Off-Season Rules Discussion - Annual Rookie Salary Debate
 

Heading into our 3rd year of our rookie draft salary scale, I thought it'd be interesting to grade the inaugural rookie draft while at the same time taking a close look at the impact of the salary scale... a contentious issue with about 40-50% of the league.

This is just my 2-cents, and I'm sure many of you will disagree with my grades and analysis, but thats what debates at this time of year are all about!

Here goes (I'm hoping to analyze 1 round a day):

2002 Round 1
1.1 RB William Green Grade: F Salary: 1200 Analysis: A bust, way Overpaid
1.2 QB Joey Harrington Grade: C Salary: 875 Analysis: Salary exceeds production
1.3 RB Deshaun Foster Grade: Incomplete Salary: 1140 Analysis: Shows signs of Stud Capabilities, but Salary currently exceeds production
1.4 RB TJ Duckett Grade: C Salary: 1110 Analysis: Salary exceeds production
1.5 QB David Carr Grade: C+ Salary: 800 Analysis: Emerging Stud, but not a top 5 Salary QB
1.6 TE Jeremy Shockey Grade A Salary: 300 Analysis: UNDERPAID Stud
1.7 RB Clinton Portis Grade: A Salary: 1020 Analysis: Injury Prone Stud but stil UNDERPAID
1.8 WR Donte Stallworth Grade: D Salary: 660 Analysis: Injury Prone and Limited Opportunites, Overpaid
1.9 WR Ashley Lelie Grade: C- Salary: 640 Analysis: Limited Opportunites, Overpaid
1.10 WR Jabar Gaffney Grade: D Salary: 620 Analysis: Not very productive, Overpaid
1.11 TE Daniel Graham Grade: C Salary: 250 Analysis: Shows flashes of Stud Potential, Slightly Overpaid for Production thus far
1.12 WR Antonio Byrant Grade: C Salary: 580 Analysis: Lacking opportunites, has potential, Overpaid for production thus far

So there you have my 2002 round 1 analysis after 2 full years. Feel free to provide input. I know there are a block of teams out there who still feel portions of the salary scale are too high, particularly at WR and QB, and I tend to agree. Out of 12 1st round picks only 2 have become studs thus far, most have graded out around average, but overpaid for their production, and 1, the #1 pick of that year is pretty much a complete bust.

Looking back at the 2002 draft class you can see just how unpredictable things are.

From looking at the 1st Round I'll agree with all of your grades.

You can also see that rookie QBs, and WRs are a bit high. TEs are a little underpriced and I think that RBs need to be bumped up a bit maybe the first RB starts at 1500.

Well I'm hoping by next year my 2003 1st ROund picks will be grade As (Fargas, Boller).

I agree with the analysis for the most part, but I think one year is far too little to judge the scale on. Personally, the last two years' drafts have been some of the worst I can remember. We haven't had any real unquestioned studs coming out on the offensive side of the ball for a couple years. There have been some good wide receivers, but they've turned out to be injury prone, or are in a situation where they aren't going to produce (yet). If there were a few studs in the QB and RB department, those WRs would drop a few slots into a more accurate draft spot and their salries wouldn't be as high. I'm anxious for this draft with the Eli Manning's and multiple RB studs, and we'll get a better idea of how the scale works in my opinion.

Well I think the salaries are way too high across the board.

Why pay close to 900 for a rookie QB, when I can pick up a FA that will be twice as productive for 1/3 the cost. Even if I have the patience to wait 3 years for the QB to develop, where is the reward?

WR's are also a complete joke... Anquan Boldin (a 2nd round pick BTW, who was never considered in the top of the receiving class) may be the only player in 2 rookie WR classes that is worth his salary. Paying a Stallworth, or Lelie, or even an Andre Johnson from this past years class in the 650-750 range is a joke, especially when far more productive WR's are sold in free agency for much less.

Even at RB, we had 2 unheard of FA's come out of nowhere this year (Davis and Johnson), and they sold in the 900 range on the open market... IMO, they were just as big a risk as a draft pick, but at least teams knew to some degree what they were getting. Why pay an undrafted rookie RB over 1000 cb's? Only 1 rookie RB that was drafted in the past 2 years has emerged as a true stud (Portis), and he has shown that he may be injury prone because he's too small. He's also a product of the Denver system.

I think the salaries of rookies just make the whole idea of building through the draft a joke, even with the DS. The fact is it's easier to build through free agency, and we've made the value of rookie picks almost worthless IMO. High draft picks should be helping the teams at the bottom who are trying to rebuld, not hurting them.

IMO, if the scale was lower across the board, and a team hit on a stud, then good for them. At least they gain soe flexibility to rebuild their team.

As for the argument that the draft class was weak, I don't buy it. This years class MAY have a stud RB, MAY... but there is a good possibility that no RB even gets taken in the 1st round of the NFL draft. As for the rookie QB's... big deal, they take at least 3 years to develop... by that time you've got at most 2 years left on a contract that would already be paying the player top 7 money. What's the point.

I stand by my contention for the past 2 years that we've devalued the rookie draft (by having salaries set too high) so much so that the value of picks is almost worthless.

Two seperate points to add (Mike you may decide to split them) but what the heck. I agree that some rookies are overpaid but at the same time I am not sure the problem is with the rookie scale. Why not just set minimums for the different UFA positions. Don't have to be as high as the RFA tender bids but it could help to cut down the differential.

Also, did we ever vote on adding a fourth round to the draft? I know it was discussed but I can remember how we landed.

I would not like to see a minimum for UFA positions. I think that would severly limit teams that use up close to their cap space. Say you make UFA Ws minimum bid $250 and I've worked my cap space where I've used up all but $200 yet I need to add another WR for some reason or another. That means I cant bid on an UFA WR because I'm short? I should be able to buy whatever WR out there I can afford, even if he's a 4th stringer.

I've always felt the rookie salary scale was WAY too high (noticed I've freely traded my future picks for proven players). That's how I've operated my team in the past. A proposal that might help this is lower the rookie scale accross the board. Institute a max contract of 3 years for all rookies so even if the rookies are underpriced, they can only be signed for 3 years or less. Rookie QBs might fall in value according to these rules but it seems more than fair to me. I've never found value in rookies with the current setup.

I think if we are going to change the max length of the rookie contracts than we should change the max length of all contracts. In my mind 5 years is fair particularily if the new cap hit option is instituted.

