If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Raiders sign Darren McFadden to a $60 million contract, $26 million of which is guaranteed. Meanwhile, elsewhere in the NFL, veterans who have proven themselves in the league told to GTFO without the salary for the last years on their contracts   (sportsillustrated.cnn.com) divider line 59
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

974 clicks; posted to Sports » on 06 Jun 2008 at 1:14 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-06-06 10:43:18 AM
I might be wrong, but it seems to me that those veterans might have been unproven rookies with the opportunity to get ridiculously overpaid at one time in their career.
 
2008-06-06 10:44:46 AM
baorao: I might be wrong, but it seems to me that those veterans might have been unproven rookies with the opportunity to get ridiculously overpaid at one time in their career.

Most of the NFL success stores weren't from top 3-4 draft picks. They are really the only ones that get PAID as rookies.
 
2008-06-06 10:51:41 AM
baorao: I might be wrong, but it seems to me that those veterans might have been unproven rookies with the opportunity to get ridiculously overpaid at one time in their career.

Not everyone is lucky enough to get drafted by the Raiders.
 
2008-06-06 11:18:56 AM
atpgod: Most of the NFL success stores weren't from top 3-4 draft picks. They are really the only ones that get PAID as rookies.

Jamespoon: Not everyone is lucky enough to get drafted by the Raiders.

right, but its still an opportunity they had. They went through the process and had the opportunity to post the combine numbers and individual workouts that would have gotten them selected in the first round. These aren't the NFL players on the 50s and 60s we're talking about here. its a level playing field.
 
2008-06-06 11:19:32 AM
of the 50s and 60s.
 
2008-06-06 11:27:38 AM
Until they draft the Grim Reaper for Al Davis, the Raiders aren't going anywhere.
 
2008-06-06 12:00:55 PM
I said it before. The NFL should have a rookie salary cap. I don't care about the contract size, I care more about the guaranteed money.

The NFL should cap all rookies guranteed $$ at say $10mil. They then can sign a $30 mil contract, but it now becomes an incentive laden contract. In McFadden's case, it would be if he rushes for over 1,000 yards that's $1 mil. If he rushes for over 2k yards that's $2mil. Doesn't get hurt, etc. You can back end a contract. If a guy doesn't play, he doesn't get paid, shiat like that should help. Kinda the way corporate America works with paying bonuses and commissions. Base salary + bonus or commission.
 
2008-06-06 01:13:48 PM
Why should ANYbody's pay be capped? That said, why should the NFL be allowed to cartelize professional football - why are they allowed entry restrictions?
 
2008-06-06 01:23:34 PM
Mike F: I said it before. The NFL should have a rookie salary cap. I don't care about the contract size, I care more about the guaranteed money.

The NFL should cap all rookies guranteed $$ at say $10mil. They then can sign a $30 mil contract, but it now becomes an incentive laden contract. In McFadden's case, it would be if he rushes for over 1,000 yards that's $1 mil. If he rushes for over 2k yards that's $2mil. Doesn't get hurt, etc. You can back end a contract. If a guy doesn't play, he doesn't get paid, shiat like that should help. Kinda the way corporate America works with paying bonuses and commissions. Base salary + bonus or commission.


But here's the deal, what would the owners give up for the rookie contract?
 
2008-06-06 01:34:49 PM
I think it should be a Federal offense that the NFL held guns to those men's heads and forced them to sign their contract. Why isn't the government doing something about that?
 
2008-06-06 01:35:02 PM
Mike F: I said it before. The NFL should have a rookie salary cap. I don't care about the contract size, I care more about the guaranteed money.

There's already a "rookie pool" but there are creative ways around it. Honestly though, the rookie pay in the NFL isn't nearly as out of line as most folks think. Percentage wise, it's actually in line with what most would expect. The top ten guys, however, get paid ridiculous sums of guaranteed dollars, so a lot of people mistakenly think rookies as a whole gobble up huge sums of cap space on every team throughout the league. It's just not happening.
 
2008-06-06 01:41:55 PM
I feel that this is ok, at least from McFadden's standpoint. Running backs have a 9 year lifespan now, MAYBE. He is almost required to sign a 6 year deal as a rookie taken in the first half of the first round. As such, his FA payday will be much smaller than one from the 4th round who signed a 4 year contract. If we limited contract length of rookies, I would agree to a set rookie salary, but we don't. This makes the most sense for BOTH sides, assuming he pans out. Normally, running backs are hard to pick wrong. Normally.
 
