NFL Players Sell the Rookies Short
Although details remain undisclosed, it appears the new NFL/NFLPA collective bargaining agreement will contain a substantial limitation on the terms of rookie salaries, especially at the top of the draft. This development is troublesome to me, but to others seems to be a point of celebration. I suspect the players association simply didn't care much about the rookies and were oblivious or even dismissive of their best interests. But not even the media or other commentators appear to care about the rookies either. All seemed to agree that the rookie wages were "too high" and "should" be transferred to the pockets of other players. All seem happy that veteran players and team owners reached an agreement to reduce the salaries of players not yet in the league and not yet part of the union. Why do we celebrate this? We should call the police.
Am I the only person alive who cares about children?
1. Start with the unchecked presumption that there is something wrong with a salary structure that lavishes high salaries on very high rookie draft picks. This money, we've been told forever, "should" go to veteran players who have proved themselves, not to these green, ungrateful kids. Repeatedly we're told the story of the high draft pick who earns a large salary but flops in the league. Yes, that episode is a concern. But what about the larger problem, that of the veteran player who gets his large, front-loaded contract and proceeds to lose interest in football? Why don't the union and the owners conspire to take his money away too?
2. It's simply untrue to claim that rookies drafted in the top of the first round are overpaid. They've been drafted in the top of the first round! They've just won a huge tournament, one for which they've been competing since they first put aside the flag belt and put on real football pads. Their stellar play has earned them fans. They will attract attention to the team, like any new acquisition. They show the team's fans that the team has a chance to improve. Assuming your team is a losing one (and thus likely is awarded a high pick), would you rather have your favorite team re-sign one of its veterans (one of the players who contributed to the losing season) or take an educated chance on landing a new star? Top rookies draw fans and generate hope for the franchise.
3. Football is a young man's game. Yet the rookies, bound by dubious interpretations of federal labor laws to be "represented" by a union they are not yet eligible to join, have money taken out of their pocket by the veterans who control the players association. Why is no one writing that story? Why do the media and commentators swallow without question the union line that trumpets seniority over apprenticeship? If veterans are so valuable, then why aren't teams happy to give up their first-round draft picks for aging stars? Why did star receiver Randy Moss, even in the prime of his career, get traded for a fourth-round draft pick? Because high-round rookies are more valuable than veterans! Yet the media continues to think that Randy Moss was worth far more than a mid-round pick, and that somehow the Patriots "stole" him from the misguided Raiders. It's not the Raiders who are misguided, it's the football media that thinks that veterans are worth more than rookies! Tell me again why the veterans should take the rookies' money?
4. One consequence of the rookie wage scale will be a disappearance of the professional sports agent from the scene. With the contract terms for rookies set in the CBA in both salary and years, there will be little left for the agent to do. If this prediction comes true, this will be a problem. Rookies are very young adults. What they need, as they while away their last years of formal education, is help making the important, impactful decision about whether and when to turn professional. Draft status is huge. Today, agents fill that need. Tomorrow, not so much. How would you like a system that forces you to give up your present occupation (college education, by extension) before you are able to find out if someone else will hire you? Most of us like to have our landing spot secure before we tell the boss to get lost. College kids now will have to take a large jump into the unknown, unaided.
5. Keep in mind that the draft system limits player salaries already. A college player who is drafted may negotiate salary with only one potential employer, unlike the rest of us who can negotiate salary with every employer who has an interest. Although the team that drafts a player is under great pressure to sign the player, lest the valuable asset of the draft pick be wasted, on balance the team has the drafted rookie over the barrel. A rookie who declines the team's best offer can forget about playing professional football, a career for which he's been training most of his life. So, the better argument is probably that salaries for the best rookies, high as they were, are probably smaller than the market would pay without a draft.
Now they will be smaller still.
Am I the only person alive who cares about children?
1. Start with the unchecked presumption that there is something wrong with a salary structure that lavishes high salaries on very high rookie draft picks. This money, we've been told forever, "should" go to veteran players who have proved themselves, not to these green, ungrateful kids. Repeatedly we're told the story of the high draft pick who earns a large salary but flops in the league. Yes, that episode is a concern. But what about the larger problem, that of the veteran player who gets his large, front-loaded contract and proceeds to lose interest in football? Why don't the union and the owners conspire to take his money away too?
2. It's simply untrue to claim that rookies drafted in the top of the first round are overpaid. They've been drafted in the top of the first round! They've just won a huge tournament, one for which they've been competing since they first put aside the flag belt and put on real football pads. Their stellar play has earned them fans. They will attract attention to the team, like any new acquisition. They show the team's fans that the team has a chance to improve. Assuming your team is a losing one (and thus likely is awarded a high pick), would you rather have your favorite team re-sign one of its veterans (one of the players who contributed to the losing season) or take an educated chance on landing a new star? Top rookies draw fans and generate hope for the franchise.
3. Football is a young man's game. Yet the rookies, bound by dubious interpretations of federal labor laws to be "represented" by a union they are not yet eligible to join, have money taken out of their pocket by the veterans who control the players association. Why is no one writing that story? Why do the media and commentators swallow without question the union line that trumpets seniority over apprenticeship? If veterans are so valuable, then why aren't teams happy to give up their first-round draft picks for aging stars? Why did star receiver Randy Moss, even in the prime of his career, get traded for a fourth-round draft pick? Because high-round rookies are more valuable than veterans! Yet the media continues to think that Randy Moss was worth far more than a mid-round pick, and that somehow the Patriots "stole" him from the misguided Raiders. It's not the Raiders who are misguided, it's the football media that thinks that veterans are worth more than rookies! Tell me again why the veterans should take the rookies' money?
