Draft Salaries

[yugimoto]

In short, my position is in the middle.

I do not have an issue with the current salaries for rookies. But if there is a strong desire to tweak them, then I will vote upon the change as it gets presented.

If they were to be tweaked, I would lean towards leveling out the salaries across the position (e.g., the first pick’s salary is the same regardless of the position). I would not be in favor of lowering them significantly, if at all.

For example, I am more inclined to adopt the current RB salary scale for all positions, although lowering slightly would also be acceptable. I support the idea mentioned earlier that if we were to have open bidding on the rookies to determine their salary value, they would be higher versus lower than expected as everyone values players and positions differently based on league scoring systems and perceived potential.

In the NFL we have seen this over the years. It used to be the RBs were the big thing every team was looking for. Now the emphasis is more towards to QBs and WRs over RBs. Times change.

I agree that the purpose of awarding the top picks to the teams that did the worst the previous season is meant to help them for future seasons. But the value of the top picks is not a charity contribution to the teams, it is an opportunity.

The opportunity here is that they have the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc., option to get the player they think will have the best impact to their roster before other owners have a chance at them, not that they necessarily get them cheaper or lower than perceived market value as well. If they make the wrong pick, oh well. Happens all the time in the NFL. Again in most cases drafting is a crap shoot.

[Wascawy Wabbits]

Again, if nothing happens... So be it. I decided to bring this topic up after PM'ing a few different league mates recently and them mentioning not being a fan of owning high draft picks due to its cost.

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

I think that the cost of rookies is still really quite high here. Everyone gets dinged with a higher contract though instead of just the top of the draft. Here's the one I posted earlier in the thread for comparison's sake in the event someone's coming late to the party and missed it (it's been buried on the previous page) - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0

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

I don't think its just about the cost of the RB@1.01 and the cost benefit between taking a RB vs a WR or Andrew Luck... I think there's also a really large discrepancy between the cost of the picks at the top of the draft vs not even half a round later.

I'm beginning to understand LBs argument about how much a player might go on the open market based on DD's description of a top rookie going in the 2nd and 3rd rounds of a startup... But the team owning the 1.01 earned it for a reason... Their team sucked last season. Whether that be by just overall bad luck (I don't think anyone expected DD to finish last when he started the season w/ DT, Dez, etc), or signing some really bad contracts. If RB is the consensus BPA at the time college players declare for the draft, inheriting $5m before the season even starts is a pretty big chunk of change. That may stop you from being able to sign a really good PROVEN player in FA and helping your team improve. The amount of cap you have left over after FA may dictate what positions you can draft.

I agree that the purpose of awarding the top picks to the teams that did the worst the previous season is meant to help them for future seasons. But the value of the top picks is not a charity contribution to the teams, it is an opportunity.

Not really sure how it would be considered a charity? You've invested $100 to The League for bombing the prior season and the rights to draft the 1.01 which (presently) can take upwards of 11% of your cap space...

I still think that draft picks should be used to help a team get ahead by giving them cheap building blocks, regardless of the position that you want to take...

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.

I think the moral of the story is (at least what I learned from my "Richardson experience"), if you wanna take on the rights of a $5m rookie RB at the top of the draft, sign them to a shorter contract or draft a WR. If that player busts, they won't be as expensive to drop.

[yugimoto]

Again, if nothing happens... So be it. I decided to bring this topic up after PM'ing a few different league mates recently and them mentioning not being a fan of owning high draft picks due to its cost.

I agree that the purpose of awarding the top picks to the teams that did the worst the previous season is meant to help them for future seasons. But the value of the top picks is not a charity contribution to the teams, it is an opportunity.

Not really sure how it would be considered a charity? You've invested $100 to The League for bombing the prior season and the rights to draft the 1.01 which (presently) can take upwards of 11% of your cap space...

I still think that draft picks should be used to help a team get ahead by giving them cheap building blocks, regardless of the position that you want to take...

