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

[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?

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.

If there was no incentive for NE to franchise Cassell (ability to trade him or draft pick compensation if he signed somewhere else), would they have given him a guaranteed $15 million for one year?

 

[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.

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.

I have no doubt that you realize that Cassell is not likely to be paid $15m and that when the Patriots franchised him they felt it was unlikely they would end up paying him $15m a year. And that when the Chiefs traded for him they felt it was unlikely they would be paying him $15m a year.So why are you carrying forward as if $15m is a yearly salary that should be used to express what his perceived value to teams is, I have no clue. Using an inflated number makes you no more points in this argument than did your bad rookie-vet examples earlier.Not to mention that the complaint is about the general state of salaries comparatively. Cherry picking a single player who most people would say is overpaid doesn't make a case for you, does it? And cherry picking a player with a salary that likely isn't even his salary just wastes everyone's time.

 

[Chase Stuart]

And I think we could add as a corollary that highly drafted picks are overpaid compared to lower drafted picks.

I disagree with this.

 

[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?

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?

I think in both scenarios, he would get more than $42 million on the completely open market.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Cherry picking a single player who most people would say is overpaid doesn't make a case for you, does it? And cherry picking a player with a salary that likely isn't even his salary just wastes everyone's time.

Because you need to compare contracts given out in the same year. Comparing Stafford's contract to Brady's is a waste of time, too.How about Kurt Warner, who will be 38 in June, signing a two year contract worth $23 million. Overpaid, underpaid, or just right?

 

[RUSF18]

I'd ask Chase a separate question.

Let's say next year Chase Stuart entered the draft. Kid just completely tore up the NCAA like no one ever before, scouts graded him out to be the highest-rated QBs ever, just a flawless player. He goes #1 overall, signs for 5% more guaranteed money than what Stafford got, and single-handedly not only turns around his franchise, but leads them to a Super Bowl victory. People say that barring injury he will go on to become the greatest QB ever.

The next season, a QB comes along who has the same attributes as Matt Stafford. The Denver Broncos are sitting at #1 and they take the Stafford clone. How much money does Stafford version 2.0 sign for?

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'd ask Chase a separate question.Let's say next year Chase Stuart entered the draft. Kid just completely tore up the NCAA like no one ever before, scouts graded him out to be the highest-rated QBs ever, just a flawless player. He goes #1 overall, signs for 5% more guaranteed money than what Stafford got, and single-handedly not only turns around his franchise, but leads them to a Super Bowl victory. People say that barring injury he will go on to become the greatest QB ever.The next season, a QB comes along who has the same attributes as Matt Stafford. The Denver Broncos are sitting at #1 and they take the Stafford clone. How much money does Stafford version 2.0 sign for?

Probably about 5% more. It sounds like Chase Stuart was drastically underpaid. The Stafford clone will be underpaid, too, although less so.

 

[The Jerk]

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...

While both rookies and veterans are paid on expectations of performance, the veterans are already a much better known quantity while the rookies are projected based on their performance as collegians. I believe the percentage of veterans who sign contracts and then "bust" are lower than that of rookies, specifically in the high salary end. Most of all, veterans who re-sign with their own team appear to be the safest signings of all, as they tend not to be changing systems.I'll save you your knee-jerk reply... No. I have not done a detailed statistical analysis of this opinion -- it is not a fact. That's why I used the words "I believe" in the statement.The larger argument (and personally more relevant) is that the top 5-10 picks of the draft are becoming an albatross to the top teams in terms of salary structure. Literally, less money is available for comparable talent for at least the INITIAL season(s), but the potential impact on team unity could be a problem for some teams, and let's face it, some franchises have weaker locker-room leadership than others.So the mechanism for parity to award weaker teams with better draft position may now be creating an inverse effect on competition.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'd ask Chase a separate question.

Let me ask you one, now.Let's say Detroit can either pay Stafford $42 M, guaranteed, over six years.... or pay him 0 and not get him. Which would be a better option?

 

[RUSF18]

I'd ask Chase a separate question.

Let's say next year Chase Stuart entered the draft. Kid just completely tore up the NCAA like no one ever before, scouts graded him out to be the highest-rated QBs ever, just a flawless player. He goes #1 overall, signs for 5% more guaranteed money than what Stafford got, and single-handedly not only turns around his franchise, but leads them to a Super Bowl victory. People say that barring injury he will go on to become the greatest QB ever.

The next season, a QB comes along who has the same attributes as Matt Stafford. The Denver Broncos are sitting at #1 and they take the Stafford clone. How much money does Stafford version 2.0 sign for?

Probably about 5% more. It sounds like Chase Stuart was drastically underpaid. The Stafford clone will be underpaid, too, although less so.

So the relative ability of the player has nothing to do with how much he should be paid? A guy who is lucky enough to be considered the #1 prospect in a given year will automatically be paid 5% more than a vastly superior player from the year before. You don't have a problem with such a system?edit: And how is the Stafford clone "underpaid"? Because you assume he would be able to get more on the open market? That's the essence of the problem. Very few established players get that amount of guaranteed money, but you feel that EVERY QB drafted in the 1st round should.

I'd ask Chase a separate question.

Let me ask you one, now.Let's say Detroit can either pay Stafford $42 M, guaranteed, over six years.... or pay him 0 and not get him. Which would be a better option?

Given those two options I would take the former and roll the dice. Two to three years from now...Detroit may have wished they took the latter. You're making my point though...they are being forced to pay him $42 million because there is absolutely no negotiation, to a degree. Do you think in hindsight the Bengals would have rather given Akili Smith all that money, or given him nothing and lost his rights? Chargers with Leaf?

 

[GregR_2]

And I think we could add as a corollary that highly drafted picks are overpaid compared to lower drafted picks.

I disagree with this.

So you disagree with the study that found that the best combination of expected player contribution vs contract cost is at the end of the first round, and that the top of the first round was pretty much the very worst place in the draft?Not that I've read the whole thing to say I can sign off on their methodology as being ideal or not, but I've tended to give them the benefit of the doubt on it.

 

[The Jerk]

Cherry picking a single player who most people would say is overpaid doesn't make a case for you, does it? And cherry picking a player with a salary that likely isn't even his salary just wastes everyone's time.

Because you need to compare contracts given out in the same year. Comparing Stafford's contract to Brady's is a waste of time, too.How about Kurt Warner, who will be 38 in June, signing a two year contract worth $23 million. Overpaid, underpaid, or just right?

Not a great example, as there is a 15 or so year gap between player ages, but it's better than the Brady one. I agree that contracts signed years apart or barely relevant unless normalized/indexed to the salary cap of the signing year.I'd like to put a different spin on the question, however. If you were a GM, which deal would you make? For me, I'd much prefer Warner to Stafford except for situations in which my team has no chance to compete for a championship for the next season or two -- as in Detroit. Proven commodity, far less overall money and contract length for Warner. Primary concern is injury, secondary concern of age. Stafford would only appeal to me in a full rebuilding mode, and I would have huge concerns due to the fairly high washout rate for top quarterbacks. While it can be argued it isn't the QBs fault when a Harrington, Akili Smith, Ryan Leaf, etc. fail, it doesn't change the fact that it happened. Sure, this may be a QB thing and not a #1 overall thing, but that's part of the overall argument nonetheless.

