Sam Bradford Gets PAID in a Big Way

The Rams reached agreement on Friday night with quarterback Sam Bradford on a six-year, $78 million contract that reportedly has $50 million guaranteed, according to multiple reports from Jay Glazer at FOX, and the Schefter/Mortensen bus buddies at ESPN. The deal has a max value of $86 million.

must be nice

He'll be out of the league in 6 years!!! I don't see his shoulder lasting that long.

The NFL really needs to institute a rookie salary cap. It is ridiculous that they will pay a untested rookie this much money with $50 million of it guaranteed with the potential to hit $86 million with the incentives. And I'm a Rams fan but this is just ridiculous.

This is just wrong.

It's a business. I don't care that a guy is making money from a guy that is making money. I don't own the team, it's of no consequence to me what a player gets paid. Good for him and his family.

BANK! Congrats to Bradford, hope he does well.

The rookie cap will be in the CBA, that's why alot of underclassmen left early to get into this year's Draft.

Crazy numbers though!

I believe JaMarcus got $32 Million upfront...

mstng99tim said:

He'll be out of the league in 6 years!!! I don't see his shoulder lasting that long.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The kid can play, hopefully he proves me wrong but I just don't see him holding up in the NFL.

I'm all for people getting as much money as they can but the NFL should institute a rookie cap like the NBA has. They'll have to do it by position and draft order. You're a QB drafted #1 here's what you get. No negotiating. You're an OL drafted 23rd here's what you get. There will be no holdouts for rookies and they'll have plenty of motivation to put up numbers for their second contract.

I still think Clausen will be the most successful QB of this draft.

Agree with pretty much everyone's said......to me though I was less shocked over Bradford's contract ( we can debate how good he'll be, but I mean he is a QB and the #1 pick) and really surprised by some of the other deals I've seen.

Eric Berry got $60 million and $34 of it guaranteed. :shock:
That just seemed crazy to me.

rymflaherty said:

Agree with pretty much everyone's said......to me though I was less shocked over Bradford's contract ( we can debate how good he'll be, but I mean he is a QB and the #1 pick) and really surprised by some of the other deals I've seen.

Eric Berry got $60 million and $34 of it guaranteed. :shock:
That just seemed crazy to me.

Click to expand...

Mr. Hunt has a lot of money. Might as well spend it I guess?

justinmandawg said:

It's a business. I don't care that a guy is making money from a guy that is making money. I don't own the team, it's of no consequence to me what a player gets paid. Good for him and his family.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agreed 100%. I just don't get the rookie salary cap hysterics. Not sure why it should bother anyone.

Who cares if Sam Bradford gets $50 million? Is it any more ridiculous than owners making hundreds of millions off the teams without being able to throw a pass or take a hit? Or in the case of the Rams, having the money to buy the team in the first place because they're distantly related to the Wal-Mart fortune?

Anyone who takes two minutes to read about the NFL labor issues knows that the rookie salary cap has NOTHING to do with whether a labor deal will get done.

maxpower said:

justinmandawg said:

It's a business. I don't care that a guy is making money from a guy that is making money. I don't own the team, it's of no consequence to me what a player gets paid. Good for him and his family.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agreed 100%. I just don't get the rookie salary cap hysterics. Not sure why it should bother anyone.

Who cares if Sam Bradford gets $50 million? Is it any more ridiculous than owners making hundreds of millions off the teams without being able to throw a pass or take a hit? Or in the case of the Rams, having the money to buy the team in the first place because they're distantly related to the Wal-Mart fortune?

Anyone who takes two minutes to read about the NFL labor issues knows that the rookie salary cap has NOTHING to do with whether a labor deal will get done.

Click to expand...

IMO it has a negative effect on the game. I guess if there's no cap it's less an issue - but in the past model too much money is tied up in rookie/unproven players. If there was a rookie cap the money would simply be redistributed throughout the system and go to players that have earned it. At least in theory - teams would then have a better chance at keeping veteran free agents. Teams would actually be able to keep and sign players that provide depth to the roster. It also forces teams to play rookies before they may not be better - which ruins some players and again effects the quality of play as a whole.

That doesn't even take into account that if the player doesn't pan out (we can all pretend it's a science, but in truth there are rarely ever "sure-things") it cripples a franchise for years. Seems it would be a lot easier to rebuild a bad team if $30-50 million wasn't tied into a rookie.

rymflaherty said:

maxpower said:

justinmandawg said:

It's a business. I don't care that a guy is making money from a guy that is making money. I don't own the team, it's of no consequence to me what a player gets paid. Good for him and his family.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agreed 100%. I just don't get the rookie salary cap hysterics. Not sure why it should bother anyone.

Who cares if Sam Bradford gets $50 million? Is it any more ridiculous than owners making hundreds of millions off the teams without being able to throw a pass or take a hit? Or in the case of the Rams, having the money to buy the team in the first place because they're distantly related to the Wal-Mart fortune?

Anyone who takes two minutes to read about the NFL labor issues knows that the rookie salary cap has NOTHING to do with whether a labor deal will get done.

Click to expand...

