The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

GSPODS wrote:

aswas71788 wrote:Football players come under the same heading as actors, corporate CEO's, Doctors and celebrities. They negotiate a salary based on thier preceived value.

There is a limitation currently in place, the salary cap. The salary cap limits how much each team can spend on player salaries. How they choose to spend it is strictly up to the team.

That analogy makes no sense. I can hire anyone I choose as an actor, as C.E.O., a doctor, or a celebrity. I can hire the experienced, grizzled veteran, or I can hire the rookie in any of those fields. And I can either agree to pay, or disagree to pay the negotiated price. If I disagree, I can move on to another option.

If the NFL draft, you can only hire the rookie. A team can't say they don't want the rookie and trade their draft pick for a veteran, unless another team agrees to make the deal. And a team can't waive their right to draft a player, although the league can waive that right for them, i.e. New England. A team can forfeit their pick in several ways, but that is a different issue.

If an NFL team had the option of saying, "We have the number one pick but we are going to select a seventh rounder and pay him like a seventh rounder", then your analogy would make sense. But if a team has the first pick in the draft, it doesn't matter who they select. Whoever the team selects as the #1 pick is getting number 1 pick money.

It is not analogous to open, equal opportunity hiring, where a team can interview everyone they choose from rookies to seasoned veterans and then hire the person they best feel meets their needs. That can be done in every other business, and in every other phase of the NFL except the draft.

Sports is a special case. Sports does things that would not be allowed anywhere else.

True that a team can only draft a rookie. But the team is not required to pay the salary that is being asked for by the agent. That is a negotiation between the team and the agent/rookie. The team has the option of letting the rookie sit out the year. In the past there have been players that have not played because the team declined to pay the demand. Granted, it is rare although hold-outs are common now. A team can trade away thier pick, if they can find someone to trade with. The Redskins did it twice in the last draft.

Teams can spend their money however they llike, as long as they do not exceed the salary cap. If the NFL/teams want to change the situation, they are going to have to change the way they do business. It can be done but will be very, very difficult.

Right now contracts in the NFL mean nothing. Players sign long term (5 year +) contracts and then want them renegotiated or terminated a year or two later. Right or wrong, teams can let a player go for any reason.

I sincerely hope that Cincinnati sticks to their guns and lets Ocho Cinco sit out the year.

I think John Manfreda has a point with the youth of NFL rookies. It doesn't explain all discrepancies, but it is true that good, young talent simply is far more valuable in th NFL than even-better-but-old talent.

I believe I read that Gooddell is behind this movement as well. He makes a valid point that the NFLPA's members should really consider seriously.

Most of the members of the NFLPA are making far less than the incumbant rookies for the same position.

It's not fair to the existing players that a first round pick should make more in garunteed money than half the team for the year without showing he's worth that money.

The owners should certainly be behind it because for the obvious reasons of first rounders who don't pan out, yet still get a $30mil pay-day.

It shouldn't be a question about whether a team can afford it, they usually can, it's a question about whether he should get a huge pay-day based on his potential, not his performance.

Didn't the NBA do something like this (cap limits on rookies) and hasn't it worked out pretty well for them?

John Manfreda wrote:

Fios wrote:

aswas71788 wrote:A first year doctor who is a surgeon gets paid much, much more than an experienced GP. A new neurosurgron will get much, much, much more than either of the above. A specialty for Dr's is the same difference as being a lineman vs a running back or quarterback.

Fios wrote:

aswas71788 wrote:Football players come under the same heading as actors, corporate CEO's, Doctors and celebrities. They negotiate a salary based on thier preceived value.

There is a limitation currently in place, the salary cap. The salary cap limits how much each team can spend on player salaries. How they choose to spend it is strictly up to the team.

Save that in each of those fields, a lack of experience does not translate into a big payday. They are paid well, yes, but as the ads say, salary is commensurate with experience. A first-year doctor isn't making more than an experienced physician.

That's apples to oranges. An experienced neurosurgeon makes much more than a second-year neurosurgeon. A star with a track record of successful films makes more than an actor in his second flick. The question never was one of specialty, it's a question of experience.