 

[roadkill1292]

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?

Finally, to the heart of the matter. Don't you think the answer to this question would vary from year to year depending on the crop of rookies entering the league? I do. Some rookie QBs might command more than they would via their draft position, some less.I see Maurile lurking about this thread. He had some interesting takes on this question last year, IIRC.

 

[GregR_2]

Cherry picking a single player who most people would say is overpaid doesn't make a case for you, does it? And cherry picking a player with a salary that likely isn't even his salary just wastes everyone's time.

Because you need to compare contracts given out in the same year. Comparing Stafford's contract to Brady's is a waste of time, too.How about Kurt Warner, who will be 38 in June, signing a two year contract worth $23 million. Overpaid, underpaid, or just right?

Comparing Stafford's contract to Brady's is not a waste of time, but it needs to be done with some thought. Thought that is also lacking completely from the arguments you have been making if you expect people should be using $15m as a value for Cassel in this kind of comparison.Brady signed a 6 year, $60m contract with what amounted to a $26m signing bonus (if you count the huge first year roster bonus as a signing bonus which seems most appropriate to do for a comparison), in 2005 when the salary cap was $85.5m.The salary cap is now $127m. Prorating his contract forward so it would be the same cap percentage and the bonus is the same percentage of total salary it would be a 2009 6 year, $89m contract with a $38m signing bonus.Even with taking into account the difference in career length left, are you telling me that Stafford's contract compared to Brady's prorated contract suggests Stafford is well valued? If the Jets had the choice of taking Stafford or Brady under either of those contracts, I can't imagine you'd prefer Stafford. In fact I can't imagine that if it were a straight up trade you wouldn't be willing to throw in quite a bit along with Stafford for Brady.Do the same with all the starting QB contracts given out to non-rookies of the last 6 years. Good and bad. Brees, Schaub, Derek Anderson, Chad Pennington, McNair, Delhomme, etc. Do you really think that compared to these that an unproven rookie like Stafford slots in appropriately with the salaries of other players in the league? I don't see how you can make an argument for it. Most of the other QBs can end up being an average NFL QB and still be appropriately priced with the contracts they have. The only way Stafford can be appropriately priced is to be one of the best QBs in the league. For someone even less proven than the other players, that isn't a sign of a good salary.And yes, I think Warner's contract is reasonably appropriate given what he's done on the field and the team's priority with an attempt to cash in on a window for a possible championship. Two things that are completely lacking in Stafford's case.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

What's your take on this question:

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?

I suspect Stafford would get more if he could negotiate with many teams rather than with only one team. Do you disagree?If that's the case, drafted rookies are underpaid compared to veteran free agents.

(Does anybody know how the top rookie UDFAs fare, compensation-wise, compared to the last picks in the 7th round? I don't know the answer.)

The effect of the draft is to keep rookie salaries down. Given the presence of a salary cap (which has a floor as well as a ceiling), the effect is to transfer money from rookies to veterans. (The salary cap itself transfers money from players to owners. But given that the players' share of the money is roughly fixed in a given year, giving teams exclusive rights to individual players transfers money from non-free agents to free agents. Drafted rookies are all non-free agents, while all highly sought after free agents are non-rookies. So the effect is to transfer money from rookies to veterans.)

That's a predictable outcome since the draft (and similar rules) are the result of collective bargaining between the league and the players' union, and the players' union represents its current members in those negotiations better than it represents its future members. Its current members don't necessarily mind transferring money from future rookies to future veterans.

Maybe we think there should be an even bigger transfer of money from rookies to veterans (compared to what players would get on an open market) and in that sense, rookies are overpaid and veterans are underpaid. But if we don't necessarily think there should be a transfer one way or the other (either from rookies to veterans or vice versa), I think it's hard to argue that rookies are currently overpaid.

 

[The Jerk]

Another argument against the efficacy of the rookie salaries being too high is in looking at the most successful teams in the past 5-10 years and examining their draft histories. The Patriots and Steelers have been the most successful franchises this decade. How many top ten picks do they have combined?

In the case of these two franchises, drafting low appears to actually help them, not hurt them, because of the high pick salary penalty that now (to some of us) exists. Give them credit for adapting, and I could easily see both franchises handling the occasional high pick were it necessary, but still, it is interesting to think about.

As a Patriot/Steeler fan, it may appear to be a good thing. As a pro football fan, it's not.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

While both rookies and veterans are paid on expectations of performance, the veterans are already a much better known quantity while the rookies are projected based on their performance as collegians. I believe the percentage of veterans who sign contracts and then "bust" are lower than that of rookies, specifically in the high salary end. Most of all, veterans who re-sign with their own team appear to be the safest signings of all, as they tend not to be changing systems.

This is probably true -- but it works both ways.Rookies are more likely to bust, but they are also more likely to hugely exceed expectations (and thus hugely outplay their contracts).

The larger argument (and personally more relevant) is that the top 5-10 picks of the draft are becoming an albatross to the top teams in terms of salary structure.

And yet the Jets had to give the Browns additional compensation for swapping the #17 for the the #5 -- not the other way around. Why did they think doing so was worthwhile?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Another argument against the efficacy of the rookie salaries being too high is in looking at the most successful teams in the past 5-10 years and examining their draft histories. The Patriots and Steelers have been the most successful franchises this decade. How many top ten picks do they have combined?

In the case of these two franchises, drafting low appears to actually help them, not hurt them, because of the high pick salary penalty that now (to some of us) exists.

This is essentially the Massey & Thaler position that didn't get any support in the pre-draft thread on this topic.

 

[Chase Stuart]

So the mechanism for parity to award weaker teams with better draft position may now be creating an inverse effect on competition.

There's no doubt that parity is hindered by paying top rookies big salaries. But with a salary cap in place, there's a legitimate question about whether or not we need a draft to serve parity.

 

[Chase Stuart]

And I think we could add as a corollary that highly drafted picks are overpaid compared to lower drafted picks.

I disagree with this.

So you disagree with the study that found that the best combination of expected player contribution vs contract cost is at the end of the first round, and that the top of the first round was pretty much the very worst place in the draft?Not that I've read the whole thing to say I can sign off on their methodology as being ideal or not, but I've tended to give them the benefit of the doubt on it.

If you're referring to the Massey-Thaler study, yes, I disagree with it. I don't think it's very good.

 

[The Jerk]

The effect of the draft is to keep rookie salaries down.

