I didn't know this, but apparently Chris Cooley blogs at the Shutdown Corner part of Yahoo! Sports every Wednesday. This is in addition to his own blog, which is mighty fine reading by the way. His weekly story is called "The Cooley Zone," which is so very lacking in terms of a title. Of all the possibilities, they go with Booty Shorts Anonymous Cooley Zone?
Anyway, the reason I bring this up is because this week's story is on how much the NFL rookies, and more specifically the first rounders, are making too much money. He makes a great (and very visual) analogy about the NFL Draft process, specifically the NFL Combine (By the way, don't click the below link if you have just eaten or are weak of heart.):
The NFL Combine is comparable to a strip club with owners and coaches for customers. The better the man looks running around in his spandex the more dollar bills end up on his stage. The funny thing is the onlookers at the combine are probably more excited than the creepy old man in the corner at the strip bar.
He makes an interesting point, especially for a guy who has come to realize the benefits of spandex.
Those shorts are really cramping his Hardy Boys. There's no mystery. (Image from here.)
Anyway, his article isn't only about vivid (and slightly disturbing) analogies. He goes on to talk about how certain high draft picks make more than Pro Bowl-type players. He uses Vernon Davis as an example. He points out how the simple fact that Davis was drafted high allowed him to earn more money than the likes of Jeremy Shockey and Antonio Gates. He continues:
In Jason Witten's second year he caught 87 balls for 980 yards. Davis caught 52 balls for 509 yards. Both are good stats for a tight end, but Davis is currently making $500,000 more a year than Witten. Even better, Davis made close to $4 million more in his second year than Witten did. A player making that kind of money should be a Pro Bowl-type player.
All this begs the question: should NFL rookies and their unproven talents be limited in the money they can make? A few weeks ago, the idea of a rookie salary cap came up, which Gene Upshaw (in his infinite wisdom) immediately dismissed. So, where do you stand on the rookie salary cap issue? Do you agree with Cooley or do you think those shorts are cutting off the circulation to his brain?
As always, hit up the comments.
0 recs | 8 comments
Rookie Salary Cap
There should definitely be a rookie cap. But, it won’t happen until the veterans realize that all that big money to the top 15 picks is money out of their own pockets. The salary cap is the same regardless, and teams would be willing to pay more for a guy coming out of his rookie contract than they would for untried rookie. That’s why you see teams trying to trade out of the top 10 more now than in previous years.
WolfpackSteelersFan - April 30, 2008
Rookie Pay Scale
I wouldn’t mind paying rookies the league minimum, with some performance-based incentives thrown in. The only drawback would be that owners could have their coaches limit a guy’s playing time in order to prevent him from reaching a particular milestone, just to save a few bucks.
Maybe the team could pay the salary and the league could pay the bonuses?
There’s no easy answer. Vince Lombardi was right. No one is ever paid what they’re truly worth at the time. Before the advent of the salary cap, a team could afford to overpay somebody who came through in the past, even if it meant that their current production didn’t justify the salary. Back pay for a job well done. Not anymore.
DC Greg - April 30, 2008
eagles fan here
I repsect cooley, and what he says is exactly my thoughts on rookies making a ton of money for being unproven.
Joe_D - April 30, 2008
haha picture strikes again
Burgundy and Gold - April 30, 2008
Oooh.....
that’s the pic you were talking about?
DbacksSkins - May 1, 2008
Tough call...
I think Chris Cooley is absolutely right that rookies are overpaid, but as often as not rookies are underpaid. It’s easy to look at the top of the draft where players are given eleventy billion dollars to frequently underperform their veteran peers, but plenty of 2nd-7th round picks are making much, much less money than their veteran peers, yet are outperforming them. A great example of that would be… Chris Cooley, who was selected in the 3rd and up until this year was probably the best performance-for-value player on the team, perhaps in the NFC. He wasn’t making the cheddar he deserved in virtue of being a 3rd rounder, if what one deserved was tied exclusively to what one does on the field (and it should be, but isn’t, which is why I’m a HUGE fan of incentive based compensation).
I don’t like the idea of a rookie cap necessarily. Then again, I hate the idea of the first pick in the draft negotiating his pay based on last season’s first pick, as if it were necessarily true that he was better or even comparable to that pick. And since the rest of the picks collapse of that first one’s salary, that particular negotiation has far more impact than it should on the amount of money people are making.
Skin Patrol - May 1, 2008
Not so tough
I think a rookie cap is a great idea. It would, in fact, Skin Patrol help with your other point. There would be more money, not only to the veteran players (allowing teams to maintain the type of continuity we used to have in the Hog era, admittedly before free agency) but also to those other round picks. Spreading the money around would make the draft more equitable, and actually be more in line with a players true value (rather than projected value on a specific day in April). I also think that the reduced expectations, which come with the lower salary, would help those players that are drafted high and only turn out to be pretty good to very good (as opposed to over the top great) players. If you aren’t paying through the nose already, one could accept a good, but not Pro Bowl good, high first round pick, instead of cutting him or trading him the first chance you get. IMHO
matthiasstephan - May 1, 2008
More money
for veterans is a good thing, but we’re really not talking about that much money to spread around. I don’t think anyone seriously contests that the people picked after the first 2/3rds of the 1st round are dramatically overpaid, nor would a rookie cap ever be intended to touch them. We’re talking about maybe 10-15 people, probably closer to 1-5 who would be affected by a rookie cap. The vast majority of rookies make at or near league minimum.
Would shaving half of Reggie Bush’s salary free up money to veterans on 32 rosters? Sure, but there’s a question whether the amount it shifts is consequential.
All that said, I’m not all that opposed to a rookie cap.
Skin Patrol - May 1, 2008
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Hogs Haven to post a comment.