2008-06-06 01:44:03 PM
I want to see the first set of rims he buys with THAT cash.
 
2008-06-06 01:44:55 PM
Komplex: But here's the deal, what would the owners give up for the rookie contract?

They would have to give up some of the ridiculous tags (franchise, transition, etc) that don't allow players to sign longer term contracts. Teams can imprison a player for 3-5 years in a league where the average player barely even plays that long. Because of the amount of and risk of injury, players need to get what they can when they can. That's why I'm all in favor of the top rookies making ridiculous salaries.


If I were a 4-5 year NFL veteran, I wouldn't give a whoopty damn doo what the 1st round draft picks are making; I'd be pissed that as a restricted free agent, then transition tag, then franchise tag that I was getting a raw deal (and I'd be right).
 
2008-06-06 01:46:00 PM
Just think how great the offensive line could be if that money had been spent there.
 
2008-06-06 01:49:43 PM
It's the owner's dumbass fault for doing this, basically starting a bidding war over unproven talent.

Look at the top NFL draft picks of the last 5 years:

2008 Jake Long OT Michigan Miami Dolphins - -
2007 JaMarcus Russell QB LSU Oakland Raiders 1 0
2006 Mario Williams DE N. Carolina State Houston Texans 2 0
2005 Alex Smith QB Utah San Francisco 49ers 3 0
2004 Eli Manning QB Mississippi San Diego Chargers 4 0


So Eli is a big fat win, but Alex Smith is aweful, Mario Williams wasn't even the best rookie DE that same season (PSU's Tamba Hali was), JaMarcus Russell hasn't done much (not much time however), and we'll have to wait to see what Jake Long does (although O-line is a good bet).


The point is it's hit or miss, and if the owners want to piss away their budgets every year on unproven talent that's their problem. Basically it'll come down to your luck of the draw. Did you pick up Eli or Alex Smith?

Now let's go back even further:

2003 Carson Palmer QB Southern Cal. Cincinnati Bengals 5 2 (good)
2002 David Carr QB Fresno State Houston Texans 6 0 (terrible)
2001 Michael Vick QB Virginia Tech Atlanta Falcons 6 3 (obvious)
2000 Courtney Brown DE Penn State Cleveland Browns 7 0 (terrible)
1999 Tim Couch QB Kentucky Cleveland Browns 6 0 (bad)

It's a lottery I guess...
 
2008-06-06 01:50:47 PM
Yeah because anyone in the NFL is getting a bad deal.
 
2008-06-06 01:53:22 PM
He'll be broke in 25 years
 
2008-06-06 01:56:51 PM
He'll be broke by the time he isin 25 years

FTFY
 
2008-06-06 01:58:50 PM
img361.imageshack.us

/agrees with headline
 
2008-06-06 02:01:27 PM
the biggest redneck here: Honestly though, the rookie pay in the NFL isn't nearly as out of line as most folks think. Percentage wise, it's actually in line with what most would expect. The top ten guys, however, get paid ridiculous sums of guaranteed dollars, so a lot of people mistakenly think rookies as a whole gobble up huge sums of cap space on every team throughout the league. It's just not happening.

Bingo. Except for the very top of the first round, rookie contracts aren't terribly out of whack. What's causing problems, though, is that teams that suck aren't getting quite as much benefit from having high picks because of the cost.

First Round Examples from my preferred team, the Chargers:

Craig Davis, 30th pick '07, 5 years, $7.83 million

Antonio Cromartie, 19th pick '06, 5 years, $12.5 million

Shawne Merriman, 12th pick '05, 5 years, $11.3 million

Luis Castillo, 28th pick '05, 5 years, $7 million

Davis is the only one who hasn't made a large impact, and even if he never does, that's not a cap-killing contract by any stretch.
 
2008-06-06 02:03:50 PM
Owners can spend as they see fit. a ton of cash here means it isn't spent elsewhere.

but...

The numbers seem a little out of whack this year. If it keeps up & and if they don't come up with a new CBL in time, this could fark the poorer teams if the league ends up going capless in a couple of years.
 
2008-06-06 02:04:35 PM
Mike F: I said it before. The NFL should have a rookie salary cap. I don't care about the contract size, I care more about the guaranteed money.

The market will work it out.

