Eric Reid signed

[NinerSickness]

Dude, you act as though I'm the first and only person who ever said anything like this. Not one of your conclusions of what I said are even close.

IS even close. Because you brought the conversation to English for some reason...

Read and comprehend. This isn't rocket science. Are you just being an agitator?

You're going to have to be a lot more specific with your ad hominem implications. You didn't answer any of my questions (which you're calling conclusions?) You're new here, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt (for now).

1. Owners don't care about relative salaries; they care about the TOTAL payments they make. You're not seeming to get this.
2. The NFLPA & Owners were in agreement about lowering rookie wages. They weren't even arguing over that. They were arguing over (my original point) the TOTAL salary cap.
3. You didn't answer this question: Should players become free agents after 1 season or 2? Because you apparently think it's unfair that they have to play for the same team for 3-4 years (poor guys).
4. You lament that there's even an NFL draft and that sports franchises have an antitrust exemption. So how would you propose the NFL is structured? No draft? No salary cap? No CBA?

 

[aarrgghh]

IS even close. Because you brought the conversation to English for some reason...




You're going to have to be a lot more specific with your ad hominem implications. You didn't answer any of my questions (which you're calling conclusions?) You're new here, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt (for now).

1. Owners don't care about relative salaries; they care about the TOTAL payments they make. You're not seeming to get this.
2. The NFLPA & Owners were in agreement about lowering rookie wages. They weren't even arguing over that. They were arguing over (my original point) the TOTAL salary cap.
3. You didn't answer this question: Should players become free agents after 1 season or 2? Because you apparently think it's unfair that they have to play for the same team for 3-4 years (poor guys).
4. You lament that there's even an NFL draft and that sports franchises have an antitrust exemption. So how would you propose the NFL is structured? No draft? No salary cap? No CBA?

Quote:
Because you brought the conversation to English for some reason...

Thank you. That were indecipherable English.

Quote:
You're new here, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt (for now)

Thanks for that. I mean it. Really.

1. Owners don't care about relative salaries; they care about the TOTAL payments they make. You're not seeming to get this.

You have continued to make this a point. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I am (trying to say) saying (I hope I got that close, grammatically) that's why I didn't directly answer this before. That and the fact that you have answered zero percent of my questions, while accusing me of not answering yours - clever!

2. The NFLPA & Owners were ion agreement about lowering rookie wages. They weren't even arguing over thancat. They were arguing over (my original point) the TOTAL salary cap.

Again, not the point. This has nothing to do with total salary cap dollars. Unfortunately, I am incapable of being less...opaque. Let's agree to not feel as though we need to be understood.

3. You didn't answer this question: Should players become free agents after 1 season or 2? Because you apparently think it's unfair that they have to play for the same team for 3-4 years (poor guys).

The average NFL career is 3 years.

4. You lament that there's even an NFL draft and that sports franchises have an antitrust exemption. So how would you propose the NFL is structured? No draft? No salary cap? No CBA?

Sigh. Yes.. a lament. That's what I'm doing. Why are you whining that I am lamenting? Kidding, sort of. I don't propose to be able to answer those questions. I do question and (shock!) ask others opinions about the 49ers and the league as it relates to the 49ers. I even have opinions.

 

[imac_21]

Quote:
Because you brought the conversation to English for some reason...

Thank you. That were indecipherable English.

Quote:
You're new here, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt (for now)

Thanks for that. I mean it. Really.

1. Owners don't care about relative salaries; they care about the TOTAL payments they make. You're not seeming to get this.

You have continued to make this a point. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I am (trying to say) saying (I hope I got that close, grammatically) that's why I didn't directly answer this before. That and the fact that you have answered zero percent of my questions, while accusing me of not answering yours - clever!

2. The NFLPA & Owners were ion agreement about lowering rookie wages. They weren't even arguing over thancat. They were arguing over (my original point) the TOTAL salary cap.

Again, not the point. This has nothing to do with total salary cap dollars. Unfortunately, I am incapable of being less...opaque. Let's agree to not feel as though we need to be understood.

3. You didn't answer this question: Should players become free agents after 1 season or 2? Because you apparently think it's unfair that they have to play for the same team for 3-4 years (poor guys).

The average NFL career is 3 years.

