The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Recently Atlanta sign a contract with Matt Ryan for $72 million,$34.7 million is guaranteed. I think this is insane for a guy who has never thrown a pass in the NFL.
So my question to you is,
Should there be a cap on the salaries of rookies ?
Odiously the cap would have to be adjusted to what round a player is drafted.

I'd like to see a rookie scale..Atleast for the top 15 players that get drafted (I think those are the ones that are out of wack the most)...not really a cap....

I don't understand capping rookie contracts.

I think it's pretty gross that they make so much money, but welcome to Capitalism.  Supply and Demand dictates their value.  Do you think it's right to artificially set it, going against the very concept of how this country is run?

I'm not saying that they deserve a ton of money, and I understand your point, but I just don't see a just solution, unless we're going to start capping other people's salaries, too -- then you're talking about Socialism (which I'm okay with...but it's a different way of thinking.)

I support a rookie cap.  Not having one negates much of the the other efforts for team parity. 

If the Dolphins, Rams or Falcons screwed up their first draft pick and have a guy who never plays a down in a pro-game not only did they blow a draft pick but they are in cap hell as well.  If the Giants screwed up their first draft pick and he never play a down, they blew a pick, but it won't cause cap issues for years to come. 

No reason why teams such as the Dolphins should be saddled with a competive disadvantage the years after going 1-15, when compared to the situation that the SB winner has.   

You only hear about a rookie cap if a team makes a mistake at the top of the draft. Are the texans crying about Mario Williams or Andre Johnson. If Matt ryan produces you won't hear a peep about his salary. If you pick the right player, money isn't any issue.

For people who think the NBA system is so great are mistaken. The rookie cap is good, but after that they sign for 70 million and if the players a bust they're stuck with that contract. Afew bad contracts in the NBA can lead to several years of misery, just ask the knicks.

I'd like to see a scale based on production for all players. 

Pay them minimum throughout the season and then make up the difference based on how well they played. 

If you're the top rated QB then you get a huge bonus.  If you're the bottom rated QB then you get zip. 

Penalties are deducted from your pay as well.

Off-field activities would be taken into account.  Every visit to the Children's Hospital gets you a bonus.  Money is deducted for every police incident (domestic violence, drugs, gun charges, etc).

Now acting like a jackass in public costs you money.

Let's go a step farther and move the decimal one place to the left for player salaries, tickets and parking, concessions, merchandise, etc. 

There's a lot of flaws that still need to be worked out... I'll let one of you run with it and take full credit.   ;)

Rookie salaries aren't bad the later you get in the draft. There's a huge drop from the first round to second round. There is even a huge drop in the first round. The top picks are the problem. So yes, I'd be all for dropping those salaries down. When Matt Ryan makes money like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, there's a problem. They are paid like guys who've earned that money, so people are angry. For Matt Ryan, he'll probably sit out a year, or if he does play he'll have a steep learning curve. So does he really earn that money? I think something should be done, but it's going to have to come from the Player's Union. Owners don't care, and owners aren't going to push this through.

I don't think anything incentive based is going to work. I think what you can try to do is shorten up the contracts. It takes about three years to tell what you have in a guy. At that point, they're restricted free agents, and they can be paid what they're due then.The reason I like it is the player gets paid his money, and the team gets a little more security. Again, it's about that time when the busts overstay their welcome, and become a burden to their team. Again, this probably wont work either, but I think everyone would be more receptive to this change.

I definitely support a cap on a rookies salary, but you would need to have it according to the positions where they are drafted, I wouldn't expect the number one pick being limited to what number 32 could get.
I think there could be a great trade off here, the unions allows a cap on rookies, and the owners contribute more to a retirement fund for players, this includes lifetime medical, as where most teams already have their own doctors.
Over all I believe the players who have been around deserve more then some guy who never played a down.

Again, the owners aren't going to give up anything. The things they're pushing for are revenue boosters. They don't care whether they pay a rookie or a veteran. To be honest, they probably like the top picks better, because they are more marketable. Like I said, it's the players who are concerned about this, since the guys you hear are Kevin Mawae and other NFL veterans. Don't expect the owners to trade anything for a rookie cap. They're more concerned with changing a pre-season game to a 17th regular season game. Profit is what it's all about.

What business owner isn't out for a profit ?
Why shouldn't NFL owners be any different ?