What about the Kids from the movie Friday Night Lights they didn't have experience, here's another one Rugby, another Baseball, those Draft picks can make crap loads of money before they even step on the field in the minor leagues. Sports is diffrent from buisness, sports u can't do it for a long time, being young is a benifit in sports as in the real world experience is the benifactor, because u can be a surgen for a long time. U can't be a lineman or a Rb, even a Qb for twenty years. Rugby they will pay a boat load for young players that haven't played professionally, why because there young, in sports teams one would rather have youth than age. In sports you pay for youth in buisness you pay for experience, youth in sports is the equivialent to experience in law, medicine, buisness. In sports u pay big bucks for potential. U don't pay a lot of money for a 33 year old with lots of experience in sports because he won't be able to do it much longer.

No one ever made the argument that we should give a boatload to aging veterans so I'm not certain how that's relevant. The kids from 'Friday Night Lights' make a helluva lot less than established actors. This isn't a move to discredit or undervalue youth, it's a question of bringing the system a bit more in-line with what might be considered equitable. Baseball has no salary cap so it isn't a relevant comparison and other professional sports simply aren't drawing from anywhere near the same revenue pool so, again, the comparison doesn't hold. And let's keep in mind we're discussing salaries that are way out of proportion with average incomes anyway, I'm not buying the notion that limiting a rookie's salary to X millions as opposed to Y millions is an undue economic burden.

Bottom line, it doesn't matter what profession you're talking about, the salary structure is always based on experience and performance. Rookies have to make a big jump to the NFl which is why many of them struggle. There many reasons why the NFL needs to adopt a policy like the NBA where every draft pick gets a predetermined salary.

1.) A huge contract puts a lot of stress on a 21-22 yr. old kid who still has to learn how to be a professional football player. It could be said it is a hindrance to the proper development of many young players.
2) A players union should want to protect its veteran players better by making sure they get paid properly for their performance. If every team HAS to hand out huge contracts to draftees then there is less money left for solid veterans and pro-bowlers who really deserve it.
3) Every year numerous rookies hold out of camp because they want more money. Players agents use a hold-out as leverage because they know how it hurts the team and the perception of the team by its fans. This is not a good situation for anyone involved.
4) Rookies often get pushed into starting roles because of the money they're paid. This is not a good situation either. Players should earn their right to start. It doesn't promote the sport or the team very well if the 7th year veteran bust his rear end and out plays a rookie solidly, only to watch the rookie start. It doesn't send the right message to the fans or the players.

The Commissioner and Players Union REALLY need to work out some sort of system where the 1st pick = x$, 2nd pick = y$, 3rd pick = z$ etc. They can structure it with some incentives that pay bonuses for number of starts, pro-bowl and things of that sort. But there is no way that it makes sense to let the agents keep driving up the prices of rookies to the detriment of all the veterans and the game itself.

fleetus wrote:Bottom line, it doesn't matter what profession you're talking about, the salary structure is always based on experience and performance.

Maybe in some cases, but in many others it's based on the perceived value that a person adds to an organization. And in the NFL, young hot talent adds quite a bit of value to an organization. Some players, such as Michael Vick, are worth those contracts because they add 4-5 wins to a franchise's record almost on their own.

It varies depending on what player we're talking about, what organization we're talking about, and numerous other details. In this debate, blanket statements are problematic.

fleetus wrote:4) Rookies often get pushed into starting roles because of the money they're paid. This is not a good situation either. Players should earn their right to start. It doesn't promote the sport or the team very well if the 7th year veteran bust his rear end and out plays a rookie solidly, only to watch the rookie start. It doesn't send the right message to the fans or the players.

While I agree that some rookies do start too early, other rookies or young players have to be able to play over veterans who would probably perform slightly better. Otherwise, the young players will never learn, develop, etc. This is especially true for quarterbacks and wide receivers, where the learning curve often guarantees a few hard years of little production from young players.

fleetus wrote:The Commissioner and Players Union REALLY need to work out some sort of system where the 1st pick = x$, 2nd pick = y$, 3rd pick = z$ etc. They can structure it with some incentives that pay bonuses for number of starts, pro-bowl and things of that sort.

In my opinion, there are several problems with that:

(1) Teams structure contracts differently. A first pick cannot equal $X because some teams may only be able to offer $X-Y or may want to give the rookie incentive to stay longer and so offer him $X+Z. This gets even more complicated when incentives and bonuses are introduced---not to mention the fact that teams "weight" contracts differently (i.e., front-loading or backloading, large contracts vs. guaranteed money, and so on).