4. You lament that there's even an NFL draft and that sports franchises have an antitrust exemption. So how would you propose the NFL is structured? No draft? No salary cap? No CBA?

Sigh. Yes.. a lament. That's what I'm doing. Why are you whining that I am lamenting? Kidding, sort of. I don't propose to be able to answer those questions. I do question and (shock!) ask others opinions about the 49ers and the league as it relates to the 49ers. I even have opinions.

Do you have any opinions on this particular topic? You've expressed that you don't like what currently exists, but have given absolutely zero detail. I have read your posts here twice and have no clue what your complaints are other than the NFL is an evil, horrible, big corporation.

You don't like how few big contracts there were this year, but have avoided explaining what a big contract is and quantifying "a lot."

I'm trying to see this from your perspective, but it's too vague right now.

 

[aarrgghh]

I'm sorry, I am only beginning to understand the nuance here. I should have responded to your post and NinerSickness's in the same thread? I'll get to yours, but it requires some thought.

 

[imac_21]

I'm sorry, I am only beginning to understand the nuance here. I should have responded to your post and NinerSickness's in the same thread? I'll get to yours, but it requires some thought.

No worries. There's no guidelines or convention in replying to multiple posters at once. Some posters do, some don't. I just wanted to make sure my post hadn't been missed in Sick's series of posts.

I'm not looking to start a fight with this either, I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.

 

[NinerSickness]

Quote:
Because you brought the conversation to English for some reason...

Thank you. That were indecipherable English.

Quote:
You're new here, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt (for now)

Thanks for that. I mean it. Really.

1. Owners don't care about relative salaries; they care about the TOTAL payments they make. You're not seeming to get this.

You have continued to make this a point. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I am (trying to say) saying (I hope I got that close, grammatically) that's why I didn't directly answer this before. That and the fact that you have answered zero percent of my questions, while accusing me of not answering yours - clever!

2. The NFLPA & Owners were ion agreement about lowering rookie wages. They weren't even arguing over thancat. They were arguing over (my original point) the TOTAL salary cap.

Again, not the point. This has nothing to do with total salary cap dollars. Unfortunately, I am incapable of being less...opaque. Let's agree to not feel as though we need to be understood.

3. You didn't answer this question: Should players become free agents after 1 season or 2? Because you apparently think it's unfair that they have to play for the same team for 3-4 years (poor guys).

The average NFL career is 3 years.

4. You lament that there's even an NFL draft and that sports franchises have an antitrust exemption. So how would you propose the NFL is structured? No draft? No salary cap? No CBA?

Sigh. Yes.. a lament. That's what I'm doing. Why are you whining that I am lamenting? Kidding, sort of. I don't propose to be able to answer those questions. I do question and (shock!) ask others opinions about the 49ers and the league as it relates to the 49ers. I even have opinions.

aaarrggg, you're all over the board here. I'm really not trying to bust your balls; your posts in this thread are just lacking coherecy. I did a control F for a question mark and found a question you said I didn't answer (which I didn't):

"Next, do you think all of the players who previously could look forward to a nice, big contract when they hit free agency are enjoying the new structure?"

The answer is NFL players can still look forward to nice, big contracts. Contracts have gotten bigger since 2011.

Now I'll stick to 3 items in this post so we can get a little more focused.

1. Where did I make grammatical errors in post 35? Just out of curiosity.
2. How do owners benefit from lower rookie wages if that doesn't affect the salary cap?
3. You replied: "The average NFL career is 3 years" Does that mean you believe that players should be free agents immediately upon entering the NFL? As in no NFL draft?

 

[aarrgghh]

Goldson got his contract. The Niners spent two offseasons trying to come up with a long term contract for him and they couldn't agree, so he went and got it in TB.

I'm also curious as to how you define "big contracts" and what you consider to be "not very many."

I believe the two biggest contracts in NFL history were signed this offseason by Flacco and Rogers. Navarro Bowman got a pretty good extension, though it wasn't during the offseason. Victor Cruz just signed a nice contract, Goldson got a big contract, Harvin got a big contract.