Do you think that is true:1. for the top players in any typical draft class2. for all players in a typical draft classMy personal understanding is that with no draft a disproportionate amount of money would go to a small group of rookies while the rest would all get a very small amount. Perhaps this is not that different from what happens via the draft. I believe, however, that the difference would be more severe and that of the 250 or so players typically drafted, the cutoff would probably be less than 50 that would make more than the current arrangement provides, and likely the other 200 would make less.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'd ask Chase a separate question.

Let's say next year Chase Stuart entered the draft. Kid just completely tore up the NCAA like no one ever before, scouts graded him out to be the highest-rated QBs ever, just a flawless player. He goes #1 overall, signs for 5% more guaranteed money than what Stafford got, and single-handedly not only turns around his franchise, but leads them to a Super Bowl victory. People say that barring injury he will go on to become the greatest QB ever.

The next season, a QB comes along who has the same attributes as Matt Stafford. The Denver Broncos are sitting at #1 and they take the Stafford clone. How much money does Stafford version 2.0 sign for?

Probably about 5% more. It sounds like Chase Stuart was drastically underpaid. The Stafford clone will be underpaid, too, although less so.

So the relative ability of the player has nothing to do with how much he should be paid? A guy who is lucky enough to be considered the #1 prospect in a given year will automatically be paid 5% more than a vastly superior player from the year before. You don't have a problem with such a system?edit: And how is the Stafford clone "underpaid"? Because you assume he would be able to get more on the open market? That's the essence of the problem. Very few established players get that amount of guaranteed money, but you feel that EVERY QB drafted in the 1st round should.

I'd ask Chase a separate question.

Let me ask you one, now.Let's say Detroit can either pay Stafford $42 M, guaranteed, over six years.... or pay him 0 and not get him. Which would be a better option?

Given those two options I would take the former and roll the dice. Two to three years from now...Detroit may have wished they took the latter. You're making my point though...they are being forced to pay him $42 million because there is absolutely no negotiation, to a degree. Do you think in hindsight the Bengals would have rather given Akili Smith all that money, or given him nothing and lost his rights? Chargers with Leaf?

1) The relative ability of the player has a lot to do with his salary. But even though Chase Stuart is awesome and deserving of twice of what he'll get, his options are limited.2) If you would choose to take Stafford, is it really a case of him being overpaid?

 

[roadkill1292]

So the mechanism for parity to award weaker teams with better draft position may now be creating an inverse effect on competition.

There's no doubt that parity is hindered by paying top rookies big salaries. But with a salary cap in place, there's a legitimate question about whether or not we need a draft to serve parity.

A huge freaking question.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Cherry picking a single player who most people would say is overpaid doesn't make a case for you, does it? And cherry picking a player with a salary that likely isn't even his salary just wastes everyone's time.

Because you need to compare contracts given out in the same year. Comparing Stafford's contract to Brady's is a waste of time, too.How about Kurt Warner, who will be 38 in June, signing a two year contract worth $23 million. Overpaid, underpaid, or just right?

Comparing Stafford's contract to Brady's is not a waste of time, but it needs to be done with some thought. Thought that is also lacking completely from the arguments you have been making if you expect people should be using $15m as a value for Cassel in this kind of comparison.Brady signed a 6 year, $60m contract with what amounted to a $26m signing bonus (if you count the huge first year roster bonus as a signing bonus which seems most appropriate to do for a comparison), in 2005 when the salary cap was $85.5m.The salary cap is now $127m. Prorating his contract forward so it would be the same cap percentage and the bonus is the same percentage of total salary it would be a 2009 6 year, $89m contract with a $38m signing bonus.Even with taking into account the difference in career length left, are you telling me that Stafford's contract compared to Brady's prorated contract suggests Stafford is well valued? If the Jets had the choice of taking Stafford or Brady under either of those contracts, I can't imagine you'd prefer Stafford. In fact I can't imagine that if it were a straight up trade you wouldn't be willing to throw in quite a bit along with Stafford for Brady.Do the same with all the starting QB contracts given out to non-rookies of the last 6 years. Good and bad. Brees, Schaub, Derek Anderson, Chad Pennington, McNair, Delhomme, etc. Do you really think that compared to these that an unproven rookie like Stafford slots in appropriately with the salaries of other players in the league? I don't see how you can make an argument for it. Most of the other QBs can end up being an average NFL QB and still be appropriately priced with the contracts they have. The only way Stafford can be appropriately priced is to be one of the best QBs in the league. For someone even less proven than the other players, that isn't a sign of a good salary.And yes, I think Warner's contract is reasonably appropriate given what he's done on the field and the team's priority with an attempt to cash in on a window for a possible championship. Two things that are completely lacking in Stafford's case.

Brady was not a free agent. So I think analyzing his contract is a red herring. Do you not think he would have made more on the open market?If Tom Brady was a free agent today, even coming off his ACL year, he would certainly get more than $42M guaranteed for 6 years from a number of teams.

 

[GregR_2]

...

I suspect Stafford would get more if he could negotiate with many teams rather than with only one team. Do you disagree?

Trying to reply to multiple comments in a post, the limit on quote blocks sure is a pain...I disagree though I do not think it is clearcut. There has been gradual inflation of the salaries of the top picks over the last 15 or so years to where I think they are overpriced compared to what they would gather as rookie free agents.

While Stafford could negotiate with more than one team which helps his bargaining position, the teams he's talking to can also negotiate with any other rookie QB as well which hurts his bargaining position. If this takes place simultaneously with veteran free agency that could also hurt him as well.

Compare some free agent QB signings with the high pick rookie QBs signed that year, and then add in this raise you are saying you think they would get if they were FAs and not a draft, and ask yourself which you think would be the better value. I think in most cases the vet would be the better value even before you add in your supposed raise.

So no, I don't think they would get a raise, I think the contract of a #1 overall QB very likely would drop.

If that's the case, drafted rookies are underpaid compared to veteran free agents.

(Does anybody know how the top rookie UDFAs fare, compensation-wise, compared to the last picks in the 7th round? I don't know the answer.)

Did a couple of googles and didn't find a solid answer in the time I was willing to devote to it. But I imagine both make the minimum so probably not much better.

The effect of the draft is to keep rookie salaries down. Given the presence of a salary cap (which has a floor as well as a ceiling), the effect is to transfer money from rookies to veterans. (The salary cap itself transfers money from players to owners. But given that the players' share of the money is roughly fixed in a given year, giving teams exclusive rights to individual players transfers money from non-free agents to free agents. Drafted rookies are all non-free agents, while all highly sought after free agents are non-rookies. So the effect is to transfer money from rookies to veterans.)

That's a predictable outcome since the draft (and similar rules) are the result of collective bargaining between the league and the players' union, and the players' union represents its current members in those negotiations better than it represents its future members. Its current members don't necessarily mind transferring money from future rookies to future veterans.

Maybe we think there should be an even bigger transfer of money from rookies to veterans (compared to what players would get on an open market) and in that sense, rookies are overpaid and veterans are underpaid. But if we don't necessarily think there should be a transfer one way or the other (either from rookies to veterans or vice versa), I think it's hard to argue that rookies are currently overpaid.

