The "Myth" of Rising Rookie Salaries (1 Viewer)

[Jason Wood]

In the Stafford to Detroit thread, there is already reaction about how much $$$, particularly the guaranteed $$ Matt Stafford got from Detroit. Some Lions fans have expressed disappointment in the amount, and I've already seen two networks comment on how this rookie money is getting "out of hand."

Well, if you want to argue that rookies shouldn't be given contracts that make them among the highest paid players in the NFL, you'll get no argument from me. And the fact the commissioner has publicly expressed his displeasure over that fact tells you we're likely to see a change there.

But please, please, PLEASE let's not have a series of threads that start characterizing Stafford's contract as anything other than STATUS QUO for what the going rate for a rookie QB has been since the current CBA was ratified in 2006.

2006 -- Vince Young got 6 yrs, $57.8mm with $29.8mm guaranteed

2007 -- JaMarcus Russell got 6 yrs, $68.0mm with $32.0mm guaranteed

2008 -- Matt Ryan got 6 yrs, $72.0mm with $34.75mm guaranteed

2009 -- Matt Stafford got 6yrs, $78.0mm with $41.7mm guaranteed

2006 -- $102mm salary cap

2007 -- $109mm salary cap

2008 -- $116.7 mm salary cap

2009 -- $127mm salary cap

% of top rookie QB guaranteed money, annualized, as % of cap

2006 -- 4.87% of cap

2007 -- 4.89% of cap

2008 -- 4.96% of cap

2009 -- 5.47% of cap

All this talk about how 'ridiculous' top draft pick contracts are getting just flies in the face of actually considering how 'ridiculously' fast the NFL salary cap has risen over the last few years.

And even though we all know guaranteed money is a far better comparison than overall contract value, if you want to look at those numbers just for kicks and grins, you'll see they tell the same tale.

% of top rookie QB money [stated total value of deal], annualized, as % of cap

2006 -- 9.4% of cap

2007 -- 10.4% of cap

2008 -- 10.3% of cap

2009 -- 10.2% of cap

And let's also not forget that two of these four QBs weren't even the top overall picks.

 

[massraider]

Exceptional post, Jason.

Expect it to be ignored completely.

 

[RUSF18]

I was serious in the other thread when I said that I had never heard anyone making a comparison to the cap while making the "ridiculous rookie contract" point. To me, it's always been about the guys getting all that money and being unproven.

That being said...4.87%, 4.89%, 4.96%, 5.47%...there is a definite outlier.

 

[Sweet Love]

Very insightful post, but I think some of the "soft subjects" are lost on it. I realize Young was a #2 pick 4 years ago, but it is a 33% increase in spend whereas the cap has just (lol) gone up 25% during that time. Also, you are comparing a guy who lost his job to a journey man, another who has shown very little and one who did well, but just did it for one year (I am going off the top of my head, but I believe Ryan's stats are somewhat similar to those of Couch in year 1 (flame away if I am incorrect)). The other thing, that it is very hard for non-Detroit fans (residents too), is to really understand the economy in MI. Now I do not live in Detroit and I understand you (in NYC financial world) and me (as a headhunter) are "feelin' it" right now...the folks in Detroit have been in this situation for over a decade. I truly believe that it is the owner's team and we are along for the ride, but in the end, I think said owner needs to make a conservative move once in a while. Appease the fans and take a route that will make your team slowly better (Curry) versus trying to hit a homerun each outing.

From a football perspective, Stafford is no Peyton, no Elway...so why blow that pick on a guy (who may be good), but will not take your team out of the duldrums that you have been in for generations?? David Carr is really an interesting guy if you listen to him...to this day, he never throws his former team under the bus, but acknowledges it took him 7 years to get his compusre back. Now I think he is a better public speaker at this point than QB, but if he fell a couple of spots to a team that could support him, for all we know, he would be a guy we spoke about in the same breath as Manning and Brady...instead, he is someone who gets air time only to discuss the pressures of being a number1 overall pick.

 

[coolnerd]

So you are saying that a rookie QBs salary should be 5% of the total cap? Because percentage has not changed significantly, doesn't mean the percentage is proper.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Very insightful post, but I think some of the "soft subjects" are lost on it. I realize Young was a #2 pick 4 years ago, but it is a 33% increase in spend whereas the cap has just (lol) gone up 25% during that time. Also, you are comparing a guy who lost his job to a journey man, another who has shown very little and one who did well, but just did it for one year (I am going off the top of my head, but I believe Ryan's stats are somewhat similar to those of Couch in year 1 (flame away if I am incorrect)).

Very wrong. Ryan >>>>>>>>> Couch.The other thing, that it is very hard for non-Detroit fans (residents too), is to really understand the economy in MI. Now I do not live in Detroit and I understand you (in NYC financial world) and me (as a headhunter) are "feelin' it" right now...the folks in Detroit have been in this situation for over a decade. I truly believe that it is the owner's team and we are along for the ride, but in the end, I think said owner needs to make a conservative move once in a while. Appease the fans and take a route that will make your team slowly better (Curry) versus trying to hit a homerun each outing.

From a football perspective, Stafford is no Peyton, no Elway

How do we know that?

 

[Mario Kart]

The rookie salaries are going to help the collapse of the NFL. It has been building up for the last decade and in this economic downturn... something is going to have to give... otherwise.

 

[simmonjm]

In the Stafford to Detroit thread, there is already reaction about how much $$$, particularly the guaranteed $$ Matt Stafford got from Detroit. Some Lions fans have expressed disappointment in the amount, and I've already seen two networks comment on how this rookie money is getting "out of hand."Well, if you want to argue that rookies shouldn't be given contracts that make them among the highest paid players in the NFL, you'll get no argument from me. And the fact the commissioner has publicly expressed his displeasure over that fact tells you we're likely to see a change there.But please, please, PLEASE let's not have a series of threads that start characterizing Stafford's contract as anything other than STATUS QUO for what the going rate for a rookie QB has been since the current CBA was ratified in 2006.2006 -- Vince Young got 6 yrs, $57.8mm with $29.8mm guaranteed2007 -- JaMarcus Russell got 6 yrs, $68.0mm with $32.0mm guaranteed2008 -- Matt Ryan got 6 yrs, $72.0mm with $34.75mm guaranteed2009 -- Matt Stafford got 6yrs, $78.0mm with $41.7mm guaranteed2006 -- $102mm salary cap2007 -- $109mm salary cap2008 -- $116.7 mm salary cap2009 -- $127mm salary cap% of top rookie QB guaranteed money, annualized, as % of cap2006 -- 4.87% of cap2007 -- 4.89% of cap2008 -- 4.96% of cap2009 -- 5.47% of capAll this talk about how 'ridiculous' top draft pick contracts are getting just flies in the face of actually considering how 'ridiculously' fast the NFL salary cap has risen over the last few years.And even though we all know guaranteed money is a far better comparison than overall contract value, if you want to look at those numbers just for kicks and grins, you'll see they tell the same tale.% of top rookie QB money [stated total value of deal], annualized, as % of cap2006 -- 9.4% of cap2007 -- 10.4% of cap2008 -- 10.3% of cap2009 -- 10.2% of capAnd let's also not forget that two of these four QBs weren't even the top overall picks.