Going by Rotoworld's list of FAs:
Mike Wallace and Dwayne Bowe both got over 10M per season on long term contracts, Greg Jennings got 9.5 per on a 5 year deal. Hell, Bryan Hartline got over 6M per year. Jared Cook got over 7M per year, 4 OTs signed 4+ year contracts worth 7+M, Sam Baker signed a 6 year 41M, Andy Levitre got almost 8M per year to play G on a 6 year contract, 2 of the top DTs signed their franchise tenders, Dumervil was the only really established DE, and there were circumstances surrounding his FA, Paul Kruger got over 8m per year, Anthony Spencer get 10+ on a franchise tender, Ellerbe got 7M per year,

The above doesn't include players signing extensions (such as Revis)

If we consider this to be "not many big contracts" as you have defined neither of your qualifiers ("big" and "many", could there be other reasons for not many big contracts? Maybe there weren't many players in FA this year that warranted them. Look through the rotoworld link (below) and find players who deserved big contracts and didn't get the.

2013 NFL Free Agents - Free Agency Update - Rotoworld.com

True, Rodgers and Flacco did sign huge contracts and Goldson got paid elsewhere and there are others too, but this doesn't contradict the point I have been trying, albeit poorly apparently, to make. Here it is in a nutshell:

I believe the original intent of the rookie wage scale was ostensibly to make players earn their way to the big contracts. That part makes sense to me. Why should a player drafted low, who outplays their contract, not get compensated, as opposed to a highly touted player who is drafted high, and busts, out? (and which has happened far too often).

In some cases, that is exactly what will happen. Kaepernick is going to be making 20 mil a year, if not in SF then it will be somewhere else (barring injury) and I am aware that superstars like Rodgers, Flacco, Revis and a few others got paid this year. I am also aware that in most cases, (the Bengals being an exception and probably a couple of others) that all of the teams use all of their salary cap limit and have to get creative in order to keep players they want, like extending deals and moving money to signing bonuses, paid over more time to decrease the cap hit. With me so far?

OK, so my point, and pretty much my only point, is that an additional benefit of the rookie salary cap is that it gives the teams a huge advantage in negotiating with the majority of free agents. Most of the people who were hoping to get a nice free agent contract, have had to settle for much less than they thought they would, and often a one year deal. I think this will be the rule going forward, rather than the exception. Notable examples are Woodson, Freeney, Bradshaw, Seymour, etc. Freeney accused the league of colluding, but I don't necessarily agree with that. I just think that it gives the teams a bargaining chip they may previously not have had.

Goldson is a good example; instead of paying him 8+ mil a year, the 49ers were able to draft a rookie who will make a fraction of that, not only this year, but for at least the following two years. From the team's point of view, what's not to like? If there was no salary cap in place, they might have to pay Reid close to what they would have had to pay Goldson to keep him, which would likely have made Goldson a more attractive option. Does that make sense? It is a benefit of the rookie wage scale for teams that I didn't see coming. Sure, the players at the top will get still their money, but the players in the middle are the ones that are going to have to set their sights lower or lose their jobs.

Maybe this should have been obvious to me, because if you have a worker who makes $20 an hour and there is nobody else who can do the job, then that's what the job is going to cost. If you have a talent pool of people who can do the job nearly as well, and may at some point do the job just as well or even better and cost $10 an hour, then the answer becomes simple.

Anyway, I hope that doesn't seem too incoherent.

 

[aarrgghh]

aaarrggg, you're all over the board here. I'm really not trying to bust your balls; your posts in this thread are just lacking coherecy. I did a control F for a question mark and found a question you said I didn't answer (which I didn't):

"Next, do you think all of the players who previously could look forward to a nice, big contract when they hit free agency are enjoying the new structure?"

The answer is NFL players can still look forward to nice, big contracts. Contracts have gotten bigger since 2011.

Now I'll stick to 3 items in this post so we can get a little more focused.

1. Where did I make grammatical errors in post 35? Just out of curiosity.
2. How do owners benefit from lower rookie wages if that doesn't affect the salary cap?
3. You replied: "The average NFL career is 3 years" Does that mean you believe that players should be free agents immediately upon entering the NFL? As in no NFL draft?

1. Where did I make grammatical errors in post 35? Just out of curiosity.

I didn't say there was any grammatical error on your part.

2. How do owners benefit from lower rookie wages if that doesn't affect the salary cap?

I tried to answer that in the post #47. I can't do a better job of explaining, so I hope it's not all over the board, filled with non sequiturs, and makes more than no sense at all.

