Sam Bradford - Signs his contract
by DevilsReject on Jul 30, 2010 11:00 PM EDT
Email
PrintST. LOUIS (AP)—No. 1 overall draft pick Sam Bradford(notes) agreed to a six-year, $78 million contract with the St. Louis Rams on Friday night, with $50 million in guaranteed money.
The Rams and the former Oklahoma quarterback concluded negotiations in time for the first full-squad workout set for Saturday. The guaranteed money is the highest ever in the NFL.
Bradford Signs for $78 Million
Seriously???? What kind of pure lunacy is this???
The guy had his arm half tore up last year in college....and you give the guy $50 million guaranteed? He's never played a down of real football and your throwing more money at this kid then proven QB's in the NFL are making?? You're telling me that this guy deserves to make more than Matt Schaub?? Drew Brees???
This is absolutely why the owners are right in demanding a rookie pay scale. Teams are being forced to pay up to keep players that could help their teams but at bankrupting the team if they fail. It's ridiculous....
Think about it.... Peyton Manning in 2004 signed the largest contract in the history of the NFL for a QB....this kid will make only 21 million less.....and the guy hasn't even taken a single NFL snap.... Manning was already a league MVP and had a few Pro Bowls...
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Stampede Blue's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Stampede Blue's writers or editors.
19 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Oh big deal, NFL owners rake in money hand over fist. I don’t feel sorry at all for them at all to be honest. Ya it’s a shitload of money for a guy who hasn’t played a single snap in the NFL, but if he turns that entire organization around, think of the BILLIONS of money he’ll make the NFL and the Rams organization.
People really need to get over this rookie wage scale crap and think of the big picture, which is what these agents do for the players. The agents know if their client turns into the real deal and does exactly what the team drafted him to do then he’ll make that organization more money than they would ever pay him throughout his career. These teams don’t have to sign rookies to these type of deals, but they do, so stop getting pissed at the players and the fact that they are rookies and start getting pissed at the owners who pay them instead.
It's just that...
I don’t care about the owners… as far as I’m concerned, the players deserve to make every dime they can…
I just simply have a problem with 2 things…
1.) Unproven players making more money than All-Pros who have proven themselves…
2.) Unproven players with ridiculous contracts that kill a franchise when they are a bust (Russell, Leaf, Vick, etc)
And your argument still doesn’t hold water…..In every other major sport (NHL, MLB, and NBA) they have a rookie scale. All of them sign similar length initial contracts….however, you have all kinds of players getting overpaid and rich because of real guys getting HUGE contracts… I will tell you this much, most of the NFL players are actually in agreement that some kind of rookie pay scale is necessary…..
Oh, and if you think that teams can just say piss off to a guy who demands 60 million….if they could do it so easily….then why has no team done it?
by DevilsReject on Jul 31, 2010 1:50 AM EDT up reply actions
I disagree, KR
I think these outrageous contracts are hurting the teams that the Draft was designed to help.
So a team goes winless or maybe wins a game or two. They get the first pick in the draft. Why? What’s the point in ordering team selections based on win/loss record? It’s to bring parity to the league. Give the lousy teams some slightly better players, and they’ll improve, right?
Only, the teams who draft early have to pay so much to sign their draftees, it breaks their bank. They can’t afford to spend money on other players and really improve; all their money is tied up in one make-or-break player.
The teams that draft in the first, say, 10 spots need to upgrade more than just a player or two. If they were that close, they’d win more games. These teams need to replace a bunch of players, and making them spend 50% of their new player budget on a single rookie doesn’t help them. Seems to me, if the whole Draft idea is going to really bring parity to the league, bottom 10 teams shouldn’t be spending excessively more for their #1 pick than the other teams. Seems to me, the current draft situation is actually hurting those teams that pick early.
We need a rookie scale. Set that scale however high you want it, but create a reasonable level of parity between the money paid for pick #1 and pick #32 so we’re not penalizing the teams that pick early.
Careful what you wish for... "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." Gerald Ford, 38th US president
by teej813 on Jul 31, 2010 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well if you were to go look at the history of teams picking in the top 5 the past however many drafts, you’d see that nearly all of them were well below the cap. Tampa Bay two years ago was $50+ million under the cap. They had enough money to sign a first round pick and sign a bunch of free agents and still have a lot of room left over.
I couldn’t disagree with you more about signing one player completely breaks the bank of a team drafting that early. It’s only one player, and this player is considered a franchise player as an early first round player. Look at it this way, the Colts are going to sign Peyton to probably the largest contract in the history of the NFL, but yet they aren’t picking in the top 5 draft picks and haven’t in a very long time, and they have pro-bowl/pro-bowl caliber players in nearly every position on the team who are being paid very well. So explain to me how a team like the Colts can afford to sign Peyton to a contract that will far exceed Sam Bradford’s contract and still afford to retain the rest of their big name player, but yet the Rams signing Sam Bradford to a pretty big contract is all of the sudden breaking the bank for them. That doesn’t make any sense.