If they are interested in profit, then they should be HEAVILY in favor of a rookie salary cap, since the difference between [what they pay now] and [what they would pay under a cap system] is extra money in their pocket.  In fact, a cap system is essentially the players asking the owners to promise to pay them less money.

Not really.  The idea behind a rookie cap is independent of the team cap.  Teams would still spend just as much money on total team salary.  But more of it would go to players that re-signed and acquired by FA and less would go to rookies. 

JACKPOT!!!! Right to the point, and I agree.

I agree that there should be a limit on rookie salaries.  Big money should go to the stars who have proven themselves. 

Bingo! There is still the entire salary cap. It won't matter to a team how they spend it. You can pay a rookie or a vet, and right now the rookies are getting more. The team winds up paying about the same, so the owner doesn't care. Again, the cap has to be pushed by the player association, and by the looks of it this won't be a major consideration. Face it, a rookie salary cap is unlikely.

Even so, that's still more money available to spend on talent that's actually proven itself in the NFL.  Given the choice between doling out a $50mil contract to a player that's never even stepped on an NFL field, vs. $50mil for a Pro Bowl free agent, I think most teams would prefer the latter.

I mean, even if you look at the best case scenario, a Peyton Manning-type first round pick... was his play over the first 4 years worth $50mil?  Far from it.

There is a rookie salary cap.

It might not work exactly how you want it to, but it's there. It's called the rookie salary pool and limits the amount of cap a team can spend on their rookies (draft picks AND undrafted rookies). The amount varies by team according to the number of picks and where they fall in the draft. The Dolphins have a rookie salary cap of $6,538,400 this year.

That means, the combined cap hit THIS YEAR from rookies cannot be more than $6.54 million.

So how did we manage to sign Jake Long ($57.5 million for 5 years), let alone leave room for our other rookies?

First of all, this is CAP SPACE, so it's not a question of how much money a player actually GETS in his first year. Signing bonuses are pro-rated over the length of the contract, so for a 5 year contract, you need to divide the signing bonus by 5 to get the cap hit for the rookie year (and add the base salary, but that's typically VERY small for the first year).

These facts also clearly illustrate that the "$30M signing bonus" numbers many media outlets have bandied about are pure bull. That would be $6M against the rookie cap and not leave nearly enough space to sign our other players. No, the $30M is "guaranteed money", some of which is a signing bonus and some of which is other guaranteed money like roster bonuses in future seasons.

I suggest tweaking the current system just a tad.  Instead of using the cap hit.  Take the total contract value/divide by the number of years and use that number. 

The problem with that is that the total contract value is completely bogus. I guess you could use total guaranteed money divided by the contract length.

I think I would prefer just cutting to the chase and using the money actually paid out to the player. That's the only really hard number in there anyway.

Maybe make rookie contracts shorter and guaranteed. That gives the players outside the very top some security and it allows everyone to go for a fair market value contract a lot sooner. Keep the franchise tag if having "name" drafted players really matters that much to a team.

Though I support a cap, I saw an interesting point of view made by Drew Rosenhaus on TV recently.  Namely, that the NFLPA likes the rookie contracts as they are because agents can take those massive rookie contracts into negotiations for veterans and say, "well, if Matt Ryan's worth X having never played, then my guy must be worth Y as a proven commodity."  Made sense.  In essence, Rookie pay dictates veteran extensions, and every time a rookie hits a record pay day, veterans heading into FA rejoice.

Yes and no.  Keep in mind their is a team cap.  Vet demand he is paid more than the rookie, team has only so much money so the vet is forced to retire early because he is not affordable.  It also means there is virtual no money for the later round picks to get signing bonuses.

NFL.com has an article up on their front page with good comments from NFLPA Presiden Kevin Mawae, center for the Titans:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8088a907

Rookie salaries WILL come down with the next CBA (relatively, anyway). There's just no two ways about it. In the future, the proven guys are going to get a larger piece of the pie. The big question is, what's going to happen with the pie?

The current CBA is in place for 2008 and 2009 - and actually covers 2010 as well, but uncapped. After that (2011 on) there is no CBA. From the NFLPA's perspective, that's unthinkable... and I really don't see how the owners could accept a CBA-less year. Maybe a "light" version with no cap or whatever, but rules governing workouts, settlement of disputes (through arbitration) and so on make things a lot simpler all around.