With NFL commissioner Roger Goodell airing out his misgivings Friday over exorbitant contracts being doled out to sign talented rookies, and that practice's impact on the economics of the league, I couldn't help but try to think of possible compromises.
I mean, there must be one out there. It's hard to believe this issue wasn't bandied about and compromised on years ago.
It seems insane that there are essentially no guidelines or restrictions on rookie salaries, and these young, unproven players can hold all the bargaining power over the franchises to which they should be thankful for drafting them.
David Stern took away that bargaining power in the NBA with a fair, regimented system. But it does make sense that the NFL is the one professional sports league that saw this situation get out of hand.
As with all leagues, while NFL teams would love to see young talent become cheap until proven valuable, the players' association wants to make sure its kind gets paid, of course. But in the NFL, you could be more easily injured and done with any time you take the field, with no new contracts coming for your newly crippled self.
So here's my compromise. (I'm going to take the standpoint of the league on this one, as a dynasty-league fantasy owner/commissioner and fan of teams more than individual players.)
Stand for Concessions
First, we'll start by making concessions to the players. If we're going to take away their giant rookie contracts (most of the recent top picks have received giant contracts both in how much total and how much guaranteed), we've got to give them something in return.
That something is the restructuring of contract rules to restrict the use of unguaranteed deals for all players. There are a number of ways this can be done. We could alleviate salary-cap rules so that players can be waived, as far as the cap is concerned, while still giving them their money, or a higher percentage of it.
I'm no expert on the machinations of NFL salaries and how the current contract-landscape developed, but it doesn't exactly matter how it gets done, as long as it gets done.
If the players' association can bring more net guaranteed money into the fold, it should be willing to make some concessions of its own that will decrease rookie salaries. After all, that will also create a system that rewards players more for what they earn in NFL games rather than the hype they garnered from college games and Mel Kiper Jr.
Equal Rights
The first thing to change regarding rookie salaries is to adopt a system where teams draft players' rights that last five years at a fixed, entry-level salary, specific to each round. Non-negotiable signing bonuses will be given to all first-day draftees, scaled down from draft position.
Since 2008's first-overall pick Jake Long received $30 million in guaranteed money over five years from the Dolphins, the No. 1 pick can receive to $5-6 million.
As stated, bonuses would incrementally decrease by the pick, or perhaps by tier, until the last player picked on the first day of the draft received whatever has been fair value for a player drafted at that position. The rest of the players drafted earn the entry-level salary set for their round, maybe along with a small signing bonus.
At some point in the process, the two sides should agree to what round becomes the cutoff for drafted players being guaranteed a contract. In the NBA, all first-rounders are guaranteed a contract, while second-rounders are not. It might be fair to go first day with this, too, but most players drafted in the first four rounds stick with their team for a while, so fourth could work, too.
Arbitrating Can Be Fun
Once all of that is established, we can get to what could really make all of this work.
Right after each season, each player enters arbitration and gets a raise according to his worth. If he does not merit one, he gets the league-minimum raise of, say, 10 percent. If his contract isn't guaranteed, he can be cut; if it is, it will be cheap to buy him out and cut the losses, with the player able to find a new suitor while still earning a signing bonus and five years of NFL salary.
This process will more or less mirror Major League Baseball's, but it will have to be accelerated due to the nature of the game. Newly drafted football players contribute much sooner and are much more liable to suffer career-threatening injuries than baseball players. Therefore, the arbitration process begins immediately.
After the season, each rookie will be arbitrated and given a new contract based on how much players of similar experience and production have made in the past (giant contracts that caused this problem notwithstanding). Likewise, this will be done for all second-year players (drafted after this rule-change took place), and so on.
The experience factor in arbitrating is key, as this will work much like baseball's, in that the players still won't be making what they'd make on the open market.
Players will not be eligible to enter free agency until they have played in the league for five years (a compromise could be four years, if necessary). So, each year, they will enter arbitration to earn in salary what they earned on the field, and all of their peers will receive the same treatment.
To clarify, "guaranteed" here would mean the player is guaranteed to be awarded a new contract of some kind, even with poor performance, for each year of the rights agreement.
