Veterans and Owners need to take a stand... (1 Viewer)

[uconnalum]

I will have Issues from being bored out of my wits on Sundays and withdrawals from Fantasy Football but the Owners and Veterans need to make a stand and possibly kill a season of football in 2012. They need to institute a rookie salary cap because it is a bit ridiculous that an unproven player in the League is making more than Tom Brady, Tony Romo and Donovan McNabb. The 4th and 5th year players are the ones that need to reap the benefits of the big paydays and from an owners standpoint why wouldn't they push it further.

Owners Benefit because after 3 to 4 years of the body taking a pounding in the NFL you know that the player is going to break down 3 to 4 years into the long term deal. Owners would give the player a decent 10 - 12 million signing bonus and put the big money towards the end of the contract then after 3 years you cut the player and you make cap room and you know as an owner that player will never see years 5 - 8 on that contract.

This is ridiculous that unproven players are reaping benefits. I mean in the NBA you have to put in your 3 years before signing the big contract but the NBA is stupid because they guarantee the money. Look at the Allen Houston fiasco.

 

[FTRWRTR]

I disagree, IMO the vets need to stop their whining. They weren't complaing when they were the rookies making much more money than the vets. Also they need to realize they get paid millions of dollars to play a game.

 

[uconnalum]

How can anybody on this board justify saying they agree that Matt Ryan should be paid more than Tom Brady. I can't agree with that.

 

[renesauz]

I disagree, IMO the vets need to stop their whining. They weren't complaing when they were the rookies making much more money than the vets. Also they need to realize they get paid millions of dollars to play a game.

#1: There's another thread on this.#2: The VAST MAJORITY of rookies make less then the vets...it's only the top 8-10 picks that make more.

 

[comfortably numb]

I disagree, IMO the vets need to stop their whining. They weren't complaing when they were the rookies making much more money than the vets. Also they need to realize they get paid millions of dollars to play a game.

When you complain that a new coworker makes more than you I will tell you that a homeless man told me "why is FTRWRTR complaining? He has a job making 40-60K a year!"It's all relative man....lets stop with the "they are playing a game".You playing softball Tuesday night's is "playing a game" athletes are entertainers and every individual person is a company.So Tom Brady makes best decisions for Tom Brady Inc.

 

[T Bell]

Why do people get up in arms about other peoples' contracts? I never understand that.

If Matt Ryan got more, bully for him. What do I care, outside of salary cap ramifications for a given team?

 

[mdog1967]

I disagree, IMO the vets need to stop their whining. They weren't complaing when they were the rookies making much more money than the vets. Also they need to realize they get paid millions of dollars to play a game.

When you complain that a new coworker makes more than you I will tell you that a homeless man told me "why is FTRWRTR complaining? He has a job making 40-60K a year!"It's all relative man....lets stop with the "they are playing a game".You playing softball Tuesday night's is "playing a game" athletes are entertainers and every individual person is a company.So Tom Brady makes best decisions for Tom Brady Inc.

Excellent. What ever accommodation's the NFL owners and players make with each other is of no concern to me.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

The system is fine.

1)Matt Ryan is underpaid. Make him a free agent leaving college and he would make way more money.

2)Matt Ryan is going to make a TON of money for the Falcons. He will energize everything about the team.

3)Tom Brady could make more money. That has nothing to do with ATL/Ryan.

 

[brock]

why do fantasy owners spend early picks on rookie rb's in startup dynasty leagues when there are plenty of vets available?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I will have Issues from being bored out of my wits on Sundays and withdrawals from Fantasy Football but the Owners and Veterans need to make a stand and possibly kill a season of football in 2012. They need to institute a rookie salary cap because it is a bit ridiculous that an unproven player in the League is making more than Tom Brady, Tony Romo and Donovan McNabb.