My only argument would be that the salary cap accounts for the salary of around 54 players. Thus the average salary percentage for eeach player would be less then 2%. So a 10% or even 5.47% of salary cap is a significant amount of cap room for an unproven player.

 

[dparker713]

By your own numbers, the Lions paid 0.51% more as a percentage of the total cap than anyone else. Over a 10% premium, or more than 4 million extra in guarenteed money then they should have paid to keep in line with the 3 most recent examples. I see no good reason to be paying such a premium to Stafford or anyone else in this draft. Sure, this may seem like a small deviation, but in such a competitive marketplace every small misstep can cost dearly.

 

[Sweet Love]

Very insightful post, but I think some of the "soft subjects" are lost on it. I realize Young was a #2 pick 4 years ago, but it is a 33% increase in spend whereas the cap has just (lol) gone up 25% during that time. Also, you are comparing a guy who lost his job to a journey man, another who has shown very little and one who did well, but just did it for one year (I am going off the top of my head, but I believe Ryan's stats are somewhat similar to those of Couch in year 1 (flame away if I am incorrect)).

Very wrong. Ryan >>>>>>>>> Couch.The other thing, that it is very hard for non-Detroit fans (residents too), is to really understand the economy in MI. Now I do not live in Detroit and I understand you (in NYC financial world) and me (as a headhunter) are "feelin' it" right now...the folks in Detroit have been in this situation for over a decade. I truly believe that it is the owner's team and we are along for the ride, but in the end, I think said owner needs to make a conservative move once in a while. Appease the fans and take a route that will make your team slowly better (Curry) versus trying to hit a homerun each outing.

From a football perspective, Stafford is no Peyton, no Elway

How do we know that?

First on the Ryan versus Couch topic; Ryan had 16 TDs and 11INTs to Couch's 15 TDs and 13 INTS...not a world of difference there, but Ryan had about 1000 more yards and a better completion percenatge, so I understand. Although, Couch had Kevin Johnson and God knows who at RB, whereas Ryan had Turner and White to pave the way and while ATL was down it was due to unprecedented circumstances; CLE was an expansion team. You are right in that we don't know whether Stafford can hang with Elway and Manning (heck Freeman could be the gem of this class for all we know), but Elway had a team draft him as the no-brainer #1 and another trade to get him; Manning was the consensus #1 and the only doubts were whether someone phyiscally superior to him (Leaf) could turn out as good. Stafford on the other hand has many more distractors (even those doubting whether he is the best QB); now that can be attributed to the internet/media that Elway and even Manning never had to deal with. All I am saying is that if you compare where we are (draft eve) to 1983 and 1997, Stafford is a cloudier picture...and is that something you dump 40mm on? Finally, I still don't see how a 0-16 team turns things around by drafting a position (regardless of the player) that tradionally has the biggest learning curve (I believe in building a team around the QB).

 

[Bri]

In the Stafford to Detroit thread, there is already reaction about how much $$$, particularly the guaranteed $$ Matt Stafford got from Detroit. Some Lions fans have expressed disappointment in the amount, and I've already seen two networks comment on how this rookie money is getting "out of hand."Well, if you want to argue that rookies shouldn't be given contracts that make them among the highest paid players in the NFL, you'll get no argument from me. And the fact the commissioner has publicly expressed his displeasure over that fact tells you we're likely to see a change there.But please, please, PLEASE let's not have a series of threads that start characterizing Stafford's contract as anything other than STATUS QUO for what the going rate for a rookie QB has been since the current CBA was ratified in 2006.2006 -- Vince Young got 6 yrs, $57.8mm with $29.8mm guaranteed2007 -- JaMarcus Russell got 6 yrs, $68.0mm with $32.0mm guaranteed2008 -- Matt Ryan got 6 yrs, $72.0mm with $34.75mm guaranteed2009 -- Matt Stafford got 6yrs, $78.0mm with $41.7mm guaranteed2006 -- $102mm salary cap2007 -- $109mm salary cap2008 -- $116.7 mm salary cap2009 -- $127mm salary cap% of top rookie QB guaranteed money, annualized, as % of cap2006 -- 4.87% of cap2007 -- 4.89% of cap2008 -- 4.96% of cap2009 -- 5.47% of capAll this talk about how 'ridiculous' top draft pick contracts are getting just flies in the face of actually considering how 'ridiculously' fast the NFL salary cap has risen over the last few years.

(snipped some) totally agree with the last bit, that it's right in line with cap hikes.Above that-The CBA was extended wasn't it?Haynesworth's 100 mil was enormous. 78 for a guy that never played a snap seems too much still. Let's start them out at 10 dollars per hour and see how it goes. It's pretty tricky. It's not Haynesworth or Stafford per se but everyone else between the rook and the stomper. There's no scale or anything that resembles one.This: 2006 young 6/57 Stafford 6/78 does seem too fast of an increase in "the going rate". What's that 40% more in 4 years?AGAIN I agree with your last point. I think it's like that jenga game though. Once the NFLPA sees the NFL start lowerring salaries they'll start to think it's going to crumble. It won't matter if the NFL is right or not. The NFL(or NFLPA) has to come up with an all inclusive solution not just 8 year vets or rooks or ...has to be everyone.Remember several years ago when 4 years in, players were often a free agent and they could finally get a good deal after that "tiny" rookie deal? At least that was a system. Giving the rooks a ton ASAP seems silly.

 

[roadkill1292]

2009 -- Matt Stafford got 6yrs, $78.0mm with $41.7mm guaranteed

If there was no draft, what kind of offers would Stafford get as a rookie free agent?

 

[Arizona Ron]

But please, please, PLEASE let's not have a series of threads that start characterizing Stafford's contract as anything other than STATUS QUO for what the going rate for a rookie QB has been since the current CBA was ratified in 2006.

Agree it's the status quo, but the status quo is out of hand. Especially in the current state of Detroit's economy; I expect even more outrage as the season starts. If he's anything less than perfect, he'll get booed out of just like Harrington.Nothing good can come out of this.

 

[Jason Wood]

But please, please, PLEASE let's not have a series of threads that start characterizing Stafford's contract as anything other than STATUS QUO for what the going rate for a rookie QB has been since the current CBA was ratified in 2006.

Agree it's the status quo, but the status quo is out of hand. Especially in the current state of Detroit's economy; I expect even more outrage as the season starts. If he's anything less than perfect, he'll get booed out of just like Harrington.Nothing good can come out of this.

Yep...and I said as much in my opening post. I totally think the NFL, particularly given the injury risk and the lack of guaranteed money in most cases, should have a stringent rookie cap so that more $$$ can funnel into the veterans hands.