The payment for the higher draft picks is getting more and more ridiculous while the players being drafted aren't necessarily better. The front offices are aware of this. If you've got a few high draft picks that you know are going to be expensive, then you can't go nuts in free agency. But, you can always trade down. Dump off an expensive gamble on an untested rookie and go get a couple of solid veterans looking for a payday.

Keep the salary cap intact and this problem will work itself out. It can only go up so high before the management of the team begins telling the operations side to trade down the draft picks because the team can't afford to pay that kind of salary.



Personally though, I'm in favor of a rookie salary cap. It'll fix the problem a whole lot faster.
 
2008-06-06 02:04:41 PM
chechcal: Bingo. Except for the very top of the first round, rookie contracts aren't terribly out of whack. What's causing problems, though, is that teams that suck aren't getting quite as much benefit from having high picks because of the cost.

also a great point.
 
2008-06-06 02:06:59 PM
Moses To Sandy Koufax: Teams can imprison a player for 3-5 years in a league where the average player barely even plays that long.

Sorry, that argument is full of shiat. If you are good enough to get tagged, you've already been in the league longer than 3-5 years, and each time you are tagged, you get the average of either the top 5 (franchise) or top 10 (transition) salaries at your position. Considering only 12 teams currently have any players tagged, this just isn't that big a deal.
 
2008-06-06 02:11:11 PM
toonz: Owners can spend as they see fit. a ton of cash here means it isn't spent elsewhere.

That's the problem. No they can't. If you're a shiatty team and have to waste 1/5 - 1/4th of your cap on a rookie who may or may not work out then there's a problem with your capping system.

The draft is designed to make crappy teams better. If a crappy team locks a good portion of their cap into a bust, they're stuck with that cap hit for years.
 
2008-06-06 02:15:18 PM
ScornForSega: Mike F: I said it before. The NFL should have a rookie salary cap. I don't care about the contract size, I care more about the guaranteed money.

The market will work it out.

The payment for the higher draft picks is getting more and more ridiculous while the players being drafted aren't necessarily better. The front offices are aware of this. If you've got a few high draft picks that you know are going to be expensive, then you can't go nuts in free agency. But, you can always trade down. Dump off an expensive gamble on an untested rookie and go get a couple of solid veterans looking for a payday.

Keep the salary cap intact and this problem will work itself out. It can only go up so high before the management of the team begins telling the operations side to trade down the draft picks because the team can't afford to pay that kind of salary.



Personally though, I'm in favor of a rookie salary cap. It'll fix the problem a whole lot faster.


Exactly. And once demand drops so will the insane salaries these rookies see.

Plus another factor is the darwinism of the whole thing: teams like the Raiders that just love throwing money at the problem end up broke and terrible because they are idiots. Teams like the Giants and Patriots make smart trades and pull in veterans and end up in the Super Bowl.

I expect the Raiders to be in the 1st 5 picks overall of every draft until they move the team to another city because they're bankrupt paying all these 1st rounders 100 gajillion dollars.
 
2008-06-06 02:15:20 PM
chechcal: If you are good enough to get tagged, you've already been in the league longer than 3-5 years, and each time you are tagged, you get the average of either the top 5 (franchise) or top 10 (transition) salaries at your position.


Wrong. You are an unrestricted free agent after four years of service time. But the worst part is you only are guaranteed a 1 year contract as a transition tag (unless the parties agree to a longer term).


And restricted free agents (those with 3 years service time) would cost the new club a draft pick in addition to the salary cap hit, so it's another thing working against the player.
 
2008-06-06 02:16:44 PM
If the shiatty team doesn't want to spend on a top pick, trade down, other teams are willing to open the wallet.
 
2008-06-06 02:20:19 PM
Daniels: toonz: Owners can spend as they see fit. a ton of cash here means it isn't spent elsewhere.

That's the problem. No they can't. If you're a shiatty team and have to waste 1/5 - 1/4th of your cap on a rookie who may or may not work out then there's a problem with your capping system.

The draft is designed to make crappy teams better. If a crappy team locks a good portion of their cap into a bust, they're stuck with that cap hit for years.


Yeah but smart crappy teams can just as easily trade that 1st overall pick in for a bunch of value drafts and free-agency veterans and have money left over for skimpier cheerleader's uniforms or whatever. If I were in charge of these teams I would almost never go for the 1st overall pick b/c it's too much of a gamble. Trade it for something you can be sure of.
 