3. You replied: "The average NFL career is 3 years" Does that mean you believe that players should be free agents immediately upon entering the NFL? As in no NFL draft?

That is a question. I understand the reasoning behind revenue sharing and the draft. It's for the overall good of the league. Otherwise, all the best players would go the most desirable teams, i.e best weather, biggest fan base, most money. Many of the smaller market teams would go out of business. However, this is free market capitalism, not socialism (except in the case of pro sports). If you're the #1 law student in the country out of Harvard law, you don't get drafted by a podunk firm in Buford, Montana and have to work for them (or nowhere) for at least 3 years, for what scale they have decided to pay you. If the podunk firm goes under, so be it.

I am not a legal expert, but I am not entirely certain that the rookie scale could not be legally challenged on the merits of the fact that teams already enjoy the right to ownership of players for X years, and now they have additionally implemented a wage scale as well.

As for the average career lasting 3 years, it just means that the majority of players will not ever get to the point where they can get a big dollar contract, that's all.

I don't have the answers to how to fairly resolve these issues. It seems that the NFL put them in place because they can't seem to control themselves and this makes all that easier and it comes with additional benefits.

 

[imac_21]

True, Rodgers and Flacco did sign huge contracts and Goldson got paid elsewhere and there are others too, but this doesn't contradict the point I have been trying, albeit poorly apparently, to make. Here it is in a nutshell:

I believe the original intent of the rookie wage scale was ostensibly to make players earn their way to the big contracts. That part makes sense to me. Why should a player drafted low, who outplays their contract, not get compensated, as opposed to a highly touted player who is drafted high, and busts, out? (and which has happened far too often).

In some cases, that is exactly what will happen. Kaepernick is going to be making 20 mil a year, if not in SF then it will be somewhere else (barring injury) and I am aware that superstars like Rodgers, Flacco, Revis and a few others got paid this year. I am also aware that in most cases, (the Bengals being an exception and probably a couple of others) that all of the teams use all of their salary cap limit and have to get creative in order to keep players they want, like extending deals and moving money to signing bonuses, paid over more time to decrease the cap hit. With me so far?

OK, so my point, and pretty much my only point, is that an additional benefit of the rookie salary cap is that it gives the teams a huge advantage in negotiating with the majority of free agents. Most of the people who were hoping to get a nice free agent contract, have had to settle for much less than they thought they would, and often a one year deal. I think this will be the rule going forward, rather than the exception. Notable examples are Woodson, Freeney, Bradshaw, Seymour, etc. Freeney accused the league of colluding, but I don't necessarily agree with that. I just think that it gives the teams a bargaining chip they may previously not have had.

Goldson is a good example; instead of paying him 8+ mil a year, the 49ers were able to draft a rookie who will make a fraction of that, not only this year, but for at least the following two years. From the team's point of view, what's not to like? If there was no salary cap in place, they might have to pay Reid close to what they would have had to pay Goldson to keep him, which would likely have made Goldson a more attractive option. Does that make sense? It is a benefit of the rookie wage scale for teams that I didn't see coming. Sure, the players at the top will get still their money, but the players in the middle are the ones that are going to have to set their sights lower or lose their jobs.

Maybe this should have been obvious to me, because if you have a worker who makes $20 an hour and there is nobody else who can do the job, then that's what the job is going to cost. If you have a talent pool of people who can do the job nearly as well, and may at some point do the job just as well or even better and cost $10 an hour, then the answer becomes simple.

Anyway, I hope that doesn't seem too incoherent.

That clarifies your position quite a bit. But I ahve a few issues:

1. (Reid's contract terms aren't yet available, so I'm using Chandler Jones from last year) Chandler Jones last year signed a 4 year, 8.173M contract, Jermaine Gresham, the 21st pick in 2010 (the last rookie under the old CBA, signed a 5 year, $15.85M contract. The cost for the 21st pick is less than it was, but only by a shade over 1M per season. The biggest savings are in the top 10, where contracts were really out of control. We would have been looking at paying Reid about 3.3 to 3.5 per year instead of 2.1. Still peanuts compared to what Goldson got, so the new rookie scale didn't contribute to Goldson leaving. The value the Niners had on him did.