 

[scratcher]

I was serious in the other thread when I said that I had never heard anyone making a comparison to the cap while making the "ridiculous rookie contract" point. To me, it's always been about the guys getting all that money and being unproven.That being said...4.87%, 4.89%, 4.96%, 5.47%...there is a definite outlier.

There's a statistically significant increase this year...

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

In the Stafford to Detroit thread, there is already reaction about how much $$$, particularly the guaranteed $$ Matt Stafford got from Detroit. Some Lions fans have expressed disappointment in the amount, and I've already seen two networks comment on how this rookie money is getting "out of hand."Well, if you want to argue that rookies shouldn't be given contracts that make them among the highest paid players in the NFL, you'll get no argument from me. And the fact the commissioner has publicly expressed his displeasure over that fact tells you we're likely to see a change there.But please, please, PLEASE let's not have a series of threads that start characterizing Stafford's contract as anything other than STATUS QUO for what the going rate for a rookie QB has been since the current CBA was ratified in 2006.2006 -- Vince Young got 6 yrs, $57.8mm with $29.8mm guaranteed2007 -- JaMarcus Russell got 6 yrs, $68.0mm with $32.0mm guaranteed2008 -- Matt Ryan got 6 yrs, $72.0mm with $34.75mm guaranteed2009 -- Matt Stafford got 6yrs, $78.0mm with $41.7mm guaranteed2006 -- $102mm salary cap2007 -- $109mm salary cap2008 -- $116.7 mm salary cap2009 -- $127mm salary cap% of top rookie QB guaranteed money, annualized, as % of cap2006 -- 4.87% of cap2007 -- 4.89% of cap2008 -- 4.96% of cap2009 -- 5.47% of capAll this talk about how 'ridiculous' top draft pick contracts are getting just flies in the face of actually considering how 'ridiculously' fast the NFL salary cap has risen over the last few years.And even though we all know guaranteed money is a far better comparison than overall contract value, if you want to look at those numbers just for kicks and grins, you'll see they tell the same tale.% of top rookie QB money [stated total value of deal], annualized, as % of cap2006 -- 9.4% of cap2007 -- 10.4% of cap2008 -- 10.3% of cap2009 -- 10.2% of capAnd let's also not forget that two of these four QBs weren't even the top overall picks.

Great post, very insightful. That said, I would look first at the guaranteed money....40% increase in guaranteed $$ versus a 25% increase in the cap. That is a pretty big disparity.

 

[Bri]

.....It needs to be capped, regulated, somehow worked the way it works in the NBA, where picks are slotted into established salaries and first rounders don't make more than established stars.

Put it this way: Matthew Stafford, who hasn't thrown a pass in the NFL, makes more money than three-time Super Bowl champion Tom Brady.

"Drafting early has become a huge economic liability," Polian said this weekend. "(Commissioner Roger Goodell) talked about $600 million committed to players in the first round and $400 million of which is guaranteed. That has tilted the draft dramatically.

"When you're drafting up high, you're risking a tremendous amount of money in a process that's far from exact. If you bat slightly better than .500 in the draft, and that means the entire seven rounds plus collegiate free agency, the likelihood is that you're going to make the playoffs. Those are not odds that I want to bet $400 million on."

You might as well invest that money with Bernie Madoff.

"The increase in rookies' salaries, particularly at the top of the round, has skewed the draft and made the risk at the top much, much greater," Polian continued, riffing on one of his favorite subjects.

(2 of 2)

I'm all in favor of young athletes getting everything they can on the market, especially in football where salaries aren't guaranteed and a career can end in the blink of an eye. There's little wonder the NFL Players Association and the agents love the current system and will fight like mad to maintain it when the two sides hammer out the next collective bargaining agreement.

But here's the problem: The ones getting hurt are the lower-round draft choices and the veterans who become salary cap casualties later on in their careers. If a good portion of your dollars are going to Stafford, that means less at the back end for a solid, productive veteran on your team (assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Lions actually have one of those).

If there was a rookie salary scale, would the Colts have retained punter Hunter Smith? How about running back Dominic Rhodes? Marvin Harrison at a lower price? Would the retention of center Jeff Saturday have come down to the final minutes if rookies were being paid a more reasonable amount?

The way it is now, if a team is wrong on a high, first-round pick, the franchise is doomed for years. If Stafford turns out to be Joey Harrington, the Lions will be hamstrung for years to come — in much the same way as the San Diego Chargers, who were terrible for years after whiffing on Ryan Leaf.

If I'm in the union, I'm thinking, "Wait a minute, I want to be sure there's a place for me on the back end of my career after I've established myself as an NFL player. Let the rookies wait their turns."

If I'm the NFL, I'm thinking, "The lack of a salary scale hurts the quality of the game because at the bottom of the payroll, teams are forced to pay bargain-basement prices for less accomplished players they can afford under the cap."

A rookie salary scale is not without risk, as the NBA has learned since instituting its own scale in the 1990s. For basketball, the scale has meant more players have left college earlier. In an open market, the difference between being picked 15th and fifth is millions. In a league with a rookie scale, the difference is significantly less, so there's far less incentive for an athlete to stay in school and improve his stock.

Just ask Brady Quinn and Matt Leinart how smart it was to stay in school. And while you're at it, ask Mark Sanchez how he feels now about coming out early against his college coach's advice.

A rookie salary scale also won't come without a price paid by the teams: If the players are going to agree to a rookie scale, they're also going to want to get the clock ticking on free agency much sooner. This won't happen without a major fight.

Still, when Stafford makes more money than Brady, every sane person has got to agree, something is broken in the system.

I'm all in favor of young athletes getting everything they can on the market, especially in football where salaries aren't guaranteed and a career can end in the blink of an eye. There's little wonder the NFL Players Association and the agents love the current system and will fight like mad to maintain it when the two sides hammer out the next collective bargaining agreement.

But here's the problem: The ones getting hurt are the lower-round draft choices and the veterans who become salary cap casualties later on in their careers. If a good portion of your dollars are going to Stafford, that means less at the back end for a solid, productive veteran on your team (assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Lions actually have one of those).

If there was a rookie salary scale, would the Colts have retained punter Hunter Smith? How about running back Dominic Rhodes? Marvin Harrison at a lower price? Would the retention of center Jeff Saturday have come down to the final minutes if rookies were being paid a more reasonable amount?

The way it is now, if a team is wrong on a high, first-round pick, the franchise is doomed for years. If Stafford turns out to be Joey Harrington, the Lions will be hamstrung for years to come — in much the same way as the San Diego Chargers, who were terrible for years after whiffing on Ryan Leaf.

If I'm in the union, I'm thinking, "Wait a minute, I want to be sure there's a place for me on the back end of my career after I've established myself as an NFL player. Let the rookies wait their turns."

