Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is better for teams/rookies??

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    What is better for teams/rookies??

    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.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    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.
    The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    Comment

    • #3
      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.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: What is better for teams/rookies??

        Originally posted by HUbison
        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.

        Comment

        • #5
          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

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: What is better for teams/rookies??

            Originally posted by NickSeiler
            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?
            Last edited by HUbison; -07-12-2004, 12:30 PM. Reason: used the wrong name
            The more things change, the more they stay the same.

            Comment

            • #7
              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

              Comment

              • #8
                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.

                Comment

                • #9
                  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.
                  The more things change, the more they stay the same.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: What is better for teams/rookies??

                    Originally posted by HUbison
                    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.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: What is better for teams/rookies??

                      Originally posted by NickSeiler
                      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.

                      Originally posted by NickSeiler
                      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?
                      The more things change, the more they stay the same.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: What is better for teams/rookies??

                        Originally posted by HUbison
                        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.

                        Comment

                        Previous template Next

                        Related Topics

                        Collapse
                        • clarasDK
                          The 2020 plan?
                          by clarasDK
                          During this offseason the main theme of discussion has been when will we get nr 99 signed up and what will it cost us. Related to that there has been a lot of discussion about what he is worth, but also if the Rams can afford signing him together with the other players we need to sign and have already signed. We have already signed up Gurley for a very high RB contact setting new standards and Cook is also not a cheap player. We have Goff, probably Peters and other young talent who will not come cheap.

                          This have made me think a little about if there might be a grant plan for The Rams to get these players signed up on long term contract before 2020 where there will be a new collective bargain agreement. I am 100% sure that a new agreement here will in one or more ways also lead to a higher % of the league revenues going to the players (how much nobody knows). This will mean that a contract made this year or next year that last beyond 2020 might suddenly look cheap compared to new contacts made after 2020 and at the same time the cap space will move upward meaning they will have a smaller overall impact.

                          I am not a specialist on this, but is that a totally off idea/concept?...
                          -08-16-2018, 12:05 AM
                        • thoey
                          You are Commissioner for a day...
                          by thoey
                          Every time I hear about the contracts that NFL (and other sports for that matter) players get, it really makes me wonder.

                          You see it all the time. Billy Bob Stud has an amazing season that just coincidentally happens in the last year of his current contract. After a period of time, his agent and the FO pound out a new deal getting Billy Bob top dollar. Next couple of seasons, Billy Bob plays, but not nearly as well as he did when he was establishing his new contracts value.

                          The other side of the coin is rookies being drafted and making more then proven veterans just based off expectations. How many times has a first round, sure fire future Pro Bowler turned out to be a lazy bum or a head case? This large paycheck hurts the team for years to come and is a slap in the face to proven vets.

                          So, my question is this. If you were assigned as the Commissioner for a day and your sole responsibility was to fix the problems with contracts, what would you do?

                          I would really like to see a position by position, multi-tiered pay scale created. That way, all of your tier one RB's get the same salary. And then have incentive based clauses that allow them to earn more than others in their tier if they achieve their goals.

                          For example, let’s take SJax. Since he is arguably one of the top five backs in the league, you sign him to a Tier 1 RB base contract for say 4 million per year guaranteed. On top of that base contract you add on incentives for rushing yardage, reception yardage, TD's scored, less than X number of fumbles lost, etc. Along with these positive incentives, you could also add negative deductions for number of penalties, meeting attendance, staying out of off the field issues, etc.

                          By doing this sort of system, there is no need for holdouts. The only discussion would be the establishing and then assignment of the tiers and then the setting of incentives. If he exceeds expectations, he is rewarded for it. If he just does his job, he gets the base only.

                          This would also help in the bloated rookie contracts as there would be a base level that an untested rookie would receive and then if they did well they would make more due to incentives. No longer would there be outrageous contracts given to someone with unproven potential that exceeded that of a proven veteran.