2008-06-06 02:23:23 PM
Daniels: That's the problem. No they can't. If you're a shiatty team and have to waste 1/5 - 1/4th of your cap on a rookie who may or may not work out then there's a problem with your capping system.

Your numbers are inflated. The 2008 salary cap is about $117 million. Matt Ryan's "poster boy for rookie excess" contract is $72 million over six years, that's if he hits every incentive. Average that out and you get $12 million a year, or ten percent of the current cap.

As I said earlier, there is some danger of crappy teams overspending at the top of the draft, but saying they are putting 1/5 to 1/4 of their cap in one rookie is way overdoing it. You also have to figure in the fact that teams that perennially pick high, i.e. the Lions, Raiders, Jets, Dolphins, also tend to have pretty shiatty management. The Packers, Saints, Vikings and Redskins have also had to deal with high first round pick salaries, but they still managed to succeed.
 
2008-06-06 02:23:48 PM
Ha! Ha! JaMarcus Russel
Ha! Ha! Darren McFadden

The best thing about spending all that money on these guys is that the Raiders will suck so bad they can do the same thing again in next years draft.

Ha! Ha! Al Davis
 
2008-06-06 02:24:27 PM
Millzners: Yeah but smart crappy teams can just as easily trade that 1st overall pick in for a bunch of value drafts and free-agency veterans and have money left over for skimpier cheerleader's uniforms or whatever.

I wouldn't say easily. Some of those top picks you pointed out were the result of a team with a need that couldn't trade out of the #1 spot.
 
2008-06-06 02:28:52 PM
It's actually 19.6 guaranteed, in case anyone cares. Not that it's a slap to the groin, exactly, but it drops him down to about where he should be compared to the year before. And none of it is guaranteed in the 6th year.

Seriously, the players continue to get farked by their own union. Perhaps if the agents who benefited from these outrageous rookie contracts didn't also represent Gene Upshaw?
 
2008-06-06 02:28:57 PM
IF they are proven, they wouldn't be disposable. This has to change sometime soon. Isn't Upshaw on his way out anyway?
 
2008-06-06 02:29:30 PM
Daniels: toonz: Owners can spend as they see fit. a ton of cash here means it isn't spent elsewhere.

That's the problem. No they can't. If you're a shiatty team and have to waste 1/5 - 1/4th of your cap on a rookie who may or may not work out then there's a problem with your capping system.

The draft is designed to make crappy teams better. If a crappy team locks a good portion of their cap into a bust, they're stuck with that cap hit for years.


yeah i sort of corrected myself about that right after. I agree with you there.
 
2008-06-06 02:44:26 PM
If they don't like the contract situation with the NFL, they can get a job with that FREE college degree they got. But, I do sympathize with those players with long term physical disabilities that the NFL has abandoned.
 
2008-06-06 02:53:01 PM
4NSpy: If the shiatty team doesn't want to spend on a top pick, trade down, other teams are willing to open the wallet.

No they aren't. When was the last time you saw anyone trade down out of the top 5? No one wants those picks because it's too much like playing russian roulette. Miami literally spent months trying to shop they #1 pick, and they came up with nothing.

Individual owners have very little control over these salaries. If the rest of the guys drafted in the top 10 get ridiculous salaries, you can't pay your guy significantly less or he won't play for you.
 
2008-06-06 03:05:58 PM
And this is why the Owner's are opting out of the CBA. They will get the rookie salary cap in the new CBA and the players will keep their 60% revenue sharing.
 
2008-06-06 03:20:20 PM
Millzners: It's the owner's dumbass fault for doing this, basically starting a bidding war over unproven talent.

Some of the blame can and should be put on the player's union for not seeing this nonsense years ago and making an agreement that allowed the proven vets to get most of that money instead of the rookies.
 
2008-06-06 03:37:17 PM
chechcal: Your numbers are inflated. The 2008 salary cap is about $117 million. Matt Ryan's "poster boy for rookie excess" contract is $72 million over six years, that's if he hits every incentive. Average that out and you get $12 million a year, or ten percent of the current cap.

Of course, when you have 53 guys to pay and one guy is making 10% of the salary despite never having accomplished anything on ANY level...well, that's a problem.
 
2008-06-06 03:37:20 PM
You know those NFL teams with the top 10 picks could easily trade them away. They might not get the same value talent wise for a late first + 3rd or 4th rounder for their top pick, but they sure wouldn't have to pay people as much.