Tom Brady has no right to complain. Even as an unproven rookie, Brady made more than Otto Graham ever did. Salaries go up every year. So the guys signing this year will make more than the guys who signed in 2005. This is not something players should complain about. If Tom Brady were a free agent today, he'd make substantially more than Matt Ryan just signed for.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I will have Issues from being bored out of my wits on Sundays and withdrawals from Fantasy Football but the Owners and Veterans need to make a stand and possibly kill a season of football in 2012. They need to institute a rookie salary cap because it is a bit ridiculous that an unproven player in the League is making more than Tom Brady, Tony Romo and Donovan McNabb.

Tom Brady has no right to complain. Even as an unproven rookie, Brady made more than Otto Graham ever did. Salaries go up every year. So the guys signing this year will make more than the guys who signed in 2005. This is not something players should complain about. If Tom Brady were a free agent today, he'd make substantially more than Matt Ryan just signed for.

Again, Tom could have had more money. And he could get more money now. Thats Toms choice. He chooses not to.

 

[T Bell]

why do fantasy owners spend early picks on rookie rb's in startup dynasty leagues when there are plenty of vets available?

Wat?

 

[brock]

why do fantasy owners spend early picks on rookie rb's in startup dynasty leagues when there are plenty of vets available?

Wat?

kind of big risk for such a high price but we all do it.

 

[T Bell]

why do fantasy owners spend early picks on rookie rb's in startup dynasty leagues when there are plenty of vets available?

Wat?

kind of big risk for such a high price but we all do it.

I'm still waiting on some explanation as to why this observation is germane to this thread.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

why do fantasy owners spend early picks on rookie rb's in startup dynasty leagues when there are plenty of vets available?

Wat?

kind of big risk for such a high price but we all do it.

I'm still waiting on some explanation as to why this observation is germane to this thread.

The OP wrote: "This is ridiculous that unproven players are reaping benefits."People are paid according their expected future production. Veterans aren't always expected to play better than rookies. I'd rather have an unproven player like Darren McFadden than a proven player like Thomas Jones. So would lots of people. So would most NFL teams. So the unproven Darren McFadden is paid more.

 

[twr]

why not just make the rookie contracts guaranteed money, 3 years, but not near as much as the vets contracts... this would still allow the "great" rookies to get paid... and there could be a clause where if a rookie preforms past X standard, he can start negotiating a new contract after year 1.

 

[T Bell]

why do fantasy owners spend early picks on rookie rb's in startup dynasty leagues when there are plenty of vets available?

Wat?

kind of big risk for such a high price but we all do it.

I'm still waiting on some explanation as to why this observation is germane to this thread.

The OP wrote: "This is ridiculous that unproven players are reaping benefits."People are paid according their expected future production. Veterans aren't always expected to play better than rookies. I'd rather have an unproven player like Darren McFadden than a proven player like Thomas Jones. So would lots of people. So would most NFL teams. So the unproven Darren McFadden is paid more.

So you and he are suggesting that the economics, the cost-benefit analysis of fantasy football owners is the same as that of NFL owners in this regard?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

why do fantasy owners spend early picks on rookie rb's in startup dynasty leagues when there are plenty of vets available?

Wat?

kind of big risk for such a high price but we all do it.

I'm still waiting on some explanation as to why this observation is germane to this thread.

The OP wrote: "This is ridiculous that unproven players are reaping benefits."People are paid according their expected future production. Veterans aren't always expected to play better than rookies. I'd rather have an unproven player like Darren McFadden than a proven player like Thomas Jones. So would lots of people. So would most NFL teams. So the unproven Darren McFadden is paid more.

So you and he are suggesting that the economics, the cost-benefit analysis of fantasy football owners is the same as that of NFL owners in this regard?

Yep. Close enough.

 

[massraider]

Why do people get up in arms about other peoples' contracts? I never understand that.

If Matt Ryan got more, bully for him. What do I care, outside of salary cap ramifications for a given team?

I'd like to know this, as well.Why should I care?

