Thursday & Long: JaMarcus Russell Makes Rookie Wages an Easy Target

The NFL is finding it easy to rally support for its idea of a rookie wage scale. The latest example of rookie salaries run amok is JaMarcus Russell, who's earned $39 million from the Raiders over the past three years to do little besides eat and throw interceptions, and who now may be on the verge of being released.

The league can point to Russell and say, "See? It's ridiculous that these No. 1 picks sign for so much money when we have no idea whether they'll make it." And the public agrees, as it always does with simplistic arguments. Even some veteran players say they agree, making rookie wages a potential wedge issue the league can use against the union in its collective bargaining negotiations.

Interestingly, though, after vociferously protesting the very idea of a rookie wage scale a year ago, the union is the side that has actually proposed one. A source familiar with the CBA talks gave FanHouse some details of the union's idea, which it first floated in negotiations late last year, and gets to the heart of the question of whether the NFL really wants a rookie wage scale for the sake of fairness or just as an easy avenue for restricting salary growth.

---

---

The union's proposal has three key components:

1. Make every rookie contract three years long, effectively making draft picks free agents after three years in the league.

2. Give the five lowest-spending teams in the league incentives to spend money on proven veterans in the free-agent market.

3. Take the money teams save on first-round draft picks under the new system and split it between proven veterans (in the form of performance bonuses) and retired player benefits.

The league's proposal for a rookie wage scale is far more restrictive, as it would seek to fix salaries and bonuses to certain draft-pick slots and eliminate guaranteed money. The players' proposal seeks to ensure that the money saved by cutting rookie salaries would go, as veteran players believe it should, to veterans. The main reason the NFL is not likely to go for the union's proposal is the first provision, which would make players eligible for free agency three years earlier than the current system does. But if the league is serious about making the process fair (as opposed to just finding new ways to cut player compensation), that provision should be nothing to fear.

A three-year limit on rookie contracts would, in many ways, help make the process more fair. Draft pick contracts would be smaller in terms of overall value, and three years after the draft, teams would have three years' worth of evidence with which ti evaluate a player's ability to succeed in the NFL. Some examples:

· If rookie contracts were limited to three years, this year's free-agent class would have included 2007 first-rounders Calvin Johnson, Darrelle Revis and Anthony Spencer, all of whom would be able to make the case for big raises based on what they've accomplished as NFL players. It would also offer the opportunity for players like Eagles tight end Brent Celek (5th-round pick), Giants running back Ahmad Bradshaw (picked 250th overall) and Saints running back Pierre Thomas (undrafted), a chance to cash in on the successes they've had. Celek did sign a six-year extension with the Eagles last December that guarantees him $11 million, but it's no stretch to assume he could have got more on the open market this spring.

· A three-year rule, had it been in place in 2007, would also have made Russell a free agent this off-season. Presumably, he would have earned far less off of his original deal than he has, and would have a fairly hard time finding a big new deal on the market.

· Next year's free-agent class, if the union's proposal had been in effect for the 2008 draft, would include such names as Matt Ryan, Chris Johnson, Ray Rice and DeSean Jackson, all of whom would be in line for big paydays. But it would also offer the chance to correct such mistakes as Darren McFadden and Vernon Gholston, who were high picks but still haven't proven they can make it in the NFL.

It's an interesting idea, and if the NFL were really interested in injecting "fairness" into this process -- i.e., taking some of the money teams currently spend on the first 10 or 15 drafts picks each year and distributing it among "proven" veterans -- it would be wise to consider it.

The guess here, though, is that the league is not as interested in fairness as it is in finding ways to curtail the growth of player salaries overall. The rookie wage scale, which has broad public support and even gets current players fired up in favor of it, would be one easy way to do that.

It's sounds so obvious to say that Sam Bradford shouldn't be getting the $45 million-plus in guaranteed money that he's about to get from the Rams as the No. 1 overall draft pick, since Tom Brady and Peyton Manning don't make as much. But the fact is, the Bradford deal is only going to help Manning and Brady, who won't do their next deals until after Bradford does his.

Really, the gripes only apply to those 10 or 15 picks at the top of the draft. After that, salaries for the remaining 240 or 245 draft picks are very much in line with what would be considered entry-level in the NFL. And if you get a guy in the second or third round (Rice and Jackson, cited above, were both second-rounders) and he turns into a starter, you've got a bargain.

If everybody had the chance to renegotiate after three years, it would give teams time to sort between the stars worthy of getting the big NFL money and the...well, the JaMarcus Russells. So if the NFL really wants a rookie wage scale, they'll have the opportunity to put one in with the union's OK. The question is: Is that really what the NFL wants?