Mike, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the talent pool the last couple of years. We haven't had any Peyton Mannings, Randy Moss', or anything close to a stud RB (outside of a questionable Portis). If we look at the 2004 draft and see the same results as the first two, then I'll be in your camp. However, at this point, I feel confident the talent in this draft will exceed the previous two, which will make the salary scare more accurate.

I am far against limiting rookie contracts to 3 years. What would be the point of drafting any players other than a RB? 99% of QBs aren't going to start their first year, and most won't be productive until their third at least, so you're drafting a guy for one year. Wide receivers are pretty much the same, though a slightly higher percentage are more productive earlier. RBs are the only positions where a rookie can come into a situation where they are looking for a starter and put up numbers right away. If we want to lower the salary scale, I'd be all for limiting the contract years on RBs to 3, but leave the rest at 5.

Here's another idea, I'm not sure how well this would go over, but I'm just brainstorming here. What if we had a much lower rookie salary scale, but rookie salaries had performance incentives. (These numbers are just off the top of my head and for illustrative purposes only), but the top of the scale QBs could start at $400, RBs at $500, WRs at $350, TE and Ks at $150. Then, after the first year, the salaries are bumped based on their prior year's perfomance. Say if they turn out to be the #1 point score for their position, QBs get a 350 bump, rbs 500, wrs 300, te get 200, and kickers don't get incentives. If the score top five, a smaller bump, 6-10, and even smaller bump, and 11-20, a smaller bump, but still higher than the standard 10%. The incentives would be enforced each year of their original contract, but the could have celings, say QB-1100, RBs-2000, WR-1200, TE-500. This way, rookies start off much smaller, and their risk is lessoned. If they do produce, you still get at least one year of great value, but their salary will be brought in line with true market value. Even if they max out their salaries and turn out to be the best at their position, you are still getting value as their contract is under market value for the best at their position, but it is more realistic as it is higher than our current salary scale.

Thoughts?

Here's a few more details with some case studdies. The top of the rookie scale is as in my previous post, QBs-400, RBs-500, WRs-350, TE & K-150, and they decline by 10 each round until they hit the 100 minimum (TEs decline by 5 until they reach 100).

Bonuses are as follows, QBs=#1 gets 500, 2-5 gets 350, 6-10 gets 200, 11-20 gets 100, all others get 10%. RBs=#1 gets 600, 2-5 gets 450, 6-10 gets 300, 11-20 gets 200, all others get 10%. I'll save you the details of the other positions, but you get the idea.

Case studies:

Clinton Portis; By my new scale, his rookie salary would be 440 for being taking 1.7. He was the #6 RB his rookie year, so he'd get a 300 bonus, raising his 2003 salary to 740. He was #6 again this year, so in 2004 his salary would be 1040. This compared to what he is set to make at 1234. However, if he imoves up to the top five in 2004, his salary jumps to 1490 versus only a raise of 10%.

William Green: His rookie salary at 1.1 would have been 500.He was the #28 RB in 2002, so he would have gotten a 10% raise to 550. He was the #42 RB in2003, so another 10% raise. This compared to his current 2004 salary he would have made at 1452.

David Carr: at 1.5, he would have a salary of 360 his first year. He was the #24 QB, so a 10% raise for 2003. He was the #25 QB this year, so another 10% raise, so his 2004 salary would be 436 vs the current 968.

Donte Stallworth: Rookie salary would have ben 280, with two bad years, his 2004 salary would be 339, vs his current 799.

Jeremy Shockey: Rookie Salary would have been 125. As the #3 TE in 2002, he would have gotten a raise of 250. As the #9 TE in 2003, he'd get a 100 raise this year for a 2004 salary of 475, vs the current 363.

Anquan Boldin: as the 2.1 pick under this system, he'd have a rookie salary of 230. As the #4 WR this year, he'd get a raise of 300 for a 2004 salary of 530. If he repeated that performance, he'd get a 2005 salary of 730, vs the current 677.

So, what we see is that if you draft the premier player at the position, you will end up paying more in the long run for the rookie, but still have him cheaper the first couple of years. If you draft good but not the best, it will even out, and if you draft a mediocre player, the new scale would be cheaper.

Nice proposal Dodgers. Im in favor of anything that lowers the rookie salary scale. One thing though, your proposal seems to remove most of the risk of drafting. Anyone can make mistakes and not be hurt by these current numbers. Also, another thing to keep in mind is by lowering rookie salaries across the board, there will be more money for veterans so the difference between vets and rookies will grow that much higher. Just something to keep in mind.

It seems to me that this discussion is about a problem that, though it still exists, has already been addressed. We have increased the number of slots in the DS. The DS has no salary cap and the player's salaries do not increase while they are on the DS. We just put these provisions in place, primarily in response to the same concerns we hear expressed now. Lets give the DS and rookie structure a chance to work. If we still see similar negative trends after the next couple of years are in the books, we can make further changes.

Please keep in mind that many NFL teams also find it quite a bit easier to build championship teams through free-agency, as opposed to the rookie draft. For short term growth, a similar strategy in the Frenzy might make sense as well. I feel there is no reason to further limit the risk or increase the benefit of the rookie draft at this time. The DS is already providing a shelter from both the cost of paying an over-priced prospect, as well as a salary increase for a player not yet ready for the active squad.

As a third point, I am very much against any decrease in the number of contract years allowed for incoming rookies.

I would agree, but only to a certain extent. However, I think the revised system I outlined significantly increases the value of the draft picks, due to the fact that it increases the discount for mid level to high performing draft picks. Since essentially the picks are more valuable (since there is more value in the picks), the penalty of making a bad pick and getting no value for it is increased. It may not be increased enough to offset the increased discount of a good prospect, but it is an increase none the less.

As to Jake's comments, I am in agreement with you for the most part. However, as we seem to have the debate each year that the rookies salaries are too high, I just suggested a format like this because I'd prefer something like this to a blanket across the board reduction of the current rookie salary scale. I thought this might be a better compromise, but I'm all for giving the current system another year trial first.

I need some time to digest Brian's proposal before truly commenting on it.

On the surface I like it, I'm not opposed to some kind of incremental merit pay increases for top performing rooks.

What I do know is that there are far fewer homeruns than there are strikeouts with rookie picks, so starting out on a smaller scale that is adjusted based on performance is fine by me.