(2) Different positions rightly command different salaries in the NFL. Quarterback is such a difficult and specialized position that the best QBs will always make more than the best TEs and FBs. Your system doesn't recognize the value of different positions.

(3) Teams are franchises for a reason; they function within limits and rules set up by the league but they are for the most part allowed to run the team the way that they want. Would the league be nearly as enjoyable if the central NFL office ran all personnel and draft decisions? Creating set contracts for incoming rookies is a rather large step in this direction and undesirable on that count.

Irn-Bru wrote:

fleetus wrote:Bottom line, it doesn't matter what profession you're talking about, the salary structure is always based on experience and performance.

Maybe in some cases, but in many others it's based on the perceived value that a person adds to an organization. And in the NFL, young hot talent adds quite a bit of value to an organization. Some players, such as Michael Vick, are worth those contracts because they add 4-5 wins to a franchise's record almost on their own.

It varies depending on what player we're talking about, what organization we're talking about, and numerous other details. In this debate, blanket statements are problematic.

fleetus wrote:4) Rookies often get pushed into starting roles because of the money they're paid. This is not a good situation either. Players should earn their right to start. It doesn't promote the sport or the team very well if the 7th year veteran bust his rear end and out plays a rookie solidly, only to watch the rookie start. It doesn't send the right message to the fans or the players.

While I agree that some rookies do start too early, other rookies or young players have to be able to play over veterans who would probably perform slightly better. Otherwise, the young players will never learn, develop, etc. This is especially true for quarterbacks and wide receivers, where the learning curve often guarantees a few hard years of little production from young players.

fleetus wrote:The Commissioner and Players Union REALLY need to work out some sort of system where the 1st pick = x$, 2nd pick = y$, 3rd pick = z$ etc. They can structure it with some incentives that pay bonuses for number of starts, pro-bowl and things of that sort.

In my opinion, there are several problems with that:

(1) Teams structure contracts differently. A first pick cannot equal $X because some teams may only be able to offer $X-Y or may want to give the rookie incentive to stay longer and so offer him $X+Z. This gets even more complicated when incentives and bonuses are introduced---not to mention the fact that teams "weight" contracts differently (i.e., front-loading or backloading, large contracts vs. guaranteed money, and so on).

(2) Different positions rightly command different salaries in the NFL. Quarterback is such a difficult and specialized position that the best QBs will always make more than the best TEs and FBs. Your system doesn't recognize the value of different positions.

(3) Teams are franchises for a reason; they function within limits and rules set up by the league but they are for the most part allowed to run the team the way that they want. Would the league be nearly as enjoyable if the central NFL office ran all personnel and draft decisions? Creating set contracts for incoming rookies is a rather large step in this direction and undesirable on that count.

While many of your statements have some merit, for the most part I think you are making a simple problem needlessly complicated.

I don't care about the players "perceived value" and neither should you. They will earn the right be paid for their "perceived value" once they have played a few years so that perception is related at least in some part to reality in the NFL.

I don't care if a few rookies NEED that starting time, even though they haven't actually beaten out the veteran. If they can't beat out a better player for the job, than I have little sympathy for them. Earn a starting job = being paid like a starter, PERIOD.

I don't care if teams structure contracts differently. They do that now mostly because they have to pull some salary cap magic to fit these behemoth comtracts under their cap! It is a simple matter to tell NFL teams before the draft, PICK #57 WILL cost you $500k + $100k bonus with a 20% increase in each successive year. #58 will cost $485k and so on...

Your last point is the most valid one and I have debated this with friends for a few years now. We've talked about a system where each position would have its own scale, so a QB drafted #21 would be paid more than a FB at #21. But that gets complicated and there are some players whose positions are not so clearly defined, like DE who can play OLB in a 3-4.

So I suggest keeping it beautifully simple. You make one pay scale for every draft pick from top to bottom. Before the draft each year, every team knows exactly what each pick will cost them. This allows them to budget for the draft exactly. It also would change how teams draft certain positions. Kickers would all be drafted in the 6th or 7th round if at all. Similar to the way it is now but teams would wait even longer to draft certain positions because they would know exactly what it will cost. Safeties, FB's, TE's, Centers would be some of the positions that would rarely get drafted in the 1st round anymore, not that they get drafted that high very often now anyway. Again, who cares? So teams would only be willing to draft a player in accordance with how much they are willing to pay that player for the first 3 years. Sounds pretty fair and straight-forward to me.

