NFL Draft: The Cap, The Bonuses, and The Rookies
Holding the Number 1 pick in the upcoming draft, the Miami Dolphins have signed offensive lineman Jake Long to a five-year, $57.5 million dollar contract, which includes a $30 million signing bonus.
Thus, thanks to the current system, the highest-paid offensive lineman in the entire NFL has yet to take a snap in an official, regular season game.
Somehow, this kid ended up with more money than Walter Jones, and Jones is only in the conversation when one is talking about the best current offensive lineman in the game.
Somehow, this kid is making better money than Tom Brady (who is forced to date Giselle Bundchen at $60 million over six seasons).
And sink or swim, Hall of Fame or Ryan Leaf-bust, he's $30 million richer forever. IfMichael Vick He Who Shall Not Be Named can avoid forfeiture of his massive signing bonus after doing a federal perp walk, Long's bonus money still goes into his off-shore account...even if the only thing he can block is the quarterback's view of the field.
With all that said, is this necessarily a bad thing?
Could it be that the system actually...gulp...works?
If it is true that untested rookies at the top of the draft are being unfairly compensated for skills they may or may not be able to demonstrate under duress, it is also true that football salaries are not year-to-year, or even game-to-game, but play by play.
For all that the aforementioned Jones and Brady are supposed to earn, those numbers are largely fantasies. Let either one of them shred every connective tissue in a knee, and you could use their contracts to paper the cracks in your walls. In one sense, then, it's fair because even bonus babies can get cut (see Ryan Leaf, Akili Smith, Blair Thomas, etc), salary cap penalties notwithstanding.
And what about that massive and guaranteed signing bonus?
Guaranteed bonuses are how players protect themselves financially in the event of a catastrophic injury.
In the NFL, a catastrophic injury occurs in every game. It's not a question of if, or even when, but to how many. Thus, in this case, guys who are drafted high with an expectation of contributing right away are protected against whatever calamity may befall them.
Still...it just looks wrong, doesn't it? Damn near $60 million, even though half of that amount is in theory, is still a large chunk of change to throw at someone who has never taken a snap in anger at the NFL level. The problem is that there's just not a more equitable way to restrict rookie salaries, for all of the apparent ugliness of the current system.
In the "seems like common sense" pile, I have heard argument that restricting rookies at the top of the draft to "X" amount (whatever seems reasonable to whomever is making the argument) will result in more dollars for veteran players.
No, really.
There are adults who are not currently on Schedule-3 narcotics who actually believe this, in spite of all evidence to the contrary regarding NFL owners.
Paraphrasing Mike Ditka, they toss nickels around like manhole covers. Anyone who thinks the average owner would take savings from a rookie cap and apply said savings to veteran players is nuts.
Right now, teams cut veterans in the off-season, only to re-sign the same guys to lower deals in many cases. If a rookie cap gets instituted, I dare you to show me the owner who wouldn't sign three rookies at one veteran's price. And a rookie cap guarantees MORE rookies available to be signed, not fewer, because they would come cheaper...and every rookie signed is another veteran out of a job, with the cash difference going right back into the owner's pocket.
The only other problem with guys like Long getting these huuuge deals is that the deals are, well, huuuge. The average fan, who can barely pay his basic cable bill to watch the games from his couch, just can't wrap his head around a number that big and come up with the word "fair."
But let's not cry for the owners here, all you "they've got a right to earn money too" knuckledraggers. The owners have invented ways to separate fans from their money that would bring P.T. Barnum to tears of genuine awe.
Consider t.v. money. The players get 60% of that revenue, and some people wrongly think that the owners are getting hosed here.
Just do the math, bunky: no matter how much revenue the league and the players share, the players' slice of the pie is still cut 1664 unequal ways. That means that 60% of a $6 billion dollar broadcast package from a network is worth a little over $2 million per player on average.
Cut the remaining $2.4 billion into 32 slices, and the average owner gets $75 million.
That was from just one network. At last check, there are four networks competing to be one of three that show NFL games, and the current price tag sits at a combined total of $21 billion.
We haven't even gotten into the other ways that the NFL separates you from your cash, like personal seat licenses, luxury suites, and game day tickets that require a co-signor and a credit check.
