2015 Rookie Bonues

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

So unless a player is cut and clears waivers, it is agreed, they will get bonuses for the first 5 years they are under any type of contract.

Not exactly, if a rookie plays out his initial contract (whether it be 5 years or 1) and hits RFA or UFA status, then rookie bonuses would no longer apply.

i.e. you could assign a rookie a 2 year deal, then tag as RFA, or let them go to UFA. Either way at that point they'd be off their initial rookie deals, just as if they were cut and rookie bonuses would no longer apply. Essentially, once a rookie is exposed to open bidding on their next contract they are off the bonus scale.

Renegotiated contracts are just extensions of their initial rookie contract within the first 5 years thus rookie bonuses would apply for the first 5 years since their draft.

[Bounty Hunter]

Originally Posted by Liquid Swords

Consider this. Had I gone with your thinking I would have renegotiated WR Odell Beckham to 5 years for 300cbs and avoided the 600cbs rookie bonus.

I don't see how we can allow that to happen. Sorry to be a pain in the arse but that's a huge hole that can be manipulated and had I (and others) interpreted it the way you are my strategies in past years would have been different to avoid known rookie bonuses with a simple 300cbs renegotiation.

Like I said Bobby, it really became clear with the #1 and #2 RBs this year. I've done spot checks in the past (always on my team) and a few that didn't seen quite right. This got me to really look into each and every one this year.

Patrick, that's not the way I interpreted the rule, I only considered those reneged contracts that were reneged when there were two years left on the original contract. That was my understanding and apparently I was wrong.

[Liquid Swords]

Most don't renegotiate until there are only 2 years remaining on a contract, but you can renegotiate any player with 2 or more years on their contract.

[Shiners]

Am i wrong, but aren't the Rookie Bonus just a really convoluted way to deal with low rookie contracts?

Would it be easier just to bump up the rookie signing values and not deal with bonuses at all?

If i remember correctly last year during the draft we kicked around the idea of switching up rookie contracts because 100$ TE and WR were flying off the board and nobody was drafted expensive rookie running backs.

Maybe we should just re-evaluate the whole rookie contract system to better represent actual value.

I think we should be rewarded for drafting well not penalized with overly complicated bonus schemes.

[Liquid Swords]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

And moving on, to make the job easier for the person, Bobby or whoever does it in future, to add in bonuses, Pat if you are not already doing it, keep the rookie draft year and position attached to the player for the full 5 years, in the App. Looks like you probably already do that. So 2015 App should not show any rookie status from players drafted in 2010 and before.

The rookie draft years and position drafted are kept under a player's flag (along with history like trades and renegs) until they become an RFA or UFA. Just select the cell under the Flags column next to a player to see the "history".

I also try the best I can to keep rookies subject to rookie bonuses represented by the green text color. So if the player's text is green they may be subject to a rookie bonus. If they have maxed out or after 5 years, then I change them to the appropriate color (dark blue for offense, dark red for defense)...see Lavonte David and A.J. Green as examples.

You can also see which players received a rookie bonus by the red flag next to the current year's salary. If you hover your mouse over it, you will see the rookie bonus note. You can also click the cell and see the salary + the rookie bonus. Using Lavonte David (36 Chambers) as an example, if you hover over the red flag it reads "Rookie Bonus: 187cbs, 75cbs applied, maxed out at 680cbs," and if you click the cell you will see the formula reads "=605+75"

[Miners]

This is an interesting discussion to follow. I admit I have stayed out of rookie bonuses simply do the fact that I have not understood or taken the time to understand them. Spending some time thinking about this and reading the posts, I don't really know why a guy who is in the 4th or 5th year of his contract should get a "rookie" bonus, especially if he has been on an active roster for more than 1 year. I can get behind the rookie bonus for the guy that truly is a rookie, meaning his first year on an active roster or first 2 years if the first season he didn't spend an entire career on an active roster, (i.e. mid season promotion, promotion and demotion, etc.) regardless of the length of his contract. But I have a hard time with a "rookie" bonus for the guy that has been on an active roster for more than 2 years because he was promoted before his first NFL season started.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought there was also some sort of performance based bonus system. I did a little looking at the rules, but didn't see this anywhere so I may be mistaken. I feel this is a better structure than paying an increased salary over the first 5 years of players existence in the league or until he maxes out. It seems like it would make things less convoluted. Just thinking, rookie bonus for a true rookie and then performance based after that. If the player turns out to be a plodder or average joe, well then the 10% salary increase would be all he gets.

If the intent is to raise salaries, maybe looking at restructuring the draft wage structure would work. Perhaps look at the value of each position to the game now vs. the value 5 or 8 years ago.

I am not suggesting we reinvent the wheel or move the sky and heavens or bring Target back to Canada, just adding my 2 cents. Feel free to put me in my place or light me up as I may still not be understanding the rookie bonus structure correctly.

P.S. Burt, looking at the division breakdown in the rules and where everyone is from, I grew up in Fallon, Nevada and currently reside in Williams Lake, British Columbia, but Fallon, Nova Scotia does have a good ring to it.

