I have never been so tempted to buy an enemy jersey as when I read these words:

The NFL Combine is comparable to a strip club with owners and coaches for customers. The better the man looks running around in his spandex the more dollar bills end up on his stage. The funny thing is the onlookers at the combine are probably more excited than the creepy old man in the corner at the strip bar.

If paying that much for top picks really hurts a team, they should just trade down every year.

Obviously, it's not that simple, but you can't tell me it's ever impossible for a team to trade down. Sometimes they just can't get the value they want for the pick, in which case they're still making an rational exchange valuation.

As much as owners complain about it, they're the ones driving the system. If they simply refused to pay that much to rookies - guess what - rookie contracts would come down. It's almost the reverse of the players going on strike.

Or, heck, replace the draft with a rookie free agency. Every players gets offered contracts by every interested team, and rookies will only get paid market value.

If you think rookie salaries/bonuses should be reduced, keep in mind that they are already artificially depressed from what they would receive in a completely free-market situation, as the draft greatly reduces their bargining power by forcing them to negotiate with only one team instead of all 32.

For exasmple, note that it is not all uncommon for UDFAs to receive better contract terms than players drafted at the very end, despite being considered worse players.

(not that I want the NFL to do away with the draft, but something to consider)

re: #2

in most cases, teams that did this (trade down year after year, for less compensation than 'expected') would be absolutely crucified by their fans. a cute idea in fantasy-manager land, but it can't happen.

2/3: the problem with trading down is that if other teams don't want those picks, you're not gonna get much for the trade. The trade is supposed to reinforce parity by giving better picks to teams with worse records - if the picks at the top aren't actually better, then the draft isn't doing its job.

This is also the problem with just having free agency for rookies - the better teams would have an easier time getting rookies to sign with them (just like they do in normal free agency) so it would work against parity.

As for the owners colluding to keep rookie salaries lower, that would probably piss off the union (unnecessarily, since the cap is still the same), and also be impossible if any one owner doesn't go along. The only way to fix the problem is to write a rookie salary scale into the next CBA.

and of course, by "The trade" in the second sentence i mean "The draft". Maybe there's a point to preview after all...

I do a lot of negotiation for a living. Sometimes the price of something isn't what it is worth, but what the other guy is willing to take for it.

Here, the rookies have a certain level of expectations. These expectations are based on (1) the NFL teams' willingness to over-pay rookies in the past, and (2) their agents' over-promising in order to get the prospects to sign on. A team will have a difficult time telling a rookie he isn't worth as much as the guy taken in his slot last year (especially as the team has to sell this message through the agent who did the over-promising in the first place).

So, if a single team tries to act rationally and make a value-based offer to the rookie, he is going to feel cheated and will likely hold out. I don't know enough about the NFL's antitrust exemption whether the teams can legally agree to limit rookie salaries. And while they can clearly set a cap through a collective bargaining agreement with the union, press reports indicate that the union isn't willing to sign on to such a deal.

So, while I think Cooley is dead on, fixing the problem might be more difficult than people think.

I know this has been discussed before, but isn't just "passing" on your pick also a possibility? My understanding is that if, say, you didn't choose anyone in the ten minutes, the next team goes, but you can then make your pick whenever you want after that. Is that correct? Of course, it might make it harder to get the person you want, but I'm surprised no one has tried it yet. On purpose, at least.

I like the idea, but if you don't abolish the draft, then something has to give on the other side. I'd go with a rookie scale combined with a maximum 4-year contract, and the abolition of the Franchise tag at the end of the rookie deal. There's something for everyone there, and isn't that the basis for any successful negotiation?

Fixing the problem won't be that hard if the players want it to be fixed. The contract between the players union and the league is ratified by the owners and the current players. Rookies that are getting these deals don't have a voice, what they do have is Gene Upshaw and the agents. The massive money that is going to unproven rookies would instead go to players already in the league.

So, should it be that hard for members of the union to vote for a system that benefits them, or should they continue to support a system that greatly benefits a non-union member?

this is just another example illustrating that union leadership is out of touch with the rank and file players. Cooley should be calling Matt Stover in Baltimore and Matt Birk in Minnesota to organize a group to challenge Upshaw on these issues. It's ridiculous that the union puts aside the needs of active players to pander to the agents of incoming players.

