Draft Salaries

[Achon44]

I paid a hefty sum a few years back to be able to draft Richardson... Brand new to The League and wanting to make a splash w/ the next Adrian Peterson. But with the cost of the 1.01, I can't see myself wanting to trade for it in any future years after crashing and burning w/ that pick.?

Would this be an issue for you if you drafted Luck?

[Wascawy Wabbits]

I paid a hefty sum a few years back to be able to draft Richardson... Brand new to The League and wanting to make a splash w/ the next Adrian Peterson. But with the cost of the 1.01, I can't see myself wanting to trade for it in any future years after crashing and burning w/ that pick.?

Would this be an issue for you if you drafted Luck?

TRich had a good rookie season.. But man... Ugh...

[bonesman]

We've already done this once. RB #5 used to be 5 million

Gotta go with BTP on this one..."Don't Draft Busts"

[Wascawy Wabbits]

We've already done this once. RB #5 used to be 5 million

Gotta go with BTP on this one..."Don't Draft Busts"

RB5 used to be $5m? That's madness!!!

To say "Don't draft busts" is easier said than done. Look at the top of the drafts beginning 2008 (there is no rookie draft link in the 2007 or 2006 sites)

2014: Watkins, Sankey, Evans, Ebron
2013: Austin, Gio, Bell, Eifert
2012: TRich, RG3, Luck, Martin
2011: Ingram, AJG, Julio, Daniel Thomas
2010: Mathews, Dez, Best, Spiller
2009: Moreno, Wells, Crabtree, Donald Brown
2008: McFadden, Mendy, Stewart, Forte

6 of the last 7 1.01s can be classified as busts. 5 of the 7 were dropped before their contract expired. And time will tell if LVE drops Austin if he puts up another sub-par season. The verdict is still out on Watkins, but he appears to be OK after his rookie season.. But Richardson appeared to be pretty good as well?

All I'm trying to get at is that the idea behind owning the first rookie pick is to be beneficial to it's owner. If they want to go RB, should they be hampered by such a large cost? How is that beneficial to them turning their team around, carrying a $5m salary for an unproven player? By lowering the cost of the rookie picks at the top, it will not only make owning the top rookie easier to manage financially, but also make that pick more valuable to the rest of the league for wanting to trade up for it. Right now, the cost difference between the 1.01 RB and the 1.10 RB is nearly $4m. Trading up isn't just costly to acquire the pick, it's costly to have the pick on your roster!

I liked some of the ideas in MWC's post. The only thing different that I'd suggest is to see the 1.01 cap out at ~5% of a team's salary... So about the same as the WR 1.03 and work down from there. This would then see the 2.01 start at 450k and all the rest of the positions at 425k

[bocious]

I agree with Wascawy. I wasn't going to mention it until after the draft since I'm the 1.01 holder and didn't want to be "that guy," but the rookie salary scale with different starting salaries and taper rates by position strongly encourages/discourages drafting specific positions at different points in the draft. This was corrected in the NFL and feels like it should be corrected in our league, as well.

[bonesman]

I like the salaries as they are. Discourages tanking. You could tweak it up and down forever and never get it "right"

[Devil Dogs]

I agree with Wascawy. The 1.01 is supposed to help the worst teams, but more times than not it hurts them by adding a big salary to a player that won't live up to it. 8 RBs have contracts higher than what 1.01 would have if it were a RB.

I like the proposed idea of using the WR salaries for all positions. Similar to what the NFL did, all positions pay the same, and lowers the burden of a bust higher in the draft.

[bonesman]

There is risk in the #1 pick. I like that. That's always how it's been in the NFL.

Seems like one of those issues where those with multiple first or a team rebuilding will favor it and teams competing will oppose.





On a sort of similar note:
Anyone ever seen a league that has an auction for the rookie picks? Maybe a sliding scale/lottery for how much bidding money teams get based on last years record? So maybe worst team gets $1000 and then 10 less for each team till the champ gets $890 and then teams bid it out for each ensuing pick. Would be especially interesting if the player was selected right then also. You might see people bidding even higher than the few picks before it when people end up falling. Anyone see any inherent issues w/ this?

[Wascawy Wabbits]

There is risk in the #1 pick. I like that. That's always how it's been in the NFL.

Seems like one of those issues where those with multiple first or a team rebuilding will favor it and teams competing will oppose.





On a sort of similar note:
Anyone ever seen a league that has an auction for the rookie picks? Maybe a sliding scale/lottery for how much bidding money teams get based on last years record? So maybe worst team gets $1000 and then 10 less for each team till the champ gets $890 and then teams bid it out for each ensuing pick. Would be especially interesting if the player was selected right then also. You might see people bidding even higher than the few picks before it when people end up falling. Anyone see any inherent issues w/ this?

