PFT- Commish Plans to Address First-round windfalls

[Kentucky Jet]

COMMISH PLANS TO ADDRESS FIRST-ROUND WINDFALLS

As NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell approaches his one-year anniversary, it occurs to us that we have agreed with virtually every decision that Goodell has made.

And we think we're going to agree with most of his decisions in year two. Especially if one of them is to try to address the ongoing problem regarding the payment of enormous windfalls to rookies who have never worn an NFL helmet except when trick-or-treating.

This year, for example, safety LaRon Landry received more guaranteed money than any safety in the history of the league, simply because his name was the sixth one called on draft day.

"It's a concern," Goodell said in a Thursday interview with the Detroit media. "I think it's a concern also for other reasons that are less obvious that came out when we talked to the players this year. It's difficult when a rookie comes in to a locker room and has that kind of a signing bonus. It's difficult [for] the veterans to provide that kind of leadership that's so important on teams. Money changes that dynamic a little bit. We'll talk to Gene [upshaw]. We're not trying to save the dollars, we just think the dollars should go to players who have earned that on the field through their accomplishments and leadership. It's a system we have and we'll do the best we can with it right now.''

The only problem, as we see it, is that the union needs to want change, too, or else the union will expect some type of a concession from the league.

But both sides should want it. For the league, it will lessen the financial risk that arises from having (and using) a high draft pick. As JaMarcus Russell tries to break the bank in Oakland, for example, is the worst team in the league from a year ago really getting any better?

For the players, it provides more money in the future to current members of the union, at a cost only to guys who aren't in the union yet. Like a guy who suddenly favors a military draft the day after he becomes too old to be drafted, players already in the league have no reason to object to limitations on the money to be paid to guys who aren't there yet. The fact that the extra money would flow through to the current players gives such an approach even more appeal.

The reality is that the agents who pull the strings of the union don't want to give up their percentage of the lottery prizes that are paid out each and every year. And until the players stand up and demand that something be done, the NFLPA will continue to ignore the problem.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[rick34125]

COMMISH PLANS TO ADDRESS FIRST-ROUND WINDFALLS

...the ongoing problem regarding the payment of enormous windfalls to rookies who have never worn an NFL helmet except when trick-or-treating.

It's difficult when a rookie comes in to a locker room and has that kind of a signing bonus. It's difficult [for] the veterans to provide that kind of leadership that's so important on teams. Money changes that dynamic a little bit.

The reality is that the agents who pull the strings of the union don't want to give up their percentage of the lottery prizes that are paid out each and every year. And until the players stand up and demand that something be done, the NFLPA will continue to ignore the problem.

it seems like a real concern. how do you think kerry rhodes is feeling about revis' contract? how do you think it will change the dynamic of their relationship?

it would be unfortunate if the nflpa doesnt change the ludicrous payouts to rookies and create a better system for getting that money to deserving veterans.

[green_blood]

"When the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other...our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel." - Ben Frankiln

Instant money wins over earned money, but the new demands will be the NFL's eventual fall.

[#27TheDominator]

They agreed with every one of his decisions? How about suspending a never convicted Pacman and then saying he was going to wait for the legal system to "take its course" with Vick? Then backtracking and asking Vick not to show up in camp while he "reviewed his case". Now they have decided to look into the "gambling aspect." This Vick thing has been bouncing around since April and he acted like it was just dropped in his lap. Even then he didn't have the brains to say he was going to take time to review it before making a decision.

The salary cap is going up and the players are therefore underpaid. I can't see them dropping the money the 1st rounders get unless Upshaw really drops the ball. As for Rhodes and Revis, I don't see how one player would have a problem with another getting paid. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[Sperm Edwards]

They agreed with every one of his decisions? How about suspending a never convicted Pacman and then saying he was going to wait for the legal system to "take its course" with Vick? Then backtracking and asking Vick not to show up in camp while he "reviewed his case". Now they have decided to look into the "gambling aspect." This Vick thing has been bouncing around since April and he acted like it was just dropped in his lap. Even then he didn't have the brains to say he was going to take time to review it before making a decision.

The salary cap is going up and the players are therefore underpaid. I can't see them dropping the money the 1st rounders get unless Upshaw really drops the ball. As for Rhodes and Revis, I don't see how one player would have a problem with another getting paid. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Disagree on both of these.