Just look at the NBA. Since they adopted this policy, their headaches have disappeared and now, as soon as a player gets drafted, that players signs a contract and reports for practice. Isn't that the way it should be?

One problem with setting a pay scale for rookies is that you are likely going to end up with shorter term contracts and that isn't necessarily a good thing for NFL teams. I could be wrong but I believe that most first rounders sign 4 or 5 year contracts. Now imagine if these players start signing 2 or 3 year contracts instead. It would be very difficult for teams to allow young players, especially qb's, to sit on the bench and learn for a year or two and instead more rookies would be starting from day 1. If Jason Campbell had singed only a 3 year contract as a rookie he would've been a free agent this off-season. With a weak free agent qb class and questionable talent at the position in the draft, I bet that a lot of teams would've been willing to throw serious money at a young qb that has shown that he is capable of performing in the NFL.

fleetus wrote:While many of your statements have some merit, for the most part I think you are making a simple problem needlessly complicated.

I'm saying that the "simple" solution that you proposed creates complicated headaches.

fleetus wrote:I don't care about the players "perceived value" and neither should you.

But the franchise definitely should---that's who I meant when I said "perceived value", after all, the "value" that the franchise "perceives" the player to be adding.

fleetus wrote:They will earn the right be paid for their "perceived value" once they have played a few years so that perception is related at least in some part to reality in the NFL.

There are several problems with this. . .not least of which is the risk of injury.

fleetus wrote:I don't care if a few rookies NEED that starting time, even though they haven't actually beaten out the veteran. If they can't beat out a better player for the job, than I have little sympathy for them. Earn a starting job = being paid like a starter, PERIOD.

I think you're missing my point here. Potential contributes to earning a job. If you and I are near the same skill level, with you having a slight edge (and since this isn't Madden that will often be a judgment call and not clear cut), then my youth can help me EARN the spot because of my upside.

fleetus wrote:I don't care if teams structure contracts differently. They do that now mostly because they have to pull some salary cap magic to fit these behemoth comtracts under their cap! It is a simple matter to tell NFL teams before the draft, PICK #57 WILL cost you $500k + $100k bonus with a 20% increase in each successive year. #58 will cost $485k and so on...

So the alternative that you propose just means that we'll have the same bonanza just one year later. How does that solve the problem? Unless we lock these players into contracts and say "you're not allowed to play anywhere else. . ."

fleetus wrote:Just look at the NBA. Since they adopted this policy, their headaches have disappeared and now, as soon as a player gets drafted, that players signs a contract and reports for practice. Isn't that the way it should be?

Not necessarily. It's interesting that you bring up the NBA, because incidentally they do not suffer from the complexities that make your system unworkable in the NFL. . .It might work for a 10-man roster, but for a 50-man roster this is one hell of a stretch.

I say keep it simple. Adopt a rookie salary cap if you must, but leave the assigned values out of it. That would only make things less equitable than they are now.

Irn-Bru wrote:

fleetus wrote:While many of your statements have some merit, for the most part I think you are making a simple problem needlessly complicated.

I'm saying that the "simple" solution that you proposed creates complicated headaches.

fleetus wrote:I don't care about the players "perceived value" and neither should you.

But the franchise definitely should---that's who I meant when I said "perceived value", after all, the "value" that the franchise "perceives" the player to be adding.

fleetus wrote:They will earn the right be paid for their "perceived value" once they have played a few years so that perception is related at least in some part to reality in the NFL.

There are several problems with this. . .not least of which is the risk of injury.

fleetus wrote:I don't care if a few rookies NEED that starting time, even though they haven't actually beaten out the veteran. If they can't beat out a better player for the job, than I have little sympathy for them. Earn a starting job = being paid like a starter, PERIOD.

I think you're missing my point here. Potential contributes to earning a job. If you and I are near the same skill level, with you having a slight edge (and since this isn't Madden that will often be a judgment call and not clear cut), then my youth can help me EARN the spot because of my upside.

fleetus wrote:I don't care if teams structure contracts differently. They do that now mostly because they have to pull some salary cap magic to fit these behemoth comtracts under their cap! It is a simple matter to tell NFL teams before the draft, PICK #57 WILL cost you $500k + $100k bonus with a 20% increase in each successive year. #58 will cost $485k and so on...