Well here is where we will be in the position to "agree to disagree" as I do not agree that it is to give them "cheap" building blocks, it is an opportunity to get the "right" building blocks at market value before other owners. The challenge of course becomes making the right pick. Granted not always the easiest thing to do

Also, a minor point, but I thought our league fee was $50, not $100.

As I said earlier I am open to voting on any changes.

[bonesman]

If RB is the consensus BPA at the time college players declare for the draft, inheriting $5m before the season even starts is a pretty big chunk of change. That may stop you from being able to sign a really good PROVEN player in FA and helping your team improve. The amount of cap you have left over after FA may dictate what positions you can draft.

And how much is a "proven RB" going to cost you in FA? A lot more than 5m I would assume (unless they are old or in an unsure/shitty position)

[Wascawy Wabbits]

Also, a minor point, but I thought our league fee was $50, not $100.

Someone had to pay $50 to suffer thru a bad season to earn the 1.01, and another $50 to actual have the rights to that draft pick...

If RB is the consensus BPA at the time college players declare for the draft, inheriting $5m before the season even starts is a pretty big chunk of change. That may stop you from being able to sign a really good PROVEN player in FA and helping your team improve. The amount of cap you have left over after FA may dictate what positions you can draft.

And how much is a "proven RB" going to cost you in FA? A lot more than 5m I would assume (unless they are old or in an unsure/shitty position)

I think you completely missed the point of what you quoted.

$5m is a lot to invest in an unknown. Will a proven stud RB cost more than $5m in FA? Obviously. The above was to illustrate a point that $5m is not cheap to an owner. That player automatically becomes one of their more expensive assets without even doing anything. If the salary for the RB @ 1.01 were somehow lowered, that opens up more possibilities for the team that finished in last place to improve their team via FA.

Say the salary was lowered to what I had proposed. The team with the 1.01 is sitting on an extra $2.5m that they can use towards investing in another player. $2.5m could be the difference of stopping someone from bidding any higher on a stud player. $2.5m this FA would be the difference between signing VJax or signing Ryan Mallett, Jermaine Kearse, Steve Johnson, etc. Or Ryan Mathews, Jason Witten vs no cap available. $2.5m can make a world of difference in the player you can purchase in FA. I'm sure if you went back and looked at what $2.5m could get you, it'd be pretty significant.

I can already forsee your response: "If you want the extra $2.5m, taxi the 1.01". I don't think anyone would want to draft a $5m player to sit them on their taxi squad all season.

[bocious]

I'm going on vacation this weekend, so I'm going to submit a possible compromise and then step back for a few days.

The two statements that seem to be gaining the most supporters are a) don't decrease the 1.01 salary from $5mill and b) have the same salary apply to all positions. Yes, there are opponents for each of those statements, but as far as I can tell they're the two ideas that have gained majority support from the people commenting.

So here's my proposal that combines those two statements: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

It starts at $5mill for 1.01 and drops by 6.5% per pick (rounded to $25k) throughout the first two rounds. Again, I know there are people who won't agree with every piece of this, but I'm putting it out here as a possible compromise so we can start moving forward.

[LV Elite]

My position is somewhat in the middle.

I think its a great idea to have this discussion. The NFL is always evolving and changing to make things better. We should (need) to do the same. Therefore... truly revisiting this rookie salary structure actually is a must, especially since it has been 5+ years since we have looked at it. Thanks for bringing this up!

After reading a lot of the points made throughout this thread, If anything I am actually leaning towards leveling out the salaries across the position (#1 pick’s salary is the same regardless of the position). I am in the air in regards to lowering the salaries. I do, however, like the idea of closing the gap between say pick #1 and pick #10. Seems like there is to great of a drop off there now.