US Sports leagues are, to my knowledge, the only ones that use a draft.

The draft is kind of enforced, simplified effort at parity. You're right in the short term that good teams will be more able to sign free agents. If a guy is offered the same money from everybody, in general he's going to sign with the best team to try and win a championship.

This overlooks the economics of the whole situation, though. Teams that are uncompetitive in this market in order to make larger profits will generally be inferior, leading to smaller fan bases and diminishing profits. These teams will struggle, their fans will stop going to games, and they will start to lose money in the long run.

The draft takes this dynamic out of the equation - bad teams can still get good players and may turn in good seasons here and there, mostly by luck of the draw. To my mind, this encourages stingy owners to not spend money to improve teams and actually hurts parity.

Look at soccer in Europe - there's no draft there, it's all free agents. And while you have some teams that tend to dominate, I would argue you generally get greater competitiveness between leading European soccer sides than you get in the NFL through drafting.

A draft system rewards teams that do not spend well by giving them a chance to succeed through sheer luck/occasional cleverness. A free agency system allows well-run teams to have prolonged success and forces bad owners out of the marketplace because their teams lose value and will eventually be bought by someone else who has money and actually knows what they're doing.

The draft is really kind of lame on the whole. It's hard to believe that in an open market Matt Millen would still have a job, for example. The Fords can keep holding on hoping he'll pull a good draft, but in the open market, if nobody wants to play for the Lions, they have to get rid of him or they'll start to feel it in the pocketbook.

If nothing else, treat the whole world as a marketplace. The draft isn't used anywhere other than in US sports leagues. It's not used in businesses, it's not used in government jobs, it's not used in universities. It is clearly an inferior system if the only place it is utilized is in places where it is forced upon the buyer.

Man, that was a lot of words.

I've said for a while that what will finally get the rookie salary system to change will be the day a team trades the #1 pick straight up for a lower pick.

Look at soccer in Europe - there’s no draft there, it’s all free agents. And while you have some teams that tend to dominate, I would argue you generally get greater competitiveness between leading European soccer sides than you get in the NFL through drafting

European soccer also has relegation. Here in the U.S., there are only three options for a bad team: Fold, move, or get better. The league doesn't like #1, nobody really likes #2, so rules are put in place to facilitate #3.

As for competitive balance, Middlesbrough was one of the founding members of the Premier League in 1902 and has never won a title. That's not untypical -- look at Newcastle United, West Ham, the Bolton Wanderers, etc.

The English Premier League is thrown off because of television numbers somewhat. It's dominated by a select number of teams not because of internal factors, but because those teams have done well and continually play in continental competitions which further increases their revenues, making it easier for them to maintain their dominance.

That dynamic doesn't exist in the NFL.

Teams don't really fold, owners are forced to sell. That's not necessarily a bad thing. And as for moving, what city is going to welcome an owner with a proven track record of failure?

European soccer also has no salary cap. I'm not proposing that here at all. Having a salary cap + total free agency means teams will not be able to just sign everybody they want, they can only sign everybody they can afford. Good players will still be available.

The NBA didnt change until '94 when top pick Glen Robinson got 68 million guaranteed. Counting in inflation, if the top pick's guaranteed money rises at 10% a year, the NFL wont be there until about 2020 or so. So it could be a while before the NFL does anything about this

re: 16

The premeir league was founded in 1992 or so, not 1902.

RE#2

"If they simply refused to pay that much to rookies - guess what - rookie contracts would come down. It’s almost the reverse of the players going on strike."

If the owners decided collectively to just stop doing it, wouldn't that be collusion?

This is also the problem with just having free agency for rookies - the better teams would have an easier time getting rookies to sign with them (just like they do in normal free agency) so it would work against parity.

I just don't think this is true. Why did Drew Brees sign with New Orleans? They were a horrible team. But, they had the cap space and they had the QB position open.

Darren McFadden is not going to sign with St.Louis or San Diego or Minnesota or Washington. Those teams already have RB's so they aren't going to bid much money to sign him. He'll go to a team that has the cap space and the roster spot.

I think the salary cap is what would be the equalizer in a no-draft system. Not like the old days when San Francisco could afford to keep Steve Young as a backup.

