Pred's Fantasy Football Forums

Go Back  Pred's Fantasy Football Forums > Feeding Frenzy - Fantasy Football League > Frenzy Rules & Bylaws
User Name
Password
Home Forums FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 20th, 2004, 05:40 PM   #1
Preds
*****istrator
 
Preds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY
Posts: 17,122
Preds is on a distinguished road
Default 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.
__________________
4x Frenzy Champs! 2003, 2005, 2013 & 2022* (* co-champs with Roosters)
Email: preds1@gmail.com
Cell: 716-481-8823
Preds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2004, 08:40 PM   #2
Flaxwless
Feeding Frenzy
 
Flaxwless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 6,050
Flaxwless is on a distinguished road
Default

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).
__________________
Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects
- 1st EVER Feeding Frenzy Champion

Bay Area Bloodsuckers

2008 SAC'D Champions
- 2nd Worst to First in Year!
2011 SAC'D Champions
- #5 seed, # 2 power rankings, #1 in the end!
Flaxwless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2004, 09:46 AM   #3
Nittany Dodgers
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator
 
Nittany Dodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
Nittany Dodgers is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
Nittany Dodgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2004, 10:07 AM   #4
Preds
*****istrator
 
Preds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY
Posts: 17,122
Preds is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
__________________
4x Frenzy Champs! 2003, 2005, 2013 & 2022* (* co-champs with Roosters)
Email: preds1@gmail.com
Cell: 716-481-8823
Preds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2004, 11:56 AM   #5
Philadelphia Freedom
Feeding Frenzy
 
Philadelphia Freedom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,096
Philadelphia Freedom is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
Philadelphia Freedom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2004, 12:08 PM   #6
Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers
Feeding Frenzy
 
Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 946
Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2004, 12:52 PM   #7
Philadelphia Freedom
Feeding Frenzy
 
Philadelphia Freedom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,096
Philadelphia Freedom is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
Philadelphia Freedom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2004, 09:00 AM   #8
Nittany Dodgers
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator
 
Nittany Dodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
Nittany Dodgers is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
Nittany Dodgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2004, 09:48 AM   #9
Nittany Dodgers
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator
 
Nittany Dodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
Nittany Dodgers is on a distinguished road
Default

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?
Nittany Dodgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2004, 12:14 PM   #10
Nittany Dodgers
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator
 
Nittany Dodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
Nittany Dodgers is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
Nittany Dodgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2004, 02:14 PM   #11
Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers
Feeding Frenzy
 
Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 946
Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers is on a distinguished road
Default

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.

Last edited by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers; January 22nd, 2004 at 03:11 PM.
Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2004, 02:15 PM   #12
Mutts
General Member
 
Mutts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Bloomington, Indiana
Posts: 3,026
Mutts is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
Mutts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2004, 03:03 PM   #13
Nittany Dodgers
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator
 
Nittany Dodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
Nittany Dodgers is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers
One thing though, your proposal seems to remove most of the risk of drafting. Anyone can make mistakes and hurt by these current numbers.
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.
Nittany Dodgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2004, 06:04 PM   #14
Preds
*****istrator
 
Preds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY
Posts: 17,122
Preds is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
__________________
4x Frenzy Champs! 2003, 2005, 2013 & 2022* (* co-champs with Roosters)
Email: preds1@gmail.com
Cell: 716-481-8823
Preds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2004, 06:58 PM   #15
Preds
*****istrator
 
Preds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY
Posts: 17,122
Preds is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
__________________
4x Frenzy Champs! 2003, 2005, 2013 & 2022* (* co-champs with Roosters)
Email: preds1@gmail.com
Cell: 716-481-8823
Preds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2004, 09:30 PM   #16
Flaxwless
Feeding Frenzy
 
Flaxwless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 6,050
Flaxwless is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
__________________
Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects
- 1st EVER Feeding Frenzy Champion

