What is better for teams/rookies??

[RamWraith]

Signing a long term deal or what has become a more of common theme, short term deals.

I personally, would like to see Jackson locked up for 5 years. Same can be said for Smoker. I do no like the current trend around the NFL of these 2 and 3 year deals. If a team has done there home-work there should be little doubt in there mind about the potential of a player. If the player pans out, you have him while he hits his prime. Instead, we loose these players much to often because they signed a short term deal, and everyone now has a chance at their services.

On the flip side, one can sign a real bust player for 5 years and are now stuck with any salary cap implications.

I am not sure what is better for a team...but I can say it hurt loosing players like Az, Fletcher, Bly etc.. so young into there career. We are the team that worked out the kinks.

Also what comes to mind...we are going to have to look at some interesting problems soon. Archaleta, Polley, Thomas, Lewis, Pickett all beginning to hit there prime. This will not fair well for the Rams.

[HUbison]

Re: What is better for teams/rookies??

I may be off on this, but a player has to have 5 years of NFL service before they can be considered unrestricted. Am I right on that number?

On another note, with shorter rookie contracts being the new trend, why are we not tapping into this? Holsey, Chandler, Sehorn...we're not exactly snagging those young 2 or 3 year veterans.

[Nick]

Re: What is better for teams/rookies??

It's a difficult situation to be in. Of course you don't want to sign your big players to 2-3 year deals and be forced to resign them every couple of years, but signing a 5-7 year deal could put the franchise in cap trouble down the road because of the backloaded contracts you'd be forced to either renegotiate or dump.

If I were the Rams, I'd shoot for a six-year deal with Jackson and put in a roster bonus somewhere around year four or five. This would allow the Rams to have Jackson long term, thus allowing him to be brought in slowly, but also allow them a means to let him go if for some reason he doesn't work out down the line as the full time starter.

[Nick]

Re: What is better for teams/rookies??

I may be off on this, but a player has to have 5 years of NFL service before they can be considered unrestricted. Am I right on that number?

On another note, with shorter rookie contracts being the new trend, why are we not tapping into this? Holsey, Chandler, Sehorn...we're not exactly snagging those young 2 or 3 year veterans.

Good point. In terms of rookies, three year contracts make sense because four seasons means unrestricted free agency. If they've played for only three years and their contract is up, it's less likely another team will make a run at them. Then, at that time, you can try and get a long term deal done.

As for 2-3 year vets, Chandler was signed for three, wasn't he? It's debatable as to whether he'll be around for three. As for Sehorn, I'm glad that was only a one year deal. Holsey probably wasn't signed longer because we're hoping all three of our first round prospects kicks it up and performs better.

[general counsel]

Re: What is better for teams/rookies??

keep in mind that the signing bonus under the cap can only be prorated for a shorter period time than usual due to the upcoming expiration of the collective bargaining agreement. howard balzer explained this in detail at one time and i dont remember exactly how it works, but it definetely has a bearing on the impact of longer vs. shorter term contracts.

general counsel

[HUbison]

Re: What is better for teams/rookies??

Good point. In terms of rookies, three year contracts make sense because four seasons means unrestricted free agency. If they've played for only three years and their contract is up, it's less likely another team will make a run at them. Then, at that time, you can try and get a long term deal done.

As for 2-3 year vets, Chandler was signed for three, wasn't he? It's debatable as to whether he'll be around for three. As for Sehorn, I'm glad that was only a one year deal. Holsey probably wasn't signed longer because we're hoping all three of our first round prospects kicks it up and performs better.

My bad, I wasn't clear on my question. I wasn't asking why we weren't signing those guys to 2 or 3 year contracts. I was wondering why the FAs we are signing are not the young guys with 2 or 3 years of experience (ie. just coming into their prime). Instead, we are signing these older (albeit cheaper) players whose best days are behind them. Wraith says the trend is that rookies are signing for 2-3 years and then bolting. He then mentioned guys like Bly, Az & Fletch. So why aren't we going after these kind of younger FAs instead of their older counterparts?

[general counsel]

Re: What is better for teams/rookies??

Of course you would like younger guys, but how do you afford them? The vets we are signing to one year deals have very low cap numbers. Remember, the vet exemption allows you to pay a vet 750k with him only counting 450k against the cap. This is the case with a number of the vets we have signed. Getting guys in their prime costs a lot more money, which is why we focused this off season on locking up our own guys.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

[serkicker32]

Re: What is better for teams/rookies??

also those younger players might cost draft picks and we really cant afford these younger guys most of the time.