I'm sure Goodell would have loved to give Vick the PacMan treatment by the time he read the affidavit at the latest. It is different from a PR perspective. Vick is (was) a MUCH more popular player & was like the highest-paid player in the league. It's just as that easy to suspend such a popular player compared to one(s) that have had run-in's with the law since before they came into the league. There weren't hundreds of thousands (or more) of people/fans crying racism while he was contemplating PacMan's fate. Sometimes the right thing to do is not what is theoretically the right thing to do.

The rookie salaries at the top of round 1 are a joke. Particularly the top 3 & around there. Say you're a bad team. THE worst team. The NFL's form of welfare is to give you first dibs on the best college players. Thing is no one's ever seen them play vs NFL talent before. So you must not only take a chance on an unknown player, you must pay him more than anyone in the history of your franchise for the privilege of taking a chance on him. Other NFL players signed to mega-deals are (appropriately) expected to produce at a high level from day one. A Jamarcus Russell who - if he's signed - looks like he'll get a contract in the neighborhood of 7 yrs/$60+M and about $30M up front? He's not expected to be a star until he's 3 years into that mega-deal. The players IN the league are the ones who create the salable product & the reason the cap can be so high. Not the ones who haven't set foot on a pro field yet.

The purpose of both the salary cap and the draft is to make the league as even as possible so it doesn't turn into a ludicrous sport like baseball. If a bad team picks a bust for a high first-rounder, that is enough. They don't need to have the team wallow in salary cap hell & stay a bad team for a couple more years because of the cap space to sign a marquis player. Now compound that with a team that has difficulty signing that player because of ludicrous demands by one side or the other.

It's not all the players in round 1. It's really the over-the-top #'s in the top half of round 1; particularly the top-6/top-3. The salaries should be a formula based on the total salary cap. It also would mean these kids won't need agents yet. There would be no holdouts. There would be less disharmony between overpaid rookies & the veterans who are trying to show them the ropes.

The money should be going to the players who make the NFL a great product, not disproportionately to those who the NFL thinks might help continue to make it a great product a few years from now.

[#27TheDominator]

Disagree on both of these.

I'm sure Goodell would have loved to give Vick the PacMan treatment by the time he read the affidavit at the latest. It is different from a PR perspective. Vick is (was) a MUCH more popular player & was like the highest-paid player in the league. It's just as that easy to suspend such a popular player compared to one(s) that have had run-in's with the law since before they came into the league. There weren't hundreds of thousands (or more) of people/fans crying racism while he was contemplating PacMan's fate. Sometimes the right thing to do is not what is theoretically the right thing to do..

I don't really have a problem with Goodell suspending Pacman and not Vick. That is understandable. My problem is with his comments when the Vick indictment came down that we have a legal system and the league has to let the court system handle the matter first. No. 1: That's bull**** since they didn't wait for the legal system on Pacman. No. 2: He changed his mind later. Vick was apparently effectively suspended since they asked him not to come to camp and Goodell said he wanted to look at everything before making a determination. If he were a thinking man he'd have said that right off the bat to buy some time. There is never anything wrong with buying time.

The rookie salaries at the top of round 1 are a joke.

The money should be going to the players who make the NFL a great product, not disproportionately to those who the NFL thinks might help continue to make it a great product a few years from now.

I snipped this whole thing because I agree with you. The money should be handed out more evenly. The NFLPA should be on board with spreading things out. Just cutting the money at the top of the draft is NOT the answer and does not address the problem. That just happens to be one of the only spots where the players have the hammer. I don't think taking that hammer away makes things any better for the guys at the bottom of the totem pole that the league is chewing up and spitting out.

[Sperm Edwards]

I don't really have a problem with Goodell suspending Pacman and not Vick. That is understandable. My problem is with his comments when the Vick indictment came down that we have a legal system and the league has to let the court system handle the matter first. No. 1: That's bull**** since they didn't wait for the legal system on Pacman. No. 2: He changed his mind later. Vick was apparently effectively suspended since they asked him not to come to camp and Goodell said he wanted to look at everything before making a determination. If he were a thinking man he'd have said that right off the bat to buy some time. There is never anything wrong with buying time.

So you're more interested in what he says is the reason than what is actually the reason. It doesn't matter to me. I don't know that his words are indicative of what's on his mind at all times. A league commissioner at times has to play a PR game. You may be 100% correct. He may very well have been holding off on Vick because he's a cash-cow for the league even when Atlanta is awful.