I think that to have the opportunity to get a McFadden is worth it. If he doesn't work out, you can always cut him.

I'm looking at YOU Alex Smith!!!!
 
2008-06-06 03:49:12 PM
Brubold: Millzners: It's the owner's dumbass fault for doing this, basically starting a bidding war over unproven talent.

Some of the blame can and should be put on the player's union for not seeing this nonsense years ago and making an agreement that allowed the proven vets to get most of that money instead of the rookies.


Well you can't really blame people for not looking out for their own best interests -- at least I don't. I mean if the veteran players don't mind the rookies sucking up all the money, and the owners don't mind gambling on their team's future, and the rookies obviously don't mind banking millions before even putting on a uniform, then who suffers? The fans? The over-achieving rookies?

I'd say the biggest injustice is the over-achieving rookies in the league. I used the example previously of Tamba Hali over Mario Williams:

Mario was outperformed in 2006 and roughly equally performed in 2007 by Tamba but Mario probably makes 3 times what Tamba does. Meanwhile Tamba has to wait to sign a deal and when he does he'll never get the type of money that Mario did as a 1st over all pick. In the end Tamba's going to make less money proportionately to acheivement than Mario Williams... And that's a shame.
 
2008-06-06 03:53:54 PM
IAmRight: chechcal: Your numbers are inflated. The 2008 salary cap is about $117 million. Matt Ryan's "poster boy for rookie excess" contract is $72 million over six years, that's if he hits every incentive. Average that out and you get $12 million a year, or ten percent of the current cap.

Of course, when you have 53 guys to pay and one guy is making 10% of the salary despite never having accomplished anything on ANY level...well, that's a problem.


Obviously there's some inequity, but, at most, 10 rookies a year (out of 252 drafted) benefit from that excess. And what does more damage, one contract for a potential impact player that eats of 10%, or losing 10% of your cap because of dead money from stupid contacts? Stupid management is the issue, not the inflated salaries of the top 10 draft picks.
 
2008-06-06 04:02:40 PM
chechcal: Obviously there's some inequity, but, at most, 10 rookies a year (out of 252 drafted) benefit from that excess. And what does more damage, one contract for a potential impact player that eats of 10%, or losing 10% of your cap because of dead money from stupid contacts? Stupid management is the issue, not the inflated salaries of the top 10 draft picks.

Obviously stupid management gets you in the trouble, but the fact that the top 10 get so much money doesn't help them get better. In fact, it has become more of a curse than a blessing to get a top pick due to this.

I hate management in all of these situations, and I fully support their right to lose money, but when it comes at the cost of the good players who have done something in the league, it gets annoying.

Also, they really need to work on making the parity a little smaller, especially with all the player movement. I almost don't even want to buy jerseys anymore because I'm afraid that the player is going to get signed by someone else, traded, etc. because a team doesn't want to pay for him because they have to pay for a crappy rookie.
 
2008-06-06 04:09:44 PM
Bitter much, subby?


I'm more concerned about these guys having absolutely no idea how to handle that much money. Pay them whatever, just teach them how to maintain control of it.

/get rid of your "entourage", douchebags
 
2008-06-06 04:42:19 PM
Alien5151:

No they aren't. When was the last time you saw anyone trade down out of the top 5? No one wants those picks because it's too much like playing russian roulette. Miami literally spent months trying to shop they #1 pick, and they came up with nothing.



it was one of the weaker drafts this year, i mean Matt Ryan was the best QB?
 
2008-06-06 04:47:17 PM
With two of the hottest offensive weapons from the SEC from the last two years, let's see what Oakland can put together. This could be good.
 
2008-06-06 04:50:07 PM
cubsfan07: Bitter much, subby?


/get rid of your "entourage", douchebags


The irony here hurts my brain.
 
2008-06-06 05:05:03 PM
cubsfan07: Bitter much, subby?


I'm more concerned about these guys having absolutely no idea how to handle that much money. Pay them whatever, just teach them how to maintain control of it.

/get rid of your "entourage", douchebags


I wouldn't say he is bitter. It's stupid that someone who hasn't played one game of professional football gets paid more than guys who have gone to the Pro Bowl, gotten MVPs, and won Super Bowls. It's just flat out dumb.

They really need a rookie salary cap.
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report