The rookie salary structure in the nfl will change when teams begin to make the choice to allow top draft choices to go unsigned for an entire year and re-enter the draft. Last fall, Al Davis looked like he was ready to make that decision with J. Russell, but he eventually blinked first. As it is now, most GMs will tell you that they can't get value out of the top 5 to 10 picks. If that were really true, we'd expect at least one rational front office to choose not to sign a top pick. That still hasn't happened yet. I'm not holding my breath.

It's worth bearing in mind that the European soccer set-up isn't a comparable here. No salary restrictions at all, limited revenue-sharing, with payment based partly on results, total free agency, (guaranteed by European Law), and guaranteed contracts. Add in relegation, and the likelyhood for most teams of not qualifying for the Champions League or UEFA cup, and you have a system that couldn't be more different.

Beyond that, you don't need to abolish the cap and revenue sharing to adjust rookie earnings. Again, a salary scale, 4 year max contracts and no Franchise tag ought top get this done.

It seems like a rookie salary scale would be in the best interest of teams and veteran players. The only people who would be hurt are players who are not yet in the NFL (and don't have a voice in the CBA).

The teams are hurt by paying money to players who have no value.

The veterans are hurt by earning less as a proven player than an unproven player would make.

There must be a reason why some kind of rookie scale is not part of the CBA. What could it be?

Re 21: Technically, the draft already is a violation of anti-trust laws but is exempted because of the CBA (at least according to wikipedia). Collusion is a funny thing, though. Recently Northwest Airlines and United Airlines both agreed to raise their prices the same amount at the same time. That's collusion, too, and it was announced in the news.

#25

Agents. 3% of $60+ mill, with half guaranteed is nice money every year, and the NFLPA execs are represented by (suprise, suprise) te big-name agents. I believe that Gene Upshaw is representd by Tom Condon. You work it out.

#27, but aren't the agents going to make their money on the other end instead?

Instead of Rosenhaus getting rich off of a rookie's initial contract, can't he get rich off of a player's first contract renewal after he becomes a proven player?

#28

Richie, that's a fair point, but under the current system, if you represent a top pick, you get paid regardless of performance and the parameters are set. It's easy money. If the big dough is on the second contract, there's no certainty that your player won't change agents. Busts won't have any incentive to, but if Player X is a star, (Think LdT), then there's going to be a bidding war among agents. That might well mean lower commissions, and what agent wants that?

OK, long comment coming. This is something I've given a lot of thought to.

First, you can't simply abolish the draft. If all teams played in equally sized markets in warm weather climates and happening cities, and all had equally good coaches and general managers, then maybe you could, but it ain't so. The problem with going to complete rookie free agency is that some teams have non-monetary factors going against them. Look at Eli's hissy fit a couple of years ago about going to San Diego, because he wanted to play in the Big Apple. Teams in cold weather climates, teams in "boring" or small cities, teams that are rebuilding and have little hope of a SB in the next couple of years, teams that have a reputation for being perennially bad because of their coach or GM will always have to pay more to attract a given rookie free agent than a team with a good reputation, a lot of talent, a prime location (think, San Diego or Dallas). This will reinforce disparity, for reasons that have nothing to do with a team's spending.

My proposal has three main elements:

* Enforce a rookie salary pay scale, and don't make it crazy high relative to the veteran minimum. Tie it to draft position, but also to playing position, so you're not penalizing the best DE in the draft class because teams 1-8 in the draft order were all set at DE but really needed RB's and QB's. I.e. set a pay scale for each position relative to some fraction of the franchise number for that position, and pay each guy taken at that position slightly less than the last one taken.

*Limit all rookie deals to TWO years. Two years is long enough for most teams to know what they have in a young player, and you avoid guys that become elite in their third and fourth year (e.g. Asante Samuel) being paid like scrubs.

*At the end of the second year, if the club has not cut or extended the player's contract, it can tag the the player as a special class of RESTRICTED free agent. The club must tender a one year offer to the player, equal to the average salary of the top 20 players at that position (this should be roughly the average starting salary for that position--use the top 20 instead of the top 32 because average salary is artifically a little low, as it doesn't take signing bonuses into account). The player can then talk to other teams, but the original team retains the ability to match that contract. If they chose not to match (i.e. because of a "poison pill", or because some other team values the player highly), the signing team gives the controlling team a pick in the same round as the player was picked in.