Ryan McDowell (commish of HA leagues) does this with his Kitchen Sink leagues

[bonesman]

Thanks for emailing the link on that:
http://dynastyleaguefootball.com/2013/0 ... ty-league/

Looks like they just have a straight rookie auction though. What I'm thinking of is a little different, I think.

[Wascawy Wabbits]

I like the salaries as they are. Discourages tanking. You could tweak it up and down forever and never get it "right"

Tanking is basically doing what you can to NOT win... Is there a difference when a team sells its expiring contracts at the end of a season in an effort to look towards next season? These teams are essentially waving the white flag and looking towards next year.

Poker and I are entering year 4 of being in The League, Dream year 2 and Geeks is the noob but has a vast amount of fantasy football experience... I would think that with the majority have been here a good amount longer than the 4 of us, we wouldn't really have to worry about intentionally trying to lose (at least nothing different than what's already been done over the years)?

There is risk in the #1 pick. I like that. That's always how it's been in the NFL.

Seems like one of those issues where those with multiple first or a team rebuilding will favor it and teams competing will oppose.

I don't really see why it would matter if a team has multiple firsts, rebuilding, or competing? A lower rookie salary structure benefits everyone. As DD pointed out above, the 1.01 rookie RB will have a top 10 salary this season. For a rookie RB... That hasn't played a snap. Isn't that excessive?

As stated a few times. Rookie picks should help a lay a foundation for a team to build around. The team that drafts at the 1.01 is inheriting a HUGE amount of risk when they decide to go with a RB. The WR drafted at 1.01 will not eclipse the Y1 salary of a RB until Y5. By Y5 of a RB taken at 1.01, they would be at $7.3m. Isn't something totally off here?

Reggie Bush drafted #2 in 2006, he signed a $62m contract
Trent Richardson drafted #3 in 2012, he signed a $20.5m contract

The NFL fixed their rookie salary issue.. I don't see why we shouldn't consider fixing ours?

[bonesman]

"As DD pointed out above, the 1.01 rookie RB will have a top 10 salary this season. For a rookie RB... That hasn't played a snap. Isn't that excessive?"

IDK, what do you think Gurley would fetch on the open market? What would have Trent fetched? Watkins last year?

You're always at risk of over or under paying for a player. What's the worth of locking down your shot at the best possible player entering the league that year for the first 5 years of his career? IDK, different every year... around 5m. Shit, if any change we should probably increase the WRs!

[bonesman]

Reggie Bush drafted #2 in 2006, he signed a $62m contract
Trent Richardson drafted #3 in 2012, he signed a $20.5m contract

The NFL fixed their rookie salary issue.. I don't see why we shouldn't consider fixing ours?

I thought we did already:
http://www.theleague.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=217

Let's pick up the discussion from there, because that's where we left off.

[bonesman]

I think if we ran the numbers today RBs may go down slightly but WRs and TE would come up quite a bit.

Unfortunately, I don't think Amish has as much time on his hands as he used to. But we did talk about revisiting it and certainly should compare the market to what we set.

[braven112]

Reggie Bush drafted #2 in 2006, he signed a $62m contract
Trent Richardson drafted #3 in 2012, he signed a $20.5m contract

The NFL fixed their rookie salary issue.. I don't see why we shouldn't consider fixing ours?

I thought we did already:
http://www.theleague.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=217

Let's pick up the discussion from there, because that's where we left off.

I merged the two threads so everyone can see what we already discussed.

[Wascawy Wabbits]

Reggie Bush drafted #2 in 2006, he signed a $62m contract
Trent Richardson drafted #3 in 2012, he signed a $20.5m contract

The NFL fixed their rookie salary issue.. I don't see why we shouldn't consider fixing ours?

I thought we did already:
http://www.theleague.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=217

Let's pick up the discussion from there, because that's where we left off.

I merged the two threads so everyone can see what we already discussed.

Thanks Brandon

Looks like there were posts about revisiting every 2-3 years since implementing the wage scale. I'd think that 7 years after its implementation would be a decent amount of time to now revisit

[bocious]

I merged the two threads so everyone can see what we already discussed.

Lol, I was so confused for a minute there.

[braven112]

I wouldn't be opposed to tweaking things a bit. We said when we changed it originally we would look at it every 2-3 years. We haven't because its been really good. I've wondered myself about increasing the prices for 2nd or 3rd round picks a bit (500k?) and/or adjusting the RB scale for the top 3 to be a little lower, not much though.

I was just going through the old thread. Man, Bring the Pain couldn't be more spot on.
http://www.theleague.us/forum/viewtopic ... rt=25#p909

[bonscott]

I think if we ran the numbers today RBs may go down slightly but WRs and TE would come up quite a bit.