IMO it has a negative effect on the game. I guess if there's no cap it's less an issue - but in the past model too much money is tied up in rookie/unproven players. If there was a rookie cap the money would simply be redistributed throughout the system and go to players that have earned it. At least in theory - teams would then have a better chance at keeping veteran free agents. Teams would actually be able to keep and sign players that provide depth to the roster. It also forces teams to play rookies before they may not be better - which ruins some players and again effects the quality of play as a whole.

That doesn't even take into account that if the player doesn't pan out (we can all pretend it's a science, but in truth there are rarely ever "sure-things") it cripples a franchise for years. Seems it would be a lot easier to rebuild a bad team if $30-50 million wasn't tied into a rookie.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, but I still think it comes down to the owners trying to get someone else to pay for their mistakes.

Any team can pass up their draft picks if they don't think they're worth the money. Why do they take the players anyway? Obviously because they believe that they ARE worth the money. And I don't mean it in a philosophical "How much is a man's labor worth?" way. In the grand scheme of things, drafting rooks and paying them big contracts is a winning proposition for NFL teams. Otherwise, they'd just pass on picks or not sign their draftees.

Would they LIKE to pay their rookies less? Of course! Do they NEED a bailout to cap the free market and save them some scratch? Not really.

As far as spending more money on veterans, I'm not sure why I should trust the teams that can't draft properly to do a better job picking and paying free agents. In all likelihood, they'd probably just sign the Jake Delhommes, Matt Cassels, and Albert Haynesworths. Everyone talks about how the Raiders were crippled by the JaMarcus Russell signing. What about Javon Walker and DeAngelo Hall? They lost more with those two than they did with JaMarcus.

The other thing that no one talks about is the flip side of the coin... cheap labor that teams get from draft steals. The number of people who think JaMarcus should pay back his signing bonus are remarkably silent when it comes to the question of paying Chris Johnson or Darrelle Revis like the #1 RB and #1 DB that they are, let alone Vincent Jackson, Lamarr Woodley, or DeSean Jackson. Why don't the owners make a good faith showing that they'd pay those players big new contracts, THEN ask rookies to make a concession? Show the players that this is about putting a better product on the field and not just getting labor on the cheap. So far, owners have done nothing to show me that they're inclined to let the benefits of a rookie cap flow to the players.

In all, I think there are way better ways for NFL owners to solve the 'problem' of signing bad rookie contracts. The owners are the billionaires with all the leverage in this game... they don't need to come crying with their hands out and asking for special rules so that they don't have to be accountable for their own decisions.

^
Those are all good points. Guess it's just a matter of opinion.....and like you said earlier - really not the major issue when it comes to the new labor agreement, as obviously the game can survive without a rookie cap.
It's been that situation for years - so teams have had to adapt accordingly....and those that haven't (not drafting well, over-spending, etc.) have been left in the dust. So guess it's just part of the game.
I still think it could be better with a cap......guess we'll have to see how it plays out. Actually if they can get a deal done and avoid a lock-out I don't care if there is a cap or not. :lol:

The only thing I disagree a bit with is the "cheap labor" thing. That only is because it irritates me that they always report Chris Johnson is set to make $500,000 (or whatever it is) this year. While that is true to an extent - they never mention he signed a 3 year $12 million dollar contract. The Titans gave him like $10 million in good faith whether he sucked, or became a star. It's essentially $4 mil a year.....not $10 mil the first and $500,000 after.
Does that still make him underpaid? Probably.....but it looks a lot different when you take the entire deal into account.

rymflaherty said:

^
Those are all good points. Guess it's just a matter of opinion.....and like you said earlier - really not the major issue when it comes to the new labor agreement, as obviously the game can survive without a rookie cap.
It's been that situation for years - so teams have had to adapt accordingly....and those that haven't (not drafting well, over-spending, etc.) have been left in the dust. So guess it's just part of the game.
I still think it could be better with a cap......guess we'll have to see how it plays out. Actually if they can get a deal done and avoid a lock-out I don't care if there is a cap or not. :lol:

The only thing I disagree a bit with is the "cheap labor" thing. That only is because it irritates me that they always report Chris Johnson is set to make $500,000 (or whatever it is) this year. While that is true to an extent - they never mention he signed a 3 year $12 million dollar contract. The Titans gave him like $10 million in good faith whether he sucked, or became a star. It's essentially $4 mil a year.....not $10 mil the first and $500,000 after.
Does that still make him underpaid? Probably.....but it looks a lot different when you take the entire deal into account.

Click to expand...

Hahahah. Even if we don't completely agree, I think you come from a fairly reasonable place. And Im in 100% agreement with you that they should avoid a lockout at all costs. If the lockout actually WERE about the rookie cap, there would be no conflict. Vets would gladly throw the rooks under the bus.

As far as the CJ deal goes, I hear you and I was well aware that he got a signing bonus. As you guessed, my point was that for players like him, he's STILL underpaid, but owners aren't rushing out to make his salary "fair". But you are right that the media way oversimplifies all aspects of this issue.

IMO, the fairest setup would be guaranteed deals. No cutting a player in the middle of a contract. Everyone fairly held to the terms they signed. I think that would cause teams and players to more effectively balance the risks.