Draft Salaries

[bonesman]

Also what does the market have anything to do with that rookie's value?

Just the spirit in which the league was initially created

I couldn't agree more. That's exactly how I want the league to work. The scenario's that I'm trying to come up with are based on averages of current salaries but they'll be dynamic and will always reflect what the market is doing but at some level they have to start as an arbitrary number. What I was asking is what rookie salary scale (QB, RB, WR, TE, PK) that I came up with earlier, best reflects what salaries should be, based on today's numbers. That way I could try to come up with some dynamic formula that works year in and year out and is always based on average salaries at the time of the draft and reflects the constant changes in the market.

I think you're trying to fix something that isn't broken based on your experience with Richardson

[Wascawy Wabbits]

I think you're trying to fix something that isn't broken based on your experience with Richardson

This has nothing to do with Richardson. Am I sad he didn't work out? Obviously. I think 95% of rookie drafts probably saw Richardson drafted 1.01. Him busting was on everyone. Again, look at the HISTORY of the 1.01's in this league. I listed it earlier. Here's a hint... THEY'VE ALL BEEN EXPENSIVE BUSTS.

Give the #1 reason you WOULDN'T trade up to the 1.01. My guess is that it'll be because he'll costs $5m and you don't want to take on that risk. I wouldn't be too surprised if MWC will move the pick for much cheaper than you'd find in a "standard" dynasty league. Cap space is precious to every owner. It's hard to deny that the current wage scale is geared towards the "rich get richer". Why should the WR@1.01 cost $2m LESS than the RB? Again, how can a RB at 1.01 and 1.10 be 5x more expensive? But a WR at 1.01 and 1.10 is only 3x more expensive?

Isn't it strange how much league members LOVE 2nd round picks? Not really, because they cost nothing! Salary plays a HUGE role in this league. Calvin at $16.5m is nearly worthless to the majority of this league. No one is going to trade for that contract (no offence Poker, but I doubt anyone will).

Based on the average costs of the Rd1 WRs and RBs, the cost is $28,642,500.00.
The total cost of Rd 1 in the spreadsheet I put together: $28,850,000.00

The proposed scale spreads the cost of Rd1 a lot more evenly as well as increase the cost of Rd 2 so it's a distinct salary tier above Rd 3.

[bonesman]

This has nothing to do with Richardson. Am I sad he didn't work out? Obviously. I think 95% of rookie drafts probably saw Richardson drafted 1.01. Him busting was on everyone. Again, look at the HISTORY of the 1.01's in this league. I listed it earlier. Here's a hint... THEY'VE ALL BEEN EXPENSIVE BUSTS.

people suck at drafting. Would we be having this conversation if people were getting studs at 1.1? 5m for a stud RB is a steal IMO.

Give the #1 reason you WOULDN'T trade up to the 1.01. My guess is that it'll be because he'll costs $5m and you don't want to take on that risk. I wouldn't be too surprised if MWC will move the pick for much cheaper than you'd find in a "standard" dynasty league. Cap space is precious to every owner. It's hard to deny that the current wage scale is geared towards the "rich get richer". Why should the WR@1.01 cost $2m LESS than the RB? Again, how can a RB at 1.01 and 1.10 be 5x more expensive? But a WR at 1.01 and 1.10 is only 3x more expensive?

I agree... let's make WR more expensive. That'll match the current market better.

Isn't it strange how much league members LOVE 2nd round picks? Not really, because they cost nothing! Salary plays a HUGE role in this league. Calvin at $16.5m is nearly worthless to the majority of this league. No one is going to trade for that contract (no offence Poker, but I doubt anyone will).

I don't really find that to be true with the 2nd round picks. I certainly don't love them. Haven't had one since I drafted Wilson I don't think.

That's a high salary for Calvin but I'd hardly say it's worthless. Is Charles getting 15m worthless too?