This rookie RFA tag can be renewed once, for the player's fourth year, but the tender increases to the average of the top 15 salaries, or 10% more, whichever is higher (kind of like the transition tag).

The team can also opt to use the real transition or franchise tag on the player instead, to get more leverage, but if this is done in the third year, it revokes the "rookie" status on the player and the rookie RFA tag cannot be used on that player in his fourth year.

I'm of the opinion that if a coach or GM causes a team to have a reputation for being perennially bad, that coach or GM should be fired as soon as possible, so I *like* there being pressure on owners there. If they have to pay more to get players because of their coach, that guy's going to be out of the league pretty darn quick.

By keeping the salary cap, I don't think market size is going to cause that much of a spending disparity. It's not like the Browns or the Packers are having a hard time finding ways to spend their money now.

All of these pressures already exist on the veteran free agent market and they haven't had a noticeably negative impact on it. You rarely see players sign with better teams for less money or sign in bigger cities to have more fun. I don't see why this would be different for rookies.

I.e. set a pay scale for each position relative to some fraction of the franchise number for that position, and pay each guy taken at that position slightly less than the last one taken.

Have to be careful with this one. Would any receiver even have gotten drafted if he had to be paid as the #1 receiver in the draft?

The Massey-Thaler paper showed that drafted players are a bargain relative to the equivalent expected performance offered by a veteran FA.

It's not that draftee compensation is too high compared to veteran compensation. It's that the contracts for the very top picks are out of whack with later picks.

"Imagine a first year staff accountant making more money than a senior partner simply because his 10 key skills were top in his class."

This is actually a bad analogy - first year staff accountants don't perform the same functions as senior partners and don't generate the same amount of revenue, whereas a McFadden will probably start from day one and possibly outperform the other Oakland running backs.

17:
Los Angeles

#30 - Good luck getting the player's union to agree to a structure where Defensive Ends get paid more than Wide Receivers.

In The States, there are too many financial and environmental factors to get rid of the draft and maintain parity. Rookie free agents who have choices will sign for these reasons (not in any particular order):

1. State income tax
2. Weather/stadium/playing conditions
3. Recent team success / imminent future success
4. Proximity in relation to friends & relatives

I'd envision the Dallases trying out and cutting hundreds of players while the Buffaloes forage through their scraps.

As far as the pay scale goes, it makes sense to pay in relation to relative output by age group. The first contract should be above modest but based on projection, and not production. Each following contract should increase through to his early 30's, then decline until retirement.
It's not rocket science, this is how teams should be managing players already, WITHOUT the need for some socialist system implementation. Some teams just can't seem to get out of their own way.

(apologies to those who I sadly and blatantly repeated, I had the link open and went into a 3 hour meeting...came back and typed away without refreshing my screen... apologies as well for the double-post)

I hate, hate, hate, Gene Upshaw's attitude in all this.

Upshaw: "Those rookie contracts play a role in what a veteran gets. Because if the top guy in the draft just got paid $35[M] in guarantees and he hasn't even proven himself, and if your contract is up as a veteran, I think it has an effect on what you're going to get" (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 3/14).

This is true IF YOU ARE A TOP FREE AGENT. However, we have a hard cap and every dollar you spend on one guy is a dollar you can't spend on another guy. So basically Upshaw's attitude is that overpaying top rookies is good because it causes top free agents to be overpaid as well. This is true, but it totally screws all the other free agents! Upshaw has a responsibility to all NFL players, not just the highest-paid ones. Big contracts make headlines, but they also prevent THE MAJORITY OF NFL PLAYERS from making as much money as they could and should.

I don't know why Upshaw is in the pocket of the elite stars, but it's disgraceful.

Re: #30

I agree, and think you're on the right idea. However, given we already have RFA/FA rules, my proposal is simpler.

Implement a rookie payscale, but all contracts are fully guarunteed, and are limited to 3 years. Players immediately become RFA's at the end fo their contract... good for the team, and pays the players right as the majority are hitting their prime.

