NFL vets push for Rookie Salary Cap (1 Viewer)

[Maurile Tremblay]

The rookie salaries need to be restructured on two fronts.1. The top picks are getting too much guaranteed money. As has been mentioned plenty of times earlier in this thread, they haven't proven anything on the pro level.2. Players picked after 7-8 are signing 4-5 year deals which many times end up being great bargains for the teams. If the player doesn't work out he's cut. I think a rookie cap should be structured something like this:Every rookie deal is three years. The fourth year the player will be a restricted free agent. The team has to tender an offer 50% greater than his year 3 salary (signing bonuses etc to be averaged in) to keep his restricted status. If that player signs with another team, the new team owes the original team a draft pick in the round that player was selected. The second team option should be for three times the amount of the players third year average salary. That would give the original team first round protection. All players not signed to long term deals would be unrestricted free agents after their fourth season. In exchange for granting free agency earlier the NFL teams would get a rookie cap. The rookie cap could be set as a percentage of the overall NFL salary cap.

1. They are getting less than they would get if there were no draft and every rookie was a free agent. Whether what they're getting amounts to "too much," I don't really know how to measure. The veterans, of course, think it's too much. The rookies probably think it's not enough. The owners? I suspect they're more worried about the overall cap amount than they are about how it's split between rookies and veterans.2. Yes.The thing I don't like about the idea of every rookie deal being for three years is that it typically takes a few years to groom a quarterback. Who wants to draft a QB, coach him through his early struggles, and then see him leave to play for a rival? Aside from that concern, I do think rookie contracts should be for shorter duration.

 

[Chase Stuart]

...Why should a player who hasn't proven anything at the pro level make more than Thomas Jones but not more than Steven Jackson? What possible reason do you have to draw the line where you've drawn it?Why put these random and arbitrary limits on contract length and salary?

I'm having a hard time believing you need explained what Thomas Jones has proven with his most recent season which was below NFL starter caliber, or the role that his age should have on our expectations for him in the near future. Or that you need explained what Steven Jackson has proven in regards to him performing amongst the top RBs in the league and accounting for him being at an age where he's still got years left at the top of his game. Nor that you need explained how it's likely McFadden, even when you account for his being unproven, likely slots in the middle of them in terms of expectations over the life of his rookie contract.

Why would we have to come up with some complicated algorithm to decide if and how much more money Thomas Jones or Steven Jackson should get than Darren McFadden. Who should decide every year if hotshot rookie RB is better than Vet A, Vet B, or Vet C? Why in the world wouldn't we simply let the owners pay everyone whatever they want, and that would solve the problem entirely? If an owner wanted to spend more money on Darren McFadden than Steven Jackson, why shouldn't he be able to?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think the argument is generally understood to be that the most highly drafted rookies are making too much money relative to everyone else -- including vets and other rookies. Not that all rookies are making too much.

Without having studied the issue in any systematic way, I tend to share that sentiment. I think the talent level from the first pick to the fortieth pick drops off more slowly than the compensation level does. This is Massey & Thaler's conclusion as well: they think that, for this reason, the fortieth pick in the draft is actually worth more than the first pick in the draft. (You get a slightly worse player for a much lower salary -- a better bargain overall.)NFL teams obviously disagree with Massey & Thaler about that. (I remember having some specific criticisms of the Massey & Thaler's paper in mind as I read it, but I don't remember now what they were.) If NFL teams didn't think players picked at the top were worth so much more than players picked in the second round, they wouldn't pay them so much more. And if they had to pay them that much more (because of player holdouts based on slotting), you'd see them throwing in extra picks to trade out of the first round and into the second, rather than vice versa.

While players selected at the very top of the draft don't look like relative bargains to me, NFL teams apparently feel differently, which is why the top picks are valued more than any other picks are. And if NFL teams don't think that the top draft picks are being overvalued (i.e., overpaid) relative to other rookies, I'm not sure who I am to argue.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think the argument is generally understood to be that the most highly drafted rookies are making too much money relative to everyone else -- including vets and other rookies. Not that all rookies are making too much.

Without having studied the issue in any systematic way, I tend to share that sentiment. I think the talent level from the first pick to the fortieth pick drops off more slowly than the compensation level does. This is Massey & Thaler's conclusion as well: they think that, for this reason, the fortieth pick in the draft is actually worth more than the first pick in the draft. (You get a slightly worse player for a much lower salary -- a better bargain overall.)NFL teams obviously disagree with Massey & Thaler about that. (I remember having some specific criticisms of the Massey & Thaler's paper in mind as I read it, but I don't remember now what they were.) If NFL teams didn't think players picked at the top were worth so much more than players picked in the second round, they wouldn't pay them so much more. And if they had to pay them that much more (because of player holdouts based on slotting), you'd see them throwing in extra picks to trade out of the first round and into the second, rather than vice versa.

