Anonymous asked in SportsFootball (American) · 1 decade ago

Why can't NFL owners simply not sign these ridiculous contracts to rookies?

I tried to reason with people, but there is no reasoning with so many idiots. They cry for a salary cap, but if they don't pay up, problem solved. People say somebody else will pay them, well yeah! You just answered my question. Why don't they stand up and say NO? Play for this or go find work in the real world. Can you picture Stafford working for 50k a year. Bet he'd play for 2 mil a year if that was his other option. The owners are weak and ruining the game for fans, but most of you out there don't even realize it.


I didn't mean 50k in the NFL idiot. I meant in the real world. If they don't sign with the team that drafted them, they can't play. Have to wait til next draft or be traded. You think the guy will find a job elsewhere for 50k or sign to play for 2 mil a year? Hmmm

Update 2:

Well said Magic. The Pats do do it right. They won't pay huge money. They draft great talent, develop them, and when they get a big head and want to own the team, they show them the door. See Asante Samuel. Dallas, Washington, and others sign huge contracts and that gets them where. On the couch watching good run teams win Super Bowls.

Update 3:

I give up on most of you morons. There is definitely not the intelligence level in here needed to have a smart discussion. Some of you are as blind as our politicians. Just can't see the truth. Open your damn eyes.

Update 4:

Kenta, you're my pet peeve. People who are too ignorant to be allowed to live. We need gene pool cleansing now.

11 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I agree with you 100%. I explain the present situation this way: If you don't pay current market value to your draft choices, they won't sign. Their not signing hurts your team because you just wasted picks, and you'll be competing against teams that did. Plus, if they're unsigned by the next draft day, they're eligible to get picked again, and you've got nothing. That's why it's financially smart to trade down: Give up a #2 this year for a #3 & #5, plus a #4 next year. You might sign all three players for less than that #2.

    What I don't understand is this: The union is supported by current NFL players, not college prospects. So why does the collective bargaining agreement help out rookies at the expense of veterans? Why do the veterans allow monster contracts to go to kids out of college, many of whom won't pan out? Also, if the cost of signing draft choices was low, Anquon Bolton & Braylon Edwards would be traded to better situations because the Cards & Browns wouldn't have a salary cap hit when they sign the draft choices they get for them.

    I think rookies should be treated like apprentices for 2 years. #1 overall draft choice makes, oh, $1.5M per year + $1M signing bonus. Each player drafted after him makes a little less down to a minimum of $500k per year + $500k signing bonus. No salary extensions until after the first year is complete. Let these kids prove themselves before they get the monster contracts.

    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    I don't know why people think that this is different from the real world. An Ivy League graduate will come out of college and make more than someone who's worked at a company for 5 years. You know why? Talent. Someone from an Ivy League school usually has a higher ceiling. Take it this way, do you want someone at the head of your company that is good or could be great? Most people will go for possible greatness than definite mediocracy every time.

    Besides, one thing you haven't noticed is that the rookie pool is a relatively small portion of the teams alloted money. The situation currently is WAY MORE beneficial to the veterans. Sure, Stafford gets a huge contract, but the other picks have to split the remaining money. That is seriously uncool.

    Another thing you're neglecting to mention in all this is that the players have relatively short careers with a huge effect on their health in the future. Athletes (especially football players, though they make less than other sports) deserve their contract if only for the reason that their average career is five years long.

    Also, why are you upset with the players? The players still are screwed by the owners. And what in the world do the owners do that warrants their income. At least the players are out their busting their butts every day for a paycheck. What's the last thing that the Rooneys have done that have warranted them making that much money?

    And why should the rookies only have to negoiate with the team that drafted them? That's like saying you are good with computers, so IBM drafts you. You can't argue with your contract and you can't go look for a job with Dell or HP, even though they'd pay you what you want and likely deserve.

    Your ranting is seriously misplaced. Why don't you funnel some of that towards Bob Kraft? Why in the blue hell does he make more off of the Patriots success than Belichek? Brady?

    Source(s): Btw: My pet peeve is people who think because others don't agree with them it makes you stupid. Intelligence is understanding and comprehension, which you do not have for the other side of this argument.
  • 1 decade ago

    You've answered you own question, If team A doesn't pay them the salary they're asking for, Team B will.

    You're arguing that people aren't smart enough to see that there is a better way of doing it, and I counter that you're too naive to understand how business' work. Yes some teams refuse to pay the big money for players, but most will pay out the nose to get a player they think will help them win the SB.