Unfortunately, I don't think Amish has as much time on his hands as he used to. But we did talk about revisiting it and certainly should compare the market to what we set.

This was Brandon's baby that I recall. I don't remember running any numbers on this. Then again it was a lifetime and 4 jobs ago so I got no clue.

My opinion on the matter? I don't really care either way to be blunt. Would I like some lower salaries for the rookies? Sure. But I'm fine with it the way it is too. Looks like Brandon had a formula that came up with the current salaries, let's run it again and see what shakes out. Or do an across board reduction of rookie salary by 10 or 20% or something.

I also get the simplification of having all salaries for each position the same. But I will say I have liked the extra thought process involved when looking at who to draft and also thinking about salary in the back of my mind. In the end though I almost always go BPA when I can as that makes the most sense (to me). So salary rarely becomes and issue that makes be decide on one player over another.

[Wascawy Wabbits]

I wouldn't be opposed to tweaking things a bit. We said when we changed it originally we would look at it every 2-3 years. We haven't because its been really good. I've wondered myself about increasing the prices for 2nd or 3rd round picks a bit (500k?) and/or adjusting the RB scale for the top 3 to be a little lower, not much though.

I was just going through the old thread. Man, Bring the Pain couldn't be more spot on.
http://www.theleague.us/forum/viewtopic ... rt=25#p909

Will lowering the cost of the top end rookies really make that much of a difference on how things are working right now? I would think that the difference would be that it gives those teams with the top pick that extra couple million to be able to sign another player or two.

Played around a little bit this morning with a wage scale, it's super simplified compared to what we have and I'm sure it would get a ton of flack... But here it is - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0

Overall, rookies WILL cost more with a structure like this. The difference is that the guys at the top of the draft don't get nailed with a huge cap hit by with a certain position. The difference between a RB drafted at 1.01 and at 1.10 won't be $4m, it'll be $900k.

[bonesman]

Played around a little bit this morning with a wage scale, it's super simplified compared to what we have and I'm sure it would get a ton of flack... But here it is - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0

where's the thumbsdown smiley?


You really think 900k is a good salary for the #1 overall pick? What is that based on? Seems VERY low and totally arbitrary.

[Wascawy Wabbits]

Played around a little bit this morning with a wage scale, it's super simplified compared to what we have and I'm sure it would get a ton of flack... But here it is - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0

where's the thumbsdown smiley?


You really think 900k is a good salary for the #1 overall pick? What is that based on? Seems VERY low and totally arbitrary.

900k for the #1 pick? Did you even look at the spreadsheet or read what I wrote
The DIFFERENCE between the RB @ 1.01 and the RB @ 1.10 would be $900k, not $4m as it currently is

[bonesman]

Ok, I think I see now. 2.5m for the #1 pick? You don't think that's waaaaaaaaaaay below what the market would pay for that in ANY year?

[Wascawy Wabbits]

Ok, I think I see now. 2.5m for the #1 pick? You don't think that's waaaaaaaaaaay below what the market would pay for that in ANY year?

It's a $600k difference from the cost of a WR taken at 1.01 which costs $3.1m. Is it THAT far fetched? It would equate to 5.5% of the total salary to draft the 1.01, regardless of position. Also what does the market have anything to do with that rookie's value? Everyone values the open market differently based on team needs. Crappy players in the NFL get signed to ridiculous contracts all the time.

As mentioned in previous posts, I think that the rookie picks should be to HELP a team build their foundation. Investing $5m into a RB at the 1.01, $4.5m for a RB at the 1.02, etc... Last year saw the RB2 fall to the 1.09. $3.25m in cap savings between Sankey taken at 1.02 and Hyde taken at 1.09. Should the RB2 in last years draft really have been THAT much cheaper?

When you take a look at last years NFL rookie salaries, the amount between each pick isn't THAT significant (http://overthecap.com/nfl-rookie-salary-cap-2014.php), nor is it as expensive as it used to be. The difference between NFL rookie contracts from the 1.01 and 1.02 in the NFL appears to be about 95%. The difference between the proposed scale is about 90-95% of the difference between each draft pick (for the first round).

The team that earned the 1.01 already "donated" $50 for the prior season. If your team sucked, getting a rookie on a solid contract will help a lot more to that owner than getting a rookie on an expensive one that you have no clue will turn out.

[Wascawy Wabbits]

Ok, I think I see now. 2.5m for the #1 pick? You don't think that's waaaaaaaaaaay below what the market would pay for that in ANY year?

In addition to the $600k diff between the cost of the WR 1.01 compared to the proposed 1.01, you didn't note that the cost of the 1.16 would be $1m compared to the current cost of $500k for a RB or $600k for a WR... And that the cost of 2nd and 3rd round picks get raised in the proposed wage scale... And that rookies overall would cost more than the current wage scale.