Draft Salaries

[braven112]

I know last year when we set up the arbitrary salaries for the 1st couple rounds of the draft, we were going to revisit them after a year to see if they were fair and what, if any, changes should be made.

Now that the draft is approaching how does everyone feel about the salaries? I figure this will be an ongoing discussion and once the draft is over we'll have an even better idea but I'd like to get the discussion going.

[bonscott]

Well, I traded out of my #7 spot because I felt that was too much.

As someone said, after the first few RBs go and you're at the #5 spot say and the best guy on the board is the top QB, you're going to pay 4 million for him! That's already higher then most QBs that are on teams already.

My thoughts before were that picks 1-3 were probably ok and then they are too expensive until you get to around pick 9/10 and beyond. But even then you are taking a huge chance paying 5 million on an RB who may not start for a couple years. Very few rookies step right in.

This year's draft class looks really deep at RB so perhaps it won't be so bad but I hear next year it's going to be pretty bare for RBs and QBs coming out so these salaries might be really high.

But on the other side if our salaries were a lot lower someone could get a stud RB real cheap for 5 years.

But NFL GM's go thru this same thing. Pay a 30 million signing bonus to a guy who hasn't played a down yet and may never be any good? Ouch.

We could do something like a low "rookie" salary that is just 1 year. Then after the season is over if you keep that rookie on your team they get a salary similar to our scale we have now. I'm thinking NBA type here. Thus each team has a year to see how that rookie performed and if they feel it's worth it to sign for big money.

However, that could be seen as unfair to those in this year's draft however I would be willing to support something that is better for the league, even if it would be unfair to me now (i.e. I wouldn't have traded away my #7 pick in such a system).

Another idea would be to wait until after the NFL draft to do our auction like we did with our initial auction. That way the market will determine the salary of the rookies instead of some arbitrary scale. Or even have a "rookie" auction instead of regular draft style. Just some other ideas.

[joe.commish]

I thought they were a little high which is also why I wanted to trade out of the high spot I had. But I was able to trade out which tells me someone doesn't see the cost as too high. I think others have been able to move their picks as well. There doesn't seem to be a sentiment that people are "stuck" with high picks. Maybe I am off on that, though.

My feeling is that as long as the numbers are not too low and not too high, they work. I like that it is not an easy decision to stay with the pick or try to deal it. If the contract numbers keep that dynamic, I am good with them. Which is the sitting on the fence way of saying I don't have a better idea.

[Achon44]

I've said this before and I still stand by it...We should consider not only slotting the salaries by draft pick, but also by position. This will be much more easier to do now that we've seen how our first main free agency period played out.

[braven112]

I've said this before and I still stand by it...We should consider not only slotting the salaries by draft pick, but also by position. This will be much more easier to do now that we've seen how our first main free agency period played out.

I really do like that idea!!

Perhaps they should be based on a average of so many salaries at a position. I'm not in a position to actually do the research to see if the acutal numbers make sense but to throw an example out. pick 1.01 is the average of the top 20 and number 2 is the average of the top 25 at that position and down the line. As opposed to a set $$ amount.

The other thing I wanted to consider is should the top picks be had at a "discount" for the subpar teams?

[bonscott]

So you're saying this for example (salaries totally made up):

I have the #1 pick. So I could draft an RB at 6 million or a QB at 2.5 million or a TE for 800K?

Certainly puts a twist on things.

[bonscott]

The other thing I wanted to consider is should the top picks be had at a "discount" for the subpar teams?

Definitely not.

[braven112]

The other thing I wanted to consider is should the top picks be had at a "discount" for the subpar teams?

Definitely not.

Only reason I mentioned that is that in a typical dynasty draft the higher the draft pick the more valuable it is. In a salary cap league like this that is not the case but if we get the salaries right I think we'll be good.

[Achon44]

The other thing I wanted to consider is should the top picks be had at a "discount" for the subpar teams?

Definitely not.

IMO the higher picks should always come with a bigger salary than the lower pickers, but at the same time I think we could lower the cost of all picks across the board. This is a Dynasty League and teams should be able to afford to sign their drafts picks for 5 years and also have the piece of mind that if they don't pan out after 2-3 years you can cut them and know that the hit you take the following year isn't catastrophic.

[braven112]

The other thing I wanted to consider is should the top picks be had at a "discount" for the subpar teams?

Definitely not.

IMO the higher picks should always come with a bigger salary than the lower pickers, but at the same time I think we could lower the cost of all picks across the board. This is a Dynasty League and teams should be able to afford to sign their drafts picks for 5 years and also have the piece of mind that if they don't pan out after 2-3 years you can cut them and know that the hit you take the following year isn't catastrophic.

Thats kind of what I was getting at I'd rather error on the side of draft picks costing too little as opposed to too much. I want teams to have an incentive to build through the draft and have those draft picks be valuable. Right now a 5 year contract is kind of a rarity but I'd like teams to do their homework for the draft and be rewarded when their players become stars without sabotaging their salary cap if they don't pan out.

[braven112]

So you're saying this for example (salaries totally made up):

I have the #1 pick. So I could draft an RB at 6 million or a QB at 2.5 million or a TE for 800K?

Certainly puts a twist on things.

Yeah I think that allows the top teams in the draft, to draft for need as opposed to being locked into a RB since that's what the salary almost requires.

[bonscott]

I guess come up with a scale for a proposal so we can look at it.

[Achon44]

I guess come up with a scale for a proposal so we can look at it.

Commish, if you get a chance talk to Linc of Rolling Rockers about this. He has a very well done scale for his other league that runs just like this and I think it would give you a great idea of how to base yours.