I don't think the most accurate statement is that the rookies are overpaid, it is that the top drafted rookies are overpaid. You often get a marginally better player at the top of the round for double or triple the salary of a player later in the round. The individual draft class varies... this year there was a huge drop off at QB so isn't the case there so much, while LB and DE were deeper and the top players at those position probably are not good values.I know Chase always angles his arguments to try to get people to support abolishing the draft. Really the problem is that the top players contracts are either too large comparatively, or that not enough of those large contracts is tied to performance. I've got no problem with Stafford having his contract if the incentive portion of it is much larger (and probably the signing bonus smaller), so that if he turns out to be an average QB (which is probably the more likely outcome than that he is a stud QB), his contract is not extremely out of whack with his performance.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Brady signed a 6 year, $60m contract with what amounted to a $26m signing bonus (if you count the huge first year roster bonus as a signing bonus which seems most appropriate to do for a comparison), in 2005 when the salary cap was $85.5m.

A lot of people think Brady could have gotten more even without becoming a free agent.Nonetheless, part of why he didn't get more is that he didn't wait to become a free agent. He signed an extension before his rookie contract was up. His rookie contract was for very little money (rookies are underpaid!! ), and he had to sacrifice some money down the road as part of the cost of getting out of that low contract when he did.

(Brees did become a free agent, but he was negotiating his current deal with a bum shoulder that nobody was sure would heal.)

 

[The Jerk]

While both rookies and veterans are paid on expectations of performance, the veterans are already a much better known quantity while the rookies are projected based on their performance as collegians. I believe the percentage of veterans who sign contracts and then "bust" are lower than that of rookies, specifically in the high salary end. Most of all, veterans who re-sign with their own team appear to be the safest signings of all, as they tend not to be changing systems.

This is probably true -- but it works both ways.Rookies are more likely to bust, but they are also more likely to hugely exceed expectations (and thus hugely outplay their contracts).

The larger argument (and personally more relevant) is that the top 5-10 picks of the draft are becoming an albatross to the top teams in terms of salary structure.

And yet the Jets had to give the Browns additional compensation for swapping the #17 for the the #5 -- not the other way around. Why did they think doing so was worthwhile?

Personally, I think the number of busts far outnumbers the number of rookie "sensations" that occur, especially when you factor in the average production of similarly salaried veterans, but I can see your point.As for the Jets, I feel they overpaid for Sanchez because they want to win right now, and it has as much to do with the economy and need to raise their profile with a new stadium and seeking to escape from the Giant shadow in which they exist (pun intended), as it does with the impatience that many teams exhibit toward building a championship team. For me, it was a move that smacked more of desperation than inspiration. And it comes on the heels of three recent successful rookies (Ryan, Flacco, Ben) after two decades of that same phenomenon never occurring.

 

[roadkill1292]

The effect of the draft is to keep rookie salaries down.

Do you think that is true:1. for the top players in any typical draft class

2. for all players in a typical draft class

My personal understanding is that with no draft a disproportionate amount of money would go to a small group of rookies while the rest would all get a very small amount. Perhaps this is not that different from what happens via the draft. I believe, however, that the difference would be more severe and that of the 250 or so players typically drafted, the cutoff would probably be less than 50 that would make more than the current arrangement provides, and likely the other 200 would make less.

That might be the result. What would your reasons be for reaching this conclusion? Lots of factors go into an open market situation and I think the results would be different every year, depending on the rookie class.Where I disagree slightly with MT (and maybe with Chase, too) is that I think sometimes the top picks would be offered less on the open market than they are as a top draft pick. There are artificial pressures involved in negotiations with a team's No. 1 pick. For example, Peyton Manning's signing price may have been substantially higher had there been no draft but Alex Smith's lower.

 

[RUSF18]

Agree in the too many quotes being annoying.

1) The relative ability of the player has a lot to do with his salary. But even though Chase Stuart is awesome and deserving of twice of what he'll get, his options are limited.

2) If you would choose to take Stafford, is it really a case of him being overpaid?

You presented me with two options, I took one of them. I, and others, are arguing for what we believe to be a fairer valuation of these players, which is a contract somewhere in the middle. You obviously disagree and think that if the draft was abolished, Stafford would get even more than $42 million even if last year Matt Ryan just got $13 million. I think that's ridiculous, but that's your opinion.You didn't answer my question, which is the corollary to what you asked me: Knowing what we know now, should the Bengals have given Akili Smith all that money, or not signed him at all?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The effect of the draft is to keep rookie salaries down.

Do you think that is true:1. for the top players in any typical draft class2. for all players in a typical draft classMy personal understanding is that with no draft a disproportionate amount of money would go to a small group of rookies while the rest would all get a very small amount. Perhaps this is not that different from what happens via the draft. I believe, however, that the difference would be more severe and that of the 250 or so players typically drafted, the cutoff would probably be less than 50 that would make more than the current arrangement provides, and likely the other 200 would make less.

I think the top players are affected less than the rest of the players.And w/r/t the third and fourth rounders (i.e., the rest of the players), I think the draft limits their pay a lot less through what they initially sign for than through the length of their first contract. On an open market, I'd expect to see players able to negotiate a lot more two- or three-year deals. Under the current system, you see a lot of five- and even six-year deals. That really limits the ability of players who outperform initial expectations to cash in as much as they otherwise would.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Another argument against the efficacy of the rookie salaries being too high is in looking at the most successful teams in the past 5-10 years and examining their draft histories. The Patriots and Steelers have been the most successful franchises this decade. How many top ten picks do they have combined?In the case of these two franchises, drafting low appears to actually help them, not hurt them, because of the high pick salary penalty that now (to some of us) exists. Give them credit for adapting, and I could easily see both franchises handling the occasional high pick were it necessary, but still, it is interesting to think about.As a Patriot/Steeler fan, it may appear to be a good thing. As a pro football fan, it's not.

I think the fact that those teams are successful is the reason they haven't had top ten picks. I would think that would be obvious, since teams with good records are always going to pick later in the draft. Teams that are consistently good will consistently pick later in the draft.As for your other point, look at the 2007 Browns. Do you think it was Joe Thomas, Kellen Winslow and Braylon Edwards that were eating up most of the cap, since they were early highly paid picks. In reality, the top cap numbers belonged to guys like Willie McGinest, Gary Baxter, and LeCharles Bentley. If there's a rookie cap, GMs will just spend more on aging, overpriced free agents. For some people, that's fine. I just don't get why we'd actively want to see that, when NFL players peak in their mid-20s.

 

[Jason Wood]

Cherry picking a single player who most people would say is overpaid doesn't make a case for you, does it? And cherry picking a player with a salary that likely isn't even his salary just wastes everyone's time.

Because you need to compare contracts given out in the same year. Comparing Stafford's contract to Brady's is a waste of time, too.How about Kurt Warner, who will be 38 in June, signing a two year contract worth $23 million. Overpaid, underpaid, or just right?