If I'm the NFL, I'm thinking, "The lack of a salary scale hurts the quality of the game because at the bottom of the payroll, teams are forced to pay bargain-basement prices for less accomplished players they can afford under the cap."

A rookie salary scale is not without risk, as the NBA has learned since instituting its own scale in the 1990s. For basketball, the scale has meant more players have left college earlier. In an open market, the difference between being picked 15th and fifth is millions. In a league with a rookie scale, the difference is significantly less, so there's far less incentive for an athlete to stay in school and improve his stock.

Just ask Brady Quinn and Matt Leinart how smart it was to stay in school. And while you're at it, ask Mark Sanchez how he feels now about coming out early against his college coach's advice.

A rookie salary scale also won't come without a price paid by the teams: If the players are going to agree to a rookie scale, they're also going to want to get the clock ticking on free agency much sooner. This won't happen without a major fight.

Still, when Stafford makes more money than Brady, every sane person has got to agree, something is broken in the system.

http://www.freep.com/article/20090429/spor...ystem+is+broken (2 pages)

 

[Marvelous]

Jsaon, the one odd thing about the data set you chose is that Ryan and Young were not #1 overall picks of the draft.

Can you include data for Alex Smith, Eli Manning, Carson Palmer, David Carr, Michael Vick, Tim Couch, and Peyton Manning?

That would cover #1 overall qb picks for 12 years and we could see if the percentages relative to the cap have indeed gone up over time.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Nice post...except,

to stay Stafford's salary is status quo, when the problem is the status quo rookies salary are already out of hand before Stafford even got his deal, really doesn't say much.

 

[Sabertooth]

In the Stafford to Detroit thread, there is already reaction about how much $$$, particularly the guaranteed $$ Matt Stafford got from Detroit. Some Lions fans have expressed disappointment in the amount, and I've already seen two networks comment on how this rookie money is getting "out of hand."Well, if you want to argue that rookies shouldn't be given contracts that make them among the highest paid players in the NFL, you'll get no argument from me. And the fact the commissioner has publicly expressed his displeasure over that fact tells you we're likely to see a change there.But please, please, PLEASE let's not have a series of threads that start characterizing Stafford's contract as anything other than STATUS QUO for what the going rate for a rookie QB has been since the current CBA was ratified in 2006.2006 -- Vince Young got 6 yrs, $57.8mm with $29.8mm guaranteed2007 -- JaMarcus Russell got 6 yrs, $68.0mm with $32.0mm guaranteed2008 -- Matt Ryan got 6 yrs, $72.0mm with $34.75mm guaranteed2009 -- Matt Stafford got 6yrs, $78.0mm with $41.7mm guaranteed2006 -- $102mm salary cap2007 -- $109mm salary cap2008 -- $116.7 mm salary cap2009 -- $127mm salary cap% of top rookie QB guaranteed money, annualized, as % of cap2006 -- 4.87% of cap2007 -- 4.89% of cap2008 -- 4.96% of cap2009 -- 5.47% of capAll this talk about how 'ridiculous' top draft pick contracts are getting just flies in the face of actually considering how 'ridiculously' fast the NFL salary cap has risen over the last few years.And even though we all know guaranteed money is a far better comparison than overall contract value, if you want to look at those numbers just for kicks and grins, you'll see they tell the same tale.% of top rookie QB money [stated total value of deal], annualized, as % of cap2006 -- 9.4% of cap2007 -- 10.4% of cap2008 -- 10.3% of cap2009 -- 10.2% of capAnd let's also not forget that two of these four QBs weren't even the top overall picks.

Look at the rookie contract in the context of the current economy. I see a big jump in salary and bonus while the economy continues to go backwards.

 

[Chase Stuart]

.....It needs to be capped, regulated, somehow worked the way it works in the NBA, where picks are slotted into established salaries and first rounders don't make more than established stars.Put it this way: Matthew Stafford, who hasn't thrown a pass in the NFL, makes more money than three-time Super Bowl champion Tom Brady.

What's wrong with that?

 

[Chase Stuart]

If I'm the NFL, I'm thinking, "The lack of a salary scale hurts the quality of the game because at the bottom of the payroll, teams are forced to pay bargain-basement prices for less accomplished players they can afford under the cap."

This doesn't make any sense. No matter what the scale, 32 teams will still have 53 players on their rosters. Without a rookie salary cap, it just means the worst players won't be overpaid.

 

[Chase Stuart]

.....It needs to be capped, regulated, somehow worked the way it works in the NBA, where picks are slotted into established salaries and first rounders don't make more than established stars.Put it this way: Matthew Stafford, who hasn't thrown a pass in the NFL, makes more money than three-time Super Bowl champion Tom Brady.

What's wrong with that?

To put it more clearly, is it wrong that Knowshon Moreno will make millions of dollars this year while Edgerrin James -- who has rushed for more yards than any other player playing in the NFL right now -- is without a team? Moreno hasn't carried the ball once in the NFL.Orlando Pace, a 7 time Pro Bowler and a first team All Pro, along with being a SB champion and a possible HOFer, is going to make less money than some kid from Baylor who's never done squat in the NFL. Good or bad?

 

[Bri]

.....It needs to be capped, regulated, somehow worked the way it works in the NBA, where picks are slotted into established salaries and first rounders don't make more than established stars.Put it this way: Matthew Stafford, who hasn't thrown a pass in the NFL, makes more money than three-time Super Bowl champion Tom Brady.

What's wrong with that?

To put it more clearly, is it wrong that Knowshon Moreno will make millions of dollars this year while Edgerrin James -- who has rushed for more yards than any other player playing in the NFL right now -- is without a team? Moreno hasn't carried the ball once in the NFL.Orlando Pace, a 7 time Pro Bowler and a first team All Pro, along with being a SB champion and a possible HOFer, is going to make less money than some kid from Baylor who's never done squat in the NFL. Good or bad?

sarcasm?not sure, to reply to above.I just posted the article from Freep as I thought it was in a similar vein. When the rounds are categorized by 4,5,600 million per round and Stafford more than Brady, it sure sounds different

 

[RUSF18]

.....It needs to be capped, regulated, somehow worked the way it works in the NBA, where picks are slotted into established salaries and first rounders don't make more than established stars.Put it this way: Matthew Stafford, who hasn't thrown a pass in the NFL, makes more money than three-time Super Bowl champion Tom Brady.

What's wrong with that?

To put it more clearly, is it wrong that Knowshon Moreno will make millions of dollars this year while Edgerrin James -- who has rushed for more yards than any other player playing in the NFL right now -- is without a team? Moreno hasn't carried the ball once in the NFL.Orlando Pace, a 7 time Pro Bowler and a first team All Pro, along with being a SB champion and a possible HOFer, is going to make less money than some kid from Baylor who's never done squat in the NFL. Good or bad?

While I'm with you on the overall point, these examples are terrible. James' and Pace's teams both decided that they didn't want to pay these guys anything, so yes, it makes sense that Moreno and Smith have value in excess of theirs.