[irishpride8]

So you're saying this for example (salaries totally made up):

I have the #1 pick. So I could draft an RB at 6 million or a QB at 2.5 million or a TE for 800K?

Certainly puts a twist on things.

I like this.

[bonscott]

If I get time this afternoon I'll try to do some excel "magic" and come up with a top 20 salary list for each position based on average salaries from last year.

[braven112]

I guess come up with a scale for a proposal so we can look at it.

Commish, if you get a chance talk to Linc of Rolling Rockers about this. He has a very well done scale for his other league that runs just like this and I think it would give you a great idea of how to base yours.

Paging Marty Lincoln....

[bonscott]

Ok, here is what I've come up with. I've uploaded the spreadsheet here: Average Salary

Note it is the average salaries *as it is right now, April 16th, 2008* because there were many dropped players in 2007 after the season was over.

Doing an average (Top 20 for #1, Top 25 for #2) I don't think is going to work. Salaries are waaaaay too high. I also did an average that didn't include the top 10 and it was better but still too high for the most part.
I also just looked at the actual salary at the postion (say #20 RB salary would be the #1 RB pick salary instead of the average of the top 20 or whatever) and that almost seemed to low in some cases. So I just kinda made something up in between with the numbers in mind. Here is what I came up with, could be totally out of left field.

QB
1 $2,500,000
2 $1,500,000
3 $1,000,000
4 $500,000
5 $425,000

RB
1 $6,000,000
2 $5,000,000
3 $3,750,000
4 $2,500,000
5 $1,500,000
6 $1,000,000
7 $750,000
8 $425,000

WR
1 $4,000,000
2 $3,000,000
3 $2,000,000
4 $1,000,000
5 $500,000
6 $425,000

TE
1 $1,000,000
2 $750,000
3 $425,000

PK
Please. You should be shot. But if you did I'd say just 425K and be done with it.

When compared to our current scale it's similar but it's a bit lower in the middle and a little higher near the end of the 1st round and down to 425K min in the 2nd round.
The top WR might be a bit high but in comparison to the actual salaries I think it's about right. The other area to think about is the RBs starting at #3 and if that is a too quick drop or not. However, how many #4 or #5 rookie RBs actually turn out to be anything? Luck abounds for sure.

Example Pick
So if I pick 4th and the top 3 picks were all RBs, I would have the choice of drafting the #4 RB at 2.5 mil or the #1 QB at 2.5 mil, the #1 WR at 4 mil or the #1 TE at 1 mil

How's that for a first pass?

[braven112]

I was kind of thinking that each draft spot would have a pretetermined salary or average of the top so many salaries, as opposed to the #1 QB taken making a certain amount and the #2 QB taken makes a little less.

So in essence we would have 6 different scales that way your not over paying for a QB if there aren't any great ones available and they aren't drafted until late in the 1st round.

[braven112]

The other thing you can look at is instead of taking the top x number, you take the average of say 5-25 excluding the top 5 for some of the spots. That way the salaries are skewed for some of the lower picks

[bonscott]

The other thing you can look at is instead of taking the top x number, you take the average of say 5-25 excluding the top 5 for some of the spots. That way the salaries are skewed for some of the lower picks

I did that on the spreadsheet by taking out the top 10. So for example the #1 at a position would be average of 11-20, #2 would be average 11-25 and so forth. The salaries were still way too high (in my opinion and definately compared to the scale we have now).

[bonscott]

I was kind of thinking that each draft spot would have a pretetermined salary or average of the top so many salaries, as opposed to the #1 QB taken making a certain amount and the #2 QB taken makes a little less.

So in essence we would have 6 different scales that way your not over paying for a QB if there aren't any great ones available and they aren't drafted until late in the 1st round.

Sounds pretty complicated. I think there are guys that still don't understand what their cap hits will be in the future. No offense, just pointing it out.

Certainly like to see what you have in mind with some scenarios though.

[braven112]

The other thing you can look at is instead of taking the top x number, you take the average of say 5-25 excluding the top 5 for some of the spots. That way the salaries are skewed for some of the lower picks

I'll play around with some of that tonight to get something that works as well. If removing the top ten doesn't work then we can always lower the range to get something that makes sense.

[braven112]

I was kind of thinking that each draft spot would have a pretetermined salary or average of the top so many salaries, as opposed to the #1 QB taken making a certain amount and the #2 QB taken makes a little less.

So in essence we would have 6 different scales that way your not over paying for a QB if there aren't any great ones available and they aren't drafted until late in the 1st round.

Sounds pretty complicated. I think there are guys that still don't understand what their cap hits will be in the future. No offense, just pointing it out.

Certainly like to see what you have in mind with some scenarios though.

It's actually much simpler than it may sound and we would have it all listed in in the rule book, so as long as you can read a basic table you'll have no problem. IMO It's more important to get the salaries right and fair, than it is to dumb it down, but I understand your concern. Somtimes it's easy to get to cute with certain rules but with this group of owners I think we'll "get it" even if it takes a little bit for it all to sink in.

I'd also like to get Marty's list to take a look at since they've had a few more years under their belt in a similar league.

[Achon44]

PK
Please. You should be shot. But if you did I'd say just 425K and be done with it.

You have to admit though if you could have gotten Folk or Crosby for 425K with the 35th pick last year it would have been great value.

[bonscott]

The other thing you can look at is instead of taking the top x number, you take the average of say 5-25 excluding the top 5 for some of the spots. That way the salaries are skewed for some of the lower picks

I'll play around with some of that tonight to get something that works as well. If removing the top ten doesn't work then we can always lower the range to get something that makes sense.

That's kinda where my proposed numbers above came from. Looking at the various average numbers along with where they would slot compared to veterans. Have fun with crunching the numbers!