Or how about Kerry Collins [KERRY FRIGGIN COLLINS] getting $15mm over two years, with $8.5mm guaranteed this year, or Jake Delhomme getting $20mm more in guarantees this offseason.

 

[The Jerk]

The effect of the draft is to keep rookie salaries down.

Do you think that is true:1. for the top players in any typical draft class

2. for all players in a typical draft class

My personal understanding is that with no draft a disproportionate amount of money would go to a small group of rookies while the rest would all get a very small amount. Perhaps this is not that different from what happens via the draft. I believe, however, that the difference would be more severe and that of the 250 or so players typically drafted, the cutoff would probably be less than 50 that would make more than the current arrangement provides, and likely the other 200 would make less.

That might be the result. What would your reasons be for reaching this conclusion? Lots of factors go into an open market situation and I think the results would be different every year, depending on the rookie class.Where I disagree slightly with MT (and maybe with Chase, too) is that I think sometimes the top picks would be offered less on the open market than they are as a top draft pick. There are artificial pressures involved in negotiations with a team's No. 1 pick. For example, Peyton Manning's signing price may have been substantially higher had there been no draft but Alex Smith's lower.

My ego is not high enough to pretend my belief is extensively researched... it's more of a gut instinct formed from years of veteran free agent signings in all sports but of course mostly football.As for abolishing the draft, my feeling there is that without extensive additional simultaneous changes (and maybe even with them), the NFL would become the MLB in less than a decade. Eight teams or so dominate and make the playoffs every year, a dozen others must do everything right just to compete for a two-or-three year stretch, and the other dozen are glorified minor league franchises.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Compare some free agent QB signings with the high pick rookie QBs signed that year, and then add in this raise you are saying you think they would get if they were FAs and not a draft, and ask yourself which you think would be the better value. I think in most cases the vet would be the better value even before you add in your supposed raise.

This is the crux of the argument. It's not about finding value, it's about winning. "Value" is something economists throw out, like Massey and Thaler. But it's not value that wins games, it's talent. If you went up and down the list of every contract at every position, no doubt the most "valuable" players would never be the top paid players at their position. Always finding value is a way to go 9-7, miss the playoffs and spend 60% of the cap.But if you're a team that wants to win the Super Bowl, or you're a team that wants to spend 100% of the cap (and this is something we, as fans, should promote), then finding value with every contract is *not* the way to go. There are a finite number of roster spots in the NFL. This isn't like grocery shopping or car shopping, where buying the best value means you'll be able to drink more alcohol that night or put a larger down payment on your house. There are 53 players to be paid. Some will be good values. Some will be bad values. If you're trying to be the best team, though, you're going to need to spend 100% of your cap and take some guys who are not "value" picks. Because those guys will help you win, even if they're not value plays.

It's very similar to fantasy auctions. http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2008/0...fectauction.php

Adrian Peterson's average value was $71. Fred Taylor's average value was $9. Now no one thinks Peterson is 8x as "good" as Taylor; once you understand why Peterson costs $71, you understand why Stafford is worth a boatload, and why you can't always find good value. You need to spend the money on a finite number of spots.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Agree in the too many quotes being annoying.

1) The relative ability of the player has a lot to do with his salary. But even though Chase Stuart is awesome and deserving of twice of what he'll get, his options are limited.

2) If you would choose to take Stafford, is it really a case of him being overpaid?

You presented me with two options, I took one of them. I, and others, are arguing for what we believe to be a fairer valuation of these players, which is a contract somewhere in the middle. You obviously disagree and think that if the draft was abolished, Stafford would get even more than $42 million even if last year Matt Ryan just got $13 million. I think that's ridiculous, but that's your opinion.You didn't answer my question, which is the corollary to what you asked me: Knowing what we know now, should the Bengals have given Akili Smith all that money, or not signed him at all?

Do you commonly overpay for things? Why would you pay for something that isn't worth what you're paying?(Obviously the Bengals should not have signed Akili Smith.)

 

[ookook]

Not to be pedantic or anything, but I am not sure the top rookie salary as a function of the salary cap is very relevant.

As a function of inflation, perhaps.

But few people expressing outrage even know the cap. It is the absolute amount that offends them. And that is going up.

I would very much like something similar to what the NBA does.

 

[The Jerk]

I think the fact that those teams are successful is the reason they haven't had top ten picks.

Obviously. However, these franchises have extended their window of championship opportunity far longer than most franchises in recent NFL history. Part of it is they "figured it out" but part of it in my opinion is the added burden placed on weaker teams due to inflated top 10 draft pick salaries.The Steelers have had exactly three losing seasons in 17 years, and have made the playoffs in 12 of those seasons. Yet far from being at the end of their run, they remain in the top group of contenders for the next few seasons.To be clear, it's not just rookie salaries making it happen, but I'm suggesting that the advantage of drafting high as been mitigated to a meaningful extent, and in a league where everything is so close competitively, that affects the cycling of power that has occurred with very little exception for the past three or four decades in the NFL.

 

[The Jerk]

As for your other point, look at the 2007 Browns. Do you think it was Joe Thomas, Kellen Winslow and Braylon Edwards that were eating up most of the cap, since they were early highly paid picks. In reality, the top cap numbers belonged to guys like Willie McGinest, Gary Baxter, and LeCharles Bentley. If there's a rookie cap, GMs will just spend more on aging, overpriced free agents. For some people, that's fine. I just don't get why we'd actively want to see that, when NFL players peak in their mid-20s.

Phil Savage's current employment status speaks to the fact you describe above. (Yes, it's more than just that, but I'm keeping it short.)

 

[roadkill1292]

The effect of the draft is to keep rookie salaries down.

Do you think that is true:1. for the top players in any typical draft class

2. for all players in a typical draft class

My personal understanding is that with no draft a disproportionate amount of money would go to a small group of rookies while the rest would all get a very small amount. Perhaps this is not that different from what happens via the draft. I believe, however, that the difference would be more severe and that of the 250 or so players typically drafted, the cutoff would probably be less than 50 that would make more than the current arrangement provides, and likely the other 200 would make less.

That might be the result. What would your reasons be for reaching this conclusion? Lots of factors go into an open market situation and I think the results would be different every year, depending on the rookie class.Where I disagree slightly with MT (and maybe with Chase, too) is that I think sometimes the top picks would be offered less on the open market than they are as a top draft pick. There are artificial pressures involved in negotiations with a team's No. 1 pick. For example, Peyton Manning's signing price may have been substantially higher had there been no draft but Alex Smith's lower.

My ego is not high enough to pretend my belief is extensively researched... it's more of a gut instinct formed from years of veteran free agent signings in all sports but of course mostly football.As for abolishing the draft, my feeling there is that without extensive additional simultaneous changes (and maybe even with them), the NFL would become the MLB in less than a decade. Eight teams or so dominate and make the playoffs every year, a dozen others must do everything right just to compete for a two-or-three year stretch, and the other dozen are glorified minor league franchises.

