Rookie Draft Salaries

[Preds]

I've heard a lot of complaints that we set rookie salaries too high. In retrospect I agree, although I still think there has to be a mechanism in place to bring their salaries to par in 2-3 years.

What I'm thinking is that we consider installing a plan where rookie contracts start much lower, but increase much quicker, say by 20% in years 2 and 3?

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

[Nittany Dodgers]

I haven't heard the complaints, so I don't know what they are. Looking at the scale again, and looking at what some players go for, I would say that the only position which is over priced is wide receiver, and I might agree that QB is a little overpriced but not much. Position by position, this is what I think:

QB: Might be a little high, but since QBs are going to sit on the DS most likely for a couple of years, I think it might be right. I think we've made our DS squad and cap big enough to be able to do this, and thats the whole purpose of it, so I don't think its a problem. If the player ends up being over priced compared to the market, you can always cut him from the DS and resign. If people don't like being able to do that, then obviously its not over priced.

RB: I think the scale is a little low for RBs. Premium RBs are just that, a premium, so the price should be as high as the scale has them, or even higher.

WRs: See QBs above. Except for a select few, most need a couple of years do develop. Since most WRs don't develop into a Moss/Owens, the price they will be at in a couple of years might be a tad over market.

TE & K I think is accurate.

In the rookie draft, we can select players and sign them to a fixed contract price for up to five years. I think the prices should be, if there is an error, to the high side. There should be a premium ona player that you get to select, and stash away without the market being able to determine the price.

I, personally, would not like the see the rookie scale be lowered.

[Flaxwless]

I believe the rookie scales is fine, the only thing I think is a bit high are WRs but people draft rookie WRs thinking down the road so it evens out.

I don't agree with Dodgers that rookie RBs are cheap. Who can say that any of these RBs will be premium? So why must we pay them top tier money. I have Portis and drafted him 8, he's gonna run me 1000+ plus each year for his 5 year contract. That's not cheap for me. He's getting paid about the level of Warrick Dunn or Antowain Smith, guys who are proven NFL RBs (note: I did not say fantasy RBs).

Plus I'm not in any favor of changing the RBs pay as long as we have Shuan Alexander costing less than a PK!

We chose to increase our DS and Active Roster next season with anticipation of the current rookie salaries. So if others do want to lower the salary then we'd have to change our previous votes for the DS and Active squad.

So I think the scale is fine but this league is all about majority so we'll see.

Still the best damn league ever!

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Insects... I'd gladly trade you Dunn and his 1400 salary for the "burden" of Portis and his 1000+ salary for the next 5 years!

Actually, I'm not in favor of changing the rookie salaries... especially since I've traded away both of my first two picks for next season (precisely because I didn't see the value in keeping them vs. acquiring a vet through RFA or UFA). However, I'd echo the fact that WR salaries are too high.

The problem with changing things is that strategies have already been formulated by many of us owners re: who we're keeping this year, how long their contracts are, etc.

I'd say, keep it the way it is (with the possible exception of tweaking down the WRs... but I'm not willing to die for this!).

Maybe next year, after having lived with a season of new salary scaled rookies, we'll have a better idea of what's fair and reasonable.

[Preds]

Any change to salaries would have to be for thw 2004 season since picks for 2003 have already been traded.

I really think we should look at moving RB's down to where the top RB is like 800, but his salary increases 20% each of the 1st 2-3 years.

Same goes for WR's IMO.

The rookie cap as is, actually is almost a penalty to those who pick high or acquire more than 1 pick. Fact is, better value is there in the 3rd round or through free agency,

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

The rookie cap as is, actually is almost a penalty to those who pick high or acquire more than 1 pick. Fact is, better value is there in the 3rd round or through free agency,

Okay Mike... if you want to send me some of those "penalty" picks back, I'd be happy to take them off your hands! As my Dad would have said (although not exactly in this same context): "You have all those first round picks next year, and they're just burning a hole in your pocket, aren't they!?"

In all seriousness... I'd be open to considering reevaluating the 2004 rookie draft salaries... AFTER this season (and possibly even next year's draft)... so we can see how things play out.

Great topic of conversation, especially now that we're just waiting for the season to start (or was it waiting for Jamal Anderson to sign with an NFL team)!

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects
I don't agree with Dodgers that rookie RBs are cheap. Who can say that any of these RBs will be premium? So why must we pay them top tier money. I have Portis and drafted him 8, he's gonna run me 1000+ plus each year for his 5 year contract. That's not cheap for me. He's getting paid about the level of Warrick Dunn or Antowain Smith, guys who are proven NFL RBs (note: I did not say fantasy RBs).

My only reply would be that Lamont Jordan went for 1400cbs, and James Stewart went for 1000+. I'm not sure why Clinton Portis should have a significantly lower salary than either of these two. I'm not saying that a thousand dollar salary is cheap and easy to hold on your roster while a guy develops. What I am saying is that being able to draft the best rookie running back for a max of 1200 is cheap. Look at it this way. What if this was 1999, and one guy got Edgerin James for 1200, and wrapped him up for 5 years. The max after 5 years is 1750 or so, which is less than he went for coming off a knee injury. Then you get to nominate the guy for RFA and match whatever the market bears. You can effectively keep him his entire career. For this, I believe the rookie salaries should be at least at the market level of their potential, and this is why I think they are low, not a lot low, just 10% or so maybe.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I can live with the salaries the way they are but I would not mind seeing modifications either. Would it be possible to have some sort of active roster bonues for rookies that are made active or that meet certain numbers (carries, catches, passing attempts)? This way you would only be paying for the guys that might currently be benefiting your team. Not sure if it would work or it is worth doing but it is another thought.

PS- Mike, can you go through the Waiver Wire and let us no what bidding is closed and who got the player(s)? Thanks.

[Flaxwless]

Here is my viewpoint on the draft and rookie salaries. In most pro sports you build through the draft (well the sports with salary caps, so baseball doesn't count) and I believe our current set up is similar to the way the NBA signs the lottery picks or all first rounders(?).

Based on where they are picked they have a set salary for a guranteed 3 years with the option of a fourth playing at the rookie wage then after the 4th year they become RFA.

So how does this fit with what we're talking about?

Dodgers talked about drafting Portis or Edge and locking them up to a 5 year deal and then tagging them with the RFA. Well the way I see it is those who draft Portis and Edge made good picks (portis yet to be seen, but I like his chances).

Back to the NBA analogy. The Celtics who took a flier on Paul Pierce, #10 pick or the Raptors who acquired Vince Carter came away with arguably the best players in their class. They produced right away and clearly outplayed above their rookie contracts, which start low because they are uproven. Now Vince has gotten the max and Pual will next year. Basically cementing them to stay with one team for the rest of their careers until they get traded away.

Our league is setup very much like that and it rewards those who build through the draft and use free agency to fill needs or add quality.

Also I believe the market values right now are a bit inflated. Espcially since we have Shuan Alexander, Plaxico Burress, and many other young 110 to 300 players from our inagural years draft. This allows team more room to overspend.

I say keep things the way it is for at least 3 years until Alexander and the likes test their true market value.