I saw a mini discussion in the Luck #1 thread and figured it'd be something worth going over on a larger scale. What do you guys think would be a fair way to institute a rookie pay scale? I was thinking that basing it on the NBA system wouldn't be terrible, but it would have to be a bit more slanted towards the players so it wouldn't be quite such a massive change. Four year contracts for first round picks, with Restricted Free Agency after the fourth year seems right to me. That would pretty much mean that a team could keep their guy for five years (signing the tender) before he hits UFA. I was going to say three year initial contracts, but that seems like such a short time to have a top ten or so guy locked up. I don't think it'd be right to make a year barrier anywhere in the middle of the round, because the guy that goes #5 overall is just as important to that team as any other team's first round pick. Does that sound fair? Are there other ideas out there, because I haven't heard anything from anyone about possibilities.
I think the contracts should just be more incentive based than what they already are. Just have a base salary for each round and then depending on the accomplishments of that player throughout the course of their contract they receive certain bonuses
Well with after the first 15 picks no one really gets paid an amount that needs to be changed. With that being said I'm not sure what the best system would be to change the pay scale. Keep in mind that as long as the new CBA has a salary cap floor and ceiling both the owners and players association have little incentive to maximize rookie salaries and both sides have already made this clear. No rookie is going to sign a 5 or 6 year contract that isn't a huge contract so it would push the contracts back towards 3 and 4 years similar to 2nd round picks.
In my eyes, I don't understand why the players don't hate the lack of a pay scale. Since so much money is given to rookies every year, there is less money to pay the proven superstars drafted in the middle rounds who are currently FA's. terrible teams picking in the top 5-10 have an inability to pay top free agents, or even sign their own guys because they have to comitt $20-$50 million dollars in guaranteed money to an untested rookie. If the top overall pick only gets $20 million guaranteed, teams have the ability to spend more on FA's. I would like to see a slotting system, where no matter what position you play, if you are drafted in slot A, you receive contract A. If you are drafted in slot B, you receive contract B. First round contracts would be 4 years, with a team option for a fifth year, where the 5th year would be worth 1.5 times their normal base salary of the original 4 years, or 12 million dollars. Whichever is cheaper. All other rounds would be 3 year deals with a team option for a 4th year at 1.5 times the original salary. The question in my mind would be the starting point of the contracts of round 1. I would think something along the lines of the first overall pick would be $35 million in base salary, can reach $50 million based on incentives (incentives are the choice of the team, as would be how likely they are to reach those. Think of Brick's incentives for blocked punts in 2016, or Gholstons 8.9 million dollar incentive for a sack/fumble recovery this year) with $20 million in guarantees. With each successive pick, the money would decrease both in base salaries, total salary with incentives, and guaranteed money. As we reach the middle of round 1, things are easier to currently swallow, but if the top keeps spiraling out of control, the middle and eventually the back of the round will become more difficult to stomach. I think players would be in favor of it, because it opens up more money to be spent on them when they reach FA. They also reach FA a year earlier, teams enjoy it because if they get a great player and can't restructure before the end of year 4, there is a team option to keep the great players around at what is still (based on today's standards) a reasonable price of $12 million. If the player is a bust, then they aren't set back for a decade (particularly if a QB bombs out) and the team can cut ties earlier on without eating a ton of cap space. I don't see a problem with a pay scale for incoming rookies, for anybody except the incoming rookies. Unfortunately for the future rookies, they dont have any say right now, only the NFL players have any say. My idea may not be the best solution, but there has to be a better solution to the problem than what is currently in existence.
It really sucks for a team to eat up cap space on a guy who potentially learns on the sidelines for 2 seasons without taking the field. But I guess the crux of the debate is: Where do you even begin setting the standard? Are the salaries the players drafted in the middle of round 1 get now, what the top 5 picks should get in the future? Should future top 5 picks get what the back end of round 1 get now? That's why the player's union will fight it.
Agree 100%. Drawing the line and setting the standard for future rookie contracts is where a big problem lies. Finding a pay scale system that will appease the players and the owners is easier said than done.
The owners and the players association are both looking to bring the pay scale for rookies down to a reasonable amount. Both sides agree that what the top 15 players are getting paid is a joke and it will not happen again. The union is fine with this as long as their is a salary cap ceiling and floor that guarantees that a team is spending a certain amount every season. The players association just wants that money reallocated from 22 year old rookies to 26 year old proven players.
I agree with this... hope they get it fixed in time for next years draft. The biggest argument is how long the contract should be. IMO 3 years + 4th year option that's like a 50% increase of the salary + a 5th year option that's like the avg of the top 10 at the position (sort of an extendned franchise tag).
If you lower contracts significantly then you also have to reduce the length. I would say 3 year contracts with year of restricted free agency and then after 4 full seasons you're a true unrestricted free agent. Similar to a lot of the current 2nd round picks. The top players from the draft will get paid for actually proving themselves on the field after 3 years as opposed to paying them based on where they drafted.
only the rookies drafted in the top 15 get paid exorbiant amounts of money. all of the money is being given to untested rookies, rather than veterans who have earned the right of getting a big pay check.
An idea: First QB selected gets the NFL average salary - all 32 starting QB's salaries averaged together. This number would go to Andrew Luck. The next quarterback (say Cam Newton for example) gets Andrew Luck's salary number minus 15%. Next qb taken gets Cam Newton's number minus 15%. So on... EDIT: Did some math. Got a list of the cap numbers for this season of the 32 starting QB's. Averaged out it came to 8.1 million cap hit / season. QB1 would get $8.1 million/year QB2 would get $6.9 million/year QB3 would get $5.9 million/year QB4 would get $5.1 million/year QB5 would get $4.4 million/year etc etc
A decent idea but if the dropoff between QBs was large then it wouldn't really make sense. Say, from Flacco to Henne lol
Maybe you can do it numerically from #1 to #32 in the first round. #1 gets the NFL average, every slot down gets -2% 1) QB = 32 NFL QB averaged salaries 2) WR = Top 32 NFL WR averaged salaries less 2% 3) DE = Top 32 NFL DE averaged salaries less 4% 4) S = Top 32 NFL S averaged salaries less 6% 5) QB .... less 8% ... 32) QB .... less 62%
What about the way the NHL does it where there is a maximum set? I think the max an NHL rookie can make in their first 3 years is like 1.5 million. Which would be around 4-5 million in the NFL. After that they earn their money.