The specifics of the scale and increments would need some deep thought, but I think it's an interesting idea, similary to the pay scale idea the Freedom proposed a year ago for regular players. I think it makes much more sense with the rookie picks.

As for Jake's comments on the DS. The DS is nice, but the salaries of these rooks are still to prohibitive to get much use ouft of them.

Just look at Ashley Lelie or Donte Stallworth... they're paid comparably to Derrick Mason, who was a FA pickup... which would you rather have? Don't even get me going on the QB's... none of them are worth their payscale. Even the RB's for the most part haven't merited their pay.

I think the DS is fine as is, it buys you time for your talent to develop, however, few of the rooks are worth their salaries, and thus promoting them off the DS just doesn't make sense when FA can buy you twice the player for half the price.

I think we should encourage building through the draft, not penalize teams. And right now the current structure still penalizes teams IMO. Going with a lower scale and giving the rooks annual increases based on production is a very interesting concept.... the question is, administratively, how do we keep it from being too much of a burden.

If we can work out the details I endorse the concept.

OK, I just spent some time digesting Brian's proposal. The more I read it the more I like it.

With Brian's proposal, you basically pay for what you get, which significantly improves the value of picks IMO. I have no problem paying more to highly productive players, which is the case for Biran's proposal, but the benefit is your slow developing prospect is possibly worth a roster slot at a reduced salary now, whereas under the current system FEW rooks make the active rosters becuase their play just doesn't merit the pay. If a player gorws into a stud so does his pay, and over 5 years a productive rookie could grow into a substanial contract... I like it.

As for contract length, all rookie contracts need to be up to 5 years IMO. In fact I personally think we should just eliminate the contract years restriction on the DS and allow all rooks to be signed to 5 year contracts, with their pay based on their production from the previous season during their initial contract. Once a rookie contract is complete we go by our usual contract terms.

Nice job Brian. I think it's an excellant compromise proposal.

I'm not sure if I would support Brian's proposal to resturcture rookie contracts. I do agree the contracts are a bit too high and need to be resturctued but I am not sure if a performance based contract is the solution.

Like someone mentioned before it would take the risk out of drafting, giving everyone a trap door to escape from a busted pick. In the NFL many 1st round picks are busts and franchises have to either stick with them or cut them loose and eat their contract.

My suggestion is if a performance base contract structure is in place for rookies that maybe if a team were to relase the player, they take the full contract hit or 75%. Just so that there is some danger to draft picks.

How is there little risk? A busted pick is still a busted pick, it still a loss of opportunity. It'd be no different than now, where if a pick flops we just cut them off the DS with no cap hit and move on.

As for contract hits, I think the lower scale will make it possible for more rooks to make the active roster, and once ac1tivated the rooks would be suject to cap hits if released anyhow.

To me, Brian's proposal makes drafting more important, and makes the value of draft picks much more significant than the current system. In actuality, the proposed production based bonus system penalizes great picks with escalating contracts (but not so much so that the picks aren't worthwhile).

I love the idea more and more as I look deeper at it. Rookies get paid for production, and the risk to carry a prospect on the active roster is somewhat mitigated, AND... if I blow a pick I still blow an opportunity.

I guess considering we have elimanted the 5000 cb cap on the DS there really is no risk now, but I believe there should be some "penalty" for cutting a rookie.

In the NFL a busted 1st round pick can set a franchise back a year or so and they still have to pay the bum. Looking back on Brian's proposal I'd be willing to work with it if the majority of the league approves.

I'd still like to see some sort of higher penalty if a rookie pick is cut. But a couple of quetsions.

If this rookie system pops up what will we do with the DS? Would we reinstate the cap, maybe to an even lower figure than the 5000. I feel that the DS cap should be re-implemeneted if this goes through. I'd also like to see the rookies salaries raise each year even if they're on DS.

Another thing, is what happens if a rookie regresses? Will they maintain the previous year pricewith a 10% increase (my suggestion) or drop to their placement?

In general terms I like the Dodgers idea. However I would like to suggest that we consider when to implement it as a number of teams have made deals based on the old scale. Since picks do seem more valuable now it might be best to wait until the 2005 to implement this idea.

I don't care either way but for those folks that traded away picks...

Thanks for the constructive criticism guys. As I said, the figures I used were real rough, and will need a little tweaking to get them just right. Looking at the few players I analyzed, I think it's in the right ball park. My comments on a few issues brought up here:

As to the issue of there being no risk with this system, I think MIke answered that with the fact that cutting a player from the DS carries no cap hit penalty. While I don't agree with it, I see some people's point that you can make a bad first round pick and cut them free for nothing. One idea I have on this is that we could guarantee a portion of first round pick's contracts. If a first round pick, even if places on the DS is cut, he carries an active roster salary cap hit. His cap hit would work the same as the active roster cap hit (however we decide to tweak that). This will make first round picks more vital, so people just can't draft whatever RB there is in the 1st, slap a five year contract on him, and cut him if he doesn't pan out.

This raises another issue that if we did institute this rookie structure, we'd have to do away with DS players salaries not increasing while on the DS. If this was the rookie strucutre, they would have to increase when they hit bonuses.

Also, as I've proposed it, a rookie that regresses would still get a 10% raise. All rookies outside of the top 20 in their position get a 10% raise, so no one would drop down after a big promotion.

To the Freedom, I would think that unless we got unanimous concent, we'd have to wait until 2005. People traded away draft picks based on their perceived 2004 value, so it would be unfair to them to change it on them now.

As far as reinstituting a DS cap, I'm not sure I'm in favor of that. As the DS as it is now is only for drafted rookies, you would only be penalizing teams for drafting well. If you drafted a bunch of studs that broke out, your hand would be forced to trade, activate, or cut players from the DS. I think if a team has managed their roster so well that they have talent enough on the active roster that they don't yet want to activate certain players, we shouldn't penalizing them for drafting so well they can't fit all their rookies under a cap. I also think it would be hard to find a fair cap number anyways, as rookie contract will start so small, and increase significantly only on production, that the odds are most teams won't have big contracts on their DS.

Pretty much Ditto on enerything Dodgers said with one exception... I think this could be implemented THIS year.

Why?... because only 7 picks have traded hands in the 2004 draft thus far, and of those 7 only 2 are significant picks. In fact, 5 of the 7 picks that have traded hands are at 2.9 or lower (relatively insignificant picks), while only 2 are relatively high picks (1.8 and 2.1) and even those two aren't THAT high. If the teams that traded these 2 picks consented (the Undead and the Mutts) I don't see why this couldn't be implemented this year.