So the alternative that you propose just means that we'll have the same bonanza just one year later. How does that solve the problem? Unless we lock these players into contracts and say "you're not allowed to play anywhere else. . ."

fleetus wrote:Just look at the NBA. Since they adopted this policy, their headaches have disappeared and now, as soon as a player gets drafted, that players signs a contract and reports for practice. Isn't that the way it should be?

Not necessarily. It's interesting that you bring up the NBA, because incidentally they do not suffer from the complexities that make your system unworkable in the NFL. . .It might work for a 10-man roster, but for a 50-man roster this is one hell of a stretch.

I say keep it simple. Adopt a rookie salary cap if you must, but leave the assigned values out of it. That would only make things less equitable than they are now.

They only way to keep it simple & fair is to let market forces work.

CanesSkins26 wrote:One problem with setting a pay scale for rookies is that you are likely going to end up with shorter term contracts and that isn't necessarily a good thing for NFL teams. I could be wrong but I believe that most first rounders sign 4 or 5 year contracts. Now imagine if these players start signing 2 or 3 year contracts instead. It would be very difficult for teams to allow young players, especially qb's, to sit on the bench and learn for a year or two and instead more rookies would be starting from day 1. If Jason Campbell had singed only a 3 year contract as a rookie he would've been a free agent this off-season. With a weak free agent qb class and questionable talent at the position in the draft, I bet that a lot of teams would've been willing to throw serious money at a young qb that has shown that he is capable of performing in the NFL.

What's the difference? most of them want the contracts renegotiated in 2 yers anyway.

John Manfreda wrote:

Fios wrote:

aswas71788 wrote:A first year doctor who is a surgeon gets paid much, much more than an experienced GP. A new neurosurgron will get much, much, much more than either of the above. A specialty for Dr's is the same difference as being a lineman vs a running back or quarterback.

Fios wrote:

aswas71788 wrote:Football players come under the same heading as actors, corporate CEO's, Doctors and celebrities. They negotiate a salary based on thier preceived value.

There is a limitation currently in place, the salary cap. The salary cap limits how much each team can spend on player salaries. How they choose to spend it is strictly up to the team.

Save that in each of those fields, a lack of experience does not translate into a big payday. They are paid well, yes, but as the ads say, salary is commensurate with experience. A first-year doctor isn't making more than an experienced physician.

That's apples to oranges. An experienced neurosurgeon makes much more than a second-year neurosurgeon. A star with a track record of successful films makes more than an actor in his second flick. The question never was one of specialty, it's a question of experience.

What about the Kids from the movie Friday Night Lights they didn't have experience, here's another one Rugby, another Baseball, those Draft picks can make crap loads of money before they even step on the field in the minor leagues. Sports is diffrent from buisness, sports u can't do it for a long time, being young is a benifit in sports as in the real world experience is the benifactor, because u can be a surgen for a long time. U can't be a lineman or a Rb, even a Qb for twenty years. Rugby they will pay a boat load for young players that haven't played professionally, why because there young, in sports teams one would rather have youth than age. In sports you pay for youth in buisness you pay for experience, youth in sports is the equivialent to experience in law, medicine, buisness. In sports u pay big bucks for potential. U don't pay a lot of money for a 33 year old with lots of experience in sports because he won't be able to do it much longer.

Awh my friend, I think you have hit the nail on the head. I bow to your logic as it is probably the best so far. No sarcasm intended.

ey needs to become the player's rep and then go and explain to the Player's Association that they need to get these salaries for these rookie players and players with little experience but a ton of potential in line with what he is suggesting.

Every interview I have heard recently about this has been that the Player's Association is NOT in favor of what ey is suggesting. Fact is the player's think that these rookie salaries only help their own salaries because teams will pay them more.

I totally agree that the rookie salaries are out of whack and I would love to see more contracts signed that reward the player for playing well after he has played well not before - but you also need to factor in that there are no guarantees given to players.

not an easy one to solve but both sides have too much to lose to not sign another agreement and it will not be far off the status quo.

CanesSkins26 wrote:One problem with setting a pay scale for rookies is that you are likely going to end up with shorter term contracts and that isn't necessarily a good thing for NFL teams. I could be wrong but I believe that most first rounders sign 4 or 5 year contracts. Now imagine if these players start signing 2 or 3 year contracts instead. It would be very difficult for teams to allow young players, especially qb's, to sit on the bench and learn for a year or two and instead more rookies would be starting from day 1. If Jason Campbell had singed only a 3 year contract as a rookie he would've been a free agent this off-season. With a weak free agent qb class and questionable talent at the position in the draft, I bet that a lot of teams would've been willing to throw serious money at a young qb that has shown that he is capable of performing in the NFL.