Aaron's proposal for full rookie FA is the most economically efficient, and probably would result in the best long-term investment in the league.... But it also punishes the fans of teams with small markets, bad weather, and/or stupid owners... I'm not willing to accept that collateral damage. Free markets are great for efficiency, but poor at creating equity (because all market conditions are not equal). I think what we want is a balance.

Why not allow more flexibility?

Allow contracts to be as long as the player and team want them to be, with a sliding scale that varies for years on contract and percentage of the mean salary of players in the league. For example, minimum 2 years at 33%, 3 at 67%, 4 at 100%, 5 at 133% and so on, maybe up to six or seven years. Maybe all players can be asked to sign for two years, 1st rounders up to 6, 2nds up to 5, 3rds up to 4, etc. If both the team and agent are happy with a long contract that guarantees a lot of money then let them sign it.

If the two sides differ on the chosen length, then let both sides submit a form the league with the desired length of the contract they want. Simply split the difference between the two contracts. Where the difference is uneven alow the player the choice between the contract either side of the difference (ie if the player wants two years and the team wants five, the player would choose between three or four).

I am only proposing the idea, so please don't pick me apart on the detail (although feel free to improve upon it).

Maybe I'm a little different than most sports fans because I've never really been a follower of any particular team in any game. I like to watch for the strategy, tactics, and sheer excellence of the participants.

To that end, I probably undervalue parity. I want to see greatness more than I want to see a level playing field. That's my bias, but it makes my sports viewing life a lot easier - I can watch anything, any time and enjoy it.

But then, I do hate me some New England Patriots, so maybe I'm just full of crap ;)

This is also the problem with just having free agency for rookies - the better teams would have an easier time getting rookies to sign with them (just like they do in normal free agency) so it would work against parity.

I disagree. I think you would see many different decisions made by rookies. Some will value playing for a winner, others would prefer to go to a weaker team and have a chance to start and establish themselves. Teams that had coaches known for developing players would have an advantage and teams that had opportunities to start immediately would probably have an advantage. Would Matt Ryan have chosen to go to New England and sit behind Tom Brady for the next 10 years, or would he have tried to find a team with a coach with a reputation for grooming NFL QB's and an obvious need for a starting QB now or in the near future ?

Further to my own post (#40).

In this situation neither player nor team could have too much opportunity to bitch about the contract, as both will have had a meaningful input into its creation.

The top in-their-prime talent in the league is (usually) not available in free agency. The best available free agent O-lineman this year (Faneca) is 31 and there was a bidding war for him. How much is a 20% chance of drafting Peyton Manning or Jonathan Ogden worth? Also, the cap keeps increasing every year so comparing rookies to vets already on the books is not germane. Based on the probability of winding up with the cream of the crop, who are not available on the open market, rookies don't seem overvalued.

The salary cap in the NFL was instituted by Old Man Halas specifically to keep costs down. "parity" didn't enter into it at all.

Re; 45
Please explain. I was under the impression that the salary cap was part of the agreement that initiated unrestricted free agency in the 1990's. Wasn't Halas dead by then?

My idea for a rookie salary cap would be that each pick contract would be limited to a total salary cap value based on how high he was picked. So, the #1 pick would get something like 40 million in cap space. Then the contract could be structured however the team and player wanted it, they just couldn't go over the total salary cap value, so if the team wanted a 2 year deal, they could pay out 20 million each year.

The plan to give rookies 2 year deals would never work because no one wants that. The players don't because they want high signing bonuses and lots of guaranteed money, since they don't know if they will suck or get hurt. Agents want big signing bonuses because that's how they make most of their money. Teams want long contracts so they know they control the player if he turns out to be good.

I think Aaron misunderstand how the market place works. NFL teams don't really compete against each other in the traditional sense (monetarily), they are like different flavors of ice-cream. Everyone has their favorite, and they all do well as long as people are buying ice-cream, and not other desserts (baseball, basketball, hockey), or other foods (any form of entertainment).

Jimmy's idea is interesting, but I think the percentages would need to be jacked up.

Re 45:

Keeping costs down fosters parity.

Re #13:

The draft is kind of enforced, simplified effort at parity.

That's a secondary effect; the primary one is to prevent competitive bidding for incoming players. Don't forget that the draft precedes the salary cap by several decades.

