What Ever Happened to Salaries Based on Performance?
Sam Bradford is on the verge of having millions of dollars rain on his head.
Bradford, if you don't know, was the number one pick in the National Football League draft this year. The quarterback from Oklahoma was selected by the St. Louis Rams, who kicked off contract negotiations with the rookie on Friday in order to ensure he shows up for training camp (as most spoiled rookies tend to hold out if they don't get what they want).
According to an ESPN source, Bradford could be looking at the richest contract in NFL history.
Yes, my friends, you read that right — the richest NFL contract in history. The guaranteed money in the deal is expected to be between $45 million and $50 million, the source said.
Last year, the lowly Detroit Lions shelled out $41.7 million for Matthew Stafford, who inked a guaranteed six-year deal.
Bradford's camp and the Rams are looking to finalize the deal by the time the Rams open training camp to their rookies on July 28.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this picture a little skewed? Whatever happened to big contracts for players that are worth the money and who have proven themselves on the field? You hear about veterans making the league exception and hometown discounts when they've been in the league for 10+ years. These are guys with high football IQs, have Superbowl rings, Pro Bowl appearances, etc.
Rookies, on the other hand, have nothing but big entourages, Jerry McGuire-type agents and a promise to deliver. Last time I checked, promises don't show up in the stats column nor do they automatically mean championship parades.
What is the NFL thinking with these outlandish contracts for rookies? Make them "earn" their money, then shower them with riches. Seems as if the pay scale is tilted in the wrong way.
What do you think?
Follow Technorati