Further, NONE of the picks that have been traded were traded with their exact position known. The Mutts traded their 2nd rounder this year to move up in the 2nd last year, and the Undead traded their 1st last year for Collins early in the 2003 off-season in an attempt to find a bargain QB to take them all the way. Neither the Mutts nor the Undead knew what position they were giving up, only the round. To me that makes it easier to move to Brian's proposal THIS YEAR.

Mike, I wouldn't be against implementing this kind of scale this year. I hadn't looked at the draft tracker to see what kind of picks had been traded. I figured it would only be unfair to those who traded picks, and I also figured that if this kind of thing passed, that only those who had traded picks would object to it being implented this year. Thus, we would be in agreement that the Mutts and Undead would need to consent (though I think if someone else can come up with a valid claim as to why if this passed it would need to wait a year, we would have to listen).

For quite a few reasons at this point, I'm still supporting at least another year before something like this would go into effect.

I can be swayed, but I still need to be convinced that we already know what effect the changes we made last year will have. I'm still worried we are moving towards a system that does not award long term growth for a team, but instead encourages yearly building and dismantling.

I am still against a rookie salary increase based on performance. Either you invest something in the rookie or you dont. I dont like the idea of being able to hedge your bet. The current rookie salary scale is not that far off. I think we're basing this on a couple of weak draft classes. It would be nice to see if anyone could do some case studies from pre 2000 and take a look at some of those rookies.

I feel the only thing that might need tweaking is that rookie QBs are still overpriced. RBs a little overpriced. I think WR arent too bad. I feel 700 for Donte Stallworth is a reasonable salary, especially given the talent he's shown. Again, I've always felt that a straight salary decline is not the way to go. In the 2nd and 3rd rounds where bargains should be available we rarely get any because of this salary structure. I would like to see a steeper decline from the top few picks to the later rounds. You always have to pay a premium for top talent but later on you should be able to find some value.

I am firmly against removing the DS contract year cap. I feel if we remove this then owners dont need to choose who they want to invest in. Everyone would just be signed to the max contract. What's the fun in that?

I want a league where its challenging to build a team. It seems we're making it very difficult to screw up your team. While I think the rookie salary scale needs some tweaks, I dont think it needs an overhaul. Have we even given the rookie system more than 2 years to work? We keep changing it. Also by continuing to change these rules we're playing with teams fortunes, especially those teams that have already traded away future picks. Also, I'm definitely less likely to keep trading future picks if we keep changing the rookie system. I dont want to end up getting screwed. As always my 2 cents.

I'll get to work on that. The ranking of the players I test won't be based on our scoring system, but they should still give us an idea. I'll try to do a few players from the 2001, 2000, and 1999 draft and see how it plays out.

Your's and Jake's concerns of constantly changing the rookie system aren't falling on deaf ears. As I've said before, I'm fine with keeping the system as is for another year to give it another test. Also, if we do decide to change it, I'm in favor of implementing a rule that a change in structure needs to remain unchanged for x years (3?) before it can be revised. That would give us time to truly look at how it works before we change it again.

On the other hand, I'm also interested in getting the best possible system implemented as soon as we discover it. This league is a lot of fun. If we can make it better, it's just sweeter, but I don't want to screw with it so much it gets all messed up.

As far as the DS contract year cap, I would not be in support of killing that. I think when Mike said all rookie contracts should be 5 years, I took it to mean they should all be allowed to be assigned 5 year contracts given the available years for that teams cap (that comment being made against my proposal that RB contracts are limited to 3 years). If I said anything otherwise, I mistyped.

OK, I've run the numbers and looked at the salaries. Overall, I think it's a pretty good scale (assuming you agree that the purpose of the scale should be to reward good drafting, while making sure that great players aren't TOO underpriced).

I've analyzed most major players drafted from 1997 to 2002. I had to arbitrarily assign them a draft position. It is not very scientific, but I just assumed all first round draft picks were selected in the frenzy first round in order, the same for all seconds in the second round, and everything after that in the third round. You can adjust their starting salaries by your own assumptions of where you think they would have been drafted, but their bonuses would remain unchanged. The other assumption I made was that all players had 5 year contracts. After looking at the results, the only tweaks I see are that the tight ends are priced way too high, and the wide receivers are a little underpriced. Some major case studdies:

Tony Gonzalez, drafted '97, assumed frenzy pick 1.3. After finishing 19th, 10th, 2nd and first among tight ends, his salary went from 140 his rookie year, to 990 his fifth season. This is a fair market salary, though it should be reduced slightly to offer discount.

Jake Plummer, drafted 2.12 in '97, assumed frenzy pick 2.2. After finishing 21st, 6th, 27th, and 19th among QBs, his salary went from 270 as a rookie to 647 his fifth year. Probably overpriced, but got a big bump from finishing 6th his second season.

Corey Dillon, drafted 2.13 in '97, assumed frenzy 2.3 pick. Finished 8th, 17th, 11th, 17th. His salary went from 360 as a rookie to 1260 his 5th season. I find this to be a big bargain for a player that would have been a started in each of his five seasons.

Peyton Manning, drafted #1 in '98, assumed #1 pick. This was one of only 4 players drafted since '97 to reach the max salaries I proposed for Rookies. Manning finished 9th, 3rd, 3rd and 3rd his first four seasons. He maxed out in the 4th year, but with no ceiling, he would have reached a salary of 1650 his 5th season.

Randy Moss was another of the 4 players to reach his ceiling. With not ceiling he would have had a 5th year salary of 1940 (he finished 1st overall among WRs twice).

Edgerrin James, drafted 4th overall in 99, assumed frenzy pick 1.4. Edge finished 1st, 2nd, 32nd, and 24th for a 5th year salary of 1839. Rickey Williams, the next pick, finished 27th, 18th, 8th, and 2nd for a 5th year salary of 1356.

I've got a full excel spreadsheet I can email to anyone who is interested in seeing it (I don't believe I know how to attach one to the website).

I have been thinking about another concern I have regarding the proposed changes to the rookie draft and DS system. As I review the commentary, it is clear there are two camps in the Frenzy. The first has taken a more aggressive management style, relying on the free agency market to build their teams. These teams, I feel, have been the most competitive in the early years. The second camp believes strongly in the potential for long term growth through the rookie draft. Until the Frenzy has a decade or so under its belt, I don't think we should be so quick to discount this second strategy.

