Most of the initial talk in this blog started years ago worrying about getting Julius Peppers done. Three years later, he's no longer a Panther and a player from that first year is now ready for a deal of his own.
Nothing radically "new" here, but good to talk about something other than coaching. Beason's obviously someone they want done, and they want him in quickly at a new deal that suits the new CBA.
You could argue that others need to be done "sooner", but I do advocate deals a year before it's necessary. There's no doubt they intend to build a team with Jon Beason as its defensive leader.
I won't go too far with the CBA - they need to get it done, and balance it back toward the owners but fair for both - but the ideas of a rookie scale may screw the owners to a point. "Rookies haven't earned their deals" is the battle cry by most, and one thing vets likely agree on. But consider that money might flow faster for depth now, if a rookie scale gets done.
Outside the top 15, players are a steal if they work out. Consider Beason - at 5 years, $12 million - made less in his entire contract than Julius Peppers did in any year since 08. Beason's next deal will be huge compared to his rookie season, and not undeservedly.
Chris Gamble was another late first round dratee, signing a 5 year $9 million contract as a rookie. He played well, and started at corner for all but 8 of his first six years. He ended up with a deal that paid him as much per year as his entire first contract. As you go further down, a second rounder gets only signing bonuses greater than a 5th, 7th rounder.
Sounds good, right? Well, a rookie wage scale would inevitably flatten out the curve, IMO. It's not $50 mil for the top guy and nothing for the 100th guy, in my guess anyway. So will it be worth it for the top player to be worth $40 million, the 25th worth $20 million, and the 100th player $10 million?