I'm not sure i have a good answer for you, KR.
With a subject this complex, I need to compartmentalize issues like this. It’s the only way my pea-brain can make sense of it.
Here’s what i know… i’ve tried to break the field into quarters; top, mid-high, mid-low, bottom.
- Bradford: $50 million guaranteed for the #1 pick
- Davis: $26 million guaranteed for the #11 pick
- Jackson: $10 million guaranteed for the #20 pick (#21 Gresham is unsigned)
- Best: Undisclosed, but $10 million total for the #30 pick. Shall we guess $5M guaranteed?
The point I’m trying to make is that the ‘worst’ teams invest five times what the good teams invest in their first-found pick. I understand that they’re getting more value. But if the point is to help poor teams compete, a ratio of five-to-one is really steep. A rookie cap that can bring that down to, say, two-to-one might be wise.
Careful what you wish for... "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." Gerald Ford, 38th US president
I don't understand why no GM says
We give 1 million more, than that slot got last year, that’s our last offer, you are free to hold out, but our offer decreases from tomorrow and next year, there will be a rookie scale.
Gambling on Detwah
I decide whether a gamble is good or bad by imagining LOSING what I have on the line. Gambling 50mill seems toatlly unconscionable to me, but then the amount of $50,000,000.00 all by itself is ludicrous.
Consider this: There’s a lot more on the line than Bradford’s garauntee. Look at what the saints’ success has meant to the city recovering from Katrina. The Lions could turn it around in a year or two and reperesent the tiny beginnings of some modest economic growth in the heart of the Blight that Detroit has become.
…That’s alot of pressure on a kid with surgically repaired shoulder
"We ARE going to our own private island, Chris: it's called the State Fucking Fair!"
i'm confused
Detroit drafted Suh. Suh isn’t near the risk that Bradford is.
But your point about Bradford helping St. Louis, in the same way the Saint’s success is helping NO, is valid.
Careful what you wish for... "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." Gerald Ford, 38th US president
He was merely illustrating that Detroit could pull of a New Orleans…..which is really possible….given that both the Colts/Rams in 1999 both went from 3-13/4-12 to 13-3 the following season and the Rams made the SB…
by DevilsReject on Jul 31, 2010 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Sorry i wasn't clear about that...
"We ARE going to our own private island, Chris: it's called the State Fucking Fair!"
by naptown_ninja on Jul 31, 2010 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Ok. It sounded like you thought Detroit drafted Bradford.
Anyway, you’re right about the positive affect a winning NFL franchise can have on a city.
Careful what you wish for... "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." Gerald Ford, 38th US president
No. I know who drafted Bradford
alls I was saying was… when you think about what it means to a franchise and a city, the size of the contract means less and less. Didn’t mean to mix everyone up. Was only slightly blazed and confused
"We ARE going to our own private island, Chris: it's called the State Fucking Fair!"
by naptown_ninja on Jul 31, 2010 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions
haha.. no problem
Careful what you wish for... "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." Gerald Ford, 38th US president
If Bradford's contract is for this much than Manning and Brady's deals might look something like this.
Brady: 5 yrs. $92.6 million ($56 million guaranteed)
Manning: 6 yrs. $121.2 million ($62 million guaranteed)
"Pressure is something you feel if you don't know what the hell you're doing."-Peyton Manning
by P0RKINS2 on Jul 31, 2010 3:06 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Nothing to see here
I believe Peyton’s first contract was for 6 years and $48 mil back in 1998. Back then the salary cap was $52.4 mil, according to Google. So Peyton’s average was $8 mil per year, over 15% of his team’s total cap in the first year.
Obviously there’s no cap this year but last year the cap was $127 mil. Bradford’s deal for $78 mil over 6 years only comes to about 10% of what the cap was LAST year.
So Peyton in his rookie year was 50% more valuable to his team than Bradford. That sounds fine to me.
"The best defensive player is the sideline." - Trevor Pryce, on how to stop Peyton Manning
This is why I wasn't too upset with the Bears not having a number one or two draft pick
Draft picking is a crap shoot (except for polian), and then you have to pay through the nose.
What percentage do the agents make, anyway? My husband suggested today that the agents should have to pay a financial penalty (out of pocket) for each day that the rooks miss training camp, just to make sure they have incentive to get their clients to sign.
Is it football season yet?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