 

[Chase Stuart]

.....It needs to be capped, regulated, somehow worked the way it works in the NBA, where picks are slotted into established salaries and first rounders don't make more than established stars.Put it this way: Matthew Stafford, who hasn't thrown a pass in the NFL, makes more money than three-time Super Bowl champion Tom Brady.

What's wrong with that?

To put it more clearly, is it wrong that Knowshon Moreno will make millions of dollars this year while Edgerrin James -- who has rushed for more yards than any other player playing in the NFL right now -- is without a team? Moreno hasn't carried the ball once in the NFL.Orlando Pace, a 7 time Pro Bowler and a first team All Pro, along with being a SB champion and a possible HOFer, is going to make less money than some kid from Baylor who's never done squat in the NFL. Good or bad?

While I'm with you on the overall point, these examples are terrible. James' and Pace's teams both decided that they didn't want to pay these guys anything, so yes, it makes sense that Moreno and Smith have value in excess of theirs.

Stafford's team decided they wanted to pay Stafford $42 million guaranteed.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

.....It needs to be capped, regulated, somehow worked the way it works in the NBA, where picks are slotted into established salaries and first rounders don't make more than established stars.Put it this way: Matthew Stafford, who hasn't thrown a pass in the NFL, makes more money than three-time Super Bowl champion Tom Brady.

What's wrong with that?

To put it more clearly, is it wrong that Knowshon Moreno will make millions of dollars this year while Edgerrin James -- who has rushed for more yards than any other player playing in the NFL right now -- is without a team? Moreno hasn't carried the ball once in the NFL.Orlando Pace, a 7 time Pro Bowler and a first team All Pro, along with being a SB champion and a possible HOFer, is going to make less money than some kid from Baylor who's never done squat in the NFL. Good or bad?

While I'm with you on the overall point, these examples are terrible. James' and Pace's teams both decided that they didn't want to pay these guys anything, so yes, it makes sense that Moreno and Smith have value in excess of theirs.

Stafford's team decided they wanted to pay Stafford $42 million guaranteed.

You can do better than this. I think.

 

[Keepers]

I like the idea of the post but don't think it goes far enough. The sample size of QBs is simply too small, it needs to include other positions. And if I understand your numbers correctly, a .58% increase in guaranteed money in 2 yrs (2007 to 2009) compared to the cap is very significant since that is an increase to only one player in a pool of 54 players. If just looking at QBs, the best comparison is Russel vs Stafford since they were both 1st overall picks. The guaranteed money in 2 years between those two went up 30%, while the salary cap has gone up 16-17%.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

% of top rookie QB guaranteed money, annualized, as % of cap2006 -- 4.87% of cap2007 -- 4.89% of cap2008 -- 4.96% of cap2009 -- 5.47% of cap

That's a very significant jump from 2008 to 2009 compared to previous years.

 

[GregR_2]

...Stafford's team decided they wanted to pay Stafford $42 million guaranteed.

You can do better than this. I think.

Agreed, you're not doing anything for your argument at all Chase. It was a horrible set of examples which you should drop. You asked what is wrong with Stafford, who hasn't thrown a pass in the NFL, making more money than Tom Brady. The simple answer is that he's being paid more than his perceived worth. That the team is willing to pay him that much is not necessarily evidence they believe he is worth that much. It is more a sign that the current system puts them in a situation where (they believe) overpaying him is better than the alternatives.People like to say, "If he wasn't worth it then they wouldn't pay him it", but it isn't that simple. Their are other factors in the decision to pay the player what the top overall salary is paid. What else can they do? Just letting their timer expire and slide down to the #10 pick carries negative consequences such as backlash from their fan base which results in lowered revenues. If multiple teams do it there is a possibility of a collusion grievance by the NFLPA. Trading down for nothing of gain gets viewed the same way, if you can do it at all and you often can't because of other teams not wanting to inherit that salary issue you're trying to get out of. And drafting Stafford and refusing to sign him to anything more than a 6 year, $35m contract because that's what the team really thinks he's worth, and then having him sit out and go back into the draft, is probably worse than overpaying him and taking the risk he doesn't ever come anywhere close to that performance level.There's no good "best" answer for teams. It isn't as simple as just not paying them that much if they aren't worth it because the alternatives are not necessarily better. Unless there's an amazing QB to take at #1, the smart teams in this situation don't refuse to pay the player, but lessen the problem by taking a player at a position like tackle where the salary is less than QB, and where even if he doesn't live up to his salary, you can move him inside and get worthwhile production from him while he plays out his contract rather than having a huge salary clipboard holder or guy you have to release who walks away with a huge signing bonus for years he doesn't play for your team.That's what's wrong with Stafford making more than Brady. He's making it not because the team felt he was worth it, but because they felt overpaying him was better than the alternatives they have under the current system.ETA: To bring it back around to why those are glaringly bad examples... I think we can safely say the consensus expectation is that Stafford will not outplay Tom Brady over the next few years. However, Knowshon Moreno very likely will outplay Edge, and given the state of Pace's body and injuries, I think a lot of people would say that Smith is likely to outplay Pace. So your examples do not address the issue. The rookies you cherry picked should be paid more than the vets you cherry picked because they are expected to do better, while Stafford should not be paid more than Brady because he's not expected to do better.

 

[Jason Wood]

I like the idea of the post but don't think it goes far enough. The sample size of QBs is simply too small, it needs to include other positions. And if I understand your numbers correctly, a .58% increase in guaranteed money in 2 yrs (2007 to 2009) compared to the cap is very significant since that is an increase to only one player in a pool of 54 players. If just looking at QBs, the best comparison is Russel vs Stafford since they were both 1st overall picks. The guaranteed money in 2 years between those two went up 30%, while the salary cap has gone up 16-17%.

Let's not misconstrue what I said to start this thread. My point was, if there's an issue with rookie salaries and their % of guaranteed money, it's not a NEW issue, but one that's been a relatively stable 'problem' [if you view it as a problem] since they redid the CBA several years ago.

 

[Keepers]

I like the idea of the post but don't think it goes far enough. The sample size of QBs is simply too small, it needs to include other positions. And if I understand your numbers correctly, a .58% increase in guaranteed money in 2 yrs (2007 to 2009) compared to the cap is very significant since that is an increase to only one player in a pool of 54 players. If just looking at QBs, the best comparison is Russel vs Stafford since they were both 1st overall picks. The guaranteed money in 2 years between those two went up 30%, while the salary cap has gone up 16-17%.

Let's not misconstrue what I said to start this thread. My point was, if there's an issue with rookie salaries and their % of guaranteed money, it's not a NEW issue, but one that's been a relatively stable 'problem' [if you view it as a problem] since they redid the CBA several years ago.

