Michael Crabtree is right and he's wrong. He's right that he should have been picked before Darrius Heyward-Bey. He's right that he's a better receiver than Heyward-Bey is, and if that's the standard you want to apply, then he's right that he should be paid more. Where he's wrong is in expecting life to be fair, and in delaying the start of his NFL career to prove a pride-based point. He got a tough break, but it's not the toughest break ever. Tenth-pick money is lots, and if Crabtree's as good as he and the rest of us think he is, he'll get the chance to prove it (and to profit from that chance).The big-picture problem with the Crabtree situation is that it has led to renewed calls for the NFL to seek a rookie wage scale -- to push for a provision in the next collective bargaining agreement that would establish rigid and restrictive guidelines for rookie salaries based on where the players are drafted. This is an easy and simplistic solution for which to press. (Everybody can agree it seems foolish that Matthew Stafford makes more money than Tom Brady.) But the facts are that it's too easy, too simplistic and, given the current structure, totally unnecessary.
See, there already is a rookie salary cap. As the system is currently structured, each team each year is assigned a certain amount, within its salary-cap figure, that it's allotted to spend on rookies. League-wide, this figure amounts to a little less than four percent of the total amount teams are allowed to spend on player salaries under the salary cap rules. This figure is determined based on how many picks each team has and where they're located within the draft. The current system limits the amount of money teams can spend to sign their draft picks. All it fails to do is assign specific values to specific picks.
What the league and the owners want to do is to establish those specific values within that rookie cap -- "slots" for each draft pick similar to what they have in the NBA, so that the No. 10 pick, for example, would basically know what he should expect to get paid the moment he's picked.
The players' union, as new executive director DeMaurice Smith has said publicly many times, opposes this idea. And the main reason is because the only effect it would have would be to shift the blame for a situation such as Crabtree's completely to the player. If there was a slotting system in place, and the public knew what it was, then the player would effectively lose all leverage. An owner like Oakland's Al Davis screws up the whole draft by picking the wrong receiver first? Hey, don't blame the owners. The players know what they're supposed to get and if they don't sign it's their fault.
"What the rookie wage scale does is take the onus off the owners, who are the LHRC -- the lower right-hand corner of the check," union spokesman George Atallah told FanHouse in a recent phone interview. "They sign the check. It's not the union's fault that teams draft poorly and they don't pan out. Until we own a team, we're not not going to regulate how much rookies make. We just won't."
The NFLPA knew this was coming, so it recently commissioned a study of NFL team's salary-cap spending over the past two years. Atallah says the study concluded that none of the NFL's 32 teams spent its full veteran allotment in any of those years. The point, the union says, is that the idea that teams would take the money it's currently spending on rookies and give it to veterans instead is misguided.
"The Eli Manning contract shows that clearly there's money under the cap for these teams to spend on proven veterans if they want to," Atallah said. "The argument that a rookie cap would allow them to spend more money on veterans is a smokescreen, because there's already money there under the cap that's unused."This is an important point for the union to make because it feels the league and the owners plan to use the rookie wage scale as a "wedge issue" to pit veterans against rookies and divide the union. The union (which has failed so often in the past because of its members' inability to stick together on these crucial issues) wants its members to know that the reason the owners want to spent less on rookies isn't because they want to pay their veterans more -- just that they want to spend less overall.
"It's going to be a wedge issue, because veterans obviously don't like the fact that rookies make more than they do, and we certainly acknowledge that," Atallah said.
The fear is that the easy side of the argument will carry the day -- that the numbers at the very top of the draft will overwhelm public perception in favor of the owners' position. That the fact that 256 players get drafted and the vast majority of them get contracts and signing bonuses much more in line with what veterans and the public would think rookies should make won't matter because all anybody hears is "Matthew Stafford makes more than Tom Brady." That nobody will understand that, for the majority of each year's draft picks, the first contract will be the only contract, because the average life span of an NFL career is less than four years.
A panel discussion Thursday morning on the NFL Network got the union upset when network host Rich Eisen said the current system "only helps agents" and that he didn't know "why the players' association would want to continue with this."
The union resents the idea that they should be involved at all in negotiations of contracts between owners and agents.
"When ESPN canceled 'Beg, Borrow and Deal,' Mr. Eisen didn't call a TV host union to get involved in keeping the show on air," Atallah said. "Why would we get involved with ownership in selecting, slotting or signing picks?"
They shouldn't. A rookie wage scale would be the easy way out for the owners, and it's not necessary. If they owners don't want to spend so much more on rookies than they do on veterans, they can fix it. They can draft better. They can police themselves on rookie spending. They can give the veterans more. They don't need any restrictive new rules to allow them to do it. The rules are already on the books, and from a players' standpoint, they're restrictive enough.
Don't believe the hype. The NFL doesn't need a rookie wage scale.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-17-2009 @ 9:57AM
Mingo said...
Dan you are sooooo wrong There should be a scale. The rookies have not proven if they are going to make it in the NFL We have seen this all to often, The weker teams get cheated because they do not have the money to rebuild so the wealthy teams that can waste money get the players No one deserves to make more noney than those who have been in the trenches for years Scale the pay and let the early picks get more The second round more than the third ect ect two years of that pay then its time to get a real contract
Reply
8-17-2009 @ 11:16AM
cyguy84 said...
I disagree completely. The Union is pointing to the fact that NFL teams don't spend all of their allotted cap money to "prove" a point.
But if you are given a credit card, do you regularly max it out? It is common sense that you leave yourself the ability to sign other players and cap room.
There are some teams that do not use all of their cap money and are 20-30 million below... but they typically do so because they don't like the salaries being paid.
I think a rookie wage scale should be in place for the first round. The top 10 salaries are insane and are detrimental to the NFL as a whole. Not having to pay a ridiculous amount to a top 10 pick leaves a team more money to sign high-priced veterans. That is where this article misses the point-- its not spending to a cap limit, it is having flexibility.
Reply
8-17-2009 @ 12:34PM
claytor said...
This argument is laughable the moment the words "Stafford makes more than Brady" alone are posted.
That alone is simply wrong, accusing the owners of "drafting badly" is wrong. Al Davis might be a weirdo, but if his team has a particular vision theyre attempting to bring to fruition, then theyre going to draft the players, no matter how warped their logic may be, that will help this vision come to light. Police themselves? How??? Are they going to tell another owner being strong armed by a players agent with a lust for unearned money(what, because a team PICKED you??!?) not to give in, sport! Dont waste that money on that rookie, you can always draft a less greedy player next year!
That is stupid. Teams stay under the cap because they have to balance the FUTURE with the now. If someone goes on IR, well they have to come up with money somewhere for a replacement player? Where does that come from? OH right, that uber excess cap money theyre hoarding. When Hawks rookie contract goes up in GB, arent they going to have to pay him more next go round? Shucks, guess you better spend it all first, so you can just watch him walk, no worrying about that extra cap money you left to the side.
The union will mope about teams not spending all the way to the hilt because they WANT every dime they can get, but thats not how business works. You HAVE to have some overhead, or you stay near the red, business is supposed to be -wait for it- PROFITABLE. Why else do you go into business in the first place? To give any money you make, all of it, to the employee?!?!
The clowniest article ive read in a while. Not wanting a rookie cap clearly says that you LIKE having your players sit out of camps, miss valuable time from the get go, and SHOULD make more than veterans. Did anyone fail to mention that Burress's massive contract coming off the books helped the Giants sign Eli? Didnt think so.
What youre agreeing with, no matter how you slice it by writing this article is that Stafford SHOULD make more money than Brady. Id loveeeeeeeee to see what your checkbook looks like, lol.
Reply
8-17-2009 @ 12:41PM
cjgdnight said...
I too disagree with you... a rookie salary cap is absolutely the right thing to do. When you see teams trading the first pick every year because they cannot afford a high priced rookie that may flop... the rookie salary is too high. Why not spend the money on a proven free agent?
The real way to do this is to have a two year contract for rookies with low pay and have a player/ team option at the end of the two years complete with arbitration. The cap does not allow owners like Jerry Jones to hoard talent.
The problem is the spoiled athletes that think the NFL owes them enough money to live the rest of their lives just because they got drafted.
Reply
8-17-2009 @ 1:47PM
mrenggli1 said...
In my opinion, you are completely off base and wrong in your assertion that there should be no rookie salary cap. The basis of your argument is that the owners (Al Davis in your example) screw it up, so make them fix it, and don't give them an easy way out. Well, first of all, it is completely YOUR OPINION (just like my opinion is that your article is trash) that the Raiders were wrong in their assessment of DHB, and that they were likewise wrong in their assessment of which player would fit what are trying to do in their system. You speak as if it is fact that Crabtree is the better player, and fact that they drafted the wrong player. It would be great if you would consider the extenuating circumstances of what type of player was needed given the current players on the team. You and the draft pundits can rush to judge the merits of the players, but only time will tell. Until then, you can try to sound knowledgeable by spouting as facts your opinions. And an easy way out that gets players into the system where they can begin to try to make the transition to the pro game benefits everyone - fan, player, team, and owner. Yes, the owners can decide to pay their rookies less (can you say colusion?), but without slotting and a rookie salary scale, you will always have the potential for some rookie who buys into what people like you are saying, which in turn causes them to have demands based upon their perceived superiority. In the end, we all lose because they are not fully prepared to make an immediate contribution and their team is disrupted by lengthy holdouts.