Gut instincts are fine by me, gb. I was just hoping to hear your argument fleshed out a little more 'cuz it was an interesting conclusion.However, I don't agree with your scenario if the draft was abolished. The salary cap is the great evener. And if it isn't, and promotes disparity instead, then I'm cool with that, too.

 

[RUSF18]

Agree in the too many quotes being annoying.

1) The relative ability of the player has a lot to do with his salary. But even though Chase Stuart is awesome and deserving of twice of what he'll get, his options are limited.

2) If you would choose to take Stafford, is it really a case of him being overpaid?

You presented me with two options, I took one of them. I, and others, are arguing for what we believe to be a fairer valuation of these players, which is a contract somewhere in the middle. You obviously disagree and think that if the draft was abolished, Stafford would get even more than $42 million even if last year Matt Ryan just got $13 million. I think that's ridiculous, but that's your opinion.You didn't answer my question, which is the corollary to what you asked me: Knowing what we know now, should the Bengals have given Akili Smith all that money, or not signed him at all?

Do you commonly overpay for things? Why would you pay for something that isn't worth what you're paying?(Obviously the Bengals should not have signed Akili Smith.)

If you were starving and I had an oreo, would you give me $1000 for it? We've clearly come full circle. My point is that the way the system is set up now, the #1 pick will basically automatically receive a 5% raise over the prior pick. You've admitted you feel that this would be the case even if the second guy is nowhere near the same in terms of ability. That, to me, is where the system is broken. The Lions had two choices -- give Stafford his bump, or deal with the potential holdout and the more scary potential of him not signing. There is no "market" at play here, Stafford would not take less than what Ryan got last year even if he was 1/10th the player.

Think I'm done here. I respect your opinion, just don't feel the same way. No need to continue going in circles.

 

[The Jerk]

Compare some free agent QB signings with the high pick rookie QBs signed that year, and then add in this raise you are saying you think they would get if they were FAs and not a draft, and ask yourself which you think would be the better value. I think in most cases the vet would be the better value even before you add in your supposed raise.

This is the crux of the argument. It's not about finding value, it's about winning. "Value" is something economists throw out, like Massey and Thaler. But it's not value that wins games, it's talent. If you went up and down the list of every contract at every position, no doubt the most "valuable" players would never be the top paid players at their position. Always finding value is a way to go 9-7, miss the playoffs and spend 60% of the cap.But if you're a team that wants to win the Super Bowl, or you're a team that wants to spend 100% of the cap (and this is something we, as fans, should promote), then finding value with every contract is *not* the way to go. There are a finite number of roster spots in the NFL. This isn't like grocery shopping or car shopping, where buying the best value means you'll be able to drink more alcohol that night or put a larger down payment on your house. There are 53 players to be paid. Some will be good values. Some will be bad values. If you're trying to be the best team, though, you're going to need to spend 100% of your cap and take some guys who are not "value" picks. Because those guys will help you win, even if they're not value plays.

It's very similar to fantasy auctions. http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2008/0...fectauction.php

Adrian Peterson's average value was $71. Fred Taylor's average value was $9. Now no one thinks Peterson is 8x as "good" as Taylor; once you understand why Peterson costs $71, you understand why Stafford is worth a boatload, and why you can't always find good value. You need to spend the money on a finite number of spots.

I agree with most of your overall argument, but I disagree about the Matthew Stafford part. Stafford only MAY be worth a boatload. Paying him as if he is already a top 5 QB in the league means that the best-case scenario for Detroit is that he is not a huge disappointment in terms of value. I agree with the "paying stars" a premium above and beyond value philosophy; however, I can't agree with similarly overpaying the unproven rookie via a huge "value" premium based purely on potential. For example, it can be argued Roethlisberger's contract is not value, but he signed it when he was already a proven entity. The comparison doesn't fit for Stafford.

 

[The Jerk]

The effect of the draft is to keep rookie salaries down.

Do you think that is true:1. for the top players in any typical draft class

2. for all players in a typical draft class

My personal understanding is that with no draft a disproportionate amount of money would go to a small group of rookies while the rest would all get a very small amount. Perhaps this is not that different from what happens via the draft. I believe, however, that the difference would be more severe and that of the 250 or so players typically drafted, the cutoff would probably be less than 50 that would make more than the current arrangement provides, and likely the other 200 would make less.

That might be the result. What would your reasons be for reaching this conclusion? Lots of factors go into an open market situation and I think the results would be different every year, depending on the rookie class.Where I disagree slightly with MT (and maybe with Chase, too) is that I think sometimes the top picks would be offered less on the open market than they are as a top draft pick. There are artificial pressures involved in negotiations with a team's No. 1 pick. For example, Peyton Manning's signing price may have been substantially higher had there been no draft but Alex Smith's lower.

My ego is not high enough to pretend my belief is extensively researched... it's more of a gut instinct formed from years of veteran free agent signings in all sports but of course mostly football.As for abolishing the draft, my feeling there is that without extensive additional simultaneous changes (and maybe even with them), the NFL would become the MLB in less than a decade. Eight teams or so dominate and make the playoffs every year, a dozen others must do everything right just to compete for a two-or-three year stretch, and the other dozen are glorified minor league franchises.

Gut instincts are fine by me, gb. I was just hoping to hear your argument fleshed out a little more 'cuz it was an interesting conclusion.However, I don't agree with your scenario if the draft was abolished. The salary cap is the great evener. And if it isn't, and promotes disparity instead, then I'm cool with that, too.

Roadkill, I somehow missed the salary cap still in effect part. Clearly much different than MLB. I'm an idiot.

 

[GregR_2]

Compare some free agent QB signings with the high pick rookie QBs signed that year, and then add in this raise you are saying you think they would get if they were FAs and not a draft, and ask yourself which you think would be the better value. I think in most cases the vet would be the better value even before you add in your supposed raise.

This is the crux of the argument. It's not about finding value, it's about winning. "Value" is something economists throw out, like Massey and Thaler. But it's not value that wins games, it's talent. If you went up and down the list of every contract at every position, no doubt the most "valuable" players would never be the top paid players at their position. Always finding value is a way to go 9-7, miss the playoffs and spend 60% of the cap.But if you're a team that wants to win the Super Bowl, or you're a team that wants to spend 100% of the cap (and this is something we, as fans, should promote), then finding value with every contract is *not* the way to go. There are a finite number of roster spots in the NFL. This isn't like grocery shopping or car shopping, where buying the best value means you'll be able to drink more alcohol that night or put a larger down payment on your house. There are 53 players to be paid. Some will be good values. Some will be bad values. If you're trying to be the best team, though, you're going to need to spend 100% of your cap and take some guys who are not "value" picks. Because those guys will help you win, even if they're not value plays.