Agree. And up to this year I would agree when comparing VY, Russel and Ryan's contract (although Ryan was a 3rd overall pick while Russel was 1st so even that one is probably too much of an increase from 2007 to 2008). However, Stafford's contract and more importantly his guaranteed money is clearly out of whack. To me what is ironic in the whole Stafford situation is that Detroit was perceived to be bargaining from a position of strength since they made it clear they wanted their guy signed before the draft and had an offer from Curry. In all the discussions about winners and losers of drafts, the contracts are often overlooked and since a contract will affect a team's ability to sign FAs in future years, Detroit seems like a loser to me right now unless they are bargaining that the next couple years will be uncapped.

 

[teamroc]

I like the idea of the post but don't think it goes far enough. The sample size of QBs is simply too small, it needs to include other positions. And if I understand your numbers correctly, a .58% increase in guaranteed money in 2 yrs (2007 to 2009) compared to the cap is very significant since that is an increase to only one player in a pool of 54 players. If just looking at QBs, the best comparison is Russel vs Stafford since they were both 1st overall picks. The guaranteed money in 2 years between those two went up 30%, while the salary cap has gone up 16-17%.

Let's not misconstrue what I said to start this thread. My point was, if there's an issue with rookie salaries and their % of guaranteed money, it's not a NEW issue, but one that's been a relatively stable 'problem' [if you view it as a problem] since they redid the CBA several years ago.

I'm a little confused as to the point of this thread."I saw some people overracting." Are you new here? And it is increasing. 5 > 4. Are people overstating how much it's increase? Probably. Are 95% of the posts on here overstating something? Yeah. It's not a new problem, but is it getting worse? Maybe a little. It's the same every year, OMFG he's now a top 5 paid X without taking a snap. The cap increase is distorting it a little, but the contracts are still abusrd. And I'm not trying to be a tool, you're actually my favorite FBG expert. This thread was just a little meh.

 

[Jason Wood]

I like the idea of the post but don't think it goes far enough. The sample size of QBs is simply too small, it needs to include other positions. And if I understand your numbers correctly, a .58% increase in guaranteed money in 2 yrs (2007 to 2009) compared to the cap is very significant since that is an increase to only one player in a pool of 54 players. If just looking at QBs, the best comparison is Russel vs Stafford since they were both 1st overall picks. The guaranteed money in 2 years between those two went up 30%, while the salary cap has gone up 16-17%.

Let's not misconstrue what I said to start this thread. My point was, if there's an issue with rookie salaries and their % of guaranteed money, it's not a NEW issue, but one that's been a relatively stable 'problem' [if you view it as a problem] since they redid the CBA several years ago.

I'm a little confused as to the point of this thread."I saw some people overracting." Are you new here?

And it is increasing. 5 > 4. Are people overstating how much it's increase? Probably. Are 95% of the posts on here overstating something? Yeah.

It's not a new problem, but is it getting worse? Maybe a little. It's the same every year, OMFG he's now a top 5 paid X without taking a snap. The cap increase is distorting it a little, but the contracts are still abusrd.

And I'm not trying to be a tool, you're actually my favorite FBG expert. This thread was just a little meh.

I think I owe you a Thanks somewhere in there :X I started this thread in the immediacy of the draft, when people [not in the Shark Pool specifically but in the blog/web/TV media sphere] started right into the "HOW CAN THE LIONS PAY HIM THIS MUCH?" and it just struck me to do a quick mathematical comparison to see if they really are breaking the bank for him any more than other teams break the bank for top 5 QBs. Admittedly it doesn't speak to the larger trend of rookies getting tons of guaranteed money. But I think it's entirely unfair to criticize Detroit for playing ball. Anyone who pays attention to the league should have assumed that they probably wouldn't be able to trade the 1st pick away and, in that event, they would have to pay the guy more guaranteed money than anyone has gotten before [or risk a protracted holdout].

Detroit is just participating in a system that 32 owners agreed to during the last round of collective bargaining. Condemn the system, sure. But let's not condemn Detroit as though they somehow broke the system.

 

[The Jerk]

Rookie salaries may have been similarly obscene and inappropriately higher than veterans for a decade or more, but it shouldn't take multiple FBG experts to realize that the larger outrage produced by Stafford's contract this year is being fueled by the significant economic downturn nationwide, with Detroit symbolically if not literally at its epicenter.

Might the sports media be taking advantage of the situation for greater notoriety?

Shocking to suggest, but this is what the media does, everyone from ESPN to the local newspaper.

Might the Commissioner and/or owners be angling to gain leverage in the next negotiation with the NFLPA on this issue?

Again, what a surprise.

However, just because some self-interest may be involved does not disqualify the arguments made by the media, the Commissioner, or the owners.

For what it's worth, whether or not the rise of rookie salaries is a myth is irrelevant to me. What matters is whether or not they are too high. Even if the percentages remained the same for the next five years, I would still consider it a badly flawed system as it has been inequitable for a long time.

 

[The Jerk]

Detroit is just participating in a system that 32 owners agreed to during the last round of collective bargaining. Condemn the system, sure. But let's not condemn Detroit as though they somehow broke the system.

If that's the point you were originally trying to make, then it's easy for me to agree. Really, the Lions have earned the perception that they can do nothing right, so they are going to be a target regardless of their actions. However, I didn't see your initial post as defending the Lions but the rookie salaries en masse. Maybe I just didn't read it very well.Jason, I did miss your semi-caveat concerning rookie salaries to be so high, so sorry if I was a bit rough in my earlier comments. I think you'll survive.

 

[Keepers]

I like the idea of the post but don't think it goes far enough. The sample size of QBs is simply too small, it needs to include other positions. And if I understand your numbers correctly, a .58% increase in guaranteed money in 2 yrs (2007 to 2009) compared to the cap is very significant since that is an increase to only one player in a pool of 54 players. If just looking at QBs, the best comparison is Russel vs Stafford since they were both 1st overall picks. The guaranteed money in 2 years between those two went up 30%, while the salary cap has gone up 16-17%.

Let's not misconstrue what I said to start this thread. My point was, if there's an issue with rookie salaries and their % of guaranteed money, it's not a NEW issue, but one that's been a relatively stable 'problem' [if you view it as a problem] since they redid the CBA several years ago.

I'm a little confused as to the point of this thread."I saw some people overracting." Are you new here?

And it is increasing. 5 > 4. Are people overstating how much it's increase? Probably. Are 95% of the posts on here overstating something? Yeah.

It's not a new problem, but is it getting worse? Maybe a little. It's the same every year, OMFG he's now a top 5 paid X without taking a snap. The cap increase is distorting it a little, but the contracts are still abusrd.

And I'm not trying to be a tool, you're actually my favorite FBG expert. This thread was just a little meh.

