What a difference in $$$ a year makes...

[Countertrey]

And? Newton could have just as easily come in and been a disaster... with the team still on the hook for guaranteed money. If that were 5 million, and Newton had just stunk it up in a 0-0 game that Mare came in and won with an incredible 55yard FG off a Fair catch free kick... but got paid 150K for the year... would that have been fair?

Swings both ways. The reason the rookie cap is in place is because the above example was closer to the norm than the Cam Newton who is on the field. He will get his, when it's time... not before it's time, as had been the norm under the old agreement...

BTW... many of the better paid players have injury protection policies on their salaries... Lloyds has no problem underwritting them... and for most, while expensive, it is not cost prohibitive.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Not sure I see the force of the point you're making by drawing the distinction between open and non-open markets.

NFL rules apply only within the NFL. The NFL is the business, not the team. In reality, the NFL is offering them $5 million, not the team. They are free to go anywhere outside the NFL and get a better offer. The NFL is competing for talent in an open market and no one but the NFL is "restricted" to five million.

To say that it's not fair because he can't earn what he's worth between teams is flawed because the NFL is the business. I was illustrating that with my GE example. If GE decides that a fresh college grad across GE is worth no more then $40K a year and applies it across GE, that isn't restricting the person's ability to get more then $40K anywhere but within GE. If GE can make it stick and get the talent they want, it works. If not, they have to reassess the rule.

There is an "open market" between GE and GE's competitors. There is no "open market" within GE unless GE wants there to be.

[vwoodzpusha]

I like the rookie wage scale. It keeps the rookies hungry and wanting to work harder. Maybe Jamarcus Russell would have been more inclined to stay awake during meetings knowing that if he wanted his big payday he would have to earn it.

[Irn-Bru]

And?

. . . and I think it demonstrates that it doesn't do players justice to set a blanket policy like the one the NFL has.

Newton could have just as easily come in and been a disaster... with the team still on the hook for guaranteed money. If that were 5 million, and Newton had just stunk it up in a 0-0 game that Mare came in and won with an incredible 55yard FG off a Fair catch free kick... but got paid 150K for the year... would that have been fair?

Guaranteed money contracts are not necessary to ensure that a player gets paid what he's worth. So a system where a player can destroy a team's finances and enrich himself off his college showing would also be silly.

But I'm not arguing for that. I'm merely arguing against a system where a long-time vet like Mare necessarily makes more than Newton, where those kinds of imbalances are not based on merit, but on vague conceptions of fairness or getting paid for something you did 5-10 years ago.

Swings both ways. The reason the rookie cap is in place is because the above example was closer to the norm than the Cam Newton who is on the field.

I disagree. People remember busts more viscerally, and the emotions attached to that were a large part of the reason why people loved to rant about rookie salaries. But the reality is that some guys coming out of college have already shown that they merit higher pay. Olindo Mare isn't the only mediocre vet who's making more than Newton, after all . . .

He will get his, when it's time... not before it's time, as had been the norm under the old agreement...

All I'm arguing for is that Newton get his payday when it's time. That time isn't 4 years from now — the way things are currently set up — but rather it should be now, or at worst next season.

The way things are currently structured, there's a chance he'll be injured and out of the game before he can get his. Same goes with all of the rookies who have been handicapped by the new rule. It might not happen to Newton, but it will very likely happen to one of these guys.

BTW... many of the better paid players have injury protection policies on their salaries... Lloyds has no problem underwritting them... and for most, while expensive, it is not cost prohibitive.

I'm not informed on this side of it at all. Maybe that's an option for some. But even granting that players could get nice policies, I don't think it resolves the fundamental issue here.

[Irn-Bru]

Not sure I see the force of the point you're making by drawing the distinction between open and non-open markets.

NFL rules apply only within the NFL. The NFL is the business, not the team. In reality, the NFL is offering them $5 million, not the team. They are free to go anywhere outside the NFL and get a better offer. The NFL is competing for talent in an open market and no one but the NFL is "restricted" to five million.

To say that it's not fair because he can't earn what he's worth between teams is flawed because the NFL is the business. I was illustrating that with my GE example. If GE decides that a fresh college grad across GE is worth no more then $40K a year and applies it across GE, that isn't restricting the person's ability to get more then $40K anywhere but within GE. If GE can make it stick and get the talent they want, it works. If not, they have to reassess the rule.

There is an "open market" between GE and GE's competitors. There is no "open market" within GE unless GE wants there to be.

There are other data points than what the NFL is currently offering players versus what other pro football leagues are offering players. The NFL offered something different to players like Newton and Mare just last year, so my comparisons aren't arbitrary.

The whole point about Newton playing somewhere else just isn't relevant. The NFL is saying "We're going to try to accomplish X by doing Y." I'm arguing that Y doesn't in fact accomplish X. Whatever the NFL decides to pay players is by definition the most they can earn from their trade; I'm not trying to argue that Newton could make more elsewhere. That's not the sense of the term "worth more" that I'm using.

[DarthMonk]

NFL rules apply only within the NFL. The NFL is the business, not the team. In reality, the NFL is offering them $5 million, not the team. They are free to go anywhere outside the NFL and get a better offer. The NFL is competing for talent in an open market and no one but the NFL is "restricted" to five million.