It's very similar to fantasy auctions. http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2008/0...fectauction.php

Adrian Peterson's average value was $71. Fred Taylor's average value was $9. Now no one thinks Peterson is 8x as "good" as Taylor; once you understand why Peterson costs $71, you understand why Stafford is worth a boatload, and why you can't always find good value. You need to spend the money on a finite number of spots.

How is this an argument against that the top picks shouldn't receive so much money without living up to it? Can't Stafford be given a contract where if he's one of those high talent guys he gets his $78m, but if he's not one of them he gets paid something not ludicrously out of whack what what his talent actually turns out to be?Not saying a whole contract needs to be incentive. But Stafford isn't as good of a prospect that he deserves to be paid like Peyton or Eli or Palmer were just because they were all taken with the same pick when those guys were better prospects as NFL QBs. And I'm not talking just about guys who were successful, I'll throw Ryan Leaf in there. If the perception is that Ryan Leaf in year X is a better QB prospect than Stafford in year Y, then Leaf should have a higher comparative base contract when you adjust for the change in years. But both should have a large enough portion of the contracts be incentive based that when Leaf self-destructs his pay goes through a commensurate adjustment... and if Stafford is the 2nd coming of Montana, his contract reflects it in some fashion too.

 

[The Jerk]

Why would you pay for something that isn't worth what you're paying?

Not directed toward me, but...half a dozen teams in each major sport do this annually in free agency.I suppose the reasons vary from bad scouting to poor cap management to hoping to gain fan interest or sheer impatience. However, there is a difference when it comes to the draft because it is systematic overpayment in which owners have very little choice other than not signing the player, which is prohibitively damaging to team performance. Owners can set their ceiling in free agency -- the player signs or he doesn't. It's not the same dynamic with drafted players.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Let me use a fantasy auction as an example, because there are only 20 players instead of 53. But the same rules apply.

There are 20 players, but only 9 starters. And of those 9 starters, only 6 are at key positions. So you can already see some skewing.

Generally, you want to use about 75% of your cap on your starters. So that's $150 on the 9 starters. Usually you spend only a buck or two on K and D starters, so that leaves $147 for the other seven starters. To further save time, let's just say you'll spend $10 on your starting TE, which is what the average fantasy player does and is slightly higher than what the median fantasy player does.

That leaves $137 for your QB, RB, RB, WR, WR and WR.

What is the best way to maximize your talent? Consider these WRs with these projections and these average costs in auctions.

QB1 61 359QB2 38 318QB3 36 314QB4 29 307QB5 19 285QB6 18 280QB7 14 268QB8 14 267QB9 12 263QB10 11 260QB11 9 256QB12 8 256QB13 8 254QB14 6 250QB15 5 250QB16 5 248QB17 5 245QB18 4 245QB19 3 242QB20 3 240QB21 2 237QB22 1 229QB23 1 220QB24 1 216RB1 73 299RB2 69 249RB3 66 247RB4 58 234RB5 56 224RB6 54 221RB7 50 214RB8 48 214RB9 46 212RB10 43 209RB11 37 198RB12 33 195RB13 28 187RB14 26 185RB15 24 181RB16 23 177RB17 21 171RB18 20 170RB19 20 169RB20 19 168RB21 18 165RB22 17 160RB23 16 159RB24 15 157RB25 13 146RB26 12 146RB27 12 145RB28 10 140RB29 10 139RB30 7 135RB31 6 133RB32 6 132RB33 4 125RB34 2 118RB35 2 116RB36 1 108RB37 1 108RB38 1 108RB39 1 107RB40 1 103RB41 1 99RB42 1 99RB43 1 94RB44 1 94RB45 1 87RB46 1 87RB47 1 80RB48 1 76WR1 63 222WR2 52 198WR3 44 190WR4 41 187WR5 40 187WR6 35 174WR7 32 173WR8 31 170WR9 30 167WR10 28 164WR11 27 164WR12 25 163WR13 24 161WR14 24 157WR15 23 155WR16 22 152WR17 22 150WR18 19 145WR19 18 143WR20 18 142WR21 17 140WR22 16 138WR23 16 137WR24 16 136WR25 15 131WR26 14 126WR27 13 125WR28 12 121WR29 11 119WR30 10 119WR31 9 117WR32 7 114WR33 6 111WR34 5 110WR35 5 108WR36 5 106WR37 3 102WR38 3 98WR39 2 97WR40 2 95WR41 2 94WR42 2 92WR43 2 91WR44 2 91WR45 2 91WR46 2 91WR47 1 90WR48 1 88WR49 1 87WR50 1 84WR51 1 83WR52 1 83WR53 1 81WR54 1 81WR55 1 80WR56 1 79WR57 1 77WR58 1 75WR59 1 74WR60 1 74WR61 1 71WR62 1 71WR63 1 70WR64 1 69WR65 1 66WR66 1 66WR67 1 66WR68 1 65WR69 1 65WR70 1 64Note that QB1 costs more than double what QB4 does, for only 17% more production. Is QB1 worth that? QB11 projects to be 71% as good for only 14% of the cost. Despite these results, there's nothing wrong with the fantasy auction market. It understands the value of players.Pairing up WR13-15, RB15-16 and QB5 gives you $137 and 1114 points. Now QB5 might look "overpaid" compared to say, QB11, but teams need to spend that money. To get RB1 and RB11, you have to settle for QB11 and WR32-34. RB1 might seem crazy overpriced, but that quintet is still $138 and gets you 1087 points.

 

[Chase Stuart]

If you were starving and I had an oreo, would you give me $1000 for it? We've clearly come full circle. My point is that the way the system is set up now, the #1 pick will basically automatically receive a 5% raise over the prior pick. You've admitted you feel that this would be the case even if the second guy is nowhere near the same in terms of ability. That, to me, is where the system is broken. The Lions had two choices -- give Stafford his bump, or deal with the potential holdout and the more scary potential of him not signing. There is no "market" at play here, Stafford would not take less than what Ryan got last year even if he was 1/10th the player. Think I'm done here. I respect your opinion, just don't feel the same way. No need to continue going in circles.

You're twisting my words.The market gives the automatic 5% is not a sign that the system is messed up -- it's simply the best the rookies could do. They're currently underpaid -- they're being paid below market. Every year, they get a small bump, but it's still below market. That does not mean they're overpaid even if they get a bump and are not better than the prior year's player. As for your oreo example, there is no duress here. The Lions could have signed Kurt Warner, or Kerry Collins, or traded for Matt Cassel. They chose to take Stafford.(It's also unrealistic to say that a #1 pick would be 1/10th the player of anyone.)

 

[Chase Stuart]

Compare some free agent QB signings with the high pick rookie QBs signed that year, and then add in this raise you are saying you think they would get if they were FAs and not a draft, and ask yourself which you think would be the better value. I think in most cases the vet would be the better value even before you add in your supposed raise.