[Achon44]

Give the #1 reason you WOULDN'T trade up to the 1.01. My guess is that it'll be because he'll costs $5m and you don't want to take on that risk. I wouldn't be too surprised if MWC will move the pick for much cheaper than you'd find in a "standard" dynasty league. Cap space is precious to every owner. It's hard to deny that the current wage scale is geared towards the "rich get richer". Why should the WR@1.01 cost $2m LESS than the RB? Again, how can a RB at 1.01 and 1.10 be 5x more expensive? But a WR at 1.01 and 1.10 is only 3x more expensive?

I'd love to trade up to #1 if I had the cap space and enough to offer and I'm pretty sure nobody will be surprised when MWC moves the #1 seeing he has less than $2M in cap space.

[bocious]

people suck at drafting.

You can say people suck at drafting and shouldn't pick busts, but c'mon man, glass houses. Jeremy Hill was the only first-year "stud RB" in last year's draft, and he went 2.12. You had two first-round picks and didn't grab him either time. The two WR's picked right below your 1.05 pick both had better seasons than the one you picked. The draft is a weighted crap shoot at best, and your own draft picks prove it.

Would we be having this conversation if people were getting studs at 1.1? 5m for a stud RB is a steal IMO.

Well we've certainly had the conversation lately about how cheap stud TE's are relative to how expensive stud RB's are.

I agree... let's make WR more expensive. That'll match the current market better.

The #1 pick in the NFL costs a team about 3% of their cap space. You want the #1 pick to cost 11% of a team's cap space in this league? Yeah, that TOTALLY matches the current market.

[Wascawy Wabbits]

That's a high salary for Calvin but I'd hardly say it's worthless. Is Charles getting 15m worthless too?

Worthless was the wrong choice of words. I don't think Calvin at $16.5m is someone that teams will be jumping at the bit to trade for if he goes on the block. To drop Calvin at that salary will result $2.5m in cap penalties for 2016.

Charles at $15m is on a 1 year deal. If you have the cap space to sign him for that, have at 'er. It'd be easier for LVE to move Charles (if that event were to arise) because of that 1 year deal than it will be for Poker with Calvin. Rodgers can probably be brought into that discussion as well... High priced QB...

Anyways...
I think I've clearly laid out my reasons towards re-visiting the salaries. Whether that be going along the lines of something as I've suggested in my previous posts, increasing the WR salaries, adjusting the major price drops between picks, etc etc...

If something WERE to happen, (as mentioned in my first post) I don't think it should come into affect until 2017 due to moves for 2016 picks already happening.

If nothing comes of this, so be it. At least the pot has been stirred and the subject has been brought up

[bonesman]

people suck at drafting.

The #1 pick in the NFL costs a team about 3% of their cap space. You want the #1 pick to cost 11% of a team's cap space in this league? Yeah, that TOTALLY matches the current market.

they also have to roster defensive players and have more subs than we do, so I don't think that's an apples to apples comparison.


What would Todd Gurley go for if he was a FA right now? I'd guess anywhere from 4.5 to 6m depending on the team. Same for Cooper.

[bocious]

What would Todd Gurley go for if he was a FA right now? I'd guess anywhere from 4.5 to 6m depending on the team. Same for Cooper.

You're seriously going to use Gurley as an example when we don't even know what team he's going to play for? So far your only response to facts and figures has been what-if scenarios that aren't even possible to sort out right now and slogans that you can't even apply to your own team. If I wanted to engage in that type of conversation, I'd pick a fight with my wife.

[bocious]

So now that we all know EXACTLY where three of us stand on this issue, what do others think? I'd be curious to hear from the nine people who haven't commented.

[bonesman]

What would Todd Gurley go for if he was a FA right now? I'd guess anywhere from 4.5 to 6m depending on the team. Same for Cooper.

You're seriously going to use Gurley as an example when we don't even know what team he's going to play for? So far your only response to facts and figures has been what-if scenarios that aren't even possible to sort out right now and slogans that you can't even apply to your own team. If I wanted to engage in that type of conversation, I'd pick a fight with my wife.