I feel many of the ideas we are considering move toward a reduction in the potential of the draft to be a defining factor between teams. In the name of reducing the initial salaries of the top paid players, thereby reducing the risk (or as some are calling it, improving the usefullness) of the draft, we are hurting the team that is able to gain an edge by signing later rounds players to long-term salaries at small prices. A few picks in the last couple of years that I feel deserve credit (Grade is my estimate of future potential, not past performance.):

2002 2.9 Brian Westbrook Grade: B Analysis: all around threat in 2003 with a leg up on the feaure role in 2004. Would have been a great deal going into next season at $600 if the Toxic Waste had held him on the DS.
2003 2.4 Lee Suggs Grade: B Analysis: Grade based on limited start in 2003. With a 180 yd rushing game and multiple TDs under his belt, Suggs could provide quite a leg up for the Toxic Waste in 2004 at a small price of $750.
2003 3.9 Brandon Lloyd Grade: B Analysis: Showed quite a bit of potential in limited opportunities with a potent passing offense. With TO and Streets possibly departing, Lloyd could be quite a weapon for the Freedom at $160.

If any of these players were to break through and have big impacts in the coming years, the team that held onto them should reap the rewards of a small contract extending through the original signing period. I worry that steeply increasing the salaries of successful picks, and at the same time reducing the initial salary scale as a whole, is simply serving to bring us all closer to the middle as we minimize the advantage of a great pick.

Great work Dodgers! Thanks for putting this all together! Now I'm assuming you did the case study based on your proposed salary scale? Can we see the numbers based on our current system to compare? I would love to see how those picks based on our current salary scale to see if our system is right on, close, or not even in the ballpark.

I think QB #'s are a tad high, RB's dead-on, TE's a bit high, and I'd need to see more data on WR's. but I'd love to see the spreadsheet.

Brian can you please e-mail it to me at mike@predatorsfootball.com

Once I get it I'll post view and download links here on the board for everybody to review.

Thanks

Mutts, the purpose of my proposal certainly wouldn't be to make it easier for everyone. As far as rewarding good late round picks, I would be open to consider a compromise such as making 3rd round selections bonus free. That would probably make it harder to track the whole thing, but I don't know.

Squirrel Chasers, yes, those few case studdies were made based on the new propsed scale. I have sent the spreadsheet to Mike, and he should post it for all to see. I did not include a comparison to the players salaries if drafted by the old scale, but since I had to assume where players were drafted, and I did not put much thought into it, I'm not sure how much value that would provide if I put that info together (I certainly could though).

Also, Mike appears to be an expert on where players would have been drafted from years past. Maybe he can put that info together. :D (Just kidding!)

Just a quick update, I spent last weekend playing with Brian's spreadsheet and cleaning it up. Overall I think it's vastly superior to what we have, although I do think TE's in his salary structure should be knocked down a tad, and QB's and RB's should maybe start a bit higher.

Hopefully I'll find time to post my tinkerings this week. If nothing else, I've edited Brian's spreadsheet to show the salaries under the old structure, and what they'd be under his new proposal. About 2-3 players out of each draft class will make it to the top salary structure in years 4 or 5, and thus exceeding what our original salary structure would have paid, however, none of them even equal our current salary structure in the 1st 3 years of their contracts.

Brian's proposal has a ton of merit and deserve serious consideration with a little fine tuning IMO.

I agree the tight ends were high. I liked where the QBs and RBs were, but there's definately some room there to increase their value.

I hope people will seriously look over this scale, and give it some consideration.

Are there any further thoughts on making the 3rd round incentive bonus free, allowing those picks to have the potential to be steals, and rewarding good choices?

Looking forward to seeing the spreadsheet. Is it currently posted somewhere?

Brian's Rookie Salary Proposal
 

I'm gonna post a link for what I have right now. I haven't had time to input the actual data for the most recent draftclass (any chance you can do that Brian? I did enter the names and draft position of the entire draft class).

Anyhow, here are some links to give you guys some comparison ideas on how Biran's proposal stacks up against the existing system:

** VIEW Brian's Rookie Salary Proposal**
http://feedingfrenzy.predatorsfootba...e Proposal.htm

** DOWNLOAD Brian's Rookie Salary Proposal**
<A HREF="New Roster Scale Proposal.xls"><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="2">http://feedingfrenzy.predatorsfootba...e Proposal.xls</FONT></A>

Mike, I'll send it to you this afternoon in the same format as before.

Edited to add, it was pretty quick, it's already sent to Mike.

Thank you Brian. I've updated the spreadsheet with the 2003 data Brian provided.

Here are the links again:

** VIEW Brian's Rookie Salary Proposal**
http://feedingfrenzy.predatorsfootba...e Proposal.htm

** DOWNLOAD Brian's Rookie Salary Proposal**
<A HREF="New Roster Scale Proposal.xls"><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="2">http://feedingfrenzy.predatorsfootba...e Proposal.xls</FONT></A>

What I like about this proposal, is that it reverses the emphasis on rookie salaries that we currently have. As it stands now, our salary scale basically assumes every rookie is going to be a stud and be worth his contract, when in reality, only a few rookies emerge out of each draft class, and in general we are way overpaying rookies for the production they provide.

Looking over the historical data, I would say it's fair to assume that out of the average draft classs, you may gat 1 outright stud, 2-3 superior players, and maybe 4-5 lunch bucket type players.

Brian's proposed system rewards the players that produce, but still in general pays them less than our original scale... the only time the players exceed our original scale is when they put up top 5 numbers in consecutive seasons, and even then it takes about 3 years, sometimes 4, to surpass the high salaries we currently pay. This proposed salary structure will make the draft much more worthwhile, will still reward teams for great value picks (since the salaries are generally less than our originals the first few years), and will encourage teams to place more rookies on their active roster instead of being stashed on the DS (since they'll be so much more affordable), which will result in a slightly deeper talent pool on the waiver wire, which will result in more competitive balance and may even slightly bring down salaries overall as a whole IMO.

I think Brian's proposal needs some fine tuning, which can occur with input from the entire league, but in general I truly feel it's vastly superior to our existing struture.

I like what I see so far. Great work Brian!

