1. Welcome to San Diego Chargers NFL Football Podcast and Forum!

    Bolt Talk is one of the largest online communities for the San Diego Chargers. We host a regular Chargers podcast during the season. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Create an Account or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Tomlinson favors rookie cap

Discussion in 'Chargers Fan Forum' started by sdbound, Jun 20, 2008.

  1. sdbound

    sdbound Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,417
    Ratings:
    +942
    http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/06/20/tomlinson-favors-rookie-cap/

    With the Chargers and Saints preparing to play in London in October, the NFL dispatched running backs LaDainian Tomlinson and Reggie Bush to England this week to promote the American version of football.

    And while BBC reporter Tim Love presumably doesn’t cover American football often, he did a solid job of getting some interesting information when he interviewed Tomlinson and Bush.

    Specifically, Love asked Tomlinson what he thinks of highly drafted rookies getting contracts with $30 million in guarantees, and Tomlinson answered, “It’s very frustrating. The veterans are what make the league. They keep it at a high level. Most people don’t tune in to see rookies. They tune in to see the Payton Mannings, the Tom Bradys, they want to see guys like that. There needs to be a rookie salary cap, no question.”

    That advocacy for a rookie cap makes Tomlinson the latest — and perhaps the highest-profile — veteran to take issue with players’ union head Gene Upshaw, who opposes a rookie cap and claims that high rookie salaries give veterans more leverage in negotiating high salaries for themselves.

    Tomlinson, of course, got a big payday as the fifth overall pick in the 2001 draft, but he earned every penny of that contract and was rewarded with a raise when it came time to renegotiate.

    Bush, on the other hand, has failed to meet the high expectations the Saints had for him when they made him the second pick in the 2006 draft, which may be why he opposes a rookie cap.

    “It is what it is,” Bush said. “I’ve never had a problem with it. It’s been this way for a long time; it’s just how it works. Some of the guys who don’t like it as much are the ones who weren’t the top draft picks. I think that it gives college athletes something to strive for. If they’re the top pick they’re going to get the most money.”

    Huge paydays are, of course, something for college athletes to strive for. But any professional contract would be something for college athletes to strive for. And if the league implemented the type of rookie cap that Tomlinson supports, there would be more money left over, so that more proven veterans could strive for more money on their second contracts.


    :yes:
     
  2. PowderLove

    PowderLove Former Mod, Current Slacker

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,910
    Ratings:
    +494
    What a winning attitude. I had no idea that college athletes weren't striving to be the best and to perform among the best. I guess once Reggie got that paycheck he didn't need to be a great player in the NFL.
     
  3. Zeus

    Zeus BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    705
    Ratings:
    +83
    Only those who benefit and contiune to benefit it support no rookie salary cap. Most of these rookies don't pan out and teams are tired of paying that much.

    If your a GM why would you want one potential superstar and pay him huge amounts of cash when you could get 2 high 2nd round draft picks or even a lower 1st and a 2nd rounder and pay a lot less money. Teams are stuck paying rookies more than twice as much as veterans. Reggie Bush is just one example of a rookie who didn't pan out. JeMarcus Russel got paid money for sitting on the bench.

    There NEEDs to be a rookie salary cap. College players who only strive to get paid are the ones who usually have poor careers. If Bush really thinks that then no wonder he is doing so poorly. An average player who loves the game and works hard will do better than a good player who just wants to get paid and doesn't push himself.
     
  4. Electric Chair

    Electric Chair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    8,559
    Ratings:
    +579
    LT was a beneficiary of the current system. He should seriously not speak out about it.
     
  5. in_a_days

    in_a_days dgaf

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2006
    Messages:
    8,038
    Ratings:
    +1,018
    I dunno man. While there's no doubt he benefited from it, he did it the right way. As a result of his hard work that wasn't near his biggest pay day, so as far as I'm concerned he can say whatever he wants. :yes:
     
  6. SanDiegoRon

    SanDiegoRon BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,994
    Ratings:
    +321
    he's jest protecting his future retirement benefit funding... :lol:
     
  7. Electric Chair

    Electric Chair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    8,559
    Ratings:
    +579
    No go on the fishing Ron. I want to make sure they are thick before dropping $250.

    How does Thursday Night/Friday sound next week? If they are biting of course...
     
  8. SanDiegoRon

    SanDiegoRon BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,994
    Ratings:
    +321
    sounds perfect...:tup:
     
  9. Electric Chair

    Electric Chair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    8,559
    Ratings:
    +579
    It sounds like "Do as I say and not as I do" to me. I hate that mentality. Although I completely agree with him.

    His stance didn't keep him from holding out for more money as a rookie, did it? :lol: Seriously, he should shut up about it. It looks very hypocritical.
     