Does it REALLY matter what team he plays for? (that's why I presented a range) What if we had open bidding on the 1.1 right now... What do you think teams would bid? I ask these "what if scenarios" to try to establish what the market would be for the 1.1 since that's what the original system tried to be inline with.

What were the compelling facts and figures? That the first round would have nearly the same average salaries just dispersed differently?

[Devil Dogs]

So now that we all know EXACTLY where three of us stand on this issue, what do others think? I'd be curious to hear from the nine people who haven't commented.

I've already given my response, but I'll say it again. I think the top end rookies are overpriced, but then again I think several players from this past free agency auction went for way too much. Maybe I'm just cheap, but honestly if I had my choice of 1.01 or a pick 1.03 or below then I would choose the lower pick. Its all blind luck really, and at least you have the cheaper salary and a decent pick.

On the other hand, I can understand what LB is saying. The market for Gurley and Cooper right now if they were on this FA auction probably would pay them 5m. They are 2nd and 3rd rounders in new startups. Would I take them that high in a startup or bid that high in here? No...but the point LB is making is someone likely would.

I'm fine either way. I think the 1.01 should benefit a losing team, not hinder it if its a busted pick. I also understand the market value argument. If it stays the same, I'll continue to value lower picks. If it changes, maybe I'll care more for the higher picks.

[Poker in the Rear]

I'm not opposed to a change either, but i think if it happens it shouldn't go into affect until 2017 given there hasn't been any rookie picks that have changed hands as of yet.

[Poker in the Rear]

And i think it should be a single scale regardless of the position thats selected.

[Poker in the Rear]

Calvin at $16.5m is nearly worthless to the majority of this league. No one is going to trade for that contract (no offence Poker, but I doubt anyone will).

No offense taken, because I've never looked to move it anyway

[bocious]

Does it REALLY matter what team he plays for?

Ask Reggie Bush and Mark Ingram. I think they'd say yes, yes it does.

What were the compelling facts and figures? That the first round would have nearly the same average salaries just dispersed differently?

Facts included what actually happened with historical picks, how much salary these picks make vs their production (not what-if salaries and production but actual salaries and production), how the various salaries and tapering by position makes various positions more valuable at different spots in the draft, and how the NFL addressed a similar situation. There were also a few facts in there to prove why "don't draft busts" and "people suck at drafting" doesn't hold up when applied to your own team. Your only counterpoint that involved facts was pointing out that NFL teams have to roster defenses and more backups, which I think is a good point. It would've been nice to see more of that and fewer what-ifs and catchphrases.

[bonesman]

Again, look at the HISTORY of the 1.01's in this league. I listed it earlier. Here's a hint... THEY'VE ALL BEEN EXPENSIVE BUSTS.

Gotta address this again as I feel this is a main sticking point.... and you know what? It doesn't matter. It's results orientated thinking. You can't look at past years and say the #1 pick scored this many points, it's not worth that price.

I think the question you have to ask yourself is, is a chance at the best RB in the draft worth 5m... WR 3.5 etc

[bocious]

Here's my proposal:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

This is lower than the RB salary, but higher than the other position salaries. It also tapers the salary decrease over the first two rounds (4% drop per pick, rounded to the nearest $25k). Last, it only goes down to $450k, since it seems like we should have the opportunity to sign UDFA's for less than drafting them if that's the gamble we want to take. This takes some of the risk of busting out of the first couple picks and adds a bit more risk to the later picks. Just throwing this out there. What do people think?

I also kinda like the idea of 2nd- and 3rd-round picks only getting 4 year contracts, though that might be a separate idea to discuss later.

[bocious]

My last post there is obviously predicated on the idea that we use one salary scale for all players, which seems to be a growing consensus. If someone disagrees with that or thinks I've mis-counted, call it out.

[bonesman]

Does it REALLY matter what team he plays for?