                          I would really love to see something like this. Wouldn't it be nice to say "Man , that Steven Jackson is only in it for the money. Did you see those three touchdowns yesterday?"
                          -08-02-2008, 05:05 PM
                        • r8rh8rmike
                          Wagoner: Rams Will Have Rookies Signed Soon
                          by r8rh8rmike
                          Rams will have rookies signed soon

                          June, 10, 2014
                          By Nick Wagoner | ESPN.com

                          EARTH CITY, Mo. -- The St. Louis Rams are the only team in the NFL not to sign any members of their draft class. That will change soon enough.

                          For those that have followed the team's approach to signing the rookies under coach Jeff Fisher, it should be no surprise the Rams will be the last team to strike deals with their 11 drafted rookies.

                          It's all part of the team's plan to educate the rookies before handing over what for many will be life-changing money.

                          "With the new rookie cap and everything it’s really not difficult to get the deals done," Fisher said Tuesday. "So we just felt like this time would be better served putting them in situations from an educational standpoint, financial planning, those kind of things. We’ve done a lot of that."

                          Indeed, since the emergence of the rookie salary cap, the contracts for draft picks are essentially slotted into certain price tags. No amount of hold outs or negotiations is ultimately going to change rules that were collectively bargained in 2011.

                          Where rookie holdouts used to be a summer staple, they are now a thing of the past. In looking around the NFL, most teams already have the majority of their draft classes under contract. Even first overall pick Jadeveon Clowney has already signed with the Houston Texans. Under the old CBA, it wouldn't be unusual to see top overall picks unsigned deep into July, even missing their share of training camp practices.

                          But with the new setup, the more pertinent question might be what's the rush?

                          Frankly, the Rams' approach to handling the rookie deals is both logical and intelligent. For all rookies entering the NFL, this is their first real occupation. Sure, they might have had jobs along the way but none that come with the payday of an NFL contract. (Insert joke about the payroll of your least favorite college football power here).

                          Taking it a step further, the vast majority of rookies don't have much experience with how to handle wealth. So the Rams set out to offer a variety of classes intended to further educate players before handing over lucrative signing bonuses.

                          Included in the education are sessions on financial planning, home ownership, investing and other tasks associated with every-day life. On Tuesday afternoon, former Rams tight end Ernie Conwell spoke to the rookies. Conwell is now a regional director for the NFLPA.

                          The Rams have even traditionally done a rookie week in which they offer the class an opportunity to see their new hometown by taking them out to eat at local restaurants and offering chances to mingle with other young professionals in town.

                          In the meantime, the rookies aren't left wanting for everything. They stay in a local hotel and...
                          -06-10-2014, 03:51 PM
                        • Guest's Avatar
                          Which would help us the most deal or no deal?
                          by Guest
                          We are in decent cap shape without the deal. There are several teams that will have to purge some of their players to get under the cap. This would probably reduce the price of all the free agents out there. There are about four teams with twice the cap space we have. This means that they would be able to sign several of the high profile players.

                          With a new deal that might add an extra 10 mil there would be less teams purging players. There would be fewer free agents and all the teams would have more money to spend. This would help drive up the cost of the players available. We would have about twice as much money we could spend on free agents. But there would be fewer free agents and they would cost more. If Bruce declines to restructure we still may decide to keep him with the excess cap space.

                          Will a deal help the Rams or hurt the Rams?
                          Deal
                          68.75%
                          11
                          No Deal
                          18.75%
                          3
                          No Effect
                          12.50%
                          2
                          -03-05-2006, 12:44 PM
                        • CRAZYHORNS
                          Do we have any drafted rookies signed?
                          by CRAZYHORNS
                          Hope we do not have a repeat of last season. The FO needs to get it's act togther and sign these guys. Like it or not some of these Rookies are going to see plenty of PT.

                          Go Rams
                          -07-23-2006, 11:38 AM
                        Working...
                        X