While players selected at the very top of the draft don't look like relative bargains to me, NFL teams apparently feel differently, which is why the top picks are valued more than any other picks are. And if NFL teams don't think that the top draft picks are being overvalued (i.e., overpaid) relative to other rookies, I'm not sure who I am to argue.

I've attached a chart that shows the expected value of each of the first 32 NFL draft picks, with NFL career value being measured for every pick from 1970-1999; I've also got the 2006 NFL contract data for all the first round picks, and then the log of those contracts, since there are some bumps in the data.As you can tell from the attachment, assuming I did that correctly, the curves are essentially identical. So yes, NFL teams are paying rookies correctly relative to other rookies.

NFL_CONTRACT.bmp

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I think the argument is generally understood to be that the most highly drafted rookies are making too much money relative to everyone else -- including vets and other rookies. Not that all rookies are making too much.

Without having studied the issue in any systematic way, I tend to share that sentiment. I think the talent level from the first pick to the fortieth pick drops off more slowly than the compensation level does. This is Massey & Thaler's conclusion as well: they think that, for this reason, the fortieth pick in the draft is actually worth more than the first pick in the draft. (You get a slightly worse player for a much lower salary -- a better bargain overall.)NFL teams obviously disagree with Massey & Thaler about that. (I remember having some specific criticisms of the Massey & Thaler's paper in mind as I read it, but I don't remember now what they were.) If NFL teams didn't think players picked at the top were worth so much more than players picked in the second round, they wouldn't pay them so much more. And if they had to pay them that much more (because of player holdouts based on slotting), you'd see them throwing in extra picks to trade out of the first round and into the second, rather than vice versa.

While players selected at the very top of the draft don't look like relative bargains to me, NFL teams apparently feel differently, which is why the top picks are valued more than any other picks are. And if NFL teams don't think that the top draft picks are being overvalued (i.e., overpaid) relative to other rookies, I'm not sure who I am to argue.

I've attached a chart that shows the expected value of each of the first 32 NFL draft picks, with NFL career value being measured for every pick from 1970-1999; I've also got the 2006 NFL contract data for all the first round picks, and then the log of those contracts, since there are some bumps in the data.As you can tell from the attachment, assuming I did that correctly, the curves are essentially identical. So yes, NFL teams are paying rookies correctly relative to other rookies.

 

[GregR_2]

...

Why should a player who hasn't proven anything at the pro level make more than Thomas Jones but not more than Steven Jackson? What possible reason do you have to draw the line where you've drawn it?

Why put these random and arbitrary limits on contract length and salary?

I'm having a hard time believing you need explained what Thomas Jones has proven with his most recent season which was below NFL starter caliber, or the role that his age should have on our expectations for him in the near future. Or that you need explained what Steven Jackson has proven in regards to him performing amongst the top RBs in the league and accounting for him being at an age where he's still got years left at the top of his game. Nor that you need explained how it's likely McFadden, even when you account for his being unproven, likely slots in the middle of them in terms of expectations over the life of his rookie contract.

Why would we have to come up with some complicated algorithm to decide if and how much more money Thomas Jones or Steven Jackson should get than Darren McFadden. Who should decide every year if hotshot rookie RB is better than Vet A, Vet B, or Vet C? Why in the world wouldn't we simply let the owners pay everyone whatever they want, and that would solve the problem entirely? If an owner wanted to spend more money on Darren McFadden than Steven Jackson, why shouldn't he be able to?

The player salaries got too high, the problem trying to be addressed, when the owners had some minor restrictions on what they could pay the top rookies so that prices were kept down. So you think removing those restrictions is going to help matters somehow?Forgive me if that seems very hard to believe. The NFL got to where it was by curtailing ridiculous salaries and instituting a cap for parity, while leagues that didn't have one have not had nearly the NFL's level of prosperity, and most have moved towards the NFL-style model and are seeing benefits from having doing so.

I just don't see any evidence that absolute free market economy is the way to go when an equal playing field is a big part of what the customers want and that playing field isn't at all level without restrictions in place to make it so.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

ridiculous salaries

The NFL is not being real profitable?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

...

Why should a player who hasn't proven anything at the pro level make more than Thomas Jones but not more than Steven Jackson? What possible reason do you have to draw the line where you've drawn it?