Hold the Holding Out, Please
Now, this might all sound well and good, but we know two things that can get in the way. That baseball players in this similar system often work out big contracts with their teams to avoid arbitration years, and that NFL players are notorious for holding out until they get what they want.
So here's my final provision that ensures players will have to earn the serious contracts.
Teams cannot sign players to long-term deals until after the third year of owning their rights. Contracts must be year-to-year, with the team simply owning the rights to the player for the first five years of his time in the league.
This way, players and agents have no way of holding any leverage over their teams. Players will take what they earned by getting themselves drafted wherever they were drafted, and have all the incentive in the world to be the best they can be in their first three years.
Teams won't have to work out long-term contracts after three years since they'll have one or two more years worth of rights, depending on the labor agreement, but big deals will most likely be done for the players who stand out. Other players will still earn what they deserve under the arbitration system and won't be too far from reaching full-on free agency.
In theory, this should provide a solid framework for a fair system. The minor points of the blueprint here can certainly be adjusted, especially when it comes to signing bonuses and which rounds merit guaranteed contracts. (Maybe the third- and fourth-rounders can only get three guaranteed years, but still have their rights owned by the team that drafts them for the full four or five years.)
Regardless of how it happens, I'd like to see something like this happen. It would be good for all teams, all veteran free agents, and all fans when it comes to worrying about rookie holdouts or rookie contracts limiting their favorite team's wiggle room under the cap. And, who knows, fewer "bust" contracts might help keep ticket prices down, too.
comments (6) write a comment »
write a new comment
3 months ago
I wrote this without spending too long to flesh it out, so I'd love to see any comments with thoughts on if this could work, what modifications could be made, if any, and what other totally different ideas might be out there.
from 19 days ago
Tim, I also got to thinking about MORE pay for practice-sqaud guys. Some of them don't make enough, in my opinion. I am not saying millions, just pay them decently. Right now, they are kind of exploited, but that's just my opinion. Thank you for your thought-provoking column.
19 days ago
Tim, you raise some good points. I'll have to think 'em over, but I'll get back to you at a later date.
The big contracts really hurt teams. Look at Alex Smith and the 'Niners. I really like Smith. A quality young man, but it was foolhardy to spend so much guaranteed and then to re-sign him.
Nolan liked him because he asked Rodgers and Smith to do the football-under-the-legs trick and Rodgers balked. Smith did it. Nolan, according ot Gwen Knapp, I think, of the Chron, Nolan said Smith's submission impressed him. Go figure, huh?
Also, Smith didn't even operate out of a pro-set offense, and he was a shotgun QB.
Yet, the 'Niners still paid the big bucks. I don't get it.
from 19 days ago
Yeah, the teams get stuck because they might want to draft a guy because of some things they like about him, but just because they spend a high pick on him doesn't necessarily mean the player should be able to hold out for a fat contract with a lot of guaranteed money.
It almost forces the team to give these rookies playing time earlier than they are both ready for or deserve in a lot of cases, too. For example, JaMarcus Russell might not be starting now if the Raiders didn't have to pay him a ton off the bat, because they could bring him along and spend some more money for a temporary quarterback option. Then again, he might be starting now, but money shouldn't really affect playing time until that money is earned from previous quality playing time.
You can make the argument that teams just need to be more accountable and responsible with their picks, but I think it's pretty hard to argue the NFL's current system is flawless.
I don't think my proposal is, either, but I think some of the ideas can bring about a more fair system. Alex Smith is a good example where he'd have to prove a bit more in a situation where neither he nor the team could try to increase or decrease his salary. Maybe he'd have been more motivated and earned money, but if not, the team wouldn't have wasted cash on a bust who got rich from hype.
14 days ago
Feel free to make grammatical change to my articles, but DO NOT add or take away complete lines in any of my articles again. That was nothing short of annoying.
from 14 days ago
Hey Adam, check your profile for a response, because this isn't the right place to discuss a story you wrote. As I said over there, sorry you feel that way, but I checked and I actually didn't take away any complete lines, so I'm not sure what the confusion is.
Looking forward to hearing back from you on my profile so we can clear it up and get the story to look the way you want it to look.
write a new comment