Because we have seen the NFL change the last few years to become more passing and less use for the work horse RB... its obvious that QBs and WRs are also becoming a bit more valuable in fantasy as well. Think about it, when this system was designed several years ago, it was during a time when RBs were very much still highly regarded in the NFL. Not saying they are still not valuable, I am making the point that WRs and star QBs are right up there as well. Hence... why I lean towards leveling out the salaries and basing it on draft slot and also closing the gap for the later picks in relation to pick 1.

[bonesman]

My position is somewhat in the middle.

Definitely value your opinion on this subject as you've probably had more top 3 picks than anyone (6 if I remember right: Stewart, Best, Wilson, Austin, Watkins, Evans.... although Best/Wilson might've been 4th)

[bocious]

My position is somewhat in the middle.

Definitely value your opinion on this subject as you've probably had more top 3 picks than anyone (6 if I remember right: Stewart, Best, Wilson, Austin, Watkins, Evans.... although Best/Wilson might've been 4th)

LOL!

[bonscott]

If someone hates their top 3 pick and wants to trade out for a lower salary I'll be more then happy to sign Gurley up for $5 mil at 5 years.

Seriously though, I'm fine with doing some tweaking and I agree that RBs are no longer as valued in the NFL, it's all about the WR and QB right now. But what about another 5 years from now? Could be back to ground and pound all over the place (although the tin foil hat I have says the NFL won't allow that because high passing is more "exciting" on TV for ratings).

So given that we outta come up with something that will survive the test of time a bit. Honestly as I've said I don't have much of a problem with what we have. Maybe tweak down the RB salaries a bit, I could even get down with one salary no matter the position. But a major change I don't think is really needed. Maybe I draft a bust early, just the danger of doing business.

[BarneyFife]

reading the threads - i am good to vote on what is proposed, but no strong preference. Basic take is if you dont want to draft the hightest salary - then that is a draft choice... but a STUD RB for 5 years starting at 5M is cheap - generally speaking

[Cybergeek]

I don't know how much weight the observations of the new guy is worth, but here goes nothing. I joined this league knowing that I would be taking over a team in a serious rebuilding mode. I also came in with a full understanding of the rookie salary structure and how rookie salaries would effect my rebuilding effort. I was, and still am, prepared to tackle the challenges and intricacies of this league whether there is a change voted in or not.

I started a league ten years ago that employs most of the elements of this league. A few differences; 25 player rosters, $30,000,000 salary cap, 63 contract years, no IR, no taxi squad. Lineups are static (no flex) 1 QB, 2RB, 3WR, 1TE, 1K, 1D. But we do have the same kind of preset rookie salary structure. So, I'm not a novice in the salary cap/contract years realm.

I find that when rules discussions come up, it always helps to be as dispassionate as possible, and more importantly to forget your teams' circumstances and look at what would most benefit the league. Since I joined the league, I've read just about every post on this message board to get a better feel for how things operate here. I'll never be able to know exactly how this league evolved into what it is today, but as I continue to read, I understand and appreciate it's history.

Having said all of that, it seems to me that the salary for the higher picks is not the biggest problem with the rookie salary structure, although I do believe that rookie salaries start off too high for a cap of $45,000,000. The percentage of descent from pick to pick is too high, which I believe has a much bigger impact. The drop is so dramatic that IMO, the rookie draft favors teams picking lower. They have a good chance of drafting a solid contributor and in most cases also save millions in cap space that can be used to fill other holes on their roster. Lower picks also seem to be a much more tradable commodity compared to the higher picks because of the cap concerns associated with the higher picks in the draft.

IMO, the rookie draft should be a way to add young developing talent to our rosters that we can cultivate and hopefully, over time, gain productive and valuable assets that we can use to build a championship contending team. I don't think that the current rookie salary structure allows for that to happen as I believe it should. I don't believe that the rookie salary structure should be compared with players obtained in free agency. The rookie draft and free agency are very different components. If rookies were available through free agency, as bonesman said, their salaries would be higher. That is the nature of open bidding. Conversely, if free agents had a salary structure attached to them, I would venture to guess that Jamaal Charles would not have had a 15 million dollar salary assigned to him. That is the nature of assigned values.

