PDA

View Full Version : Sam Bradford signs contract with Rams


TexCanada
07-30-2010, 09:20 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5425041

mattieuk
07-30-2010, 09:52 PM
50 million guaranteed.

I know, I know, he isn't Jamarcus, but holyyyy mollllyyy that is freaking ridiculous.

Tailgate
07-30-2010, 11:34 PM
Eric Berry, the 5th pick in the draft just became the highest paid safety in the history of the league w/ 34 guaranteed. Its gotten beyond crazy.

TexasBoY25
07-30-2010, 11:47 PM
Crazy!!!!
The JaMarcus Russell rule needs to kick in.
We need a rookie salary cap soon

Rey
07-31-2010, 12:24 AM
That's pretty sad when you think about it.

TexanSam
07-31-2010, 09:53 AM
Crazy!!!!
The JaMarcus Russell rule needs to kick in.
We need a rookie salary cap soon

I'm thinking you'll see it once they get a new CBA in place. There's no way owners will allow this much money to be thrown at rookies who haven't proven a thing in the NFL.

BigBull17
07-31-2010, 10:17 AM
Bradford didn't even play his whole last year in college, this is freakin crazy.

Speedy
07-31-2010, 11:39 AM
I'm thinking you'll see it once they get a new CBA in place. There's no way owners will allow this much money to be thrown at rookies who haven't proven a thing in the NFL.

Isn't it the owners who are allowing it now? Your statement doesn't make any sense. If it's the owners that are all up in arms about paying that kind of money to unproven rookies, then quit giving it to them.

kastofsna
07-31-2010, 11:45 AM
Crazy!!!!
The JaMarcus Russell rule needs to kick in.
We need a rookie salary cap soon

what rule is that? the Raiders didn't seem to be harmed at all by Russell's ridiculous salary. for all the talk about how ridiculous these contracts are, the negative effect of them is way overblown.

TexasBoY25
07-31-2010, 12:53 PM
what rule is that? the Raiders didn't seem to be harmed at all by Russell's ridiculous salary. for all the talk about how ridiculous these contracts are, the negative effect of them is way overblown.

Russell's release was at the perfect time, with no salary cap we didn't receive a salary cap penalty. With a salary cap in place, if a team want to release their player now they would have to take a big cap hit and all because they drafted a unproven NFL player and gave him rediculous money

kastofsna
08-02-2010, 07:19 AM
here's the thing, if we put a cap on rookie contracts, we also have to lower the salary cap, because these big rookie contracts are doing their part in reducing teams just hoarding big named free agents, who, by the way, are getting very big contracts because of perceived market value with the giant contracts the rookies are getting, so, the veterans don't mind too much. Tom Brady commented on this after the Bradford signing.
"That's the way the system's been and who knows what will happen in the future? As players, we want the money going to the players. If it's rookies, it's rookies. If it's veterans, it's veterans."
and when asked about if there needs to be a rookie cap:
"If a team would reallocate the money and spend it on veterans, (then yes). But if every team is going to spend under the cap, then it doesn't make a lot of sense."
yes, the rookie contracts get bigger and bigger, but so does the salary cap itself, making those big contracts pretty reasonable considering the expectations teams have for the top picks, much like a team would have big expectations for any big-dollar free agent they sign. plenty of those fail, too (Haynesworth, ahem)

the only real "argument" there is against these giant contracts are "well it's not fair!" but if the veterans don't mind, why should anyone else?

Goldensilence
08-02-2010, 04:23 PM
what rule is that? the Raiders didn't seem to be harmed at all by Russell's ridiculous salary. for all the talk about how ridiculous these contracts are, the negative effect of them is way overblown.

Salary wise it represents a large investment in an unproven player. How many people graduate with an undergrad in business and go straight to being a CEO of a fortune top 500 company with no experience? Not many I would venture.

It's not just the salary that hamstrings a team as well. It's counting on that guy to lock the position down and play at a high level. If the player doesn't do that its a waste all around.

I also think in the NFL its a lot harder to hoard players and have them all on the same page for a prolonged period of time.

TheCD
08-03-2010, 09:07 AM
yes, the rookie contracts get bigger and bigger, but so does the salary cap itself, making those big contracts pretty reasonable considering the expectations teams have for the top picks, much like a team would have big expectations for any big-dollar free agent they sign. plenty of those fail, too (Haynesworth, ahem)

the only real "argument" there is against these giant contracts are "well it's not fair!" but if the veterans don't mind, why should anyone else?

You can look at it through the perspective of profit margins, as well. The owners aren't just in business to win championships. If they lost money every year, at some point they would drop out of the race.

The more the rookie conracts increase, the higher the salary cap increases above regular inflation. After a while, doing business in the NFL becomes pointless because only the players are making money.

Is this guaranteed to happen? No. But it's a very likely possibility. Under the current system, owners have no choice but to pay the 1st pick $50+ million, because no one is willing to trade for the number one spot. This limits their ability to sign the free agents they may want. Free agents can be a bust, too, but at least there's a proven track record for the teams to look at. There's nothing wrong with putting a cap on rookie salaries, and limitting the contracts to, say, three years. Both parties could win from that deal (owners aren't handcuffed, and players can pursue a larger contract after three years, especcially if the franchise tag is lifted).

Blake
08-03-2010, 09:16 AM
I'm thinking you'll see it once they get a new CBA in place. There's no way owners will allow this much money to be thrown at rookies who haven't proven a thing in the NFL.

Isn't it the owners who are allowing it now? Your statement doesn't make any sense. If it's the owners that are all up in arms about paying that kind of money to unproven rookies, then quit giving it to them.

Agree with speedy here. If owners have such a big problem with paying a rookie 50 mil guaranteed then my advice would be to not bring your draft card up until you are out of the top 5.

kastofsna
08-05-2010, 09:48 AM
Salary wise it represents a large investment in an unproven player. How many people graduate with an undergrad in business and go straight to being a CEO of a fortune top 500 company with no experience? Not many I would venture.

It's not just the salary that hamstrings a team as well. It's counting on that guy to lock the position down and play at a high level. If the player doesn't do that its a waste all around.

I also think in the NFL its a lot harder to hoard players and have them all on the same page for a prolonged period of time.

but an undergraduate isn't expected to be the face of the company when they are hired. nor are they expected to be one of the best employees for the company. nor do they have a very specific skillset that VERY few people have.

the salary doesn't hamstring teams at all. look at the Raiders. despite several years of top 10 draft picks, they've still managed to spend lots of money in free agency and on contract extensions to players on the team. there's really no proof that these big rookie contracts have actually done any damage at all.