New Potential CBA could make 4 and 5 year vets free agents...

[hoping4ASuperBowl]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/02/28/combine/1.html

Per Rotoworld.com:

According to SI.com's Peter King, it is "very likely" that unrestricted free agency will "revert to the original rules" under the next CBA, leaving four- and five-year veterans free.

Opinions have varied on the outlook of four-year players, but King is more connected around the league than most. Teams have already slapped the franchise tag on four-year vets such as LaMarr Woodley, David Harris, and Ryan Kalil. As much as the owners are demanding in labor talks, it's unlikely that they'd be able to pry away another year of free agency, too. Players headed for unrestricted free agency include Ahmad Bradshaw, Sidney Rice, Charles Johnson, Zach Miller, Doug Free, Jared Gaither, Brandon Mebane, Steve Smith (NYG), and James Jones.

That should shake up free agency a little more, but still won't matter until the CBA is in place.

[RutgersJetFan]

Only fair. If you're going to cap rookie salaries, it should be balanced out by shorter contracts.

[hoping4ASuperBowl]

Only fair. If you're going to cap rookie salaries, it should be balanced out by shorter contracts.

Is it certain that they are gonna have a rookie salary cap? I don't really know how things are progressing other than the NFPLA might Decertify.

[#27TheDominator]

Only fair. If you're going to cap rookie salaries, it should be balanced out by shorter contracts.

Yep. Putting a cap on rookie salaries is going to be a big problem for the players. It's true that giving unproven guys money is a problem, but having a rookie cap will mean that the mid to low-level vets will be getting cut for cheaper rookies. Also, if you are capping their salaries, how long do they have to slave under those rookie deals? It's one thing to lock a guy up for years at a high salary, but if you are capping his earning potential, how long do you get to keep him down?

[ECURB]

Yep. Putting a cap on rookie salaries is going to be a big problem for the players. It's true that giving unproven guys money is a problem, but having a rookie cap will mean that the mid to low-level vets will be getting cut for cheaper rookies. Also, if you are capping their salaries, how long do they have to slave under those rookie deals? It's one thing to lock a guy up for years at a high salary, but if you are capping his earning potential, how long do you get to keep him down?

There will be hold-outs-a-plenty.

[hoping4ASuperBowl]

There will be hold-outs-a-plenty.

I'd rather have hold outs then no football at all. I hate the idea of hold outs, but it will give other players more opportunities to step up and show their worth also.

[Sperm Edwards]

Yep. Putting a cap on rookie salaries is going to be a big problem for the players. It's true that giving unproven guys money is a problem, but having a rookie cap will mean that the mid to low-level vets will be getting cut for cheaper rookies. Also, if you are capping their salaries, how long do they have to slave under those rookie deals? It's one thing to lock a guy up for years at a high salary, but if you are capping his earning potential, how long do you get to keep him down?

The only problem is it penalizes players for getting drafted early. A player getting drafted in round 1 isn't hitting free agency after 3 years. King was vague here, but I would have to believe "the original rules" means a player hits free agency IF he's not under contract.

If you're drafted in round 1 you can get locked up for 6 years. More than that, like the 7 year deals we've seen for #1 overall picks, has to be additional year(s) the player can void. If a team signs a draftee to a 4-year deal the player still doesn't hit free agency until year 5. Some teams - like the Jets - generally sign all their non-first-round draftees to 4 year deals anyway.

This isn't surprising. Nobody should have realistically expected the PA to agree to the current "temporary" system where a player can't attain UFA status until he's accrued 6 seasons (unless he's been cut, of course).

So it's probably better to get drafted in round 7 than in round 4 (if you're any good at the NFL level). Round 4 you're getting a 4 year deal from probably every team. Round 7 a lot of teams will just give you a 3-year deal. Though who knows what "free agent" will mean. There will probably still be some form of restricted or exclusive-rights FA for those players.

[#27TheDominator]

There will be hold-outs-a-plenty.

It depends. I'd assume they are looking at some kind of slotting system where the contracts are set ahead of time.

The only problem is it penalizes players for getting drafted early. A player getting drafted in round 1 isn't hitting free agency after 3 years. King was vague here, but I would have to believe "the original rules" means a player hits free agency IF he's not under contract.

If you're drafted in round 1 you can get locked up for 6 years. More than that, like the 7 year deals we've seen for #1 overall picks, has to be additional year(s) the player can void. If a team signs a draftee to a 4-year deal the player still doesn't hit free agency until year 5. Some teams - like the Jets - generally sign all their non-first-round draftees to 4 year deals anyway.

This isn't surprising. Nobody should have realistically expected the PA to agree to the current "temporary" system where a player can't attain UFA status until he's accrued 6 seasons (unless he's been cut, of course).

So it's probably better to get drafted in round 7 than in round 4 (if you're any good at the NFL level). Round 4 you're getting a 4 year deal from probably every team. Round 7 a lot of teams will just give you a 3-year deal. Though who knows what "free agent" will mean. There will probably still be some form of restricted or exclusive-rights FA for those players.