2. I posted an article earlier (I think in this thread) by Ross Tucker about the NFL middle class disappearing because of what you are kind of getting at here. Tucker agrees that the idea of the rookie scale was to allow veterans to get more money on their second and third contracts, but instead the money is being funneled to the superstars. So there aren't less "big contracts" (still uncertain how you define that), there are more big contracts, and more really small contracts, but less middle contracts (2.5-5M) and a lot more short term contracts.

 

[imac_21]

That is a question. I understand the reasoning behind revenue sharing and the draft. It's for the overall good of the league. Otherwise, all the best players would go the most desirable teams, i.e best weather, biggest fan base, most money. Many of the smaller market teams would go out of business. However, this is free market capitalism, not socialism (except in the case of pro sports). If you're the #1 law student in the country out of Harvard law, you don't get drafted by a podunk firm in Buford, Montana and have to work for them (or nowhere) for at least 3 years, for what scale they have decided to pay you. If the podunk firm goes under, so be it.

I am not a legal expert, but I am not entirely certain that the rookie scale could not be legally challenged on the merits of the fact that teams already enjoy the right to ownership of players for X years, and now they have additionally implemented a wage scale as well.

As for the average career lasting 3 years, it just means that the majority of players will not ever get to the point where they can get a big dollar contract, that's all.

I'm going to go paragraph by paragraph here with my thoughts.

1. To fully extend this analogy to law firms, we have to address what the corporation is. Is the corporation that Eric Reid joined the San Francisco 49ers, or the National Football League? If it's the 49ers, the law firm comparison holds up. If it's the NFL however, I think it falls apart (or holds up better?). Let me try to explain.

If I graduate from Harvard as the top law student, I do have a choice in what firm I sign with. However, if the firm I join has law offices all over the world, they can place me in NY, LA, London, Paris or wherever they want. If they place me in Berlin, and I decide I don't want to go there, I can go work for another firm. If I do go to Berlin, after I establish myself in the firm, I can look to transfer to a location that I would rather work.

If we look at the NFL as the firm, rather than individual franchises being competing law firms, I enter the NFL out of college and am told what city I will work in. If I decide I don't want to work in that city, I have the option to go play football for a different "firm" in the CFL, the Arena League etc. It's lower quality, but it's still what I love. After I establish myself in the league, if I choose to move on to another city I have that opportunity.

2. I don't believe the rookie scale can be challenged legally because it was collectively bargained, ie the players agreed to it. They can't challenge something they agreed to. The rookies coming in to the league didn't agree, but the NFL is not the only possible employer for them. They know the terms they are entering the league under, and agree to them by choosing to join the league.

3. I have seen this number (3 year average career) many places, and I'm not going to question the actual number. What I am curious about is how it is calculated. I assume it includes the undrafted rookies that sign in April and are out of the league by opening week. There are a lot of guys that fall into that category. There are very few first and second round picks that are out of the league after 3 years. Most of the guys that are out of the league within 3 years were unaffected by the rookie wage scale (late round picks and undrafted FA), so the new CBA didn't impact them in that way at all. Also, the undrafted FA have the opportunity to choose the team they join.

 

[NinerSickness]

OK, so my point, and pretty much my only point, is that an additional benefit of the rookie salary cap is that it gives the teams a huge advantage in negotiating with the majority of free agents. Most of the people who were hoping to get a nice free agent contract, have had to settle for much less than they thought they would, and often a one year deal.

But that isn't true. The average NFL salary has gone up since 2011 not down. I don't know if the median salary as a percentage of the salary cap has gone up or not. That number has yet to be produced.

Charles Woodson didn't get a big contract 'cause he's washed up. Ahmad Bradshaw got 1 year @ 1.1 million because he's a walking injury. Even when he's playing he's injured. Dwight Freeney got a 2-year 8.75 million dollar contract at age 33. How is that not a nice deal? And Richard Seymour will be 34 this year. Of course he's not going to get a long-term deal. But he's unemployed because he's holding out for more money. In fact, rookies making less means there's more money under the cap to pay him not less.

If you want an example of players in their primes getting a long-term deal, look at Connor Barwin. By no means is he an all-pro' pass rusher, but he just signed a 36 million dollar contract. And your Goldson example contradicts itself. Sure the Niners replaced him with a younger, cheaper player. But the Buccs didn't. The man still got paid. A lot.