[Shiners]

to continue with Brandon's point about draft wage structure not matching current values:
The mean wages for positions under contract are as follows (in descending order):
QB - 1180$
WR - 886$
RB - 801$
DL - 411$
LB - 404$
TE - 364$
DB - 210$
K - 155$

Doesn't that seem to represent how we currently value positions? QB ~3x DL, RB and WR about equal and 66% QB.

Why are we stuck with draft values that overstate RB. Starting Rookie salaries should represent the same proportions as current salary values. It's absurd that you have to get to the 4th round of the draft last year to find a RB who was as cheap as the WR who was the 1st overall pick in the draft.

Maybe it's a drastic change but i'd like to see a statistical basis for the wages.
Maybe something like 1st round picks are paid 25% below the mean position salary and you have the 5$ per pick reduction from there.

So for example based on the salaries above 1.1 round picks would be:
QB - 886$ rather than the current 450
WR - 665$ rather than the current 400
RB - 600$ - which is actually the same
TE - 273$ rather than the current 175
K - 116$ rather than 175
DL - 308$ rather than 175
LB - 303$ rather than 200
DB - 158$ rather than 175

We could run this calc right before the draft after the RFA are sorted out so those salaries are included.

We could still have rookie bonuses, but they could be a correction to the mean of the position.

I also like the idea of only giving rookie bonuses for year 1 or 2.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Originally Posted by Shiners

to continue with Brandon's point about draft wage structure not matching current values:
The mean wages for positions under contract are as follows (in descending order):
QB - 1180$
WR - 886$
RB - 801$
DL - 411$
LB - 404$
TE - 364$
DB - 210$
K - 155$

Doesn't that seem to represent how we currently value positions? QB ~3x DL, RB and WR about equal and 66% QB.

Why are we stuck with draft values that overstate RB. Starting Rookie salaries should represent the same proportions as current salary values. It's absurd that you have to get to the 4th round of the draft last year to find a RB who was as cheap as the WR who was the 1st overall pick in the draft.

Maybe it's a drastic change but i'd like to see a statistical basis for the wages.
Maybe something like 1st round picks are paid 25% below the mean position salary and you have the 5$ per pick reduction from there.

So for example based on the salaries above 1.1 round picks would be:
QB - 886$ rather than the current 450
WR - 665$ rather than the current 400
RB - 600$ - which is actually the same
TE - 273$ rather than the current 175
K - 116$ rather than 175
DL - 308$ rather than 175
LB - 303$ rather than 200
DB - 158$ rather than 175

We could run this calc right before the draft after the RFA are sorted out so those salaries are included.

We could still have rookie bonuses, but they could be a correction to the mean of the position.

I also like the idea of only giving rookie bonuses for year 1 or 2.

This seems to make sense but if we are altering things here we likely need to alter the RFA values as well since RB's are the highest value there as well. Also, your numbers might be skewed by the number of RB's that have been RFA's and are thus not under contract.

[Preds]

You guys are misunderstanding the concept behind the rookie performance bonus scale and rookie salaries for that matter.

The rookie draft by design is supposed to be low salaries for the drafting clubs, not market value. Just as in the NFL. However, we implemented the performance bonus scale based on annual performance rankings and draft round in order to bring the salaries somewhat closer to market value in years 2-5 if a player performs well, and lets be honest, many rookies never come close to earning even the lower salaries we set.

The Bonus scale is a performance scale based on the 1st 5 years of a drafted players initial contract as long as they haven't been cut or had their contract expire.

SACD complicates it with the renegs, thus the reason that the bonus scale should apply for up to 5 years on all drafted rookies unless they are cut or their contract expires and they fall to the open market as RFAs or UFAs.

[Burt the Butcher]

Well Mike, comparing our rookie salaries to the Nfl is not really accurate, since 1st round picks used to get more money than most veterans in NFL. Until recent changes made to bring down rookie salaries, at least first rounders.

I like Daves idea..just not the extra work needed to do it....I have enough to do already beginning of the year.and the pay sucks. No one even sends me cigars

[Shiners]

[quote=Preds;124547]You guys are misunderstanding the concept behind the rookie performance bonus scale and rookie salaries for that matter.

There is a difference between misunderstanding and questioning.
The league has functioned wonderfully as is, but that doesn't mean it can't be better.

I see no harm in raising rookie salaries in the draft rather than bonuses. The players that don't amount to anything will never impact your salary cap because they'll never be on the active roster. Those that do will have reasonable salaries without bonus complication.

Burt you are correct that the values i stated above are skewed because of RB RFAs. The calculation would have to be done after RFA to account for that and i suspect you see RB approach QB values.

I'd be willing to complete this calc and make the pick salary matrix.

The other nice thing about this system is that it accounts for changes in league behavior. If suddenly TE have increasing value then the draft picks will increase along with the league value.