To say that it's not fair because he can't earn what he's worth between teams is flawed because the NFL is the business. I was illustrating that with my GE example. If GE decides that a fresh college grad across GE is worth no more then $40K a year and applies it across GE, that isn't restricting the person's ability to get more then $40K anywhere but within GE. If GE can make it stick and get the talent they want, it works. If not, they have to reassess the rule.

There is an "open market" between GE and GE's competitors. There is no "open market" within GE unless GE wants there to be.

The flaw in the analogy. Clear as mud. +1

Mare is getting paid more than Newton

Panthers agreed to terms with free agent kicker Olindo Mare on a four-year, $12 million contract ...

Cam Newton's four-year deal is worth more than $22 million and is fully guaranteed ...



... not that it even matters.

DarthMonk

[KazooSkinsFan]

The whole point about Newton playing somewhere else just isn't relevant. The NFL is saying "We're going to try to accomplish X by doing Y." I'm arguing that Y doesn't in fact accomplish X. Whatever the NFL decides to pay players is by definition the most they can earn from their trade; I'm not trying to argue that Newton could make more elsewhere. That's not the sense of the term "worth more" that I'm using.

The problem the NFL has is that there are multiple inherent conflicts.

One is between the league making the most overall money and the teams wanting to make the most money for themselves. But if you swing too far towards the teams ability to pay whatever they want, then small market teams probably won't survive and if they do they will be completely uncompetitive. That in turn would hurt the big market teams because they would have less and more inferior competition. On the other hand big market teams are going to try to skirt any system of rules as much as they can.

It's not just the owners, but for the players there is competition between the 1-a players and the rest. If there are uncompetitive smaller market teams then there will be fewer jobs available. And if they hurt the league it hurts the best player salaries too. So they also both want and don't want the restrictions.

And there is conflict between vets and rookies. Rookies are unproven and there are so many busts who take millions out of the pot and don't make any real contribution.

But the bottom line is the NFL wants collectively the most revenue. So it creates an internal market for players between teams that has rules to try to create that, but the conflicts mean people also endlessly try to skirt the rules.

If you're arguing that means that players aren't always paid for performance compared to each other then I agree. But I don't see an actual solution to the problem. I think these move, counter move rule changes are going to be endless.

[Irn-Bru]

Mare is getting paid more than Newton

Panthers agreed to terms with free agent kicker Olindo Mare on a four-year, $12 million contract ...

Cam Newton's four-year deal is worth more than $22 million and is fully guaranteed ...



... not that it even matters.

DarthMonk

I haven't even studied their contracts. See the first post in this thread; I admit I am just going off of what the profootballreference blogger writes. I do think he's a trustworthy source, though.

[DarthMonk]

An interesting twist:

New CBA Gives Trade Chart More Relevance

Published March 4, 2012
By Charlie Campbell - @draftcampbell

The NFL Draft trade chart has been in use for over 20 years after former Dallas Cowboys head coach Jimmy Johnson developed it in the early 1990s. Over the years, the chart increased in relevance and consideration before losing influence for top five picks in the past decade because of the massive size of the contracts that went to first few selections. As a result of the contracts that were being required to sign top draft picks, teams did not want to trade up into the top five of the NFL Draft.

The NFL adopted a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) last summer with a rookie wage scale that limits the size of the contracts at the top of the draft, so the trade chart has renewed relevance for the hight picks in the first round. In speaking with one executive of a top-10 team, he agreed that the trade chart was more useful and viable for the top five picks because of the new CBA. The executive said that with the new acceptable contracts that rookies get the trade chart may even undervalue picks in the top five. Certainly the St. Louis Rams would feel that way as they want more for the second-overall pick than what the trade chart would require.

Sources in NFL front offices said that the chart has always been a useful tool for the other 245-250 picks, but the new CBA restores the relevance for the top five of the NFL Draft. The last time there was a trade involving top-five picks was in 2004 with the Giants acquiring Eli Manning, but 2012 should be the year to end the drought. The Rams have a lot of trade speculation surrounding them as they sit with the second-overall pick and already have a franchise quarterback. With multiple teams in need of a young quarterback and Baylor's Robert Griffin III expected to be available, St. Louis expected to move down and acquire more picks to rebuild its roster.

The Rams could use the trade chart, but if they believe that the chart undervalues top-five picks, they will seek to get more for the rights to select Griffin. Cleveland, Washington and Miami may have to give up multiple first-round picks over a few drafts. Beyond the Rams, the Vikings (third overall) or Buccaneers (fifth overall) could aim to move down. Thanks to the new CBA restoring sanity to rookie contracts, it is now viable for teams to move into the top five. The NFL Draft will definitely benefit with more excitement if teams resume trading for top-five picks.

DarthMonk

[Irn-Bru]

I suspect that the top 5 picks will be overvalued now, relative to what they would have been with a better agreement in place.

It was really the top 5 (or maybe top 10) picks and pay rates that were broken before. The "fix" was so severe that getting #1 pick talent is a bargain. (See Newton, Cam.)

Good for the Skins, of course, if we can land RGIII.

[PickSixerTWSS]

Didn't Cam Newton get something absolutley ridicalous like 6-years-$72 million doallars or something like that?

[1niksder]

Didn't Cam Newton get something absolutley ridicalous like 6-years-$72 million doallars or something like that?

Cam Newton's four-year deal is worth more than $22 million and is fully guaranteed ...

DarthMonk