OT - Ndamukong Suh and Why the NFL Needs a Rookie Pay Scale

Submitted by cadmus2166 on

I don't know if Suh is a diva, or if his agents are just greedy.  Either way, this is getting ridiculous.  Supposedly he wants 6 years, $90 mil, with $56 mil guaranteed.  I think there is no way he should get more than Stafford got ($72 mil, $41.7 mil guaranteed.)  What do you guys think?

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/14201/wait-ndamukong-suh-wants-how-much

cadmus2166

August 1st, 2010 at 1:43 PM ^

Eugene Parker, one of Suh's agents, is the same guy that had Michael Crabtree hold out for the first part of last season, arguing that he should be the highest paid reciever, even though Darrius Heyward-Bey was picked ahead of him.

MgoViper

August 1st, 2010 at 4:31 PM ^

Eugene's client Crabtree made a great argument as to why he deserved more then Darrius Heyward-Bey.

 

Darrius Heyward-Bey  2009 Stats(11 Games Played):

9 Receptions 124 Yards 1 Td  13.8 Yd Avg

http://www.nfl.com/players/darriusheyward-bey/careerstats?id=HEY279111

 

Michael Crabtree 2009 Stats(11 Games Played):

48 Receptions 625 Yards 2 Td's 13.0 Yd Avg

http://www.nfl.com/players/michaelcrabtree/profile?id=CRA111040

 

I too hate the business side of the NFL, but i can appreciate the need for it. I am hoping that when the new CBA is finished, that a rookie pay scale is set. I think it would protect the teams and make the players play harder for the large pay days.(I.E. Jamarcus Russell).

Just my opinion,  take it FWIW.

gbdub

August 1st, 2010 at 3:21 PM ^

What difference does Bradford's salary make? Suh's agents could, very reasonably, argue that Suh would have been the first overall pick if the Lions had gone first (no way they would have taken Bradford (unless Millen was still around)). They could also argue that Suh will be more likely to have an immediate positive impact. Maybe Bradford's agents didn't push hard enough and Bradford could have gotten more.

Regardless of whether you agree with these arguments, the whole point of a sports agent is to get the maximum salary possible for his client. It's a negotiation - Suh's agents will ask for more than the Lions are willing to pay, because they want to get the maximum amount the Lions are willing to pay and they need room to negotiate.

Are NFL rookie contracts too high? Probably, but at the end of the day the teams are still signing on the dotted line, so it's their own fault.

Asking for more money does not a diva make. The NFL is a business - the Lions are going to use Suh to make as much money as possible, so he'd be a fool to not get as much as they are willing to pay. As others have said, I'll change my opinion if Suh actually starts making an ass of himself, but there is a big gulf between asking for a bigger contract and changing your name to Ochocinco.

Geaux_Blue

August 1st, 2010 at 8:26 PM ^

you weren't the #1 pick, you are not going to be enough of a difference maker where you can strongarm us into a huge contract this season and if you want to take your chances with the new contract provisions next year and hold out, more power to you.

the lions would win one, maybe two more games with Suh this season and are still not a playoff contender. they have all the time in the world. i like that he showed up for OTAs but this is a bit much.

pasadenablue

August 1st, 2010 at 1:43 PM ^

suh isn't a diva.  his agent is just trying to get the most out of the market.

 

i dont completely blame him for trying to get the money - i mean i would try and get the money if i were in a profession where the vast majority of my earning potential was tied directly to my health.  and my health was constantly threatened by on-the-job dangers.

 

i dont think he'll get that much money, but this is capitalism.  he'll get whatever the market will offer him.  and he'll try his hardest to get the best deal for himself.  im sure he'll make it into camp quickly.

 

now if he pulls a jamarcus and holds out forever, then i'll start changing my opinions. 

mstier

August 1st, 2010 at 1:48 PM ^

GM's need to crack down on this a bit.  If he doesn't want to play for a lesser (but still rediculous) amount of money, then let him sit and get nothing.  It's not like the Lions are a Super Bowl contender this year.  Send a message that they're not going to deal with this crap.

mstier

August 1st, 2010 at 5:02 PM ^

And letting agents/players dictate dangerous contracts isn't the right answer either.  I'm just saying that playing hardball, at least for a little while, might not be a bad idea.  I'm not saying the GM should hold out for league minimum, but a reasonable contract doesn't seem that far fetched.

