Off-Season Rules Discussion - Annual Rookie Salary Debate

[Preds]

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.

[Nittany Dodgers]

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?

[Philadelphia Freedom]

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

[Preds]

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**
http://feedingfrenzy.predatorsfootba...e Proposal.xls

[Nittany Dodgers]

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.

[Preds]

Originally posted by Nittany Dodgers
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**
http://feedingfrenzy.predatorsfootba...e Proposal.xls

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.

[Liquid Swords]

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

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

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

[Preds]

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

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

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: :retard

[Preds]

Originally posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi
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: :retard

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).

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

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?

[Preds]

Originally posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi
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.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

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!

[Preds]

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.

[Nittany Dodgers]

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.

[Nittany Dodgers]

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.

[Preds]

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.

[Nittany Dodgers]

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.

[Flaxwless]

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?

[Preds]

Originally posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects
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 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.

[Urza's Ragers]

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.

[Nittany Dodgers]

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.

[Ypsilanti Undead]

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!

[Ypsilanti Undead]

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.

[Preds]

Originally posted by Nittany Dodgers
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.

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.

[Nittany Dodgers]

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.

[Preds]

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

[Preds]

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

[Nittany Dodgers]

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.