I think I owe you a Thanks somewhere in there I started this thread in the immediacy of the draft, when people [not in the Shark Pool specifically but in the blog/web/TV media sphere] started right into the "HOW CAN THE LIONS PAY HIM THIS MUCH?" and it just struck me to do a quick mathematical comparison to see if they really are breaking the bank for him any more than other teams break the bank for top 5 QBs. Admittedly it doesn't speak to the larger trend of rookies getting tons of guaranteed money. But I think it's entirely unfair to criticize Detroit for playing ball. Anyone who pays attention to the league should have assumed that they probably wouldn't be able to trade the 1st pick away and, in that event, they would have to pay the guy more guaranteed money than anyone has gotten before [or risk a protracted holdout].

Detroit is just participating in a system that 32 owners agreed to during the last round of collective bargaining. Condemn the system, sure. But let's not condemn Detroit as though they somehow broke the system.

I must be missing something as your numbers to me indicate that Detroit did pay too much compared to QBs from previous years ... especially the guaranteed money. Although after seeing these numbers looks like we need to also give Al Davis credit (can't believe I am saying that) as he signed Russel to what seems like a reasonable contract for a QB as #1 overall pick.

 

[Chase Stuart]

...Stafford's team decided they wanted to pay Stafford $42 million guaranteed.

You can do better than this. I think.

Agreed, you're not doing anything for your argument at all Chase. It was a horrible set of examples which you should drop. You asked what is wrong with Stafford, who hasn't thrown a pass in the NFL, making more money than Tom Brady. The simple answer is that he's being paid more than his perceived worth. That the team is willing to pay him that much is not necessarily evidence they believe he is worth that much. It is more a sign that the current system puts them in a situation where (they believe) overpaying him is better than the alternatives.People like to say, "If he wasn't worth it then they wouldn't pay him it", but it isn't that simple. Their are other factors in the decision to pay the player what the top overall salary is paid. What else can they do? Just letting their timer expire and slide down to the #10 pick carries negative consequences such as backlash from their fan base which results in lowered revenues. If multiple teams do it there is a possibility of a collusion grievance by the NFLPA. Trading down for nothing of gain gets viewed the same way, if you can do it at all and you often can't because of other teams not wanting to inherit that salary issue you're trying to get out of. And drafting Stafford and refusing to sign him to anything more than a 6 year, $35m contract because that's what the team really thinks he's worth, and then having him sit out and go back into the draft, is probably worse than overpaying him and taking the risk he doesn't ever come anywhere close to that performance level.There's no good "best" answer for teams. It isn't as simple as just not paying them that much if they aren't worth it because the alternatives are not necessarily better. Unless there's an amazing QB to take at #1, the smart teams in this situation don't refuse to pay the player, but lessen the problem by taking a player at a position like tackle where the salary is less than QB, and where even if he doesn't live up to his salary, you can move him inside and get worthwhile production from him while he plays out his contract rather than having a huge salary clipboard holder or guy you have to release who walks away with a huge signing bonus for years he doesn't play for your team.That's what's wrong with Stafford making more than Brady. He's making it not because the team felt he was worth it, but because they felt overpaying him was better than the alternatives they have under the current system.ETA: To bring it back around to why those are glaringly bad examples... I think we can safely say the consensus expectation is that Stafford will not outplay Tom Brady over the next few years. However, Knowshon Moreno very likely will outplay Edge, and given the state of Pace's body and injuries, I think a lot of people would say that Smith is likely to outplay Pace. So your examples do not address the issue. The rookies you cherry picked should be paid more than the vets you cherry picked because they are expected to do better, while Stafford should not be paid more than Brady because he's not expected to do better.

1) I don't think you're making a credible argument that Stafford's overpaid. You suggested that paying him $42M, guaranteed for six years, is better than drafting him and not signing him. How that is he "overpaid"? It's obviously a good thing for the team to draft him at #1 and pay him $42M then to simply not draft him at all. You claim that there is a negative backlash to doing this; well I don't think GMs make decisions based on what "the fans" want to do. I think you're misusing the word overpaid. To me, it means it was a bad decision. Signing Matt Stafford to a 6 year, $42 M guaranteed contract, is not a bad decision. Do you disagree?2) Yes, Brady should outplay Stafford over the next few years. But, #1, Brady didn't sign a contract this year. So you can't compare the contracts. And #2, Stafford will likely be better in 10 years than Brady will be. If Stafford turns out to be good, no one will ever get to see him but the Lions. The value of getting a guy like Manning, Rivers, Roethlisberger is that you also get to extend their contracts before they hit the open market.

 

[Chase Stuart]

For what it's worth, whether or not the rise of rookie salaries is a myth is irrelevant to me. What matters is whether or not they are too high. Even if the percentages remained the same for the next five years, I would still consider it a badly flawed system as it has been inequitable for a long time.

No one has ever proven this, just repeated it over and over again. Is Jason Smith really being overpaid? Is Aaron Curry overpaid?But regardless, people spew two things, over and over again, with no real thought behind it. #1) Rookies are overpaid (no explanation of why or how much). #2) Rookies should be paid less.But how much less? What should Stafford get? What should Curry get?If only we had an open market to figure this out...

 

[Chase Stuart]

One more question -- if most complains about rookie salaries are a thinly veiled NFL players are overpaid, then that makes more sense.

But if not, is the complaint that veterans are underpaid? Are we supposed to believe that Matt Cassell is worth $15 million next year or that Max Stark is worth $8.5 million? Seriously?

 

[GregR_2]

One more question -- if most complains about rookie salaries are a thinly veiled NFL players are overpaid, then that makes more sense.But if not, is the complaint that veterans are underpaid? Are we supposed to believe that Matt Cassell is worth $15 million next year or that Max Stark is worth $8.5 million? Seriously?

Started to reply to the other post and saw this one and my jaw dropped.It seems like you've been awfully active in this topic for the last year for someone who can't accurately state on his own what the complaint is that he's been arguing against.

 

[roadkill1292]

For what it's worth, whether or not the rise of rookie salaries is a myth is irrelevant to me. What matters is whether or not they are too high. Even if the percentages remained the same for the next five years, I would still consider it a badly flawed system as it has been inequitable for a long time.

No one has ever proven this, just repeated it over and over again. Is Jason Smith really being overpaid? Is Aaron Curry overpaid?But regardless, people spew two things, over and over again, with no real thought behind it. #1) Rookies are overpaid (no explanation of why or how much). #2) Rookies should be paid less.But how much less? What should Stafford get? What should Curry get?If only we had an open market to figure this out...

Careful. I know where you might be going with this and I want you to prepare yourself for the backlash. I'm about the only supporter you've got on this board. Even my friends in my local league want to punch me in the throat.

 

[Chase Stuart]

One more question -- if most complains about rookie salaries are a thinly veiled NFL players are overpaid, then that makes more sense.But if not, is the complaint that veterans are underpaid? Are we supposed to believe that Matt Cassell is worth $15 million next year or that Max Stark is worth $8.5 million? Seriously?

Started to reply to the other post and saw this one and my jaw dropped.It seems like you've been awfully active in this topic for the last year for someone who can't accurately state on his own what the complaint is that he's been arguing against.