Rookies making less doesn't give owners more leverage in negotiating deals. Your $20/hour VS $10/hour example doesn't apply because in the free market there isn't a salary cap for the company. Like I said: this is an industry with all kinds of arbitrary rules. It's not Costco.

As far as the draft goes, it's not like these players are "drafted" into the NFL like it's the military. They sign up to play in the NFL. The NFL isn't like a law firm or a restaurant; it's an industry where they play a game with arbitrary rules agreed upon by all parties. And they make boat loads of money doing so.

The only possible point one could make is that the rookie wage scale increased the TOP salaries and lowered the median salary as a percentage of the salary cap, but until someone can produce those numbers it's just a theory.

 

[aarrgghh]

But that isn't true. The average NFL salary has gone up since 2011 not down. I don't know if the median salary as a percentage of the salary cap has gone up or not. That number has yet to be produced.

Charles Woodson didn't get a big contract 'cause he's washed up. Ahmad Bradshaw got 1 year @ 1.1 million because he's a walking injury. Even when he's playing he's injured. Dwight Freeney got a 2-year 8.75 million dollar contract at age 33. How is that not a nice deal? And Richard Seymour will be 34 this year. Of course he's not going to get a long-term deal. But he's unemployed because he's holding out for more money. In fact, rookies making less means there's more money under the cap to pay him not less.

If you want an example of players in their primes getting a long-term deal, look at Connor Barwin. By no means is he an all-pro' pass rusher, but he just signed a 36 million dollar contract. And your Goldson example contradicts itself. Sure the Niners replaced him with a younger, cheaper player. But the Buccs didn't. The man still got paid. A lot.

Rookies making less doesn't give owners more leverage in negotiating deals. Your $20/hour VS $10/hour example doesn't apply because in the free market there isn't a salary cap for the company. Like I said: this is an industry with all kinds of arbitrary rules. It's not Costco.

As far as the draft goes, it's not like these players are "drafted" into the NFL like it's the military. They sign up to play in the NFL. The NFL isn't like a law firm or a restaurant; it's an industry where they play a game with arbitrary rules agreed upon by all parties. And they make boat loads of money doing so.

The only possible point one could make is that the rookie wage scale increased the TOP salaries and lowered the median salary as a percentage of the salary cap, but until someone can produce those numbers it's just a theory.

it's just a theory

Gosh! You nailed me. It is just a theory. Entirely based on all-over-the-board, absolutely, nonsensical, wisps of thought that must have come to me from the ether. La la la, (I'm spinning in circles right now, looking up at whatever is buzzing. Is that a bee? Come here, you!)

The average NFL salary has gone up since 2011 not down. I don't know if the median salary as a percentage of the salary cap has gone up or not. That number has yet to be produced.

None of this would necessarily fly in the face of my theory. And while we're at it, to suggest that:

The owners DON'T CARE who gets how much; they care how much THEY pay and about winning. They don't care if 1 guy gets 120 million per season and the other 52 players split the remaining 3 million; they still pay 123 million for the season.

in post #38 (I like that feature btw) -- is for lack of a better word, ridiculous. Players would mutiny, or at the very least, somewhere around 52 of them would be "quite irate" (said in a Monty Python movie not so recently). This indicates that you may not have experience with subjective experiences commonly referred to as emotions.

Quick question: Are you a computer?

 

[aarrgghh]

1. To fully extend this analogy to law firms, we have to address what the corporation is. Is the corporation that Eric Reid joined the San Francisco 49ers, or the National Football League? If it's the 49ers, the law firm comparison holds up. If it's the NFL however, I think it falls apart (or holds up better?). Let me try to explain.

If I graduate from Harvard as the top law student, I do have a choice in what firm I sign with. However, if the firm I join has law offices all over the world, they can place me in NY, LA, London, Paris or wherever they want. If they place me in Berlin, and I decide I don't want to go there, I can go work for another firm. If I do go to Berlin, after I establish myself in the firm, I can look to transfer to a location that I would rather work.

