Agree w/ This Article?? Who doesn't?

I don't understand why the collective bargaining agreement hasn't gone this way to a greater degree.

My guess is the teams try to sign first rounders for as long as they can, and to get the players association to agree to rookie slotting caps they'd have to agree to shorter contracts, but perhaps more guaranteed money, and maybe the teams don't want to agree to that.

To me the real problem seems to be in the first round. Later rounds don't concern me as much. Alot of later round players are probably underpaid. On our team guys like Roos, Stewart, and Bell are probably underpaid and would be better served with shorter rookie contracts or contracts with more rapid accelerator clauses for strong performance.

On the other hand, for Rookies the injury concern is a very real issue so I can understand the players wanting to get as much as they can now also.

The thing to me is not many teams are wanting to trade their first picks, so the teams apparently they feel overall it economically works out.

 

what about players with character concerns... or injury-prone guys?... would there be a standard contract for all bad character guys... for the injury-prone ones?

 

I actually don't agree with this. Mario Williams should not be paid more than Bush or Vince because of where he was drafted.

In basketball, almost all of the jobs are equal in priority to another, a good center is just as valuable as a good guard.in the NFL though, a great QB is harder to come by, when you can get good O linemen on the FA wire.

Skill positions will always be paid more, and that's how it should be, IMHO

 

The problem with the NFL doing that is you are dealing with really short careers. The average NFL runningback lasts about 5 to 7 years. Much lower for power backs. IT wouldn't be fair to hold a RB hostage for 3 years. Now if they want to do that for one or two year and then let the team make a decison then that wouldn't be bad. The issue for me is that the NBA locks up a rookie for 3 to 4 years.

 

I've been complaining about this for years. After throwing good money at a player like Woolfolk, what a waste. I don't know exactly how the NBA works their idea, but it was my thinking that the player wouldn't sign a contract until his second year. His first year, rookie year, was a base salary figured by his position in the draft selection. It has nothing to do with which postion he played. The player has only proven that he can play at a college level. If he proves he can play at a pro level, pay him pro money.
Look at Houston last year. It is my understanding that they passed on Young because they didn't want to dish out huge dollars for another QB when they had Carr on the payroll. They also passed on Bush and took a player who wouldn't draw a huge pay check. (I hope I got all that right). Considering the above idea, Houston would have paid the same amount up front for that pick whether it was Bush, Young or whoever. Would they have taken Young or Bush knowing they were paying the same amount?
At my present job, I brought 10 years experience with me when I was hired. I proved that I could do the job. I started at a base salary that increased as my production did. They didn't pay me blindly when they hired me.

 

There should be like a cap for each year. So you don't have to have them just 3 years.