It actually benefits franchises to sign draft picks to three year contracts. The reason being that a three year player is a restricted free agent, whereas a four year player is an unrestricted free agent. Teams benefit from a player being an Exclusive Rights Free Agent or a Restricted Free Agent. Players benefit from being Unrestricted Free Agents.

I don't see a simple resolution on this point, because owners and players are at completely opposite ends of the spectrum, and the current CBA doesn't seem to have a happy medium, nor does a happy medium seem to exist in any form.

If draft picks are forced to sign capped contracts, there is no question they will not bargain on being unrestricted free agents once the initial contract expires.

aswas71788 wrote:A first year doctor who is a surgeon gets paid much, much more than an experienced GP. A new neurosurgron will get much, much, much more than either of the above. A specialty for Dr's is the same difference as being a lineman vs a running back or quarterback.

That's a ridiculous comparison. Of course they get paid more, because: (1) there's a talent gap, as it's far more difficult to be accepted into a neurosurgery residency than a GP residency; (2) there's a training difference in that an internal med residency is usually 3 years, whereas it's at least 7 years for neurosurgery (disregarding the almost mandatory post-residency fellowship year or two for neurosurgeons).

If you take two med school classmates, one a neurosurgeon and one a GP, the neurosurgeon is (99.9% of the time) the smarter/more driven one. Then, when the GP is out in year 4, in private practice and actually making money, the neurosurgeon is still a baby-doc, with at least 3 more years (and more likely 5 more years) of training before they can actually earn any money.

That's not the case here. Jake Long, without having stepped foot on an NFL field, makes more than any offensive lineman in the NFL. How does that make any sense? Going back to manfreda's ridiculously shallow comment about driving sales, can you honestly make a straight-faced argument that Jake Long will drive more sales/business than an established star lineman like Steve Hutchinson or Orlando Pace?

PulpExposure wrote:can you honestly make a straight-faced argument that Jake Long will drive more sales/business than an established star lineman like Steve Hutchinson or Orlando Pace?

Or a quarterback like Peyton Manning or Tom Brady, both of whom are now making less than Jake Long.

GSPODS wrote:Or a quarterback like Peyton Manning or Tom Brady, both of whom are now making less than Jake Long.

(Although, you know that Manning is just raking in endorsement money. That guy is in ever TV / Magazine ad that I see. . .)

I find the whole argument amusing. Poor Chris feels the compensation system isn't fair. I got news for Chris...even the league minimum is 7-10 times more than the average salary of folks who actually work for a living in this country. And that paltry signing bonus of $600,000 (paid up front) that Ole Chris had to get by on would take the average guy 16 YEARS to earn.

To really put things into perspective, Chris made 1,730,000 (including the signing bonus) in his first three years. The average income in the US is 37,000. It would take the average Joe making 37K a total of 46 YEARS to earn that much money....with no 30 Mil bonus contract waiting for average joe at the end.

I like Chris y, and he is a fine player, but if I had a tomato, and was close enough during that conversation, he'd better be ducking. There are a 100 Million Americans going to work everyday that would love to have his money problems, and 2 Billion more world wide who envy the average joe making 37K.

News flash for Chirs y.....sometimes life just ain't very fair.

To add proper perspective, Chris makes more per year than most NFL Hall Of Famer's made in their entire careers

RayNAustin wrote:I find the whole argument amusing. Poor Chris feels the compensation system isn't fair. I got news for Chris...even the league minimum is 7-10 times more than the average salary of folks who actually work for a living in this country. And that paltry signing bonus of $600,000 (paid up front) that Ole Chris had to get by on would take the average guy 16 YEARS to earn.

To really put things into perspective, Chris made 1,730,000 (including the signing bonus) in his first three years. The average income in the US is 37,000. It would take the average Joe making 37K a total of 46 YEARS to earn that much money....with no 30 Mil bonus contract waiting for average joe at the end.

I like Chris y, and he is a fine player, but if I had a tomato, and was close enough during that conversation, he'd better be ducking. There are a 100 Million Americans going to work everyday that would love to have his money problems, and 2 Billion more world wide who envy the average joe making 37K.