Bay Area Bloodsuckers

2008 SAC'D Champions
- 2nd Worst to First in Year!
2011 SAC'D Champions
- #5 seed, # 2 power rankings, #1 in the end!
Flaxwless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2004, 09:41 PM   #17
Preds
*****istrator
 
Preds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY
Posts: 17,122
Preds is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects
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.
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.
__________________
4x Frenzy Champs! 2003, 2005, 2013 & 2022* (* co-champs with Roosters)
Email: preds1@gmail.com
Cell: 716-481-8823
Preds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2004, 07:15 AM   #18
Flaxwless
Feeding Frenzy
 
Flaxwless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 6,050
Flaxwless is on a distinguished road
Default

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?
__________________
Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects
- 1st EVER Feeding Frenzy Champion

Bay Area Bloodsuckers

2008 SAC'D Champions
- 2nd Worst to First in Year!
2011 SAC'D Champions
- #5 seed, # 2 power rankings, #1 in the end!
Flaxwless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2004, 08:22 AM   #19
Philadelphia Freedom
Feeding Frenzy
 
Philadelphia Freedom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,096
Philadelphia Freedom is on a distinguished road
Default

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...
Philadelphia Freedom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2004, 08:52 AM   #20
Nittany Dodgers
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator
 
Nittany Dodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
Nittany Dodgers is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
Nittany Dodgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2004, 09:39 AM   #21
Preds
*****istrator
 
Preds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY
Posts: 17,122
Preds is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nittany Dodgers
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.
__________________
4x Frenzy Champs! 2003, 2005, 2013 & 2022* (* co-champs with Roosters)
Email: preds1@gmail.com
Cell: 716-481-8823
Preds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2004, 01:01 PM   #22
Nittany Dodgers
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator
 
Nittany Dodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
Nittany Dodgers is on a distinguished road
Default

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).
Nittany Dodgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2004, 01:03 PM   #23
Mutts
General Member
 
Mutts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Bloomington, Indiana
Posts: 3,026
Mutts is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
Mutts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2004, 02:08 PM   #24
Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers
Feeding Frenzy
 
Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 946
Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2004, 02:50 PM   #25
Nittany Dodgers
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator
 
Nittany Dodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
Nittany Dodgers is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers
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'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.
Nittany Dodgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2004, 05:46 PM   #26
Nittany Dodgers
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator
 
Nittany Dodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
Nittany Dodgers is on a distinguished road
Default

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).

Last edited by Nittany Dodgers; January 24th, 2004 at 12:03 AM.
Nittany Dodgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2004, 01:07 PM   #27
Mutts
General Member
 
Mutts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Bloomington, Indiana
Posts: 3,026
Mutts is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
Mutts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2004, 01:34 PM   #28
Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers
Feeding Frenzy
 
Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 946
Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nittany Dodgers
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).
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.
Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2004, 01:41 PM   #29
Preds
*****istrator
 
Preds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY
Posts: 17,122
Preds is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nittany Dodgers
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 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
__________________
4x Frenzy Champs! 2003, 2005, 2013 & 2022* (* co-champs with Roosters)
Email: preds1@gmail.com
Cell: 716-481-8823
Preds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2004, 03:16 PM   #30
Nittany Dodgers
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator
 
Nittany Dodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
Nittany Dodgers is on a distinguished road
Default

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. (Just kidding!)
Nittany Dodgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rookie Draft Rules & Salary Scale Preds Frenzy Rookie Draft 14 April 26th, 2006 03:51 AM
Quick look at Post Season Records Nittany Dodgers Frenzy Newswire 5 December 13th, 2004 05:25 PM
Free Footballguys Stats Book - let me know if you want one! Mutts Frenzy League Chat 20 October 6th, 2004 06:22 PM
New Rookie Salary Scale Preds Frenzy Rules & Bylaws 0 April 12th, 2002 10:17 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2000-2022 - Preds Fantasy Football Forums