Why put these random and arbitrary limits on contract length and salary?

I'm having a hard time believing you need explained what Thomas Jones has proven with his most recent season which was below NFL starter caliber, or the role that his age should have on our expectations for him in the near future. Or that you need explained what Steven Jackson has proven in regards to him performing amongst the top RBs in the league and accounting for him being at an age where he's still got years left at the top of his game. Nor that you need explained how it's likely McFadden, even when you account for his being unproven, likely slots in the middle of them in terms of expectations over the life of his rookie contract.

Why would we have to come up with some complicated algorithm to decide if and how much more money Thomas Jones or Steven Jackson should get than Darren McFadden. Who should decide every year if hotshot rookie RB is better than Vet A, Vet B, or Vet C? Why in the world wouldn't we simply let the owners pay everyone whatever they want, and that would solve the problem entirely? If an owner wanted to spend more money on Darren McFadden than Steven Jackson, why shouldn't he be able to?

The player salaries got too high, the problem trying to be addressed, when the owners had some minor restrictions on what they could pay the top rookies so that prices were kept down. So you think removing those restrictions is going to help matters somehow?Forgive me if that seems very hard to believe. The NFL got to where it was by curtailing ridiculous salaries and instituting a cap for parity, while leagues that didn't have one have not had nearly the NFL's level of prosperity, and most have moved towards the NFL-style model and are seeing benefits from having doing so.

I just don't see any evidence that absolute free market economy is the way to go when an equal playing field is a big part of what the customers want and that playing field isn't at all level without restrictions in place to make it so.

I don't know Chase's view on whether the NFL should have a salary cap. But I interpreted his post as saying, within the confines of the salary cap, why not let each NFL team decide whether to offer a given player more money than it offers some other given player? If some team wants to spend X% of its cap on Darren McFadden, let it.

 

[Chase Stuart]

...

Why should a player who hasn't proven anything at the pro level make more than Thomas Jones but not more than Steven Jackson? What possible reason do you have to draw the line where you've drawn it?

Why put these random and arbitrary limits on contract length and salary?

I'm having a hard time believing you need explained what Thomas Jones has proven with his most recent season which was below NFL starter caliber, or the role that his age should have on our expectations for him in the near future. Or that you need explained what Steven Jackson has proven in regards to him performing amongst the top RBs in the league and accounting for him being at an age where he's still got years left at the top of his game. Nor that you need explained how it's likely McFadden, even when you account for his being unproven, likely slots in the middle of them in terms of expectations over the life of his rookie contract.

Why would we have to come up with some complicated algorithm to decide if and how much more money Thomas Jones or Steven Jackson should get than Darren McFadden. Who should decide every year if hotshot rookie RB is better than Vet A, Vet B, or Vet C? Why in the world wouldn't we simply let the owners pay everyone whatever they want, and that would solve the problem entirely? If an owner wanted to spend more money on Darren McFadden than Steven Jackson, why shouldn't he be able to?

The player salaries got too high, the problem trying to be addressed, when the owners had some minor restrictions on what they could pay the top rookies so that prices were kept down. So you think removing those restrictions is going to help matters somehow?Forgive me if that seems very hard to believe. The NFL got to where it was by curtailing ridiculous salaries and instituting a cap for parity, while leagues that didn't have one have not had nearly the NFL's level of prosperity, and most have moved towards the NFL-style model and are seeing benefits from having doing so.

I just don't see any evidence that absolute free market economy is the way to go when an equal playing field is a big part of what the customers want and that playing field isn't at all level without restrictions in place to make it so.

I don't know Chase's view on whether the NFL should have a salary cap. But I interpreted his post as saying, within the confines of the salary cap, why not let each NFL team decide whether to offer a given player more money than it offers some other given player? If some team wants to spend X% of its cap on Darren McFadden, let it.

I'm very much in favor of the salary cap.

 

[uconnalum]

There needs to be a rookie salary cap instituted for one. Secondly, if I am the owners I would be all for this. 3 year contract for the rookies with an club option for a 4th and if the player wants to opt out after year 3 guaranteed compensation of at least 2 first round picks. That will surely lower interest in him. Then think of a football players body after 3 or 4 years of getting beat down. You give the player a long term 6 - 8 years deal; guarantee maybe 20 million including signing bonus and put the majority of the money in the last 3 years and then cut him after 3 years to clear you cap space.

Sounds harsh but its reality fans of every franchise want a winning team on the field especially season ticket holders.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

There needs to be a rookie salary cap instituted for one.

I disagree. Its fine how it is.