Every year, 5 rookies or so make absurd salaries? Big deal. What's the argument for why the players should sit out an entire year? Because it's "ridiculous"? Ryan gets more than McNabb? So what? McNabb was the 3rd pick in the draft, he got more than most QBs then, and the NFL didn't fall apart.

It doesn't seem to be hurting the NFL. They make it up by getting late round picks or UDFAs to perform like 1st rounders, and they get to pay them chicken feed. Ryan Grant, 2008 tender: $370,000. (Or somewhere around there). Should he get $30 mill guaranteed? He doesn't have a contract, why isn't he free to sign with any team?

Because it's the system that is set up, and it benefits the team more often than not.

people need to think about why they are so upset about this.

 

[T Bell]

why do fantasy owners spend early picks on rookie rb's in startup dynasty leagues when there are plenty of vets available?

Wat?

kind of big risk for such a high price but we all do it.

I'm still waiting on some explanation as to why this observation is germane to this thread.

The OP wrote: "This is ridiculous that unproven players are reaping benefits."People are paid according their expected future production. Veterans aren't always expected to play better than rookies. I'd rather have an unproven player like Darren McFadden than a proven player like Thomas Jones. So would lots of people. So would most NFL teams. So the unproven Darren McFadden is paid more.

So you and he are suggesting that the economics, the cost-benefit analysis of fantasy football owners is the same as that of NFL owners in this regard?

Yep. Close enough.

Seems silly. Would you mind telling me where there is a fantasy football correllary to slotted salaries, hold outs and inability to sign players, teams' marketing of rookies?

 

[FUBAR]

why do fantasy owners spend early picks on rookie rb's in startup dynasty leagues when there are plenty of vets available?

Wat?

kind of big risk for such a high price but we all do it.

I'm still waiting on some explanation as to why this observation is germane to this thread.

The OP wrote: "This is ridiculous that unproven players are reaping benefits."People are paid according their expected future production. Veterans aren't always expected to play better than rookies. I'd rather have an unproven player like Darren McFadden than a proven player like Thomas Jones. So would lots of people. So would most NFL teams. So the unproven Darren McFadden is paid more.

I'm absolutely fine with the top rookie RB making more than average RBs. It's the rookies making more than the best players in the league that I have a problem with. If Tom doesn't care, that's fine, more power to him, I'm just looking for the logic of it all.

 

[T Bell]

why do fantasy owners spend early picks on rookie rb's in startup dynasty leagues when there are plenty of vets available?

Wat?

kind of big risk for such a high price but we all do it.

I'm still waiting on some explanation as to why this observation is germane to this thread.

The OP wrote: "This is ridiculous that unproven players are reaping benefits."People are paid according their expected future production. Veterans aren't always expected to play better than rookies. I'd rather have an unproven player like Darren McFadden than a proven player like Thomas Jones. So would lots of people. So would most NFL teams. So the unproven Darren McFadden is paid more.

I'm absolutely fine with the top rookie RB making more than average RBs. It's the rookies making more than the best players in the league that I have a problem with.

If Tom doesn't care, that's fine, more power to him, I'm just looking for the logic of it all.

I agree with brock/Maurile that there's an aspect of paying for potential that inflates the price. What is not getting talked about much is that unlike many sorts of business transactions, the team has already committed a valuable resource towards the player - a high draft pick - before the player has committed anything to the team, giving the player a form of monopoly power over the deal. The implied threat is, "Either sign me at my price, or lose all of the value of your draft pick, or at least much of it for this coming season if I hold out into training camp or beyond." This is obviously less of a threat the lower the player was drafted, but that's the way it works for the high picks and it's also why teams more and more are negotiating with their prospective 1.01 picks and if possible signing them before the draft.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

why do fantasy owners spend early picks on rookie rb's in startup dynasty leagues when there are plenty of vets available?

Wat?

kind of big risk for such a high price but we all do it.