News flash for Chirs y.....sometimes life just ain't very fair.

Wow, you totally missed the arguement!

Chris isn't crying his way to the bank about how the rookies are making more money than himself.

He's pointing out that the rookies are getting paid more money than anyone else on the team BEFORE anyone even knows if they can even play.

That be like hiring a person with NO EXPIRIENCE for a job and paying them more than someone who's been on the job for 6 years.

It doesn't work in any other job market except for sports players.

Bob 0119 wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:I find the whole argument amusing. Poor Chris feels the compensation system isn't fair. I got news for Chris...even the league minimum is 7-10 times more than the average salary of folks who actually work for a living in this country. And that paltry signing bonus of $600,000 (paid up front) that Ole Chris had to get by on would take the average guy 16 YEARS to earn.

To really put things into perspective, Chris made 1,730,000 (including the signing bonus) in his first three years. The average income in the US is 37,000. It would take the average Joe making 37K a total of 46 YEARS to earn that much money....with no 30 Mil bonus contract waiting for average joe at the end.

I like Chris y, and he is a fine player, but if I had a tomato, and was close enough during that conversation, he'd better be ducking. There are a 100 Million Americans going to work everyday that would love to have his money problems, and 2 Billion more world wide who envy the average joe making 37K.

News flash for Chirs y.....sometimes life just ain't very fair.

Wow, you totally missed the arguement!

Chris isn't crying his way to the bank about how the rookies are making more money than himself.

He's pointing out that the rookies are getting paid more money than anyone else on the team BEFORE anyone even knows if they can even play.

That be like hiring a person with NO EXPIRIENCE for a job and paying them more than someone who's been on the job for 6 years.

It doesn't work in any other job market except for sports players.

Yeah, this is about the NFL salary structure and how a disproportionately large amount of money goes to the rookies each year. All NFL players make more than the avg. Joe, so what. That's not the point.

It needs to be fixed. I think most of the fans and media agree that it is an obvious problem. I routinely hear sports radio ask why the NFL hasn't adopted an NBA fixed rookie contract system yet. It is becoming similar to the BCS argument, where 90% of the fans want one thing and the establishment is not changing it.

Bob 0119 wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:I find the whole argument amusing. Poor Chris feels the compensation system isn't fair. I got news for Chris...even the league minimum is 7-10 times more than the average salary of folks who actually work for a living in this country. And that paltry signing bonus of $600,000 (paid up front) that Ole Chris had to get by on would take the average guy 16 YEARS to earn.

To really put things into perspective, Chris made 1,730,000 (including the signing bonus) in his first three years. The average income in the US is 37,000. It would take the average Joe making 37K a total of 46 YEARS to earn that much money....with no 30 Mil bonus contract waiting for average joe at the end.

I like Chris y, and he is a fine player, but if I had a tomato, and was close enough during that conversation, he'd better be ducking. There are a 100 Million Americans going to work everyday that would love to have his money problems, and 2 Billion more world wide who envy the average joe making 37K.

News flash for Chirs y.....sometimes life just ain't very fair.

Wow, you totally missed the arguement!

Chris isn't crying his way to the bank about how the rookies are making more money than himself.

He's pointing out that the rookies are getting paid more money than anyone else on the team BEFORE anyone even knows if they can even play.

That be like hiring a person with NO EXPIRIENCE for a job and paying them more than someone who's been on the job for 6 years.

It doesn't work in any other job market except for sports players.

Bull. The whole flipping world works that way!! In fact, it's hard to find a situation that doesn't work that way anymore. Go get a degree at Harvard or Yale University, apply for a business management position (zero work experience) and you'll be hired at a much higher salary than a current employee at that company who carries a degree from the community college that has been working there for years. The Ivy league degree just carries a greater "perceived" value but the actual person could turn out to be a total loser. Is that fair? No. It's just the way things work.

The entire NFL compensation structure is just a microcosm of the backasswards economic system we all are forced to endure....and fairness has nothing to do with any of it.

One particularly glaring parallel between the NFL and real world is how a small handful of the top paid players receive the disproportionate amount of the overall salary for each team. Where oh where does that happen outside the NFL? Everywhere, that's where.

We see established star players being released in order to cut salary costs, and the same thing happens in private industry everyday.

