Do you think the NFL should restrict rookie contracts?

Question

I think they should.

Maximum term should be 3 years.
The 2nd contract they sign should be no sooner than say, 8 games into the season.
(This would prevent a loop hole in which players sign a smaller contract then re-sign a week later for the big bucks)
I think this would minimize team's financial losses, if they drafted a lemon, then their losses would be around 30 million (3 yrs) instead of 60 million (6 yrs). I would think guarantee monies would also drop to below 15 million with a shorter contract, instead of 25+ million.

What would you suggest?
What do u think of my plan?
What changes would you make? (if any)

Answer 1

yes getting a 30 million dollar contract before even playing one game is crazy

Answer 2

Just because a team signs someone for $60 million over 6 years doesn't mean they have to pay $60 million. A team has the right to terminate a contract with a player at any time. But, they do owe a player whatever guaranteed money they promised in the contract.

Also, a team doesn't have to sign a rookie - or any other player, for that matter - to a 6 year contract. They can sign him for less. But, they risk losing him sooner if he turns out to be a superstar. And, the risk they take is that he might be a lemon or get injured, and they're left paying him his guaranteed money.

Case in point, Ryan Leaf. The Chargers signed him for 5 years as a #2 overall draft pick and gave him $11 million in guaranteed money. Two years later, they dropped him like a bad habit and he still got to keep the $11 million.

Then again, Leaf could have turned out to be (as many people actually thought he would) as good as or better than Peyton Manning. If that had happened, the Chargers would have been able to hold onto him for the entire contract period and probably re-sign him for another 5 or 6 years after that. But, that's the chance they took.

Answer 3

I think all rookies should play for the league minimum the first year regardless of draft possition. Then after they prove themselves and have steller years then they can sign the big contracts. Why should a team shell out millions on someone that maybe a lemon. And I also say that if a rookie holds out for any part of training camp they are automatically suspended for 1 year from the league. I hate it when rookies hold out since they should not be demanding that much money or whining that they aren't getting enough when they haven't proved anything.

Answer 4

I don't think its the NFL who should restrict the contracts. The teams need to quit giving in to some of these players. If a standard is set by not giving in to these players and giving them the big money right away they will eventually sign for what they are worth. If they dont want to play professional football they can go get a real job and make a fraction of what they would make even if they played for the league minimum. The team that drafted them holds thier draft rights so it isn't like they can just go sign with someone else. After a player has proven himself then you look into giving him more.

Answer 5

The only thing i would have to say is this....the average life span of an NFL player IS THREE YEARS. Asking them to take less money..when that maybe the only money they will ever get is not going to fly with the player's assoc. And before you say, "well first rounders stay longer...", i'll say go back to the 2003 draft and see who from the first round is still productive today and would be able to get the "big" contract under your plan.

Answer 6

I think any owner stupid enough to pay this kind of money deserves what they get.
It's should not be the NFL's job to protect stupid owners from themselves.