  10. Concudan

    Concudan Caffeinated Commando

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    53,044
    Ratings:
    +4,979
    What? Last I looked this was a free country and people could express their opinion on topics regardless of if they benefited or not.

    Based on your statement I guess we should give up on trying to get campaign funding reforms pushed through because all the fat assed senators and congressmen have benifitied from them... Just give up...
     
  11. Electric Chair

    Electric Chair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    8,559
    Ratings:
    +579
    Give up what? :icon_huh: Wouldn't that go against the very point you are trying to make? :icon_shrug:
     
  12. Concudan

    Concudan Caffeinated Commando

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    53,044
    Ratings:
    +4,979
    I am saying that you seem to feel if someone is benefiting from something, we should just give up trying to change it.

    LT can say what he wants about rookie caps. He is now on the inside and seeing teams spend more and more money on rookies, some who don't pan out. That changes ones perception. If that is hypocritical in your book so be it.
     
  13. BlueandGold

    BlueandGold The Oracle

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    904
    Ratings:
    +219
    I disagree. It's kind of like bagging on a team because of their schedule; you gotta dance with who brung ya. In other words, you have to operate in the business space that exists for the best benefit you can, which is what he did.

    Besides, that was nearly eight years ago! :icon_eek: You change a lot and your views mature during that particular period of your life. Now, if LT was a rookie RIGHT NOW, and spoke out in support of a rookie salary cap, then proceeded to hold out, I think you might have something.

    I see it as a veteran NFL running back, one of the best ever, speaking plainly - as he normally does - about the injustice of the current financial reward system in the NFL. I see nothing wrong with that.
     
  14. Shamrock

    Shamrock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    11,922
    Ratings:
    +1,243
  15. Concudan

    Concudan Caffeinated Commando

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    53,044
    Ratings:
    +4,979
    Zactly!
     
  16. Shamrock

    Shamrock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    11,922
    Ratings:
    +1,243

    But, if a guy wasn't a high draft pick, and speaks up against it, then he gets labeled as "jealous" ... (which is the exact word Union chief Upshaw used against some veterans).

    So, who can speak up?

    I think it's time for an NBA style slotting system, and make the first three years guaranteed for the first two (or three) rounds of the draft. Then, then become RFA's after year three.

    There has to be some trigger that keeps the same amount of dollars being spent. Maybe raise the veteran minimum to $1.5 mill for over 4 years service.

    It's a fine line, because raising vet minimums too much makes keeping more rookies and young players as an attractive choice to teams, especially ones that don't expect to challenge for the playoffs. Why not keep more young players that have a chance at being developed, instead of veterans who have already shown their maximum potential? Doing that lowers the cap space used. Stronger team minimums for overall spending would have to be enforced.
     
  17. sdbound

    sdbound Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,417
    Ratings:
    +942
    I agree with everything you've posted except raising the vet minimum.
     
  18. AnteaterCharger

    AnteaterCharger Calibrating Bolttalk, Podcast by Podcast Staff Member Super Moderator Podcaster

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,112
    Ratings:
    +2,931
    Sooner or later the prices do have to go down or having a top 10 pick will become cost prohibitive

    No system in which the worst team does not want the #1 pick because of cost, nor any other team willing to trade into the top 5 because of cost, is sane
     
  19. Shamrock

    Shamrock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    11,922
    Ratings:
    +1,243
    Like I said, it's a fine line that could backfire on how many veterans would be retained. Already the CBA has rules for counting some vet salaries as only half against the cap, so that teams will be influenced to sign and keep a few additional vets.

    I don't know where the right amounts lie ..... that's for them to sit down and bargain out.
     
  20. sdbound

    sdbound Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,417
    Ratings:
    +942
    What I'm trying to say is that the NFL minimum should be the same across the board, if there is a minimum at all. The system wouldn't arbitrarily favor rookie or vet, just talent. That way a up-and-comer has value to a rebuilding team and a topped out vet has value to a playoff team. The hard working player gets to keep playing.

    Then again, I could be full of ****.
     
  21. Shamrock

    Shamrock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    11,922
    Ratings:
    +1,243
    I think it's a good debate.

    You also have to remember that personal feelings will be involved, because it's a collectively bargained agreement. Why would a ten year vet want to make the same minimum as a guy who is barely above the practice squad? That ten year vet will be the guy to squack and with other veterans, they can sway certain issues within the agreement.

    Sometimes a team will be deciding between keeping a 10 year vet, versus a rookie that has some potential. The kid won't even play, but just practice and learn. SD did that with Oliver and Waters last year, in the past with guys like Gates (played some) and Dielman. It's a proven way to create productive players in the future, but not all with pan out. So, should that potential rookie make the same as a veteran who is insurance at left tackle, or your 3rd OLB, or .....

    Like I said, I don't see an easy answer ..........
     

Share This Page