I'm still waiting on some explanation as to why this observation is germane to this thread.

The OP wrote: "This is ridiculous that unproven players are reaping benefits."People are paid according their expected future production. Veterans aren't always expected to play better than rookies. I'd rather have an unproven player like Darren McFadden than a proven player like Thomas Jones. So would lots of people. So would most NFL teams. So the unproven Darren McFadden is paid more.

So you and he are suggesting that the economics, the cost-benefit analysis of fantasy football owners is the same as that of NFL owners in this regard?

Yep. Close enough.

Seems silly. Would you mind telling me where there is a fantasy football correllary to slotted salaries, hold outs and inability to sign players, teams' marketing of rookies?

I wouldn't mind telling you about those things if they existed. That's what I'm here for. But they don't.Do you contend that any of those considerations affect whether, in either fantasy football or NFL football, players are generally valued according to future expected performance, or whether rookies are sometimes expected to perform better going forward than are many veterans?

 

[SuperJohn96]

why do fantasy owners spend early picks on rookie rb's in startup dynasty leagues when there are plenty of vets available?

Wat?

kind of big risk for such a high price but we all do it.

I'm still waiting on some explanation as to why this observation is germane to this thread.

The OP wrote: "This is ridiculous that unproven players are reaping benefits."People are paid according their expected future production. Veterans aren't always expected to play better than rookies. I'd rather have an unproven player like Darren McFadden than a proven player like Thomas Jones. So would lots of people. So would most NFL teams. So the unproven Darren McFadden is paid more.

So you and he are suggesting that the economics, the cost-benefit analysis of fantasy football owners is the same as that of NFL owners in this regard?

Yep. Close enough.

Seems silly. Would you mind telling me where there is a fantasy football correllary to slotted salaries, hold outs and inability to sign players, teams' marketing of rookies?

The league I am in (serious-football.com) has "The Ratio".We've worked out a convoluted formula so that basically $140,000 = 1 fantasy point.

Multiply that times the fantasy points for each player and you've got "Earned Salary". If that amount is 4.000 times more than their "Actual Salary" then you've got a forced renegotiation on your hands. Pay him at the Earned Salary, or let him go be a free agent.

And we have slotted salaries for each pick/round of our rookie draft.

 

[T Bell]

why do fantasy owners spend early picks on rookie rb's in startup dynasty leagues when there are plenty of vets available?

Wat?

kind of big risk for such a high price but we all do it.

I'm still waiting on some explanation as to why this observation is germane to this thread.

The OP wrote: "This is ridiculous that unproven players are reaping benefits."People are paid according their expected future production. Veterans aren't always expected to play better than rookies. I'd rather have an unproven player like Darren McFadden than a proven player like Thomas Jones. So would lots of people. So would most NFL teams. So the unproven Darren McFadden is paid more.

So you and he are suggesting that the economics, the cost-benefit analysis of fantasy football owners is the same as that of NFL owners in this regard?

Yep. Close enough.

Seems silly. Would you mind telling me where there is a fantasy football correllary to slotted salaries, hold outs and inability to sign players, teams' marketing of rookies?

I wouldn't mind telling you about those things if they existed. That's what I'm here for. But they don't.Do you contend that any of those considerations affect whether, in either fantasy football or NFL football, players are generally valued according to future expected performance, or whether rookies are sometimes expected to perform better going forward than are many veterans?

Of course. I already addressed the threat of hold outs above.As for marketing of players, there's a lot of NFL watchers who believe that Atlanta drafted Matt Ryan over, for example, Glenn Dorsey because Ryan is to become the new "face of the franchise" to replace Vick. That's an example of marketing interest. My point here is that it's foolish to pretend that the ordinary fantasy draft procedures accurately model what occurs with the NFL Draft, much less the signing of rookies. They aren't mutually exclusive, but to make like the working of one "close enough" to explain the other is specious.