I obviously understand the agent's job, but drama like this makes professional sports frustrating to follow.

MrVociferous

August 1st, 2010 at 5:58 PM ^

Considering there is going to be in all likelihood a lockout in 2011, the Lions can hold their ground and say look, take what we're going to offer, or you can sit out all of 2010 with no money, and then when/if you get drafted in 2011 it will be in a new pay scale system, you won't be the #2 pick, and you won't be getting as much.  Not to mention that you probably won't see any of that money until the lockout is settled sometime deep into the 2011 season.

By holding out for a prolonged period of time, Suh is losing money.  If the Lions want to be real assholes to Suh and his agent they can basically guarantee he won't see a dime for well over a year.  And given the way things are going to change, not committing $45+ million to a DT over the next 5-6 years wouldn't neccessarily be a bad thing for the Lions.  Its not like Suh is going to be the difference in them making the playoffs this year or even next year.

BiSB

August 1st, 2010 at 1:49 PM ^

I agree on the need for some sort of cap on rookie compensation.  But you'll have to explain to me how wanting to get paid as much as possible makes someone a "diva." 

It isn't like he's promising a lengthy hold-out, and isn't raising a stink in the media.  This is a negotiation; Suh's agent says "90 million, 56 million guaranteed."  The Lions respond with "HA.  We'll pay him 50 million over 6 years with 30 million guaranteed," and they settle on something like $65 million, with 35-40 million guaranteed.  The article even says that the number "likely represent a negotiating tactic rather than a hard-line from agents Roosevelt Barnes and Eugene Parker."  Plus, you never know how much they might be willing to pay.  This is the Lions we're talking about.

If you thought your employer would pay you more, would you accept less without at least asking him to pay you the larger amount?

cadmus2166

August 1st, 2010 at 2:07 PM ^

I just wish they could've done this a week ago, so they could've met somewhere in the middle, and Suh would've been to training camp on time.  I'll admit, if he signs within the next couple days, there's probably not much harm done.  I just don't want negotiations to go on late into preseason, or even the season. 

jblaze

August 1st, 2010 at 1:54 PM ^

This is the result of the NFLPA and NFL Owners negotiating contracts. Everyone realizes this is a problem and paying a 1st pick that much is dangerous, but that's the way the game is played.

Suh getting more than Staffors is simply the result of an extra year's NFL inflation.

ironman4579

August 2nd, 2010 at 9:46 AM ^

I don't disagree, however there was some debate about Suh being the best player/DT in the draft.  There were people that thought McCoy was better than Suh.  And that's the problem with negotiating that way.  Obviously you think your client is the best.  That doesn't mean everyone does.

stubob

August 2nd, 2010 at 9:58 AM ^

It's really just passing the buck, saying "It's not my fault!"

I have a hard time feeling anything other than disgust for both sides.  Not necessarily at Suh specifically, but entitled professional athletes, their sycophant agents, attention-whoring news networks and the greedy owners.

Around this time of year I need a reminder why I watch very little pro sports anymore.  But I'm in the middle of the new Tebow mania, and I can barely turn around without seeing/hearing about that guy.

ckersh74

August 1st, 2010 at 2:01 PM ^

I agree that at the moment this appears to be posturing by the agent. I'd be stunned if Suh isn't in camp early this week. If this is still an issue a week from today, we've got a problem.

And re: a rookie cap, the NFL owners appear to be willing to burn an entire NFL season over getting one. Next offseason is going to be a rough one. Enjoy the NFL this fall, boys. It might be a while before we see it again.

The program

August 1st, 2010 at 2:15 PM ^

How can a DT (an unproven one at that) get 13 million a year.  This whole system is problem how can Darrell Revis the best CB in the league (no disrespect to Woodson) have to fight to get 12 million a year but Suh might get 13 million a year.  If the Jets traded Suh for Revis everyone would say the Jets are crazy yet Suh is going to make more money.

UMaD

August 1st, 2010 at 2:24 PM ^

If he was a free agent he would earn much more,  therefore he has a right to make whatever contract demands he desires.  The NFL's player union is weak.  If a player doesn't use leverage whenever he has it, his agent is doing that individual a disservice.  The Lions won't hesitate to cut players they deem overpaid, so Suh has to get paid when he can.

GoMBlue

August 1st, 2010 at 2:49 PM ^

I'm not sure how these bottom feeder teams like Detroit and the Rams can continue to pay huge salaries to younger players, would be nice for them to pay that and get some vets.

Zone Left

August 1st, 2010 at 3:54 PM ^

I remember reading that top picks are generally albatrosses unless they quickly become pro bowl caliber players.  That's why so many people were reluctant to pick a DT so high.  The second pick commands solid QB money, which is more than just about any DT in the league.

Sac Fly

August 1st, 2010 at 4:05 PM ^

... It's expected that the clients of certain agents will have similar tendencies. Suh's agent is eugene parker, who represents michael crabtree (heldout), Devin hester (heldout), cedric benson (heldout), and a few other high profile players. This is what he does, he also made larry fitzgerld the highest paid rookie in the 2004 class after he was picked 3rd. I don't like it, but he is not my least favorite agent. i thnk i have a tie for first between scott boras and drew rosenhaus

Tater

August 1st, 2010 at 5:11 PM ^

I'm 100 percent in agreement that there should be a rookie cap.  It would have to be negotiated as part of the new contract to be legal.  I am guessing the owners would be in favor because they wouldn't be throwing money away at potential, and the players would be in favor because it would leave more of the money for them.  That leaves only those who profit the most, the agents, as those who would be against it. 

I think it is very safe to say that agents will do all they can to convince players that a rookie cap would somehow be infringing upon their rights.  If the NFLPA is smart, they will pretend to be against it and use it as a bargaining chip for something like all contracts being guaranteed.

MrVociferous

August 1st, 2010 at 6:05 PM ^

No matter what happens with a rookie pay scale, agents will still get their share of the pie from the current NFL players.  If less money goes to rookies, then more will go to the vets, and either way, the agents win.  In fact, with a slotted system like the NBA uses for drafted rookies, the agents would more-or-less just have to collect their check for wherever their clients get drafted.  It would take all of the work out of haggling for every last dime for them.

Michigan4Life

August 1st, 2010 at 5:26 PM ^

as much as the vets hate the fact that the rookies get paid so much money without ever playing a single down, they won't be opposed to the draft pay scale slot like the NBA because they will get paid more money than the top pick if they have been proven to be one of the better player in the league.

Jinxed

August 1st, 2010 at 5:29 PM ^

The players using a rookie cap as a bargaining chip in order for them to get more money is ethically wrong because the players that stand to get negatively impacted from that decision will have no representation. 

MrVociferous

August 1st, 2010 at 6:09 PM ^

The NFL player's union is for NFL players.  Not kids in the NCAA.  No matter how blurred the line is between the NFL and the NCAA, the union is only for the guys in the NFL.  And with the way their union has things set up now, a huge chunk of the profit pie is going to guys that only enter their union the moment they put pen to paper on their new contracts.  Every NFL player should be in favor of a rookie cap because it would mean more money for them.

chitownblue2

August 1st, 2010 at 9:17 PM ^

Footballs players have the rawest deal of any pro atheletes. They have shorter careers, large sums of non-guaranteed money larded into their contracts, and the absolute worst pension plans. So a guy who's going to have 350+ pounders crushing him 60+ times a game wants to make as much money as possible? SHOCKING.

I'm not arguing that the Lions should pay it, or that it's a sensible number. I'm merely saying that trying to make as money as he can, in his position, isn't "greed", or "being a diva". When you guys get a new job, do you try to maximize your salary?