than the players or the owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts