Financial Commitment to Top Picks Handcuffs Teams

by MARVelous on Feb 25, 2008 1:39 PM EST

[editor's note, by Brian Galliford] MARVelous' latest diary takes a look at some comments made by Bill Polian in regards to the crippling effects of rookie salaries. Great work, Marv. End Note

A story I saw today with quotes from Bill Polian, GM of the Colts (and formerly of the Bills), gives insight into a feeling I have had on the NFL draft since the late '90s and is now getting ridiculous. That is, that the financial commitment of top 10 picks, especially top 5, is so severe it makes it real difficult for struggling teams to turn their franchises around. Last year, JaMarcus Russell, received $29 million in guaranteed money - before he ever took a snap!

Salaries Crippling Poor Teams
Now, some will say, "MARVelous, why are you sitting there complaining about the salaries, because everyone in the NFL is making plenty of money?" Well, a team that drafts in the top 5 has enormous pressure in selecting a player that will pan out, and then gets the gift of giving him whatever his smug Drew Rosenhaus-type agent negotiates. We all know the draft is not a science, even though we all sometimes seem to think it is, and we have all the answers because we watched some Senior Bowl practice or saw some YouTube video or a few games of a player in college. However, no matter how good one might forecast a player to be there are plenty of busts (Ki-Jana Carter, Ryan Leaf, Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Courtney Brown, Peter Warrick, David Carr, Mike Williams, Joey Harrington, Charles Rogers, etc.). The fact is, the economics of the NFL landscape are such that investing $20-$30 million dollars in a top 5 pick will set the franchise back years if the pick does not pan out. I mean look at the Atlanta Falcons: the implications of Michael Vick's dog fighting will set that franchise back many years when just a few years ago #7 was leading the Falcons to a surprise victory at Lambeau Field in January.

Now as Polian points out, the agents are the core reason for the escalation in top 5 salaries. This year's #1 pick will undoubtedly want more money than JaMarcus Russell, and this trend will continue without limit. When will it stop? If you draft a Peyton Manning, he is worth every penny. But, if you draft a Ryan Leaf, then you lose out on the player that is supposed to turn your franchise around. Polian argues that the high financial commitment prevents teams from trading the #1-#5 picks, for no team wants to give up its assets of picks and/or players only to then stow $20-$35 million guaranteed in a player. It prevents teams like the Dolphins in this years' draft from stockpiling picks and getting more talent into their franchise at a faster rate. It unfairly puts a struggling franchise in a position where that pick will determine the fate of that organization for the next decade. How is that fair? You can give me the argument that "well then don't suck at drafting." Well, as we all know injuries, player egos and organization misfires on player personnel can quickly lead to a 3-13 season.

CBA Effects, Present and Future
The solution to this problem? Well, it's unlikely to ever be fixed. The NFLPA will never allow a deal to be put in the CBA to cap rookie contracts, nor will player agents ever begin to try to not drive up prices as far as humanly possible. However, with heated talks of the owners tearing up the latest CBA extension after the 2010 season, issues such as rookie contracts will undoubtedly come up as the next CBA contract is drawn up. Owners got blindsided with the current CBA, in which Ralph C. Wilson and Mike Brown of the Bengals were the only two owners to vote against the current CBA which gives players 59% of all revenue. It is my hope that when the new CBA is drawn up, mature negotiations can be made and that it will lead to a system that decreases the enormous financial commitment of teams with losing records. So you don't go 2-14, and get the nice treat of giving some 21-year-old kid $35 million guaranteed with the simple hope that he is the next Peyton Manning not Ki-Jana Carter.

Anyone echo my thoughts? Is it not a penalty to a team with a poor record to have to financially commit to these young men so much? With little trading into the top 5 anymore, shouldn't something be done to level the playing field? We have all seen what #4 Mike Williams did to this franchise. I'm just glad the Bills have stayed out of the top 5 for the most part of this non-playoff drought.

Just another great fan opinion shared on the pages of BuffaloRumblings.com.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

All about the Benjamins

It is ridiculous to say the least.

Very good posting because I totally agree with it.

And you are correct in that it will likely never change, and probably only get worse. I'd love to see a push for incentive laden contracts for the rookies. Small market teams cannot afford to swing and miss on these guys. It truly is a punishment forcing these teams to pay these guys all this money. I hate the fact that unproven rookies can far exceed the earning of established Pro Bowl players.

by Kurupt on Feb 24, 2008 11:12 PM EST reply actions

The key is the vets

It will never change until some of the estalished players begin to complain. I remember some grumbling last year when Joe Thomas signed his deal, I can't remember the guys name but he said something like "He got $30 million (or what ever it was) for simply breathing"

Until the veteran players get mad enough to do something it will never change.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Feb 25, 2008 8:03 AM EST reply actions

I don't understand

How the agents have say in this. They are the ones making the case for status quo, because it obviously lines their pockets.