Initially I'm in favor of this... will look at it a bit more closely and offer suggestions.

another point to add
 

Brian (Dodgers) and I have been corresponding most of the day on some tinkering, and have a suggestion to throw past you all:

If we do indeed pass Brian's proposed rookie scale, how about scaling incentives back by round, for example:

100% of the bonus scale for 1st round picks
75% of the bonus scale for 2nd round picks
and 50% of the bonus scale for 3rd round picks?

Finally, we could add a 4th round (something I've been in favor of) that would have all base salaries at 100 and only a 25% of the bonus scale performance increase.

Note, the max salaries would decrease for each round as well.

Also note, that the standard 10% contract increase will be applied in addition to the incentive bonus

The idea here would be that value picks in the later rounds would still be value picks, but they would also be subject to a scaled incentive bonus if the performance standard is met.

Basically the performance bonuses would be as follows:

Quarterbacks
#1 500 1st rd, 375 2nd rd, 250 3rd rd, 125 4th rd
2-5 350 1st rd, 263 2nd rd, 175 3rd rd, 88 4th rd
6-10 200 1st rd, 150 2nd rd, 100 3rd rd, 50 4th rd
11-20 100 1st rd, 75 2nd rd, 50 3rd rd, 25 4th rd
All others 10%
Max Salary 1200 1st rd, 900 2nd rd, 600 3rd rd, 300 4th rd

Running Backs
#1 600 1st rd, 450 2nd rd, 300 3rd rd, 150 4th rd
2-5 450 1st rd, 338 2nd rd, 225 3rd rd, 113 4th rd
6-10 300 1st rd, 225 2nd rd, 150 3rd rd, 75 4th rd
11-20 200 1st rd, 150 2nd rd, 100 3rd rd, 50 4th rd
All others 10%
Max Salary 2000 1st rd, 1500 2nd rd, 1000 3rd rd, 500 4th rd

Wide Receivers
#1 450 1st rd, 338 2nd rd, 225 3rd rd, 113 4th rd
2-5 300 1st rd, 225 2nd rd, 150 3rd rd, 75 4th rd
6-10 200 1st rd, 150 2nd rd, 100 3rd rd, 50 4th r
11-20 100 1st rd, 75 2nd rd, 50 3rd rd, 25 4th rd
All others 10%
Max Salary 1100 1st rd, 825 2nd rd, 550 3rd rd, 275 4th rd

Tight Ends
#1 300 1st rd, 225 2nd rd, 150 3rd rd, 75 4th rd
2-5 200 1st rd, 150 2nd rd, 100 3rd rd, 50 4th rd
6-10 150 1st rd, 113 2nd rd, 75 3rd rd, 38 4th rd
11-20 50 1st rd, 38 2nd rd, 25 3rd rd, 13 4th rd
All others 10%
Max Salary 750 1st rd, 563 2nd rd, 375 3rd rd, 188 4th rd

upon further review...
 

Okay, so help me out here, Mike... I've probably just been "away" too long from this discussion to be "up to speed"...

Your chart re: performance bonuses, the #1, #2-5, #6-10, #11-20 indicate YEAR-END FANTASY RANKING PER POSITION, right?

So say I draft a QB in the 1.1 position in this year's draft... and that QB ends up ranking #15 in total fantasy points for the 2004 season... then NEXT year, in addition to whatever the 1.1 salary was for my QB, the league would add an additional 100 cbs to his contract. Is that right? And if he was drafted in the 2.1 position, and still ranked #15, then we'd add an additional 75 cbs?

Tell me if I'm on the right track... :confused: :eek: :retard

Re: upon further review...
 

yes yes and yes, however he would also get the standard 10% raise, so a QB taken at 1.1 in year 1 who finshed #15 among QB's that year would get a salary of 400 in year 1, and 540 in year 2 (400, +40 for 10% increase, +100 for incentive bonus). Just for comparison's sake, under the existing rules, the same QB would be paid 900 for year 1, and 990 for year 2 (if on the active roster, 900 if on the DS).

For argument's sake... if any rookie QB finishes at #15 overall, I think that would be a MONSTER year for him... but nowhere near worth the 900 or 990 salary, currently in place. 400 & 540 is still probably a bit high, but much more palatable.

I like it. Let's move forward with this! I'll still look at it a bit closer for any other "tweaks" we may need to be working on.

PS. Thanks for making the "in addition to" line in maroon now for easy reading! lol

PPS. I'm sure it's been mentioned earlier... but every contract made prior to the 2004 rookie draft will remain the same, right? We're not looking to reverse or rework any existing contract, are we?

We haven't broached that subject, TBH not sure how I feel on changing the salaries, as teams have now had 2 seasons under their belts under the existing structure, my initial reaction would be that the existing contracts should remain as is, however I can be swayed otherwise.

I do think we should make this applicable to the upciming 2004 draft however.

Agreed... I think we should chalk up the first two years as "learning" and keep them as is. Any changes should only be made starting from 2004 and beyond. I eagerly traded away draft picks, knowing that the way our current system was, I felt they were overvalued. This changes my perspective, however, about this draft and the future!

BTW, I've updated the spreadsheet tables to reflect the 10% annual increase on all rookie contracts (plus bonus if applicable).

Additionally, I highlighted the 2nd and 3rd rd picks and scaled down the bonus scales as proposed.

I think including the 10% raise on all contracts solves the issue for QB's RB's and WR's... their salaries are now perfect IMO, however I think the TE base scales and possible the bonus scales need to be lower.

One question I had for Brian, when the contracts max out for any given position, does that mean no more 10% base increase as well? I think if it hits the max the 10% should still kick in, but no further bonuses would be paid out, however I haven't reflected the spreadsheet like that until I get some input. Right now the contracts max out on the players listed in royal blue and don't increase in subsequent years... but I think we should at least include the standard 10% raise.

Yes, I would agree that even when a rookie contract reaches the max, they should still get a 10% minimum raise.

I also agree the tight ends should be lowered. I'll play with the numbers and post a revised scale for review.

OK, I've knocked 50 bucks off the top three bonus levels for tight ends and left their starting salary the same (as it's pretty low already). The bonuses look like this:

1st Round 2nd Round 3rd Round 4th Round
#1 250 188 125 63
2-5 150 113 75 38
6-10 100 75 50 25
11-20 50 38 25 13

Some case studdies:

Tony Gonzalez, assuming he was drafted in the 1st round of a frenzy rookie draft, after finishing among tight ends 19th, 10th, 2nd, and 1st his first four years, he would have had a 5th year salary of 808 in 2000. FYI, he was signed in 2001 (as a RFA I believe) for 850.