So, uh, it's pretty safe to assume that the owners aren't going to be eating t.v. dinners anytime soon.
And Jake Long gets filthy rich just for being first in line.
It works...but it just looks weird.
Thus, thanks to the current system, the highest-paid offensive lineman in the entire NFL has yet to take a snap in an official, regular season game.
Somehow, this kid ended up with more money than Walter Jones, and Jones is only in the conversation when one is talking about the best current offensive lineman in the game.
Somehow, this kid is making better money than Tom Brady (who is forced to date Giselle Bundchen at $60 million over six seasons).
And sink or swim, Hall of Fame or Ryan Leaf-bust, he's $30 million richer forever. If
With all that said, is this necessarily a bad thing?
Could it be that the system actually...gulp...works?
If it is true that untested rookies at the top of the draft are being unfairly compensated for skills they may or may not be able to demonstrate under duress, it is also true that football salaries are not year-to-year, or even game-to-game, but play by play.
For all that the aforementioned Jones and Brady are supposed to earn, those numbers are largely fantasies. Let either one of them shred every connective tissue in a knee, and you could use their contracts to paper the cracks in your walls. In one sense, then, it's fair because even bonus babies can get cut (see Ryan Leaf, Akili Smith, Blair Thomas, etc), salary cap penalties notwithstanding.
And what about that massive and guaranteed signing bonus?
Guaranteed bonuses are how players protect themselves financially in the event of a catastrophic injury.
In the NFL, a catastrophic injury occurs in every game. It's not a question of if, or even when, but to how many. Thus, in this case, guys who are drafted high with an expectation of contributing right away are protected against whatever calamity may befall them.
Still...it just looks wrong, doesn't it? Damn near $60 million, even though half of that amount is in theory, is still a large chunk of change to throw at someone who has never taken a snap in anger at the NFL level. The problem is that there's just not a more equitable way to restrict rookie salaries, for all of the apparent ugliness of the current system.
In the "seems like common sense" pile, I have heard argument that restricting rookies at the top of the draft to "X" amount (whatever seems reasonable to whomever is making the argument) will result in more dollars for veteran players.
No, really.
There are adults who are not currently on Schedule-3 narcotics who actually believe this, in spite of all evidence to the contrary regarding NFL owners.
Paraphrasing Mike Ditka, they toss nickels around like manhole covers. Anyone who thinks the average owner would take savings from a rookie cap and apply said savings to veteran players is nuts.
Right now, teams cut veterans in the off-season, only to re-sign the same guys to lower deals in many cases. If a rookie cap gets instituted, I dare you to show me the owner who wouldn't sign three rookies at one veteran's price. And a rookie cap guarantees MORE rookies available to be signed, not fewer, because they would come cheaper...and every rookie signed is another veteran out of a job, with the cash difference going right back into the owner's pocket.
The only other problem with guys like Long getting these huuuge deals is that the deals are, well, huuuge. The average fan, who can barely pay his basic cable bill to watch the games from his couch, just can't wrap his head around a number that big and come up with the word "fair."
But let's not cry for the owners here, all you "they've got a right to earn money too" knuckledraggers. The owners have invented ways to separate fans from their money that would bring P.T. Barnum to tears of genuine awe.
Consider t.v. money. The players get 60% of that revenue, and some people wrongly think that the owners are getting hosed here.
Just do the math, bunky: no matter how much revenue the league and the players share, the players' slice of the pie is still cut 1664 unequal ways. That means that 60% of a $6 billion dollar broadcast package from a network is worth a little over $2 million per player on average.
Cut the remaining $2.4 billion into 32 slices, and the average owner gets $75 million.
That was from just one network. At last check, there are four networks competing to be one of three that show NFL games, and the current price tag sits at a combined total of $21 billion.
We haven't even gotten into the other ways that the NFL separates you from your cash, like personal seat licenses, luxury suites, and game day tickets that require a co-signor and a credit check.
So, uh, it's pretty safe to assume that the owners aren't going to be eating t.v. dinners anytime soon.
And Jake Long gets filthy rich just for being first in line.
It works...but it just looks weird.
posted by van walker | 11:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home