    If all the team owners sat down and secretly agreed that they wouldn't pay any rookie more than 2 million they'd be breaking the law. Let's just assume they do that then. So the draft comes up, and the first pick (lions) is Stafford. The lions offer him 2 million and he balks at it, thinking other teams will give him more. The lions know that the other teams have agreed to not offer a better contract.

    All it takes is one owner to realize that he can get a better deal if he offers Stafford 2.5 mill. It's only a little more money, but no one else if offering as much, so he'd get Stafford. Once the next pick comes up, every owner would wisen up and offer a little more than the agreed upon price, so they could get the pick they wanted. So one team offers up 2.5 mill, and their rival team, determined to get the pick, offers up 3 mill.

    It would continue to escalate in the same manner until you ended up with rookie players getting 70 million dollar contracts with 40 million in guaranteed money. The only way to stop that is to make a rookie salary cap. The NFLPA will soon wisen up and realize that they're older members are getting hosed because rookies cost too much.

    If you were an owner and you wanted the best rookie QB in the draft, would you only offer 2 million like the other owners, or would you go a little further to gaurantee that you got him?

  • 1 decade ago

    I know that I answered a very similar question earlier today, but like I said - don't let the players association "play you" into thinking that the owners have all the control over this. They are under the CBA that was agreed upon by them and the players that lays out fairly well how things like this will go. The only way the owners could ever do anything to change it (other than a new collective bargaining agreement) would be to refuse to offer what the supposed (now guaranteed) increase from the previous year was for each position in the draft, and instead say we are only paying $2 to 4 million a year for a top 5 pick over 3 years and then you can negotiate based on performance as a restricted free agent.

    The agents would say that they players would not sign and hold out and at some point someone would have to give in.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Answer me this - if you were a NFL General Manager, and you drafted a player in the first five picks, but refused to pay him, and then he held out until he got the money he wanted, how would you explain to the owner of the team that you wasted one of the top picks in the draft and got nothing for it?

    The Raiders tried this with JaMarcus Russel a couple of years ago. He held out until like week 3 of the pre-season before they agreed on a deal. It's not just the player on the line, but the team also. If you don't sign your draft picks - you've wasted your draft and done nothing to improve your team.

    Hopefully the new CBA will have a rookie salary cap that all players will have to adhere to. If not, it will only be another 3 years or so before the top picks are making $100 million to start.

  • 1 decade ago

    Rookies make too much. In fact, all athletes do. The NFL is trying to change this, but I really don't know how you can at this point. How can a guy that hasn't played one game in the NFL come in and make more money than most starters who've played for 8 years? There's something wrong with this picture.

    Also, the rookies might hold out (Jamarcus Russell) and then they wouldn't play either way. I think they just want to make them happy so they'll play for their team.

    I like what the Patriots do. They get a lot of pretty good players and don't give them huge contracts. That way they have more money to spend on other pretty good players making a very balanced team. When teams give one superstar a massive contract, like Haynesworth's 100 million dollar guaranteed contract that just makes it that much harder to sign quality players. I don't see why so many teams struggle with that philosophy. It's obviously worked over there.

  • Luigi
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    Well duh someone else would pay them. If the nfl owners were to go together and decide not to pay them, that would be called collusion which is illegal. The rookie draft system does definitely need work by adding a slotting system. But without the system that's just weak. If you stand by paying them less you look stupid like the raiders a couple of years ago with the Jarmarcus Russell situation. You don't want to give in that's fine for the franchise, the Baltimore Colts did it with Elway, all that turned out to be was a wasted pick and a hof for the broncos.

  • ?
    Lv 4
    5 years ago

    Yes considering that they have yet to play a down and prove themselves. Is Stafford going to be that much with a team who's fan base has lost more jobs than others. The league needs to start a cap for top ten players to 4 years, $5 million with $1 Million guaranteed and go from there. If they are good , make them prove it and stop hamstringing clubs with players that are out of football in 3 years.

  • jim c
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    It's because all the paperwork, agents and lawyers involved now want their piece of the pie and in order to get it they have let rookie draft salaries skyrocket and if i was an owner i'd be smart and say you know what enough i'm not signing or drafting in that spot i'm gonna pass it up

  • 1 decade ago

    They have agents bud, they aren't gonna sign for 50k plus that's under minimum wage for NFL. And Lions could have done it and watched Stafford fall to 2 OR they can just get good and fall to the high picks and pay less.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.