Re: 48

You misunderstand my point. I'm arguing that if you're going to complain about rookie salaries from the draft, open it up to the market and see where they end up. Free agency is completely a marketplace with direct competition between teams for players. The NFL's relationship to fans and cities can be likened to different flavors, but when it comes to player acquisition it absolutely is a marketplace.

Chris Cooley is awesome.
He is almost as omniscient as the flying spaghetti monster.

Chris Cooley is awesome:
every year when draft day rolls around my only concern is whether or not the Redskins are going to draft a couple of cool guys to hang out with. Someone I can have a beer with. Is that too much to expect? Maybe today will be my day. Last year it worked out great for me because Dallas Sartz, Jordan Palmer, and Tyler Ecker were all great friends. The only problem involves whether or not they are going to make the team after training camp. Watching guys you've made friends with get cut on the final day of camp is a disaster.

#48

To be honest, I have no idea how much the average NFL starter salary is so if my percentages are a little off please excuse me.

The idea is to provide the option for both sides to have some choice about both duration of contract and for that restriction on the player to be compensated by greater pay.

You might have to put some kind of tiering effect in the first round, but teams still shouldn't have to guarantee big money to an unproven player should they not want to. I would also keep some kind of restricted free agency at the end of the first contract as I for one thinks that works reasonably well.

in most cases, teams that did this (trade down year after year, for less compensation than ‘expected’) would be absolutely crucified by their fans. a cute idea in fantasy-manager land, but it can’t happen.

Fans don't hire and fire GMs. Owners do. And if the owner's onboard with the trade, then there's nothing stopping the team from doing it. If they thought it would result in a better team and more wins, they'd do it. Clearly they don't think that.

Remember when the Texans took Mario Williams instead of Reggie Bush? Remember how much their fans hated it? They still did it, and now most of their fans seem ok with the decision.

I know this has been discussed before, but isn’t just “passing” on your pick also a possibility? My understanding is that if, say, you didn’t choose anyone in the ten minutes, the next team goes, but you can then make your pick whenever you want after that. Is that correct?

Yes.

Of course, it might make it harder to get the person you want, but I’m surprised no one has tried it yet. On purpose, at least.

IIRC, someone already has. I thought Oakland did that a few times. Although maybe that's a reason not to do it.

#30 - technically, Eli didn't beg to go to New York. He just didn't want to play for San Diego. From what I heard, it basically came down to an intense dislike for AJ Smith.

#46 - So 'Old Man' Halas unilaterally created the salary cap almost ten years after his death? Tell me, who would win - Mike Ditka vs. a hurricane?

Re: 54

Speaking as a Texans fan, I'm pleased as punch we didn't take Reggie Bush. I didn't want to take RB in the first place, but I think so far into their careers, Mario has been much better than Reggie.

The Vikings waited through their pick two years in a row a couple years back. I'm not sure if they did it on purpose or were just disorganized, but I remember a big deal being made of it by the ESPN draft crew.

From everything I read, the Vikings missed their picks because they didn't know what was going on and were unaware that it was their turn.

If these contracts are indeed bad, what is compelling orginzations to sign them?

Couldn't it be that the rookie contracts are actually good contracts, but that the veteran contracts are under-valued due to the salary-cap (or maybe some other reason?

Re: 57 where did you read this? My understanding was that they were trying to finalize trades and time ran out and other teams behind them rushed up to get their picks in.

the thing that worries me about this issue is that limiting rookie salaries mostly benefits the owners, since they are the ones that are taking the financial risk. In theory less money for rookies should mean more money for veterans, but there are no guarantees that those funds would be spent in that manner. If the players agree to a rookie salary scale the owner should give something more in return, like raising the salary cap floor and increasing roster and practice squad numbers.

These are the kind of discussions which have made me a die-hard fan of this website for the last few years.

The salary cap floor is already something like 90% of the ceiling, isn't it? It'd be tough to raise it much more than that.

Decreasing rookie salaries would almost have to increase veteran salaries because of the combination of the salary cap floor and the number of players allowed on a roster. You have a fixed amount of money (between 90-100 million) and can only spend it on 50-some guys. Owners don't have the option of keeping it, although they could maybe figure out a way to structure contracts to take up more cap space instead of less.