Reply
8-17-2009 @ 2:10PM
joshua said...
Good lord, its amazing how quickly people rush to defend billionaire owners.
Look fellow commentators, the money is somewhere. It gets made. So if the money doesn't go to rookies, it goes to veterans or owners. But if the veterans aren't getting it (as the union's research indicates), then it goes to the owners.
The only way I would get behind a "rookie salary cap" is if the veterans got the money. Of course, that's not going to happen. So I'd rather it goes back to somebody that is actually playing.
NFL players don't make much money compared to other leagues, even though the NFL is the country's wealthiest league by a mile. Yet they are also treated poorly, have non-guaranteed contracts, a significantly higher risk of injury than other athletes, and a far shorter shelf life.
NFL owners don't need some artificial cap on rookie salaries to protect them. The entire system is set up to protect owners. Look at the 0-16 Lions, who brought in roughly the same amount of revenue as every other team... if this was football in Europe they would've been relegated and lost like 40% of their income.
Hey claytor, the teams are profitable no matter what. Last year the cap was about $127M, even the poorest team had $200M of revenue, and is valued at $900M (thanks in large part to taxpayer subsidized stadiums). Salaries aren't bankrupting any team. Not even close.
Give the money to the players.
Reply
8-17-2009 @ 11:22PM
cjgdnight said...
revenue does not equal profits. When you have $800M invested in a team, you want return on investment. The players get paid whether they suck or not(see Detroit players who perhaps shouldn't get paid for last year's performance).
See it is all about risk... players get paid, owners assume risk.
Bottom line is there aren't many lawyers and PHD's playing football... eg Kurt warner is either a MVP quarterback or bagging groceries (really that is what he did)... so given that fact... the league pays pretty good money.
8-17-2009 @ 4:09PM
dkeslar1 said...
One solution would be to have a rookie salary cap on the condition that every team must have a minimum payroll on opening day, say 90-95% of the salary cap. That way any money not spent on rookie salaries has to go to the veterans and each team would also have caproom to sign players during the season as needed.
Reply
8-17-2009 @ 4:17PM
reikilight said...
This article is a joke! So many off base perspectives and typical of someone who doesn't know squat about football or life! Crabtree visited Oakland and dissed them! The Raiders saw the writing on the wall ... here is a ROOKIE who is recovering from a broken foot who is full of false ego and dissing NFL teams and wondering why he got picked behind the fastest man in the draft and demanding the money of where his subjective opinion of himself places his worth. Come on ... Give me a break! Crabtree is a Rookie who hasn't played a down and his over-blown ego very well may be his kiss of death with his team. Here is a guy who is so talented (in his head anyway) that he can dis Al Davis and try and holdup the 49ers for money based on what he "thinks" he should have been drafted! Are you listening to yourself??? Are you really that stupid? A reasonable rookie cap (no more than $2 or $3 million per year) with room for performance perks should be a workable situation for both sides. This is one of the stupidest articles on a BS subject. I don't back the greedy owners and understand that this is what happens in capitalism ... the greedy get wealthier ... but just remember who pays the bills in the end ... the fans! I for one am sick of greedy egomaniacs like Crabtree ... someone with some skills but a cancer to the team that selects them ... he is another TO waiting to happen. What happens when Crabtree breaks his foot in practice and flops like a carp on the bank? Then how much is he worth? I say to Crabtree ... Don't let the door hit you in the ass!
Reply
8-17-2009 @ 7:57PM
mrross019 said...
In my opinion the rookies are paid waaay too much,But someone needs to address the owners as well.They get waaaaay to much for doing nothing but buying a team.
At least the players risk career threatening injuries.The owners like Jery Jones,Al Davis and others make all the big cash and then try to coach the teams on the field as well.
Salary cap everyone players and owners
Reply
8-18-2009 @ 2:47PM
beannie51 said...
I cant believe this with Crabtree. This kid needs to be greatful that he made a team. I want to see how good he is on the field. he comes off being full of himself, well let see how good he is. if he isnt that good then show him to the door. thats all. am I right?
Reply