Freddie Jones, assuming he was drafted in the 1st round of the frenzy rookie draft, after finishing 11th, 9th, 6th, and 3rd, he would have had a 5th year salary of 616 in 2000.

Stephen Alexander, assuming he was drafted in the 1st round of the frenzy rookie draft, after finishing 14th, 16th, 10th, and 58th his first four years, he would have had a 5th year salary of 391 in 2001 (a mere 10 dollars higher than the current rookie draft scale would have paid him).

Anthny Becht, assuming he was drafted in the 1st round of the frenzy rookie draft, after finishing 35th, 14th, 16th, and 16th his first four years, he would have a 5th year salary of 327, 69 dollars cheaper than the current scale would have given him.

Todd Heap, assuming he was drafted in the 1st round of the frenzy rookie draft, after finishing 33rd, 1st, and 3rd his first 3 years, he would have a proposed 4th year salary of 571, 212 higher than the current scale provides. This, I would think most would agree, is still a bargain compared to what he would bring on the free agent market.

Alge Crumpler, assuming he was drafted in the 1st round of the frenzy rookie drafter, after finishing 18th, 8th, and 6th his first three years, he would have a propsed 4th year salary of 404, 84 higher than the current scale provides, but still a discount over what he would get on the open market.

Jeremy Shockey, after being drafted 1.6 overall, and finishing 3rd and 9th his first two seasons, he would have a 3rd year salary of 416, 53 higher than the current scale, but still a bargain compared to the open market.

I think this scale lowers the overall salary of tight ends fairly, and ensures that most, if not all, tight ends will be a bargain compared to the free market, but does not produce any unfairly discounted players.

I still think TE' are far too high. Looking at the top 5 paid TE's last year, the average pay was 502 cb's.

That average is deceiving as well, since the #1 paid TE is Gonzalez at 935 (more than twice any other TE). In fact, the 4 TE's following him made 440 or less.

Bubba Franks (an inagural draft player) was 2003's 2nd highest paid TE at 440, while Shannon Sharpe was paid 425. Shockey (drafted in 2002) came in at 330 in 2003, while Pollard pulled up the rear at 280. Taking Gonzo out of the mix, the #'s 2-5 top paid TE's averaged only ~369 cb's, and 2 of those 4 were market driven UFA's (Sharpe and Pollard),

Also, salary paid doesn't necessarly compare with production in the Frenzy (no surprise I know). Looking at the top 5 producers at the TE in 2003 we get:

Tony Gonzalez (a 2003 RFA at 935 cb's for 178.6pts)
Shannon Sharpe (a 2003 UFA at 425 cb's for 156pts)
Todd Heap (an inaugural draft anomoly at 121 cb's for 126.05pts)
Freddie Jones (a 2003 UFA at 100 cb's for 93.2pts)
and
Randy McMichael (a 2002 UFA at 165 cb's for 90.80pts)

All told, the top 5 producers in 2003 averaged only 349.2 cb's in pay, and again that scale was thrown way off by Gonzalez who was paid over 200% more than the next highest paid TE, and nearly 300% more than the top 5 average. The average of these TE's without Gonzo BTW is only ~203 cb's.

The reality is that our league generally does not place much value cap wise on the TE position, and I think our salary cap pool should generally reflect that.

I would like to see how the numbers compare if we start the scale off 100+ cb's lower at 100 for #1, 75 for 2-5, 50 for 6-10, and 25 for 11-20.

BTW, the average TE salary in 2003 was only ~220 cb's (and that's includes Gonzo's excessive contract), and only ~182 cb's without including Gonzo's 935.

Mike, I'm probably going to be in the minority with you (as the rest of the league is setting market prices for tight ends), but I wholeheartedly disagree with you on two points. First, I do not agree that the numbers you have provided are an accurate representation of true market prices. Secondly, I do not agree with you that Gonzo's contract is exhorbinant. The second point is easier to ilustrate, so I'll tackle that first.

Let's take a look at the following receivers:

Amani Toomer
Joe Horn
Rod Smith
Eric Moulds
Plaxico Burress
Donald Driver

What do you ask, do all of these receivers have in common? They all cost more than Tony Gonzalez, and all scored few points than Gonzo this year. I could throw in the Keyshawn Johnsons and Troy Browns and have a bigger list of wide receivers that cost close to Gonzo (within 100 cb) that scored less as well. Since everyone has to play a tight end, and there are so many fewer options than there is at receiver (though the ration is pretty close), the top tight end should bring in a contract in excess of the 2nd tier wide receivers who are interchangable.

I'll also point out that the league set the market value for Gonzo as he was acquired as a RFA.

The problem with the rest of your anlysis is that so many of those players are exceptions, and/or have back stories to them. Shannon Sharpe was coming back after a somewhat down year (his decent numbers were largely inflated to one HUGE game). Todd Heap's salary is due to his devalued original contract. I don't know how many people were optimistic about Freddie Jones' production in Arizona with Jeff Blake. Randy McMichael was a second year player who came relatively out of no where.

Gonzo is one of the few tight ends that has produced consistently for a number of years. Due to this, I think his contract is more accurate than the rest on the list. I would also argue that his contract deserves to be significantly higher than the other tight ends (how many other positions have players who's score is almost double the #4 player at the same position). I'd like to see Heap, Shockey, McMichael, and Crumpler all produce for a number of years and see where their salaries are.

Who knows, maybe I'm way off and if this league was around in the days when Sharpe and Coates were heads above everyone else, they would only be pulling in 500cb salaries, but I really don't think that is the case.

Mike, Bubba Franks is no longer under his inagrual draft contract. I released him last year and he was on the free market.

What happened to the posts after the 23rd?

Something coirrupted the SQL database and we lost a weeks worth of posts... some damn important ones too... not sure WTF happened, but in rebuilding the database I got a couple errors.

Anyone good with sql db's?

OK, so Bubba adds to my cause IMO. The market set a standard now for 4 of the top 5 paid TE's, and one of them (Gonzo) is clearly head and shoulders above the rest. It should also be noted that I believe Gonzo was a RFA, and one thing I've noticed is that tagging players with RFA status often results in higher contracts than UFA's since teams have more money to spend in the RFA period.