The plan to give rookies 2 year deals would never work because no one wants that.

Actually, rookie players and agents DO want shorter deals. At least, all but the most highly drafted do.

Often, one of the major contentious points between a mid-range rookie/his agent (i.e. lower first round through third round) and the team is the length of the rookie deal. Teams want longer deals, because the don't pay these guys huge money, and if they player turns out to be good it's nice to control them on the cheap while they're in their prime for a few years. Rookies don't, because longer deals don't give any real job security (in fact, they hurt it by amortizing the relatively small signing bonus such players get longer, making an already small cap-hit to cut practically negligible), and if the player does become really good, they delay the big free-agency payday. And for second year wonder players (i.e. players that come on strong their second year and then regress--i.e. that WR in TB whose name escapes me at the moment...), they miss their big payday window entirely.

Look at how many disgruntled players are disgruntled because the go to the Pro-bowl in their second or third year, and then have to play out their third or fourth year under a rookie deal paying them less than $2 M a year. I bet, if given the choice, any rookie not getting $10+ M in signing bonuses (i.e. anyone taken below about #10) would opt for a two-year deal over a three or five year deal in a heartbeat.

You're right that teams would never want it--it would make the draft significantly less valuable, and would negate the point in trying to develop young talent, because as soon as you develop it, it becomes a FA and leaves. Which is why I think you'd need some sort of tagging or RFA status mechanism to make it work...so teams would still retain SOME negotiating power over their draft picks who they have been carefully grooming...

Hmmm, thinking further about what I just said, I think the whole rookie deal and pay scale problem could largely be solved just by structuring contracts more smartly, and maybe having some regulations about how they are structured.

How about this: limit the amount of money--salary AND signing bonus--a team is allowed to give a rookie his first year, and to a lesser degree in his second year. Force teams that want to pay rookies a lot, and rookies that want to get a lot of money, to set up the money to come in the form of incentive bonuses (i.e. if the player gets a certain amount of playing time, or makes the Pro-bowl), and in signing/roster bonuses that hinge on the player not being cut.

Tie these limits to draft position (again, relative to playing position as I suggested).

You still need contract limits of four to five years, or teams could use the leverage imparted to them by the draft to force guys into eight year contracts for peanuts.

For example, suppose the limits look something like: for the first QB taken in the draft, he can sign any deal of any length he wants up to five years, but cannot get more than $5M total in non-incentive type compenstation (salary+signing bonus) the first year, and more than $8M in non-incentive type compensation (salary+roster+workout bonuses) the second year. So JaMarcus Russel (sp?) looking for a $60M deal with $30M in bonuses, would maybe negotiate a deal where he gets a $4M signing bonus and a $1M salary in year 1, with another optional few millionin incentives (i.e. TD's, making the Pro-bowl, starts), a $7M roster bonus and a $1M salary in year two, and a $15M roster bonus and $2M salary in year 3, along with incentives, and then escalating salaries in years 4 and 5.

Assuming the player isn't a bust and cut in his first three years, he still gets his $30M in pocket, and the potential to make much more, but he's not getting insanely paid when he hasn't played a down in the NFL, and if he is a bust, the team can get rid of him after a year or two without having their cap wrecked.

Obviously the player wouldn't like this, but any plan we come up with for limiting rookie salaries, the player won't like. The only disadvantage for the team is that they are forced to give out the biggest chunk of bonus in year 3, which gives them less time to amortize it and hence makes the year 3 cap hit harder to deal with, but by year 3 if they like the guy, they should be thinking about tearing up the rookie contract anyway, and extending him and paying him what he deserves. In fact, smart rookies who will be good should like this system, because it encourages the team to negotiate with them for a fair deal earlier.

Re 63:

Well, we were talking about the highly drafted rookies who are getting paid too much. No one is complaining about what 2nd rounders get payed.

65 Yeah, there's a pretty steep dropoff from round 1 to 2, and then a big flat shelf, from what I can tell, in rounds 3-6.

