Redskins rookie signing thread

[MTK]

The lockout ended on 7/25/11, Cam signed on 7/29/11.

[lockeroomman]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

The lockout ended on 7/25/11, Cam signed on 7/29/11.

that's right

[NC_Skins]

This is why I hate NFL owners.

NFL - Tug-of-war over guarantees delays signings of some top draft picks - ESPN

The debate is over the "offset." The teams who draft the first eight players want to be relieved of their guaranteed obligations if they cut a draft choice and he signs with another team. Agents say the player should be able to get all his guaranteed money from his first team and keep the new money from the new team.

****ing asshats are what they are. After not having to pay 50 mil in guaranteed money, they are now haggling over a couple mil? Really? The contracts are guaranteed for the 4 years. PERIOD. If you don't like it, tough shit. If you want to cut them, you still own them. Get over it and ****ing sign the players you cheap bastards.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

This is why I hate NFL owners.

NFL - Tug-of-war over guarantees delays signings of some top draft picks - ESPN



****ing asshats are what they are. After not having to pay 50 mil in guaranteed money, they are now haggling over a couple mil? Really? The contracts are guaranteed for the 4 years. PERIOD. If you don't like it, tough shit. If you want to cut them, you still own them. Get over it and ****ing sign the players you cheap bastards.

It doesn't sound to me like an owner driven issue:

It's an agent's job to poke as many holes in a system as possible. Offsets are considered no-brainers and are part of the standard language of contracts. Players and their agents consider it a victory when there is no offset language in contacts because it gives them a chance to make a few extra dollars.

The work of smart agents destroyed the first rookie salary pool. When the old CBA started in 1993, rookie salaries were supposed to be slotted around cap numbers. Agents came up with second-year option bonuses that kept the first-year cap number low and put the player in position to collect huge bonuses. Before long, option bonuses and guarantees grew to $50 million. When the Raiders fanned on No. 1 overall pick JaMarcus Russell, they had to absorb a $32 million mistake because of the option bonuses and guarantees in his contract.

Since it took a lockout and threats of losing the 2012 season to get the current rookie salary pool, teams don't want this new system ruined.

It makes sense to me that if a guy gets cut, and another team wants him, then they ought to pick up a bit of the salary. Of course, if a pick 1-8 gets cut the team has bigger issues at hand usually.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

It doesn't sound to me like an owner driven issue:

It makes sense to me that if a guy gets cut, and another team wants him, then they ought to pick up a bit of the salary. Of course, if a pick 1-8 gets cut the team has bigger issues at hand usually.

Why should another team have to pay for a team's inability to scout and put him a system that will fit his skills?

Maybe his salary will be more than what another team is willing to pay him so why should they have to pay? No, the team that drafted him should eat his contract if he's cut before the 4 years.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Why should another team have to pay for a team's inability to scout and put him a system that will fit his skills?

Maybe his salary will be more than what another team is willing to pay him so why should they have to pay? No, the team that drafted him should eat his contract if he's cut before the 4 years.

As I understand it, if a guy is cut, and no one picks him up, then the signing team eats his salary and pays him. But suppose (nightmare scenario) Griffin doesn't work out here, Bruce Allen and Shanahan are fired, and a new FO comes in. If another team picks up Griffin, then they should pay the contract, and the Skins new FO shouldn't be saddled with a past FO's bad decision.

Otherwise, if a top rookie gets to "double dip" so to say, then there is an incentive, however slight, for the rookie to screw up with the first team and get an early 2nd contract.

Remember, we are talking about a case where a team is willing to part ways with a very high draft pick before that guy has even finished his first contract. This is not the common occurrence, and it really means (in my opinion) that the guy didn't come to play in the NFL. After all, name 1 pick in the top 8 of this years draft that wasn't rated in the top 15 of all scouts/talking heads. It's not the case of a bubble guy that a team took a bad chance on, it's a guy who had everything going for him, and failed to produce.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

As I understand it, if a guy is cut, and no one picks him up, then the signing team eats his salary and pays him. But suppose (nightmare scenario) Griffin doesn't work out here, Bruce Allen and Shanahan are fired, and a new FO comes in. If another team picks up Griffin, then they should pay the contract, and the Skins new FO shouldn't be saddled with a past FO's bad decision.

Otherwise, if a top rookie gets to "double dip" so to say, then there is an incentive, however slight, for the rookie to screw up with the first team and get an early 2nd contract.

Remember, we are talking about a case where a team is willing to part ways with a very high draft pick before that guy has even finished his first contract. This is not the common occurrence, and it really means (in my opinion) that the guy didn't come to play in the NFL. After all, name 1 pick in the top 8 of this years draft that wasn't rated in the top 15 of all scouts/talking heads. It's not the case of a bubble guy that a team took a bad chance on, it's a guy who had everything going for him, and failed to produce.

What rookie is going to "screw up" with his first contract knowing it'll kill any value for his next contract? The window of opportunity is so small in the NFL that nobody is going to screw up their first contract, only to turn around and get a bare minimum contract JUST so he can really play and get a better contract after a minimum.

I assure you of that much. Did you see any teams willing to give JaMarcus Russell anything beyond the minimum to come in? Leaf? Vernon Gholston? Haynesworth?

At the very least, a team is going to keep a top pick a minimum of 3 years. So that leaves one year remaining which most likely will be peanuts in terms of overall salary.

So now we are back at owners bickering over peanuts, when they used to have to shell out 30-50 mil guaranteed on guys like Reggie Bush and JaMarcus Russell. Yeah, the owners can go **** themselves really. No sympathy here.