The proposals that have been presented address these issue very well, even though they vary in the degree of change that they are willing to accept. I like Wascawy Wabbits proposal the best because it falls more in line with the system that I use in my league, but I think that it may be too radical of a change for this league. I think that bocious' first proposal is the best compromise solution.

My proposal would be to keep positional salaries instead of one salary fits all. Take the current 1.01 salary for Quarterback, Running Back, Receiver, and Tight End and cut it by 20%. Then use bocious' proposed 4% drop per pick. For Kickers the current salary structure is fine. No matter where we start with the 1.01 salary, I believe that the key is how we lower the salaries from there to keep rookie salaries closer in value to the pick that preceeds it.

[braven112]

If someone hates their top 3 pick and wants to trade out for a lower salary I'll be more then happy to sign Gurley up for $5 mil at 5 years.

Seriously though, I'm fine with doing some tweaking and I agree that RBs are no longer as valued in the NFL, it's all about the WR and QB right now. But what about another 5 years from now? Could be back to ground and pound all over the place (although the tin foil hat I have says the NFL won't allow that because high passing is more "exciting" on TV for ratings).

So given that we outta come up with something that will survive the test of time a bit. Honestly as I've said I don't have much of a problem with what we have. Maybe tweak down the RB salaries a bit, I could even get down with one salary no matter the position. But a major change I don't think is really needed. Maybe I draft a bust early, just the danger of doing business.

Thats pretty much exactly where I land. I also echo what LV said earlier about always being open to look at our rules. In this case there isn't a need to revamp the whole system. The fact that RB's have been devalued a bit in the current NFL is a much better reason to reevaluate things than, top rookies have been busts. I will say though its been nice to look back at past drafts and see how players have ended up over the years.

Changes to the rookie salary scale will have an effect on free agency and tag numbers down the road. That shouldn't be underestimated, IMO.

Just for fun I'd like to see what the formula we used originally would give us. Ultimately though, I'll come up with a proposal that is a pretty small change but takes into account some of the ideas people have had. We can always reevaluate then down the road.

[Achon44]

After giving all of this some thought. I like the idea of one salary per draft slot no matter the position. I thought about starting at $4M and dropping $200K each slot. This would cause a salary range of $4M - $1M for all of the first round picks.

Also, once we finally come to a decision on this can we then go back to taking a look at the compensation for tagged players?

[Wascawy Wabbits]

After giving all of this some thought. I like the idea of one salary per draft slot no matter the position. I thought about starting at $4M and dropping $200K each slot. This would cause a salary range of $4M - $1M for all of the first round picks.

Also, once we finally come to a decision on this can we then go back to taking a look at the compensation for tagged players?

I'd be good with that.

While I think $4m is still kinda high, I think that the proposed would work well to satisfy the issues that have been brought up in this thread. The difference between pick 1 and 10 would be 55% as opposed to pick 10 costing as low as 20% of pick 1. Having pick 16 end at $1m would fall in line with the idea that would make 2nd round picks to be a tier higher in price than the 3rd round picks.

[bocious]

I like BTP's idea, too. It accomplishes a flat scale with the least market disruption as compared to the other ideas put forth. In the second round, maybe we have the rate drop by $50k per pick. Right now my count is 8 in favor of one rookie salary for all positions, 2 against, and 1 who can "get down with it although it's not his preferred option. That seems like enough consensus for a vote once we decide on the rookie scale we want to vote on.

That said, I told Brandon offline that if the best we can gain consensus for is tweaking the numbers in our current system, then I would vote in favor because incremental change is better than no change. I also see his point about not making a dramatic shift in the market when - theoretically - we're all going to be in this league for years and don't HAVE to make big sweeping changes every year.