I would assume they will have to shorten the deals. I would expect that any kind of rookie cap will include a slotting system and shorter deals. If it were me I would suggest a short, say 3 year max, with Bird rights and/or right to match.

[Sperm Edwards]

It depends. I'd assume they are looking at some kind of slotting system where the contracts are set ahead of time.

I would assume they will have to shorten the deals. I would expect that any kind of rookie cap will include a slotting system and shorter deals. If it were me I would suggest a short, say 3 year max, with Bird rights and/or right to match.

If the're slotted, then it would (or should) be all contract terms slotted. Signing bonus, total compensation, and duration.

But I doubt any owner is going to sign off on the #1 pick - or anyone near the top - only getting signed to a 3-year contract,with or without any type of Larry Bird rules. These players will hold out after 2 years (or even 1 year if they're phenom rookies) with the argument - one that would be credible - that they have no long-term security.

Imagine the scenario: you forgo all sorts of trade offers to pull the trigger on someone at the top of the draft. He sucks as a rookie, is mediocre for most of year 2, and then in December of year 2 (after the playoffs have already been kissed goodbye) he has 3 or 4 very good games with maybe even one of them being a great game against a Panthers-caliber opponent.

Holdout city. And it'll happen a lot more than it does now, which kind of defeats the whole point of slotted rookie contracts.

I think the article means what the article says: that so far all they've agreed to is that they've come off the 5 & 6 years required to become a UFA. The original rules of the last CBA didn't allow a player to become a totally unrestricted free agent until after year 4 so I'm not sure what King is referring to there.

[#27TheDominator]

If the're slotted, then it would (or should) be all contract terms slotted. Signing bonus, total compensation, and duration.

But I doubt any owner is going to sign off on the #1 pick - or anyone near the top - only getting signed to a 3-year contract,with or without any type of Larry Bird rules. These players will hold out after 2 years (or even 1 year if they're phenom rookies) with the argument - one that would be credible - that they have no long-term security.

Imagine the scenario: you forgo all sorts of trade offers to pull the trigger on someone at the top of the draft. He sucks as a rookie, is mediocre for most of year 2, and then in December of year 2 (after the playoffs have already been kissed goodbye) he has 3 or 4 very good games with maybe even one of them being a great game against a Panthers-caliber opponent.

Holdout city. And it'll happen a lot more than it does now, which kind of defeats the whole point of slotted rookie contracts.

I think the article means what the article says: that so far all they've agreed to is that they've come off the 5 & 6 years required to become a UFA. The original rules of the last CBA didn't allow a player to become a totally unrestricted free agent until after year 4 so I'm not sure what King is referring to there.

I didn't think the article was implying anything. I just think that the board sees Gholston and complains that it's not fair that he got all that money while proven players are dicked around. Many think the answer is capping the rookies. That's not as easy as people think.

All the issues you state are valid, but if you aren't going to limit the years then the guy is just flat out screwed. There is no way that I would sign off on capping rookie salaries if you are going to lock the guy up for 6-7 years. That would be insane. Give the owners the chance to lock guys up long term cheap like that and there won't be any veterans in the league at all.

This is the reason I think the draft is in trouble. I don't see any fair way to handle it. The NFL had better consider how much money they make off the event while they are fighting because they players are getting screwed on that end if they aren't getting big money deals.

[Lupz27]

Very simple, slot every pick in the draft accordingly, and then for a 3 -5 year period, (let the owners, and players decide that in negotiations) have an arbittration hearing based on the previous years performance, this will keep the rookies who are great from holding out, and keep the Gholston type from killing a teams salary cap.

[ECURB]

It depends. I'd assume they are looking at some kind of slotting system where the contracts are set ahead of time.

I would assume they will have to shorten the deals. I would expect that any kind of rookie cap will include a slotting system and shorter deals. If it were me I would suggest a short, say 3 year max, with Bird rights and/or right to match.

I meant holdouts after a year or 2... when they are an above average player making below average money...

[serphnx]

I saw nothing wrong with the current system. It's a free market, if the owners think the rookies should get a certain contract based on potential and want to sign him for that, why should the NFL step in to stop that all of a sudden?

Top Finance guys out of Harvard, Yale and several other schools will make $300k starting, right out of school. Lesser ranked finance guys will make $50k. And of course, in general, it's tough getting a job out of school and a lot of people make less.

None of these people have done anything, so why should anyone get a high salary? Because it's the system we set up, and to do otherwise would probably be Communist.

People keep comparing themselves to the guys in the NFL as if it's a direct comparison. When you are coming out of school as a top 10 prospect in your field your payscale is much higher than everyone else. There are people on Wall St. making $1M about 3 years out of school, although I think that's after your MBA and not just undergrad. The average American is as close to that as they are to NFL salaries.

How about we cap Wall St. salaries first then, since our tax dollars have gone to directly paying these guys? I don't want to get political so I'll just leave it at that, in a free market it is whatever anyone feels someone else is worth. To claim otherwise is to be Un_American.