PDA

View Full Version : The #12 Pick Contract



ckparrothead
01-08-2010, 04:19 PM
I've seen it argued here and there that we need to favor certain positions or not favor certain kinds of players, because of the money we're on the hook for with the #12 pick.

So I thought I should clarify what we're talking about here. Last year Knowshon Moreno at the #12 spot got a 5-year, $16.7 million contract with $13.125 million guaranteed. There is an additional $6.3 million available to be earned on the deal if he performs really well. There is also a 6th year that the club could option for $5.08 million.

That's $3.3 million a year, $2.3 million a year in amortized bonus.

NOT BAD.

That's not a bad deal at all for the player you could get with that money.

Now also consider this.

If a proposal for a rookie wage scale begins taking shape by the time teams begin negotiations with their draft picks...what happens to those negotiations?

Let me give you a scenario.

SCENARIO: You're the Detroit Lions and you've selected DT Gerald McCoy at #2 overall. He's a big ugly, and he's not Ndamukong Suh who is now wildly popular and regarded as Hercules in cleats. Last year, Jason Smith signed a deal that pays him $10.3 million a year. Naturally, he's asking for about $10.8 million a year (5% above last year's #2 pick). A rookie wage scale has taken shape for 2011, and both owners and players seem to think it's fair. It calls for $7 million per year contracts for the #1 overall pick, and then scaled down each pick thereafter by a set algorithm.

What do you do?

I tell you what I would do. I would tell Gerald that I really want him here, I have a clear vision for him as a player in our defense and I would try and impress the heck out of him in the Detroit Lions organization...and then offer him $7 million a year. If he holds out, and re-enters the 2011 draft, that would be the maximum he could get even if he went #1 overall, and I say with being out of football for a year he stands much more danger of sinking to #20 overall than rising to #1 overall, especially with how talented the 2011 draft looks right now.

He could get emotional about it and make an irrational decision, but if you're Gerald McCoy, the rational decision is to take the offer. Refusing the offer and re-entering the next draft would be too risky.

So with that in mind, you wonder if Miami will even be on the hook for Knowshon Moreno type money.

ckparrothead
01-08-2010, 04:21 PM
Taking all that aside, when I see an argument that it would be silly to give #12 overall money to a guy like C.J. Spiller, based on his only being likely to touch the ball 15 to 20 times a game...I just think to myself, that argument doesn't hold too much water.

I mean, $3.3 million a year? A guy like Spiller or a guy like Earl Thomas is not worth $3.3 million a year? Get outta here!

hooshoops
01-08-2010, 04:24 PM
i don't care about the money...i just want a damn good player

ADavieDolphin
01-09-2010, 01:39 AM
once your out of the top 10, there is a big drop off, i remember hbey had a massive contract at #7, crabtree with a fair contract at 10 but substantially more than these numbers reported about the #12 pick, moreno.
I think that's terrific value, wasn't P Willis picked 12 a few years ago? he's probably still on his rookie contract at 2-3 mil a year, wasn't merriman another #12? maybe im guessing now, but it sounds right..

I love our position, we don't have to spend alot, and you can get alot of player per buck right now. Obviously I'm a McClain fan, but I think he's gonna be drafted 5-10 overall, so it's still to early to see where i think we're gonna go.
I got some positions in mind, and some players i've been following.

honestly i'm more intriqued with FA this year than the draft, first time in many years..

skipp2myloo13
01-09-2010, 02:15 AM
Get Dez! Its a bargain talent and money wise!

ColonelJ
01-09-2010, 02:27 AM
And then, you would be paying $7 mill to one unhappy player who does not give a diddly.

skipp2myloo13
01-09-2010, 02:35 AM
And then, you would be paying $7 mill to one unhappy player who does not give a diddly.

Haha. You level of ignorance is amusing. Can i have ur reasoning. Ill wait for u to BS.

ColonelJ
01-09-2010, 02:58 AM
Haha. You level of ignorance is amusing. Can i have ur reasoning. Ill wait for u to BS.

Is that supposed to be an insult? If it is I am not insulted. Everyone is ignorant including me. Neither me nor you know eveerything.

Contracts are based on what's fair, and what is fair is based on reasonable expectations. A #2 pick has a reasonable expectation of $10 mill. You don't try to screw people out of expectations in contracts. That's why there are negotiations.

The best that can be done is to offer a structured contract with incentives and guarantees that amount to $10 million for #2 pick, and that's what agents and teams have been doing.

Niners last years did not want to pay Crabtree for what they perceived to be an unreasonable salary on Crabtree's part, a salary for more than what a #12 could expect.

If a team want s to pay less, then that's not players fault, and he could go elsewhere that same year and contract with another team who wants to pay what's expected.

Now, CParrot is suggesting teams should do this accross the board everywhere. That's not gonna work. If you don't want to pay, do not draft--forego the pick or trade down.

JC
01-09-2010, 04:20 AM
Is that supposed to be an insult? If it is I am not insulted. Everyone is ignorant including me. Neither me nor you know eveerything.

Contracts are based on what's fair, and what is fair is based on reasonable expectations. A #2 pick has a reasonable expectation of $10 mill. You don't try to screw people out of expectations in contracts. That's why there are negotiations.

The best that can be done is to offer a structured contract with incentives and guarantees that amount to $10 million for #2 pick, and that's what agents and teams have been doing.

Niners last years did not want to pay Crabtree for what they perceived to be an unreasonable salary on Crabtree's part, a salary for more than what a #12 could expect.

If a team want s to pay less, then that's not players fault, and he could go elsewhere that same year and contract with another team who wants to pay what's expected.

Now, CParrot is suggesting teams should do this accross the board everywhere. That's not gonna work. If you don't want to pay, do not draft--forego the pick or trade down.