Ask Reggie Bush and Mark Ingram. I think they'd say yes, yes it does.

What were the compelling facts and figures? That the first round would have nearly the same average salaries just dispersed differently?

Facts included what actually happened with historical picks, how much salary these picks make vs their production (not what-if salaries and production but actual salaries and production), how the various salaries and tapering by position makes various positions more valuable at different spots in the draft, and how the NFL addressed a similar situation. There were also a few facts in there to prove why "don't draft busts" and "people suck at drafting" doesn't hold up when applied to your own team. Your only counterpoint that involved facts was pointing out that NFL teams have to roster defenses and more backups, which I think is a good point. It would've been nice to see more of that and fewer what-ifs and catchphrases.

I think the what ifs are valuable. I don't think saying the #1 pick last year scored less than the #3 pick... hindsight is 20/20... and like I said above, it's results orientated thinking.

It simply does not matter that the #1 pick isn't picking the best possible player. He gets the best opportunity to, and that's worth alot. Playing the "what if" games demonstrates that.

Really, the proposed salary structure isn't bad... but neither is the one we have. I see nothing demonstrating that it is besides the fact that people haven't picked the best players. Oh well!

[bonesman]

Last, it only goes down to $450k, since it seems like we should have the opportunity to sign UDFA's for less than drafting them if that's the gamble we want to take.

Haven't had a chance to look at the proposal, just wanted to mention that most UDFA brought up after the auction tend to go for more than the 425k min.

[bocious]

just wanted to mention that most UDFA brought up after the auction tend to go for more than the 425k min.

Yeah, but what if... kidding.

Yeah, it won't affect quite a few of the UDFA's, it's just always struck me as funny that we start bidding at the same price as half the draft picks.

[braven112]

My last post there is obviously predicated on the idea that we use one salary scale for all players, which seems to be a growing consensus. If someone disagrees with that or thinks I've mis-counted, call it out.

I definitely like that we have different scales per position. You mentioned that it encourages/discourages drafting certain position. I see it as a major positive. Options with prices and players is a good thing in my estimation.

A lot of the debate has focused on the number one overall pick but then you look one or two picks later and you see studs like Dez Bryant, AJ Green, Julio Jones, Andrew Luck. Those guys are studs and could have been drafted just as easily with the #1 overall pick. In a lot of leagues those guys went 1.01 and we even had a salary structure that encouraged drafting something other than RB.

[Achon44]

Again, look at the HISTORY of the 1.01's in this league. I listed it earlier. Here's a hint... THEY'VE ALL BEEN EXPENSIVE BUSTS.

Gotta address this again as I feel this is a main sticking point.... and you know what? It doesn't matter. It's results orientated thinking. You can't look at past years and say the #1 pick scored this many points, it's not worth that price.

I think the question you have to ask yourself is, is a chance at the best RB in the draft worth 5m... WR 3.5 etc

[bocious]

I definitely like that we have different scales per position. You mentioned that it encourages/discourages drafting certain position. I see it as a major positive. Options with prices and players is a good thing in my estimation.

To me that just seems like we're corralling people into making picks they wouldn't make otherwise.

A lot of the debate has focused on the number one overall pick but then you look one or two picks later and you see studs like Dez Bryant, AJ Green, Julio Jones, Andrew Luck. Those guys are studs and could have been drafted just as easily with the #1 overall pick. In a lot of leagues those guys went 1.01 and we even had a salary structure that encouraged drafting something other than RB.

That's why my proposal raises the salaries for QB's and WR's while dropping them for RB's. The success rate drafting those positions has been much higher than drafting RB's.

[bocious]

So right now it seems like we're at 4-2-2 of people for, against, and somewhere in the middle when it comes to changing the 2017 salaries. For those who haven't commented yet, here are the basic questions we're trying to figure out:

1) Do you want to make changes to the 2017 rookie salaries?
2) If you answered "yes" to question #1, do you want to have one salary scale for all rookies or keep the current system and simply tweak the numbers?