[Wascawy Wabbits]

I like BTP's idea, too. It accomplishes a flat scale with the least market disruption as compared to the other ideas put forth. In the second round, maybe we have the rate drop by $50k per pick. Right now my count is 8 in favor of one rookie salary for all positions, 2 against, and 1 who can "get down with it although it's not his preferred option. That seems like enough consensus for a vote once we decide on the rookie scale we want to vote on.

That said, I told Brandon offline that if the best we can gain consensus for is tweaking the numbers in our current system, then I would vote in favor because incremental change is better than no change. I also see his point about not making a dramatic shift in the market when - theoretically - we're all going to be in this league for years and don't HAVE to make big sweeping changes every year.

I think my biggest sticking points throughout all of this have been
- The cost of the 1.01 is very high for a RB compared to every other position
- The cost of WRs vs RBs should be brought closer to together (maybe have a single scale for those two positions?)
- The cost of the 1st round draft picks should be brought closer together as the taper rate on them is quite dramatic from the top of the 1st to the middle.

[yugimoto]

After giving all of this some thought. I like the idea of one salary per draft slot no matter the position. I thought about starting at $4M and dropping $200K each slot. This would cause a salary range of $4M - $1M for all of the first round picks.

Also, once we finally come to a decision on this can we then go back to taking a look at the compensation for tagged players?

I would support this proposal.

[Cybergeek]

After giving all of this some thought. I like the idea of one salary per draft slot no matter the position. I thought about starting at $4M and dropping $200K each slot. This would cause a salary range of $4M - $1M for all of the first round picks.

Also, once we finally come to a decision on this can we then go back to taking a look at the compensation for tagged players?

I'm not against one salary per draft slot, I think that it could be an effective method. The key in my opinion, is that no matter where the 1.01 salary starts, the salaries of the picks below should be closer together and not have too dramatic of a drop from pick to pick. Your proposal does address that aspect pretty well. One thing, and I don't know if this was intentional on your part or not, but as each pick is lowered by $200k, the actual percentage dropped is raised as the draft order unfolds. I don't know if that is good or bad, but it stood out to me.

Dropping $200k each slot is also very close to bocious' first proposal that also starts 1.01 at $4 million and each draft slot is 4% lower than the previous draft slot. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... li=1#gid=0

The second proposal by bocious has 1.01 at $5 million and each draft slot is 6.5% lower than the previous draft slot.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... li=1#gid=0

In Wascawy Wabbits' proposal, 1.01 starts at $2.5 million and in the first round salaries are dropped $100k per draft slot.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... li=1#gid=0

So there are choices within the proposals that basically accomplish the same thing, but at varying degrees of salary change per draft slot.

The choices to be made with the above proposals are;

1. What salary do we set for pick 1.01

2. Do we apply a percentage of salary drop per draft slot or a set sum drop per draft slot.

[Achon44]

One thing, and I don't know if this was intentional on your part or not, but as each pick is lowered by $200k, the actual percentage dropped is raised as the draft order unfolds. I don't know if that is good or bad, but it stood out to me.

I honestly gave zero thought to percentage dropped. I just did some quick simple math and then liked how it worked out that first rounders would fall between $4M - $1M.

In the second round, maybe we have the rate drop by $50k per pick.

[braven112]

I think my biggest sticking points throughout all of this have been
- The cost of the 1.01 is very high for a RB compared to every other position
- The cost of WRs vs RBs should be brought closer to together (maybe have a single scale for those two positions?)
- The cost of the 1st round draft picks should be brought closer together as the taper rate on them is quite dramatic from the top of the 1st to the middle.

I reran the original formula but with 2015 salaries. I think it hits on all 3 points.



Larger View

[Wascawy Wabbits]

I think my biggest sticking points throughout all of this have been
- The cost of the 1.01 is very high for a RB compared to every other position
- The cost of WRs vs RBs should be brought closer to together (maybe have a single scale for those two positions?)
- The cost of the 1st round draft picks should be brought closer together as the taper rate on them is quite dramatic from the top of the 1st to the middle.