I just think it is obscene what NFL players in general make. Granted, most owners are money hungry snobs as well but players make a ridiculous amount of money for catching or throwing a football.

GeauxFinns3705
01-09-2010, 10:41 AM
And then, you would be paying $7 mill to one unhappy player who does not give a diddly.

Exactly. This is an ANOTHER absurd scenario.

"Hello Gerald. I know we picked you #2, but we are going to give you 30% less than the guy picked in your slot last year. I hope you like the new drapes though. And did you notice our new landscaping? Impressive huh?"....ROFLMAO.

Thats why some people who so want to be in the big time are going to stay in the bush leagues...I don't care how much film they claim to watch.

GeauxFinns3705
01-09-2010, 10:47 AM
I just think it is obscene what NFL players in general make. Granted, most owners are money hungry snobs as well but players make a ridiculous amount of money for catching or throwing a football.

Not to be rude..but no one cares (least of which the #2 pick and his agent) what you think is obscene. If anyone (and that includes the self-annointed on this site) that you are going to get the #2 pick, or any pick, for 30% less than last years same slotted player made, that person needs to drop the crack pipe. This is a business.

The point was made, "try like hell to impress the player". The ONLY thing that impresses these players is the money. You want to impress the #2 overall pick, offer him 10% more than last year's #2 guy in upfront money. Other than that, maybe you shouldn't worry with "impressing" him at all. Man up and pay him what the (accepted) market says he's worth.

ckparrothead
01-09-2010, 01:57 PM
Money talks and bull sh-t walks. Bottom line is if the scenario played out like I outlined then by refusing the contract, Gerald McCoy would end risking a LOT of downside, with literally no monetary upside.

Funny how people ignorantly argue against by talking about what is "fair". Of course an agent is going to believe that what is "fair" is what a player at that draft position got last year. But then again, NFL players (NFLPA) and owners both agree that what the rookies got last year and the year before was decidedly unfair, hence the reason they're instituting a rookie wage scale to begin with.

dr.jake
01-09-2010, 02:15 PM
no way a franchise like the miami dolphins who have so few stars and have enjoyed so little success should be worried about cap issues. if this is the case the best off season move would to be jettison the whole front office cuz they're obviously IDIOTS!

Markcalius
01-09-2010, 02:52 PM
Money talks and bull sh-t walks. Bottom line is if the scenario played out like I outlined then by refusing the contract, Gerald McCoy would end risking a LOT of downside, with literally no monetary upside.


Seems like the real argument is going to be what the number 1 pick signs to. The rest would seem to fall from there.

Of course, in the scenario you pointed out, any team could take the Machiavellian route and have the player by the balls regardless of what the pick ahead of him signed for, so one would think there would be at least an implicit understanding (between the owners and the union) of how that will play out if a CBA with a rookie scale IS reached prior to the signing of this next draft class. Otherwise, it seems like you would be courting a mass holdout/strike/scrapping of the CBA you just reached. No?

greasyObnoxious
01-09-2010, 03:11 PM
Money talks and bull sh-t walks. Bottom line is if the scenario played out like I outlined then by refusing the contract, Gerald McCoy would end risking a LOT of downside, with literally no monetary upside.

Funny how people ignorantly argue against by talking about what is "fair". Of course an agent is going to believe that what is "fair" is what a player at that draft position got last year. But then again, NFL players (NFLPA) and owners both agree that what the rookies got last year and the year before was decidedly unfair, hence the reason they're instituting a rookie wage scale to begin with.

sound reasonning, but what happens if the Rams go like a bull at a gate and throw 75mil at Suh for 6 years?

ColonelJ
01-09-2010, 03:40 PM
Money talks and bull sh-t walks. Bottom line is if the scenario played out like I outlined then by refusing the contract, Gerald McCoy would end risking a LOT of downside, with literally no monetary upside.

Funny how people ignorantly argue against by talking about what is "fair". Of course an agent is going to believe that what is "fair" is what a player at that draft position got last year. But then again, NFL players (NFLPA) and owners both agree that what the rookies got last year and the year before was decidedly unfair, hence the reason they're instituting a rookie wage scale to begin with.

Your suggestion is flawed. It is wrong. And, I don't think you should call those people ignorant. Indeed, they are not ignorant. Here is why.

Signing players is a matter of contract "law." Contracts are about expectations, and expectations of two parties are put on paper. One offers, the other accepts, for consideration.

NFL has rookie salary structure based on a pick number. Rookies have agents. They consult with agents on whether they should seek employment in NFL. Salaries are published and set pre-draft. Agents advise rookies, and rookies offer themselves for employment based on the published salaries.

When a rookie gets drafted, he knows that if he is picked #1 overall he will be paid a certain sum, and if he gets drafted #197 overal he will be paid a different sum.

To protect teams from the rookies who offer themselves for employment but refuse to sign on those published terms, NFL has set a rule: If a rookie offers himself for employment based on the published terms, and teams invest in research and travel and drafting and accept the rookie at certain pick, and if upon drafting the rookie does not want to sign that contract, then the rookie forgoes the right to play in the NFL for that season. The team is out of luck for the pick, but the rookie is also punished because (1) he will not be able to get employment on better terms this year, and (2) next year when he seeks employment again his employers will be on notice that he is a weasel. This is what happened with Crabtree who did not accept the published salaries but offered himself for draft. However, he eventually came to his senses.

Your situation is different. In your scenario, a rookie offers himself for a published salary, but the team after drafting the rookie refuses to pay him as promised. The team is the weasel. In such case the rookie is not at fault. it is the team that breaches the promise, and the rule does not protect the team. The rookie is free to go and get himself employed that year with another team who is willing to pay him what he was promised, or whatever the market will bear. The rookie becomes a free agent. And your scenario is untenable. You are wrong.