4. One consequence of the rookie wage scale will be a disappearance of the professional sports agent from the scene. With the contract terms for rookies set in the CBA in both salary and years, there will be little left for the agent to do. If this prediction comes true, this will be a problem. Rookies are very young adults. What they need, as they while away their last years of formal education, is help making the important, impactful decision about whether and when to turn professional. Draft status is huge. Today, agents fill that need. Tomorrow, not so much. How would you like a system that forces you to give up your present occupation (college education, by extension) before you are able to find out if someone else will hire you? Most of us like to have our landing spot secure before we tell the boss to get lost. College kids now will have to take a large jump into the unknown, unaided.
5. Keep in mind that the draft system limits player salaries already. A college player who is drafted may negotiate salary with only one potential employer, unlike the rest of us who can negotiate salary with every employer who has an interest. Although the team that drafts a player is under great pressure to sign the player, lest the valuable asset of the draft pick be wasted, on balance the team has the drafted rookie over the barrel. A rookie who declines the team's best offer can forget about playing professional football, a career for which he's been training most of his life. So, the better argument is probably that salaries for the best rookies, high as they were, are probably smaller than the market would pay without a draft.
Now they will be smaller still.
posted by TSLP at 7/25/2011
Comments on "NFL Players Sell the Rookies Short"
-
Anonymous said ... (4:55 AM) :
-
Fanalytical said ... (5:26 AM) :
-
The Sports Curmudgeon said ... (10:01 AM) :
-
sports good said ... (10:17 PM) :
post a commentResponse to his first question: Front loaded second contract is back pay.
Response to his second question: You'd rather go get a proven free agent than a rookie to "rejuvenate" your fans. Paying Rookies at the top large sums essentially is making up for the money robbed of them by the NCAA.
Response to his third question: Not a single rookie drafted before the pick Oakland traded for Randy Moss will produce as much as Moss did in the equal amount of time they were with their respective teams.
Response to his fourth statement: Agents aren't going anywhere, someone has to negotiate the second deal. There are more veteran free agents than rookies each year, agents now have to focus less on rookie deals and more on second contracts.
Can't argue number 5.
I like that he's thinking about the Rookies in this instance but the reality is that those funds have been reallocated in the proper direction if you ask me. The rookie wage scale severely impacts players at the top of the draft (1-32 in the first round) but many of those players are likely to earn a second contract in the NFL barring injury. They'll just have to prove their value before getting the larger contracts.
GRAND POINT: One thing I think you'll find come true over the next few years is that first round picks will get significantly larger portions of their rookie deals guaranteed, it's really the only negotiating point left for their agents and it's not that expensive for the teams because the nut is lower.
www.ootloop.tumblr.com
The Sports law professor believes NFL Players sold rookies short in the newly bargained CBA. You can go read his five points at his sight.
Fanalytically speaking, I disagree with him:
1. The Sports law professor believes the presumption that money going to high draft picks redirected to veterans is wrong. He believes some veterans will "lose interest in football" after their big payday. I argue that front loaded second contracts are back pay for guys who've earned it. There is also more money allocated in this CBA to pay out bonuses to underpaid players that are producing beyond expectations. Who's likely to lose motivation to play the game faster; an overpaid rookie who's struggling with his sport for the first time and has guaranteed money in the bank or a veteran who's finally achieved his pay day after being successful at his craft and knows there might be another contract our there for him?
2. The professor argues that Rookies excite your fan base more than resigning your own veterans from a losing team the prior year but he fails to acknowledge that you could go sign a proven veteran in the NFL outside of your own team or even better trade for one. You'd rather go get a proven free agent than a rookie to "rejuvenate" your fans.
3. The professor argues that because the Oakland Raiders traded Randy Moss to the New England Patriots for a 4th round pick that rookies are more valuable than veterans. First issue, he used the Raiders who get fleeced all the time for value as his example second point and more important not a single rookie drafted before the pick Oakland traded for Randy Moss will produce as much as Moss did in the equal amount of time each player was with their respective teams. Randy Moss was traded for the 110th pick in the 2007 draft, a defensive back named John Bowie out of Cincinnati, and the production comparison of the two isn't even worth posting here.
The Patriots got "STRAIGHT CASH HOMIE"
4. The professor believes one consequence of the rookie wage scale will be a disappearance of the professional sports agent from the scene. Agents aren't going anywhere, someone has to negotiate the second deal. There are more veteran free agents than rookies each year, agents now have to focus less on rookie deals and more on second contracts. Agents are sharks and will find the value, I trust they'll survive.
5. The professor makes a valid point in his fifth statement, I won't argue number five.
I like that the sports professor is thinking about the Rookies in this instance but the reality is that those funds have been reallocated in the proper direction if you ask me. The rookie wage scale severely impacts players at the top of the draft (1-32 in the first round) but many of those players are likely to earn a second contract in the NFL barring injury. They'll just have to prove their value before getting the larger contracts.
GRAND POINT: One thing I think you'll find come true over the next few years is that first round picks will get significantly larger portions of their rookie deals guaranteed, it's really the only negotiating point left for their agents and it's not that expensive for the teams because the nut is lower.
-Fanalytical-
www.ootloop.tumblr.com
The current players negotiated a way to take money from future players and put it in the pockets of the current players. And I am supposed to be surprised by this...?
In past CBA negotiations, the current players of that day found ways to keep money in their pockets instead of having some of it flow to previous players (retirees). That was not surprising either.
We should recognize that with regard to owners, it is always all about the money. The players would like us to believe that they are different somehow. But they are not...
Start with the unchecked presumption that there is something wrong with a salary structure that lavishes high salaries on very high rookie draft picks.
Links to this post:
Create a Link