[#27TheDominator]

So you're more interested in what he says is the reason than what is actually the reason. It doesn't matter to me. I don't know that his words are indicative of what's on his mind at all times. A league commissioner at times has to play a PR game. You may be 100% correct. He may very well have been holding off on Vick because he's a cash-cow for the league even when Atlanta is awful.

Actually, I don't care WHY he said what he did. The fact is he wanted time to make the determination - if that's the case he should have said he had to analyze the evidence. Instead, he bascially said he'd wait to see what the court said. Now he backtracked and while wait-and-see is probably the correct course, he looks wishy-washy and dumb IMO.

[Sperm Edwards]

Actually, I don't care WHY he said what he did. The fact is he wanted time to make the determination - if that's the case he should have said he had to analyze the evidence. Instead, he bascially said he'd wait to see what the court said. Now he backtracked and while wait-and-see is probably the correct course, he looks wishy-washy and dumb IMO.

Technically all we know is he wanted time to announce the determination. It may or may not have already been made in his mind.

[JohnnyLV]

COMMISH PLANS TO ADDRESS FIRST-ROUND WINDFALLS

As NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell approaches his one-year anniversary, it occurs to us that we have agreed with virtually every decision that Goodell has made.

And we think we're going to agree with most of his decisions in year two. Especially if one of them is to try to address the ongoing problem regarding the payment of enormous windfalls to rookies who have never worn an NFL helmet except when trick-or-treating.

This year, for example, safety LaRon Landry received more guaranteed money than any safety in the history of the league, simply because his name was the sixth one called on draft day.

"It's a concern," Goodell said in a Thursday interview with the Detroit media. "I think it's a concern also for other reasons that are less obvious that came out when we talked to the players this year. It's difficult when a rookie comes in to a locker room and has that kind of a signing bonus. It's difficult [for] the veterans to provide that kind of leadership that's so important on teams. Money changes that dynamic a little bit. We'll talk to Gene [upshaw]. We're not trying to save the dollars, we just think the dollars should go to players who have earned that on the field through their accomplishments and leadership. It's a system we have and we'll do the best we can with it right now.''

The only problem, as we see it, is that the union needs to want change, too, or else the union will expect some type of a concession from the league.

But both sides should want it. For the league, it will lessen the financial risk that arises from having (and using) a high draft pick. As JaMarcus Russell tries to break the bank in Oakland, for example, is the worst team in the league from a year ago really getting any better?

For the players, it provides more money in the future to current members of the union, at a cost only to guys who aren't in the union yet. Like a guy who suddenly favors a military draft the day after he becomes too old to be drafted, players already in the league have no reason to object to limitations on the money to be paid to guys who aren't there yet. The fact that the extra money would flow through to the current players gives such an approach even more appeal.

The reality is that the agents who pull the strings of the union don't want to give up their percentage of the lottery prizes that are paid out each and every year. And until the players stand up and demand that something be done, the NFLPA will continue to ignore the problem.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it is put on the table, I have to think that ultimately the player's union will agree to a restrictive slotted system for rookies. After all, the overall money is not likely to go down and it will mean more money for the veteran players. I fully expect this to be part of the next collective bargaining agreement.

[johnny green balls]

sounds good on paper but if the NBA did it, it can't be smart.

[StraightCash]

It would make signing draft picks SO easy. Theyd obviously just hold out for the maximum in their slot and they would obviously get it.

[PFSIKH]

It would make signing draft picks SO easy. Theyd obviously just hold out for the maximum in their slot and they would obviously get it.

That what makes the NBA system work. The number 1 pick gets X. #2 a little less. So on and so forth.

sounds good on paper but if the NBA did it, it can't be smart.

It is the one smart thing they do.

If it is put on the table, I have to think that ultimately the player's union will agree to a restrictive slotted system for rookies. After all, the overall money is not likely to go down and it will mean more money for the veteran players. I fully expect this to be part of the next collective bargaining agreement.

I would expect to see something also, but I think they need to start working on it right now. It is going to be complicated.

The thing is the signing bonus.

A first rounder makes his money in his signing bonus. Picks in the second and subsequent rounds are close in base salary with the big differences being length of contract and signing bonus.

The league will have to show how the money saved by the league in the draft will be paid to the veteran players (i.e. raising the vet minimum). Also, I doubt the players association is going to allow the league to just cut the rookie pool. They will have to be given something also. Like earlier FA for 1st rounders so they can make their money back.

I have been in favor of a rookie salary cap like the NBA, but the NFL is a different beast with more complications to deal with.