This is the crux of the argument. It's not about finding value, it's about winning. "Value" is something economists throw out, like Massey and Thaler. But it's not value that wins games, it's talent. If you went up and down the list of every contract at every position, no doubt the most "valuable" players would never be the top paid players at their position. Always finding value is a way to go 9-7, miss the playoffs and spend 60% of the cap.But if you're a team that wants to win the Super Bowl, or you're a team that wants to spend 100% of the cap (and this is something we, as fans, should promote), then finding value with every contract is *not* the way to go. There are a finite number of roster spots in the NFL. This isn't like grocery shopping or car shopping, where buying the best value means you'll be able to drink more alcohol that night or put a larger down payment on your house. There are 53 players to be paid. Some will be good values. Some will be bad values. If you're trying to be the best team, though, you're going to need to spend 100% of your cap and take some guys who are not "value" picks. Because those guys will help you win, even if they're not value plays.

It's very similar to fantasy auctions. http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2008/0...fectauction.php

Adrian Peterson's average value was $71. Fred Taylor's average value was $9. Now no one thinks Peterson is 8x as "good" as Taylor; once you understand why Peterson costs $71, you understand why Stafford is worth a boatload, and why you can't always find good value. You need to spend the money on a finite number of spots.

How is this an argument against that the top picks shouldn't receive so much money without living up to it? Can't Stafford be given a contract where if he's one of those high talent guys he gets his $78m, but if he's not one of them he gets paid something not ludicrously out of whack what what his talent actually turns out to be?Not saying a whole contract needs to be incentive. But Stafford isn't as good of a prospect that he deserves to be paid like Peyton or Eli or Palmer were just because they were all taken with the same pick when those guys were better prospects as NFL QBs. And I'm not talking just about guys who were successful, I'll throw Ryan Leaf in there. If the perception is that Ryan Leaf in year X is a better QB prospect than Stafford in year Y, then Leaf should have a higher comparative base contract when you adjust for the change in years. But both should have a large enough portion of the contracts be incentive based that when Leaf self-destructs his pay goes through a commensurate adjustment... and if Stafford is the 2nd coming of Montana, his contract reflects it in some fashion too.

For starters, I don't agree that Stafford isn't the prospect that Eli Manning or Carson Palmer was. If there was no draft, then your wish would be answered. It's just that Peyton would have signed for 80% more than he did, Palmer for 20% more, Stafford for 20% more, and Alex Smith for only 5% more. Or something like that.More importantly, teams are free to sign incentive laden contracts if they want. But would you sign a contract with your company that says you get paid 50% of your salary if you stink and 200% of your salary if you're great? I think that strategy would dissuade a lot of people.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Why would you pay for something that isn't worth what you're paying?

Not directed toward me, but...half a dozen teams in each major sport do this annually in free agency.I suppose the reasons vary from bad scouting to poor cap management to hoping to gain fan interest or sheer impatience. However, there is a difference when it comes to the draft because it is systematic overpayment in which owners have very little choice other than not signing the player, which is prohibitively damaging to team performance. Owners can set their ceiling in free agency -- the player signs or he doesn't. It's not the same dynamic with drafted players.

Teams spend the money because they have it. It's as simple as that. They have to overspend on veterans, because they aren't allowed to sign good players that are retained and they're not allowed to sign all the good rookies. There's a draft for that .

 

[coolnerd]

On the bonus amount of UDFAs from draftdaddy.com

While #1 overall pick Matt Stafford received a reported $41.7 million in signing bonus money from the Detroit Lions, ever wonder how much a undrafted free agent can expect to get?**The majority of undrafted rookies get signing bonuses of between $1,000 and $25,000. While prospects getting a bonus of $1,000 (or less) is very common, $25,000 prospects are extremely rare. Using all our sources, we could only confirm that former L.S.U. defensive lineman Marlon Favorite (Carolina Panthers) has received a $25,000 bonus this spring. **We'd figure $6,000 to $7,500 is the "average signing bonus" for an undrafted prospect, in the current market, but it can vary per team. The New York Jets, for example, almost never dole out more than $2,000 per undrafted prospect, while teams like the Vikings, Panthers, Colts and Broncos tend to be more generous with signing bonuses, hoping they can snare a future contributor by giving a draftable kid what amounts to "chump change" in the modern day N.F.L. For instance, Colts' star Peyton Manning made $18,704,320 last season (over $1 million per game) for being the leader and face of the Indianapolis based franchise. Meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum, a undrafted rookie (Danny Woodhead) that impressed the Jets enough to be placed on injured reserve last season made $200,666 without suiting up for a game or practice. **Signing bonuses of $10,000 to $15,000 are fairly common (about 20% of U.F.A.'s get this), but anything over $16,000 is also rare. The 20,000 and above range is even more rare. As we mentioned, Favorite secured $25,000 from Carolina. And, according to the people we've talked to, only a handful have got $20,000 or more. The short list includes safety Colt Anderson of the Minnesota Vikings and quarterback Hunter Cantwell of the Carolina Panthers.

I believe (no link) that 7th rounder last year received bonuses around $33,000. Couple of things to note. The draft picks also sign multiple year contracts, while most UFDA sign a single year deal. In both cases, these contracts are normally for scale (whatever the minimium salary is for service time). Once either one these contract expires (3 years or less total NFL service), the player becomes an Exclusive Right Free Agent (ERFA). While some what limited because no can bid for his services, the UDFA who far exceeds his value can negoiate for a better than if he were drafted. Cases I remember of the top of my head include Antonio Gates and Ryan Grant.

 

[GregR_2]

...For starters, I don't agree that Stafford isn't the prospect that Eli Manning or Carson Palmer was.More importantly, teams are free to sign incentive laden contracts if they want. But would you sign a contract with your company that says you get paid 50% of your salary if you stink and 200% of your salary if you're great? I think that strategy would dissuade a lot of people.

No, they aren't free to do so. The player has to agree to the contract too.Regardless of whether the previous year's player was under paid, well paid, or over paid, few players are going to accept going from the contract that paid them like a high performing vet regardless of performance for one that requires the performance. They are getting asked to give something up to take a contract like that, and will want something commensurate in return. But their contracts are already high end enough there isn't a lot of room to add to the top end and have the player feel they are likely to ever see that money since it would be up close to uber stud level of performance needed to reach it. Why would they agree to such a contract when the existing system was better for them? They wouldn't.Edit to add: Also, I don't think your example is very appropriate. You're talking about the salary as if there is some number that is appropriate and I'm making more or less than it. I'm saying the contract is paying them the appropriate salary that others doing the same job are getting for the same performance level. There's no "I'm getting paid half my salary!" it is "I'm performing at this level and getting paid what people normally get paid for it."I know what you want, to abolish the draft. You never focus on the fact that increasing the incentives for players can cut both ways, it can pay the rookies who are underpaid (and they are not the guys at the top of the list) closer to what they deserve to be paid. You use that as your justification for getting rid of the draft, yet reject a plan that accomplishes the same thing just because it still includes a draft.