Do you think Cassell is worth $15M?I get that it would be great if Detroit could sign Stafford for $20M and nice if they could sign him for $30M. But it's not "bad" for them to get him for $40M.

 

[RUSF18]

I heard the new NFLPA head on Mike and Mike this morning, believe his name is DeMaurice Smith (?). They asked him about the chances of a rookie salary cap and his response was a very simple one: the players have nothing to do with how much they are paid, it is 32 "extremely successful businessmen" (his words) who decide how much they will be paid. A player doesn't sign his name to the check, the individual owner does. He didn't actually say it (because it would be held against him if he did) but he was basically saying what others are saying: these contracts are large because the guy a year before had a large contract (but a bit less than this guy), and the guy before him had a large contract (which was a bit less too), and so on.

That's the issue: there is an inherent belief that you will be paid more than the guy who was drafted at your spot a year ago. While there are some cases where it's not true (mostly just QBs vs non QBs), that is how it works. The owners have very little leeway in this if they want to get their player signed, and I'm not even saying it's the player's fault or they're greedy: good for you if you can get that much money, and yes, if the pie has increased since last year, you should get more than the player from the prior year. But there is no way to stop this cycle until an owner takes a drastic step. Problem is, doing so could significantly hurt the franchise.

Let's say Detroit didn't work out a deal with Stafford, took him #1, and at the beginning of negotiations told his camp, "Yes, we believe Matt may end up being a great player one day. However, history tells us that there is a chance you may not live up to the billing just like so many other QBs have not. Taking that into account, but acknowledging your potential, we feel you should be paid as a top 10 QB, not a top 3 QB. We will offer you $15 million guaranteed and a significant salary in line with the top 10 QBs over the next 6 years, but not a penny more."

There is a 1000% chance Stafford would flip out, holdout, and probably enter the draft again next year. I wouldn't blame him -- why should he be forced to be the sacrificial lamb? But the Lions are huge losers in this also. They have the top prize, the ability to get any player they want, and they couldn't do it unless they met this value that, frankly, is out of whack with what the market would bear in any situation other than the NFL draft.

 

[RUSF18]

One more question -- if most complains about rookie salaries are a thinly veiled NFL players are overpaid, then that makes more sense.But if not, is the complaint that veterans are underpaid? Are we supposed to believe that Matt Cassell is worth $15 million next year or that Max Stark is worth $8.5 million? Seriously?

Started to reply to the other post and saw this one and my jaw dropped.It seems like you've been awfully active in this topic for the last year for someone who can't accurately state on his own what the complaint is that he's been arguing against.

Do you think Cassell is worth $15M?I get that it would be great if Detroit could sign Stafford for $20M and nice if they could sign him for $30M. But it's not "bad" for them to get him for $40M.

Cassell is being paid $15 million because the NFL and NFLPA negotiated the franchise tag into the CBA, with the premise that if a player can't be granted unrestricted free agency and the large signing bonus that comes with it, the team will compensate him with what amounts to an overinflated salary. Do you really think if/when Cassell gets his long term deal, he'll be making $15 million per year?

 

[Chase Stuart]

They have the top prize, the ability to get any player they want, and they couldn't do it unless they met this value that, frankly, is out of whack with what the market would bear in any situation other than the NFL draft.

Are you suggesting that if the NFL abolished the draft, and let college players sign with whomever they wanted that Matt Stafford would sign a worse deal than the one he signed with Detroit?

 

[Chase Stuart]

One more question -- if most complains about rookie salaries are a thinly veiled NFL players are overpaid, then that makes more sense.But if not, is the complaint that veterans are underpaid? Are we supposed to believe that Matt Cassell is worth $15 million next year or that Max Stark is worth $8.5 million? Seriously?

Started to reply to the other post and saw this one and my jaw dropped.It seems like you've been awfully active in this topic for the last year for someone who can't accurately state on his own what the complaint is that he's been arguing against.

Do you think Cassell is worth $15M?I get that it would be great if Detroit could sign Stafford for $20M and nice if they could sign him for $30M. But it's not "bad" for them to get him for $40M.

Cassell is being paid $15 million because the NFL and NFLPA negotiated the franchise tag into the CBA, with the premise that if a player can't be granted unrestricted free agency and the large signing bonus that comes with it, the team will compensate him with what amounts to an overinflated salary. Do you really think if/when Cassell gets his long term deal, he'll be making $15 million per year?

No, because he'll be making more than $15 million total so he'd be happy to take less per year.That avoids the question, though. Is Cassell worth $15 million this year? It speaks to the scarcity of good QBs and team's general inability to get them, that someone like Cassell must be kept no matter the huge cost.Supply and demand is what made Cassell a good deal for NE to franchise him. Supply and demand is the same reason Stafford is going to get his money.

 

[GregR_2]

One more question -- if most complains about rookie salaries are a thinly veiled NFL players are overpaid, then that makes more sense.But if not, is the complaint that veterans are underpaid? Are we supposed to believe that Matt Cassell is worth $15 million next year or that Max Stark is worth $8.5 million? Seriously?

Started to reply to the other post and saw this one and my jaw dropped.It seems like you've been awfully active in this topic for the last year for someone who can't accurately state on his own what the complaint is that he's been arguing against.

Do you think Cassell is worth $15M?I get that it would be great if Detroit could sign Stafford for $20M and nice if they could sign him for $30M. But it's not "bad" for them to get him for $40M.

No, I don't think Cassell is worth $15m yet. He's not proven enough. Why do you think discussion of Cassell's salary is an indication of anything about the complaint being made?Said complaint being that IN GENERAL, highly drafted picks are overpaid compared to more proven veterans. And I think we could add as a corollary that highly drafted picks are overpaid compared to lower drafted picks.Cherry picking a veteran that also is overpaid to compare him doesn't really dissuade from this complaint being about general pay scales. Any more than your previous examples did where you listed rookie/vet pairs where the rookie is probably expected to outperform the vet.

 

[RUSF18]

They have the top prize, the ability to get any player they want, and they couldn't do it unless they met this value that, frankly, is out of whack with what the market would bear in any situation other than the NFL draft.

Are you suggesting that if the NFL abolished the draft, and let college players sign with whomever they wanted that Matt Stafford would sign a worse deal than the one he signed with Detroit?

No, because the precedent has already been set. JaMarcus Russell is worth X, so Stafford is worth X+1. edit: Actually, I don't even agree with myself here. I don't think he would get that much money on a completely open market. The better question is if there was already a slotting system/rookie salary cap came in place and Russell and Ryan signed for $12 million and $13 million guaranteed, respectively. A new CBA came in which removed the cap. Would Stafford get $42 million guaranteed?

 

[BoltzNBrew]

The way Wood layed it out is not looking at the bigger picture here. Stafford got a 35% increase over VY in just 4 years. At that rate QB1 in 2013 will be making $105M. Where does this over inflation of player salaries finally hit its breaking point?