As much as I don't care for the NBA - they have the right idea when it comes to rookie salary caps.

How is it possible that the vets aren't chirping about this? It makes no sense at all to me. I can't think of any other profession where a "rookie" comes in and immediately makes more than a "vet."

by krytime on Feb 25, 2008 11:08 AM EST up reply actions

"Level the playing field"

That's the key statement here, MARVelous, because for a professional sports league that stresses parity more than its counterparts, these escalating salaries - for both rookies and veterans - is counterproductive to that aim. Great work on the post, I agree with everything! :)

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Feb 25, 2008 1:47 PM EST reply actions

Thanks

This is something that has always bothered me about the Draft. You see less and less trading and maneuvering because the cash is so large and the investments so monumental. Everyone talks about parity in the NFL. Truth is there is a few outstanding organizations that know how to run everything and then there is everyone else. The Falcons, Rams and Chiefs, all picking in the top 5 this year were playoff teams not so long ago. And now with so much cap room, meaning a watered down FA pool, and huge money to invest in these top picks, these teams will find it a hard climb back up the mountain.

Thats why I don't think you see "tanking it" in the NFL unless you are a capital-rich franchise. Teams like the Bills can't afford to give a 21 year old $30 million guaranteed. Thats why last season in which all the injuries mounted, I feared a 4-12 season could be achieved. That would have been detrimental to the finacial future of this organization IMO.

MARVelous

by MARVelous on Feb 25, 2008 2:28 PM EST reply actions

gotta disagree

Most football players don't make it past their first contract. The average lifespan is extremely limited. While basketball and baseball players get major coin after four (basketball) to six (baseball) years, when they still have five to ten left, football players get one major shot unless they are a superstar. The percentage of revenue is less or similar to other major sports. Hockey was up to 80% prior to the lockout a few years ago.

If a franchise is "crippled" by one signing top 5, then they obviously have made a ton of terrible moves to accompany it. Every team is turning a profit and every team outside of the Redskins is under the cap. It is ridiculous to blame rookies or agents when the CBA was negotiated by the owners and current players. As for veterans "stepping up", a lot of those veterans realize that the first contract is the only one many players get. They also realize it pushes up the mean and median salary averages for everybody, thus ensuring higher wages to FAs.

Either way, nice article. I'll start feeling bad for teams when they aren't 40 M under the cap, building new ridiculous stadiums (Polian's own colts), or god forbid (like every other sport) somebody is losing money.

by jmorris0823 on Feb 25, 2008 3:17 PM EST reply actions

Point taken

But, the fact is a great number of veterans would be receiving higher salaries if the rookie contracts weren't so perposterous. No team is going to give a guy after his 5-6 year rookie mega-deal another mega deal unless he is a complete stud. A transition would take place if rookies made more modest salaries and "proved" their worth. The whole system is out of whack. With the super high salary cap now, the free agent crop is so watered down, guys like Dockery and Clements are getting ridiculous contracts that no small market team can give.

Granted teams are making money. However, if you read into the latest CBA, Ralph Wilson had a great point regarding the huge victory the NFLPA won in that negotiation, but the owners just wanted to get it down, and most importantly Taglibue wanted to get it down to secure his "legacy." Fact is that contract gave so much more leverage to players in negotations of rookie salaries and free agency due to the high cap number, that small markets like the Bills now are in a position where financially they are hamstrung. Which is why Toronto is a viable answer to bring in extra dollars to help keep the franchise financially viable.

Look at the teams that had those "bust" players. Look at their records in the years after. It indeed does cripple their on-field performance. Most franchises are still making money hand over first, but there are a handful of teams that the latest CBA really screwed over. Unless you have a new stadium coming with millions to make in suites and sponsorships, picking in the top 5 makes small market teams "cringe."

MARVelous

by MARVelous on Feb 25, 2008 3:27 PM EST reply actions

and

The real point is the system is out of whack. Russel's rookie deal averages out to more than Tom Brady's contract???? That is a good system? The point isn't who is making money and who isn't, but it is a huge disadvantage to smaller clubs to pick in the top 5. And to the point of the NFL career not as long as in other sports, well if you get picked in the top 5 they aren't expecting you to be there for only 5 years. If you are a top 5 pick, durability is obviously a key component and they are expecting these top 5 picks to be a decade type player. You can't tell me that a team giving $30 million guaranteed plus maybe another 10-20 million over the course of the players contract, cannot cripple a franchise. That's rougly 10% of the cap towards a player that won't make a superstar impact, till season 3 or 4, and thats if the player pans out!

MARVelous

by MARVelous on Feb 25, 2008 3:57 PM EST reply actions