Thread: Colts pushing for a change in rookie contracts

Finally, somebody with clout is preaching for the cause!

http://beta.profootballtalk.com/2008/02/24/polian-calls-for-change-to-rookie-pay-system/

[Colts President and GM] Polian is pushing for changes to the way that players in round one are paid...

“The draft was designed to either allow the weakest teams, based on record, to choose the best players, or if they chose not to take a particular player, to gather a bunch of picks to further accelerate their growth and competitiveness,” Polian said.
“That’s now been skewed by the cost of the picks in the first round.

“When that’s skewed and changed because of the agents, that isn’t a good thing for the game.”

hopefully more teams will take note.
But if 2009 is in fact an uncapped year, I can't see it happening.
the big-market teams will have no problem paying these guys and I can't see them voting for this.

"i_bleed_purple" wrote:

hopefully more teams will take note.
But if 2009 is in fact an uncapped year, I can't see it happening.
the big-market teams will have no problem paying these guys and I can't see them voting for this.

i havn't heard anything about an uncapped year.. but then again I havn't been reading enough lately.
Having no caps in the NFL is just asking for problems..

I completely agree that something needs to be done about how much $ first round draft picks are getting, 2007 was rediculous enough

I don't really like the idea. If teams are willing to spend the money why shouldn't they. If the team wants they can simply trade the pick away. Or a team can simply not sign all the players they drafted. The teams have just as much bargaining power as the player because they can simply force the player to sit out a year.

No, because first off the teams will still make all the money on jersey sales and what not, but the players just won't get there share.
If this happened I could see rookies demanding 1 or 2 year contracts that they could get out of to get a big contract.

The NFL made this monster with there business boom, it's not fair to punish rookies just because some cheap owners don't want to pay what other owners are willing to pay.
This is why they have a cap, so if you decide you want this big name rookie you pay for him, if the Colts don't like it they can trade their picks for lower picks and get cheap guys, or FAs.
If they take away this money opportunity for rookies then there should be a share of all merchandising profits for that player's likeness.

I myself believe that rookies are extremely overpaid
the should get rich deals, but very little should be guarenteed, most of it should be based on what the person does ON THE FIELD, look at jamarcus russell and brady quinn, making multi millions on the bench, its just not fair to the rest of the players in the NFL.

"dcboardr41" wrote:

I myself believe that rookies are extremely overpaid
the should get rich deals, but very little should be guarenteed, most of it should be based on what the person does ON THE FIELD, look at jamarcus russell and brady quinn, making multi millions on the bench, its just not fair to the rest of the players in the NFL.

True, but it's not Russell's or Quinn's fault they are benched.
Another reason you can't punish rookies for the teams decisions.

This is still a capitalist society and if we really believe in it, then we should not be restricting what these athletes are bing paid at any talent level. The fans ultimately should dictate in a market what they are willing to pay and whether a franchise is financially viable. At least that is what they told me in Econ. ;D

"Schutz" wrote:

"dcboardr41" wrote:

I myself believe that rookies are extremely overpaid
the should get rich deals, but very little should be guarenteed, most of it should be based on what the person does ON THE FIELD, look at jamarcus russell and brady quinn, making multi millions on the bench, its just not fair to the rest of the players in the NFL.

True, but it's not Russell's or Quinn's fault they are benched.
Another reason you can't punish rookies for the teams decisions.

but still, you are paying unproven players millions of dollars and if they dont pan out its hurts the team extremely, he has a really good point

"dcboardr41" wrote:

"Schutz" wrote:

"dcboardr41" wrote:

I myself believe that rookies are extremely overpaid
the should get rich deals, but very little should be guarenteed, most of it should be based on what the person does ON THE FIELD, look at jamarcus russell and brady quinn, making multi millions on the bench, its just not fair to the rest of the players in the NFL.

True, but it's not Russell's or Quinn's fault they are benched.
Another reason you can't punish rookies for the teams decisions.

but still, you are paying unproven players millions of dollars and if they dont pan out its hurts the team extremely, he has a really good point

But the teams are making that choice.
Other times(adrian peterson) the player over achieves and the team is actually underpaying them. It is up to the team to evaluate and decide who will be successful. Sure if they are wrong it hurts the team but that is just part of the game. The team decides what they are willing to spend and how the contract is written, if they don't like it they can trade the player or the draft pick.
I think their should be a limit on how much a team can guarentee a back-up tight end who has never produced. ;D