There are 96 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

The unintended consequences of a rookie salary cap

  • sfout
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 6,310
Originally posted by Otohns:
Originally posted by sfout:
No he wasn't. The cap was instituted for this past draft, thats how Newton's deal is so massively low compared to Bradford's.

That's a contract for the 11th overall player from the 2011 draft
Blaine Gabbert Quarterback 7/28/2011: Signed a four-year, $12 million contract. The deal is fully guaranteed, including a $7.228 million signing bonus. 2012: $920,529, 2013: $1,466,058, 2014: $2,011,587, 2015: Free Agent

compared to the 11th overall player from the 2010 draft
Anthony Davis Tackle 7/30/2010: Signed a five-year, $26.5 million contract. The deal contains $15.954 million guaranteed. 2012: $925,000, 2013: $1.3 million, 2014: $1,073,600, 2015: Free Agent


Thats the rookie wage scale at work for you. The way the scale protects the younger players is that all the new deals are fully guaranteed but come in at 2/5's the cost of the contracts from years past.

I am confused by your post. I stated that Gabbert WAS drafted after the rookie cap was implemented. I also stated that HAD Gabbert been drafted prior to the implementation of the rookie cap, he would have potentially been owed a lot more money by the team. Don't most teams stipulate roster bonuses and such in their contracts that let teams waive a player to avoid having to pay certain amounts of the original contract? I thought that's why a lot of so-called "guaranteed" money is in fact not really guaranteed at all. A good example would be Alex Smith's most recent contract which has "guaranteed" salaries this year and next year but if he is waived before April 1, 2003, the his "guaranteed" amount for 2013 doesn't not have to be paid.

You wrote "Gabbert may not have been the best example because had he been selected PRIOR to the rookie salary cap, it would be even more likely for him to be kicked to the curb if he doesn't produce." Which reads "had he been drafted in previous years it would've made him more likely to be cut" Which doesn't make sense because its the other way around, since he was drafted after the rookie cap was implemented he is more likely to be cut or traded for garbage if he doesn't produce.

But I think we're still on different pages of understanding you know? Cause I get what you mean but how you wrote it and how interpreted it made it confusing. But its all good , I was just showing the difference in the contacts from 2010(last year without a wage scale) and 2011(the first year of the wage scale) to show how much easier it is for a team to cut ties with players now.

Yea teams get really tricky with the cap with fake "guaranteed" money but the NFL was able to pass the Wage Scale by agreeing that while the high first round picks lose more then half of the money they would've made in years past becomes completely fully guaranteed. That way if a player is injured it is a way to protect the players but still protect to club because of the low overall cost of the contract. I bet if someone could ask any owner what they thought they would say "I'd rather pay the #1 pick $20M on day one and be completely in the clear for 4 years rather then pay him $50M on day 1 and be on the hook for upwards of another $20M for the next 5 or 6 years if he busts or we cut/trade him and are left with dead money".
[ Edited by sfout on Mar 25, 2012 at 10:02 AM ]
Originally posted by sfout:
You wrote "Gabbert may not have been the best example because had he been selected PRIOR to the rookie salary cap, it would be even more likely for him to be kicked to the curb if he doesn't produce." Which reads "had he been drafted in previous years it would've made him more likely to be cut" Which doesn't make sense because its the other way around, since he was drafted after the rookie cap was implemented he is more likely to be cut or traded for garbage if he doesn't produce.

But I think we're still on different pages of understanding you know? Cause I get what you mean but how you wrote it and how interpreted it made it confusing. But its all good , I was just showing the difference in the contacts from 2010(last year without a wage scale) and 2011(the first year of the wage scale) to show how much easier it is for a team to cut ties with players now.

Yea teams get really tricky with the cap with fake "guaranteed" money but the NFL was able to pass the Wage Scale by agreeing that while the high first round picks lose more then half of the money they would've made in years past becomes completely fully guaranteed. That way if a player is injured it is a way to protect the players but still protect to club because of the low overall cost of the contract. I bet if someone could ask any owner what they thought they would say "I'd rather pay the #1 pick $20M on day one and be completely in the clear for 4 years rather then pay him $50M on day 1 and be on the hook for upwards of another $20M for the next 5 or 6 years if he busts or we cut/trade him and are left with dead money".

I am glad I started this post because I feel like all of you guys have had very good points and contributions to the topic. It's definitely a thought provoking topic and helps me look at the intricacies of how teams manage payroll and personnel.
Great thread. Keep it up kids.