In general, the league has only bid up 4 TE's over 400, and the vast majority have sold for under 200. I think I can quell Brian's arguement that each was in a uniques situation with the fact that each year TE's are often in unique situations, and there is so much movement after the top 2 or 3 that it's often too large a gamble to invest heavily there, thus teams often low-bduget the position, which is what we saw last year.

Some good work their Brian and Mike. I like the idea of rookie salary increases by performance. It'll help with what they should really get paid if they are indeed studs.

I'm not going to go to the mat on the issue of tight end salaries. I just anxiously await Shockey and Heap hitting the free market. If they continue to play at their current levels, and remain relatively uninjured, and sell at the level of the tight ends other than Gonzo, I'll eat a platefull of dirty socks.

I will lend my support to the proposed rookie scale. (It would certainly have made my past drafts more palatable!) And the sooner we implement it, the sooner we work out the kinks, so let's go with it for 2004 (a decision that hurts me as much as anybody!).

Thanks for working so hard on this while I've been taking a FF vacation!

As for where TE salaries should be set: I would argue that, if the new scale does succeed in deflating prices in general, then people may be willing to invest more in the TE position. Also, Brian's salaries certainly do not look too high when you consider that those salaries don't carry quite the risk for draftees as they would for UFAs: your players won't attain them unless they earn them. (Whether they continue to earn them is another issue....) So I'm leaning towards Brian's TE salaries.

Brian, in the cases of Gonzo, Shockey and Heap, I think your talking more about the exception than the rule.

Just looking at your revised scale on some of your case examples vs what the open market paid these same players is supportive of my case that the Frenzy does not value TE's cap wise. Maybe that will change in the future, however, looking at 2003 as a case example supports my case more than yours IMO.

Freddie Jones your revised scale valued him as a 1st rd pick with a salary of 616 in year 5. Jones sold for 100 cb's, the league minimum, just prior to the start of the 2003 season in September.

Stephen Alexander your revised scale valued him as a 1st rd pick with a salary of 391 in year 5. Well, Alexander couldn't even make a roster at the league minimum at the end of 2003, much less garner a nearly 400 cb contract.

Anthony Becht your revised scale valued him as a 1st rd pick with a salary of 327 in year 5. Well, Becht sold for all of 105 cb's on the open market on July 5th.

Alge Crumpler your revised scale valued him as a 1st rd pick with a salary of 404 in year 4. Well, he sold for a whopping 190 cb's on June 6th... this being 2 months before Vick got hurt and amidst a lot of speculation that he was in for a monster season.

You can argue that Gonzo, Heap or Shockey may get significantly more, but I'll argue that they are so much more the exception than the rule for TE's, and as such, who cares if they get a break in their 1st contract, because on the open market a lot of these players go for much less than you thought.

The fact is the Frenzy just doesn't value the TE position (with few exceptions), and I think Crumpler is a perfect case in point. Maybe the Frenzy will put more value to the TE position in the future, but judging off last season few teams invested their dollars that way.

OK, I guess I'm not unwilling to see the error of my ways. Mike, what I see when I look at Anthony Becht is an inconsistency between quarterbacks and tight ends that should be addressed in the scale. QBs and tight ends are the two positions each NFL team has one of (usually), and we start one of. Marginal QBs (those rating from 11-20) have some value to us because QBs score so many more points, thus making backups more vital. Tight ends are not the same, as they score far fewer points, and the difference between the marginal ones is negligible, therefore we don't pay much more than the minimum. Thus, I propose we give no bonus to tight ends scoring out of the top 10 (since we don't put any value on tight ends outside of the top ten,signing them for the most part to minimum contracts).

Also, I'd move the bonuses down a titch to:

#1: 200
2-5: 125
6-10: 75

This results in the following salary changes:

Gonzo's 5th year salary drops from 808 to 633.

Freddie Jones' 5th year salary drops from 616 to 467 (remember this would have been for 2000, not 2003).

Stephen Alexander's 5th year salary drops from 391 to 236 (remember, this would have been for 2001, not 2003).

Anthony Becht's 5th year salary drops from 327 to 161.

Todd Heap's 4th year salary (2004) drops from 571 to 491.

Alge Crumpler's 4th year salary (2004) drop from 404 to 291 (I still think a bargain, even if he is signed for less).

Jeremy Shockeys 3rd year salary (2004) drops from 416 to 364.

One more point to make is just for reference. In this salary scale proposal, Gonzalez did not exceed the orignial rookie scale in pay until his 5th year. In the other positions, the top players are meeting or exceeding the original scale by the 4th year, so this is a bigger discount that we gave to the other positions.

Edited to add: Mike, I just wanted to point out one of your oversights. When you were analyzing Jones and Alexander, the 5th year salaries we would have been talking about were for 2001 and 2002 respectively. Both players are in different situations from when they were posting good numbers.

TBH, I think you're on to something. The reality is outside the top 5 (IMO) TE's are a wash.

So why not structure the incentive for TE's heavier in the top 5, and much lower from 6-10 (and just dropping out 11-20 to zero as you already did).

What happens if we use the following custom scale for TE's?

#1 200
#2 175
#3 150
#4 125
#5 100
#'s 6-10 - 50

Note this is the 1st rd scale.. the scale for rds 2-4 would decrease 25% each round

I'd also be curious to see how this scale would work out...

#1 225
#2 200
#3 175
#4 150
#5 125
#'s 6-10 - 50

With your first scale, your looking at:

Gonzo: 5th year salary of 658 (raise of 25).
Freddie Jones: 5th year salary of 434 (33 lower).
Stephen Alexander: 5th year salary of 209 (27 lower).
Todd Heap: 2004 salary of 516 (25 higher).
Alge Crumpler: 2004 salary of 238 (53 lower). Also, if you consider he was more likely a second round selection tops, he would have had a salary of 213 for the second round.
Jeremy Shockey: 2004 salary of 366 (2 higher).

With your second scale, your looking at:

Gonzo: 710
Freddie Jones: 459
Heap: 569
Crumpler:
Shockey: 394

All others remain unchanged. I like the second scale better. It's hard to imagine many tight ends coming along and starting better than Gonzo (19th, 10th, 2nd, 1st, though Heap and Shockey are on pace) and Gonzo doesn't even max out the limit we've set.