If we look at the NFL as the firm, rather than individual franchises being competing law firms, I enter the NFL out of college and am told what city I will work in. If I decide I don't want to work in that city, I have the option to go play football for a different "firm" in the CFL, the Arena League etc. It's lower quality, but it's still what I love. After I establish myself in the league, if I choose to move on to another city I have that opportunity.

I think it to be the team rather than the NFL (a non-profit corporation, entirely funded and chartered by owners) as the better definition of employer, although I hadn't considered that aspect.

2. I don't believe the rookie scale can be challenged legally because it was collectively bargained, ie the players agreed to it. Tthey can't challenge something they agreed to. The rookies coming in to the league didn't agree, but the NFL is not the only possible employer for them. They know the terms they are entering the league under, and agree to them by choosing to join the league.

Yes, agreed.

3. I have seen this number (3 year average career) many places, and I'm not going to question the actual number. What I am curious about is how it is calculated. I assume it includes the undrafted rookies that sign in April and are out of the league by opening week. There are a lot of guys that fall into that category. There are very few first and second round picks that are out of the league after 3 years. Most of the guys that are out of the league within 3 years were unaffected by the rookie wage scale (late round picks and undrafted FA), so the new CBA didn't impact them in that way at all. Also, the undrafted FA have the opportunity to choose the team they join.

I always thought it meant players who actually got on the field (presumably a good percentage of first rounders, slightly lower second rounders, etc., averaged out by the much longer careers of many well known players. It would be interesting to find out how they figure that, as well as what percentage of draft picks see enough time to last for more than a year, for example (I'm pretty sure NinerSickness can tell us).

 

[imac_21]

I think it to be the team rather than the NFL (a non-profit corporation, entirely funded and chartered by owners) as the better definition of employer, although I hadn't considered that aspect.

That's one perspective, but these franchises do not exist without the NFL. When a franchise makes money, the NFL is making money.

Looking at it as an entity lording over franchises, we can compare to a fast food giant in McDonalds. I haven't worked at McDonalds, but my understanding is that the corporate office has the right to transfer managers to different stores, and when they complete their manager training, they don't necessarily get to choose the location at which they'll be placed. I also think that it would be much easier to find someone that can manage a McDonalds than an offense.

I do think my "giant law firm with multiple offices around the globe" is a good analog for the NFL. Particularly if this London expansion ever happens (please no). That may also put to a test how much control the average player has over where he plays (as opposed to an Eli Manning or John Elway).

I always thought it meant players who actually got on the field (presumably a good percentage of first rounders, slightly lower second rounders, etc., averaged out by the much longer careers of many well known players. It would be interesting to find out how they figure that, as well as what percentage of draft picks see enough time to last for more than a year, for example (I'm pretty sure NinerSickness can tell us).

I would imagine it would include anyone who has a contract filed with the league office.

However, even if it does only include players that are on a roster during the season (not sure if PS counts), there are a lot of guys each season that are undrafted FAs that get picked up and dress for a game or two as injury fillers. Presumably, those count as portions of a season (1/17th as that's how pay is done). Those guys are going to drag the average career length down. A few of those guys quickly negates Brett Favre, Jerry Rice and Bruce Matthews.
I don't mean to imply this is an unfair way to calculate the average career, because those guys should be included, but I do feel it artificially deflates the average length of career.

Jewell Hampton was credited with 3 games for us last year. He's a long shot to make the roster this year and may be out of the league come September. I don't think Jewell Hampton or other undrafted FAs have the same career expectancy as Eric Reid, and their salaries have not been affected by the new CBA.

I was arguing earlier in the thread that the new CBA has created more opportunities for undrafted FAs at the expense of the average veteran. It would be interesting to see what the average career length is in 5 years. It could go up significantly (since we're talking about a few thousand players each season, a significant increase could be as little as 0.25 or 0.5 seasons).

ETA: If it's just players that get on the field, Scott Tolzien wouldn't be factored in at all and Aaron Rodgers would be losing 3 years. You would also have to account for injuries (Crabtree this year, Haralson last year).

 

[imac_21]

I hope this isn't going too far off-topic, but terms for Reid's deal have been released:

4 years (team option for year 5, exercised by the end of year 3), 8.4M, 4.55M signing bonus (that's a signing bonus, not total guaranteed money).

 

[imac_21]

Reid's contract also contains no offset language, which from what I understand is the main issue in negotiations for first round picks now.