[Burt the Butcher]

As the rules state, anyone can propose a new rule. Write up a proposal and put it up for vote. I can set that up if you want. Just give me the details. Or wait for a few more days of discussions to see what others think. Definitely helps to come with built in volunteer ;-)

[Shiners]

will do. let me ponder a bit more and look at the data, and see if there are any more comments over the weekend.

If results are reasonably favorable i'll post a suggestion later this weekend.

I'm happy to do it, cause i'll have it done anyway... (other than the matrix)

[PencilGeeks]

Originally Posted by Shiners

to continue with Brandon's point about draft wage structure not matching current values:
The mean wages for positions under contract are as follows (in descending order):
QB - 1180$
WR - 886$
RB - 801$
DL - 411$
LB - 404$
TE - 364$
DB - 210$
K - 155$

Doesn't that seem to represent how we currently value positions? QB ~3x DL, RB and WR about equal and 66% QB.

Why are we stuck with draft values that overstate RB. Starting Rookie salaries should represent the same proportions as current salary values. It's absurd that you have to get to the 4th round of the draft last year to find a RB who was as cheap as the WR who was the 1st overall pick in the draft.

Maybe it's a drastic change but i'd like to see a statistical basis for the wages.
Maybe something like 1st round picks are paid 25% below the mean position salary and you have the 5$ per pick reduction from there.

So for example based on the salaries above 1.1 round picks would be:
QB - 886$ rather than the current 450
WR - 665$ rather than the current 400
RB - 600$ - which is actually the same
TE - 273$ rather than the current 175
K - 116$ rather than 175
DL - 308$ rather than 175
LB - 303$ rather than 200
DB - 158$ rather than 175

We could run this calc right before the draft after the RFA are sorted out so those salaries are included.

We could still have rookie bonuses, but they could be a correction to the mean of the position.

I also like the idea of only giving rookie bonuses for year 1 or 2.

It’s hard to argue that the NFL has changed drastically over the last 8 years: devaluing RBs and moving to RB by committee while placing increasing value on QBs and WRs.So from a conceptual standpoint if one of this leagues core goals is the representation of what it’s like to manage a real-life NFL team in a fantasy format then and ‘re-alignment’ to the new reality of the NFL is probably in order.

I really like where Dave is heading with this, especially the idea of a graduated scale that would dynamically reflect the current SACD salary landscape (much like real-life NFL bonuses and renegotiations are dependent on other contracts).So work your slide-rule overtime Dave and let us know what you come up with!

[Liquid Swords]

Originally Posted by Liquid Swords

Three WRs are missing from rookie bonuses:

WR Julio Jones, ATL (Moonshiners) - #8 WR - 1st round - 500cbs bonus (149 applied to max out at 1800cbs)
WR Golden Tate, DET (Cowboys) - #13 WR - 1st round - 400cbs bonus
WR Reuben Randle, NYG (Scorpions) - #36 WR - 2nd round - 42cbs bonus

Golden Tate was drafted in 2010 so last season would have been his last year to receive a rookie bonus. I'll remove the bonus on the roster app for Tate.

[Liquid Swords]

It would also be good for everyone to note that those players drafted in 2011 would have just received their last rookie bonus. I'll update the color of those players on the app so we can all see who is subject to a rookie bonus next season (2016).

[Shiners]

Update on scheme to change rookie pay scale:
Full disclosure - part of my motivation to make this change is so it is easier to forecast increasing salaries. I don't like the unexpected and varied increases caused by rookie bonuses.

If we did away with rookie bonuses and increased rookie contracts here's what it might look like.

**all results below are stated in % and will be updated with actual dollar values soon**

Mean positional salary (MPS) is defined as the average salary of all players under contract at that position

3 possibilities:
1- First pick of draft gets 75% of mean positional salary (MPS)
At end of 5 year contract this pick would make 110% MPS from the time of his draft and a renegotiation would push him to 135% MPS
The Last pick of the 3rd round would make 88% of MPS at then end of 5 years
The last pick of the draft would make 66% of MPS after 5 years

2- start first pick at 60% of MPS
At end of 5 year contract this pick would make 88% MPS and a renegotiation would push him to ~113% MPS
The last pick of the 3rd round would make 66% MPS after 5 years
the last pick of the draft would make 44% MPS after 5 years

3- Start first pick at 67% of MPS
At end of 5 year contract this pick would make 98% of MPS and a renegotiation would push him to ~121% MPS
The last pick of the 3rd round would make 76% MPS after 5 years
The last pick of the draft would make 54% MPS after 5 years

What do you all think?
I'm leaning toward option 3 and after i put dollars to this scenario i'll put up for a vote.

[Burt the Butcher]

I would like to see dollar values, with comparisons to what they are currently. So maybe use first round of last year's draft. What they were, and what they would have been under each new proposed level

[Shiners]

No problem. I agree the actual $ value matters. Once RFA starts to slow down a bit i'll run the numbers, even if all RFA aren't done. I'll just calc with the tender prices. How about i calc over this coming weekend? So we have time to consider before the draft.

It's potentially a big change in opening rookie salaries but i don't think it will end up being very different from the escalated rookie bonus salaries.

[Burt the Butcher]

Sounds good