The only way you are going to find salary fairness anywhere is either being a blue collar union worker paid on a scale or work a minimum wage job (universal slave wage). Everywhere else, inequity is the rule...not the exception.

What's fair about a food distributor that makes ten times the profit on the food a farmer produced? 25 years ago corporate executives were paid 3-5 times that of the worker in the same company....today they're paid 100 times....500 times more. This isn't a direct analogy, just another example of inequity.

Some of the most valuable jobs in our society are some of the lowest paid...teachers. And even within Academia, the same situation is prevalent. A fresh off the press PhD gets offered a tenured position at a University making tons more money than an adjunct professor that's been teaching there for a decade....I know, cuz I lived with one. I could list examples in every line of work, including personal experiences in three separate industries.

So much for your "It doesn't work in any other job market except for sports players" bologna. The only difference is that everyone of the NFL players, including those making the minimum earn ten times what the average Joe makes, and not a one of them have to worry about paying bills. I'm so sorry if some of them can afford 5 Ferrari's , while another can afford only 1.

As for the point, I read the piece, and he was complaining about his earnings as compared to some new rookies, explaining how it was unfair, and how he had to "EARN" his big numbers while some rookies get it before ever playing. I didn't miss the point. Obviously Chris and YOU are missing the point.... because even those figures he "earned" in his first 3 years places him in the TOP ONE PERCENT of income in the country. And if there is any point at all here, it is ALL OF THEM make way too much money for their valuable service to society, but I don't see any of them...y included, suggesting that!

The bigger problem I see is the free agent structure and the salary cap and how that is calculated and manipulated. And FA is an issue the players brought on themselves. They were greedy, and wanted a bigger piece of the pie. The results of that is what they are now complaining about. Big signing bonuses are offered for cap purposes...a cap that didn't exist until the free agency issue was forced by the players.

And all of those big, back end loaded contracts are rarely achieved. Only the most elite players ever see those big back end numbers....the rest take a pay cut or they get traded or released.

The whole thing sounds like spoiled brat syndrome. "How come he gets 10 Million and I only got 5?

Sean Taylor had it right when he said players earn "a kings ransom for playing a child's game". Every one of them.

fleetus wrote:Yeah, this is about the NFL salary structure and how a disproportionately large amount of money goes to the rookies each year. All NFL players make more than the avg. Joe, so what. That's not the point.

It needs to be fixed. I think most of the fans and media agree that it is an obvious problem. I routinely hear sports radio ask why the NFL hasn't adopted an NBA fixed rookie contract system yet. It is becoming similar to the BCS argument, where 90% of the fans want one thing and the establishment is not changing it.

That sounds familiar. Nothing more Amerikan than that, Comrade. What I find interesting is that any fans would worry about overgrown Millionaire kids who make more in a couple of years than you'll make the next 20.

Now if you said, hey, they need to stop paying these guys so much money, and charge a more affordable price for tickets, and stop raping the poor fans to make these ungrateful brats richer than King David, I'd have to agree with you.

But I don't think that is what you are saying...is it?

I can understand what ey is saying about the rookie contracts, but he basically throws Vernon Davis under bus in his blog (btw Davis had as good of a season as Shockey last season). It also does seem like ey is whining a little bit. Just replace "Jeremy Shockey" with "Chris ey" and it reads a lot differently.

RayNAustin wrote:

fleetus wrote:Yeah, this is about the NFL salary structure and how a disproportionately large amount of money goes to the rookies each year. All NFL players make more than the avg. Joe, so what. That's not the point.

It needs to be fixed. I think most of the fans and media agree that it is an obvious problem. I routinely hear sports radio ask why the NFL hasn't adopted an NBA fixed rookie contract system yet. It is becoming similar to the BCS argument, where 90% of the fans want one thing and the establishment is not changing it.

That sounds familiar. Nothing more Amerikan than that, Comrade. What I find interesting is that any fans would worry about overgrown Millionaire kids who make more in a couple of years than you'll make the next 20.

Now if you said, hey, they need to stop paying these guys so much money, and charge a more affordable price for tickets, and stop raping the poor fans to make these ungrateful brats richer than King David, I'd have to agree with you.

But I don't think that is what you are saying...is it?

Umm, this isn't politics, it is football. If you're going to (incorrectly) compare it to politics and government, then you better start with the salary cap and the draft as communist type activities first. Businesses the world over are full of rules that aren't very democratic. Bad example, and again, missing the point.