I would love for there to be rookie pay reform, just for "logic" reasons (i.e. paying the guys who earned it in the pros, not guys who merely have the potential to), but as I have said elsewhere here, even if you shave the rookie cap in half, the rest of the mooney will likely be spent on small number of players. Will every OL get another $500k per year? Not likely. But will a star LB or LT get an additional $2.5Mil? Probably. So the "savings" will not lift all ships, only the select few FAs a team wants to keep or attract.

And after a few years, the rookies who "suffered" from the cap and thrived as productive players would be the ones benefitting. But at least they would have earned it (in my mind).

So I don't see a rookie limit as having a huge effect on the NFL, but the small effect it might have is probably enough.

oh, I almost forgot, Cooley IS awesome. I am now a big fan. Not sure if he has a porn 'stache to rival Dallas Clark's old one, though....

Why not just make it so rookie contracts don't count against the salary cap at all. My biggest problem with the overpaid rookies coming into the NFL is not for the Peyton Mannings or Carson Palmers, it is the Ryan Leafs and Tim Couchs that put thier team in Salary cap hell.

If the rookie contracts didn't count against the cap, or at least there was no cap penalty for cutting a player who is under their rookie contract, I don't care if Jake Long gets a bajillion dollars, as long as it is not going to cripple the Dolphins if he turns out to be Tony Mandarich.
So in short, if Long or Ryan is a bust, the team can cut him at any time during his rookie deal, and there is no cap penalty. This way, if he is great, he earns the money, if he is a bust, you can cut him and all you are out is the pick you wasted. And if he is just okay, you can try to sign him to a new deal, or maybe you continue to overpay him lest he go somewhere else in freeagency.

68 Interesting, but wouldn't that just give incentive to the big market teams to overpay EVERY UFA who has a pulse? Some teams don't use many UFAs but I know the Colts rely on them.

If a team with deeper pockets seriously outbid everybody on the top 100 UFAs (instead of a more typical 5-15) (and assume $50k sign bonuses and double the minimum salary instead of $10k and league minimuim), then had their own minicamp in mid-summer to more deeply evaluate them, it would hamstring a bunch of typically small-market teams that rely on the UFA process--it's all part of the rookie cap, drafted or not.

The leftover 92 UFAs would hit the market in August, say, after being cut and the cream of the crop would have been snagged by the highest bidder. The other teams would sift through the chaff and maybe sign a few to the practice squads and those UFAs who had potential would lose a year.

Of course once the 8 best UFAs hit their second contracts their first team would no longer be able to afford them all (plus all their drafted rookies from that year), so they get dispersed throughout the NFL.

Wow, look at me: a crazy mix of social worker, economist, and unlicensed agent for UFAs everywhere.

"Why not just make it so rookie contracts don’t count against the salary cap at all. My biggest problem with the overpaid rookies coming into the NFL is not for the Peyton Mannings or Carson Palmers, it is the Ryan Leafs and Tim Couchs that put thier team in Salary cap hell."

Unless there is some sort of salary structure in conjunction with this, it breaks some of the market parity. If New England, or Washington can start giving out contracts that don't count against the cap, you're going to see them start giving out some ludicrous deals to 1st round picks. Cleveland might not be able to give a 1st round pick a 10 year $180m rookie deal, but if Washington knows they can, and not have any negative consequences, you can bet they will.

Bobman,

Good point about the negatives of not counting rookie salaries, but for one thing--even without the cap, teams have a hard offseason roster limit (I think it's something like 80 players). So you coudn't sign 100 URFA's, and even to sign 80 you'd have to release every veteran! In practice, a team isn't going to be able to sign more than a dozen or so URFA's. For example, the Patriots currently have signed 11 URFA's, which brings them exactly up to their roster limit if you include current veteran players under contract and their seven draft picks. And to sign those players, they had to release two fringe veterans. They have three more attending their mini-camp unsigned on a tryout basis. If any of those three impresses sufficiently, three other players, either fringe veterans, draft picks, or URFA's will have to be waived.

Sorry for the double post, but I hit "Say It!" before I had finished my thought, which was to agree with Bobman in spite of nit-picking.

Even with a roster limit, not counting rookie salaries against the cap would allow a deep-pocketed team like the Cowboys or Patriots to offer multi-million dollar offers to the dozen or so best URFA's, and keep every poorer team out of the running for those players. The poorer teams would be left with the leavings.