[HUbison]

Re: What is better for teams/rookies??

All this free agent and shorter rookie contract talk makes me wonder how much an effect team loyalty plays in these contract decisions. I mean these are short-lived careers so you got to get the money while you can, but don't you think there is some level of loyalty, maybe great for some and little for others. I don't know, I'm just asking.

What do you think? Is there any team loyalty left or is that concept completely lost in the world of pay-today, play-tomorrow? So are there opinions on this or do we simply skate by with the ever-present answer of it's only business?

My personal opinion is that team loyalty is a dying characteristic. Careers are too short any more to not go after the money.

[Nick]

Re: What is better for teams/rookies??

Wraith says the trend is that rookies are signing for 2-3 years and then bolting.

Rookies can't sign for two years then bolt. They can't even sign for three years and bolt. A player can't choose to test the free agent market until he's been in the league for four seasons, to my knowledge. A player with three seasons of experience is a restricted free agent, and any team who wants to sign him makes an offer that his current team can match. If that team doesn't match, then the team who signed him has to give up compensation. I'm sure you know all this, but the idea of players signing for 2-3 years then leaving under their own power isn't accurate.

The reason the Rams probably don't make a run at these kind of players is because (1) they probably don't want to have to give up draft compensation for restricted free agents and (2) because of their high pay role the Rams are unable to make runs at some of the higher teir free agents and have to settle for more role player veterans that aren't signed immediately. When Bly left, he was arguably the best FA corner available, so teams (like Detroit) overbid to ensure he'd sign with them. With guys like Faulk, Warner, Pace, Bruce, and Holt on the roster, the Rams don't have an enourmous amount of cap room to use in competing with contracts that Bly or Fletcher would get from other teams.

[HUbison]

Re: What is better for teams/rookies??

I'm sure you know all this, but the idea of players signing for 2-3 years then leaving under their own power isn't accurate.

Yea, after I've read this, it wasn't what I intended. Maybe I'll say that these young players quasi-bolt after 3 years. I alluded to this in an earlier post, but I'll elaborate slightly here. You are right, the 3 year vets don't have the power to take off, but the original team does have to match. And these days of cap crams, some teams don't have that option (ie. Fletcher) or the market is so thin and the team need so great that the original team would be fools to match the offer (ie. Bly). This is what I meant and (while not speaking for him) I only assume this is what Wraith meant.

The reason the Rams probably don't make a run at these kind of players is because (1) they probably don't want to have to give up draft compensation for restricted free agents and (2) because of their high pay role the Rams are unable to make runs at some of the higher teir free agents and have to settle for more role player veterans that aren't signed immediately. When Bly left, he was arguably the best FA corner available, so teams (like Detroit) overbid to ensure he'd sign with them. With guys like Faulk, Warner, Pace, Bruce, and Holt on the roster, the Rams don't have an enourmous amount of cap room to use in competing with contracts that Bly or Fletcher would get from other teams.

Maybe the better question is, why WOULD teams take a run at these young guys?

[Nick]

Re: What is better for teams/rookies??

Maybe the better question is, why WOULD teams take a run at these young guys?

If they have the cap room and perceive this free agent to offer them more than any player that would be available to them in the draft, the move makes sense.

There were rumors that the Steelers were planning to offer Bulger an offer sheet because at the time they weren't sure if they'd be able to get one of the top quarterbacks in the draft. Had the Steelers made the offer and the Rams not matched, Pittsburgh would have effectively been spending their first and third round selection on a QB -- Marc Bulger.

If the draft would have been more thin at QB, the Steelers might have been willing to do this and get their QB of the future. But since there were three stud QBs, one was bound to fall to Pittsburgh so they could afford to pass on Bulger and get arguably a greater talent in the draft.

It's all about need. If you need a veteran to step in and make a difference now, then it might be worth taking a shot at someone in restricted free agency, especially if they don't have a high tag. Look at Butler or Manumaleuna. Both were tagged relatively low, meaning teams were willing to give up a second day pick to sign either to a long-term deal. For Carolina, Manu's skills, performances, and potential were valued as being better than anything they could have gotten with the compensation they'd pay for him -- a fourth round pick.