I reran the original formula but with 2015 salaries. I think it hits on all 3 points.
Larger View

Nice to see an updated version of how these numbers have changed since the rookie wage scale was initially created. I think this shows just how the "market" has adjusted since this went into effect.

It's great to see that the cost of RBs and WRs would be evened out at the top of the draft, unlike where it currently stands. I think that the drop off between picks is still pretty significant, with the cost of the 1.01 and 1.10 being pretty major for all positions.

Based on the results of the running the original formula, I think that the easiest thing to do would probably to keep the QB, WR, TE, PK wages as is, and update the RBs to match the WRs.

For shits and giggles, I updated the spreadsheet that I had created and added wage scales starting at $2m, $2.5m, $3m, and $3.5m (the approx starting values of the QB/TE/RB/WR positions based on the updated values from running that formula). All of the wage scales end the first round at approximately $1m w/ rd2 starting at $850k for all positions (decreasing by $25k), rd 3 would be $425k. I added an extra row to the first round to show the percentage drops between the picks.

Anyways.. Thanks for running the formula, Brandon! I guess it's a matter of determining what the next steps will be moving forward.

[bonesman]

Weird. How did QB get higher than WR and RB?

16th highest paid:
RB: 3.1
WR: 3.7
QB: 2.7 (nm... I think I saw it as 2.1 at first, closer than I thought)... though the next highest QB is only 1m, RB and WR taper off more gradually

[braven112]

Weird. How did QB get higher than WR and RB?

It caught me by surprise as well. The top pick took the average of the top 27 players at QB and includes Rodgers and Peyton's salary. The #2 pick is average of 3-29 and it slides on from there. Similar idea for all positions, but RB are average of top 45 and WR's of the top 55.

16th highest paid:
RB: 3.1
WR: 3.7
QB: 2.7 (nm... I think I saw it as 2.1 at first, closer than I thought)... though the next highest QB is only 1m, RB and WR taper off more gradually

It's a little hard to ready, I actually only posted the top 10 and below the other figures were a comparison to 2008 and 2014 salaries

[Cybergeek]

Weird. How did QB get higher than WR and RB?

It caught me by surprise as well. The top pick took the average of the top 27 players at QB and includes Rodgers and Peyton's salary. The #2 pick is average of 3-29 and it slides on from there. Similar idea for all positions, but RB are average of top 45 and WR's of the top 55.

16th highest paid:
RB: 3.1
WR: 3.7
QB: 2.7 (nm... I think I saw it as 2.1 at first, closer than I thought)... though the next highest QB is only 1m, RB and WR taper off more gradually

It's a little hard to ready, I actually only posted the top 10 and below the other figures were a comparison to 2008 and 2014 salaries

As the commissioner of a salary contract league, here are some of my thoughts on setting rookie salaries.

In my opinion, a better way to look at rookie salaries is to to run the numbers by finding the average salaries of the top 27, 45, and 55 scoring players. Using only salary without regard to scoring skews the numbers by only looking at one criteria for assigning rookie salaries. By incorperating scoring into the equation, I believe you see a much more accurate look at the value of positions.

Using the average salaries of the top 27 scoring QBs, Top 45 scoring RBs, and the Top 55 scoring WRs, the salaries are:

QB $3,430,583.67
RB $2,598,103.76
WR $2,809,230.15

Using only salary, in my opinion, doesn't give a true value when analizing rookie salaries.

The next, and most important step would be to assess the relative values between picks. I think that the drop off in salary from pick to pick should be a uniform percentage drop each pick. For example, each pick is 5% lower than the pick that precedes it. My reasoning for this is that the averages of existing salary, in my opinion, should only be used to establish the top pick. After that, the values of draft slots should be relative to the other draft slots, not other players.