PDA

View Full Version : Are Rookies Overpaid Article


whatadai
04-30-2009, 08:53 PM
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/04/are-rookies-overpaid.html

The conclusion of the paper is that team executives and scouts overpay for the top picks in the draft relative to the later picks, likely due to overconfidence in their ability to identify the best players. But what might surprise some readers is that rookies at every level of the draft are bargains compared to equivalently performing veterans.

I'm not the writer of this blog nor do I endorse it in anyway. Just thought it was an interesting article. I'm not a math whiz so I don't know if everything is correct, I just wanted to see what people thought about it since everyone is always talking about rookies being paid too much. Not sure if this goes in this forum...sorry if it needs to go in the NFL forum.

Paul
04-30-2009, 08:55 PM
I don't need to read the article to find the answer. Yes.

OneToughGame
04-30-2009, 09:07 PM
Of course they are.

pr0d1gy
04-30-2009, 09:17 PM
They're not overpaid. It's a fair method of rewarding professionals for stellar collegiate performance, not unlike you see in the real world for recent graduates. Guys who graduate from Harvard are, if they prioritize correctly, going to earn far greater amounts of money than people who graduate from your local community college.

hugegmenfan
04-30-2009, 09:21 PM
of course they are is right. when a player who has never played a game gets like 50 million in guarantees and vets are getting less than half that- its a problem

Halsey
04-30-2009, 09:28 PM
It seems to me that people who really evaluate rookie contracts say that's it's the very top picks, not all the rookies that are getting too much money. It seems reasonable to pay the very tops picks less and spread the money out a little more among all drafted players.

whatadai
04-30-2009, 09:30 PM
of course they are is right. when a player who has never played a game gets like 50 million in guarantees and vets are getting less than half that- its a problem

But people know how well the vet is going to do. The vet's potential is also not as high and therefore he is being paid market value. The rookie however has much more potential and while they're being paid for the skill they showed in college, they are also being paid for their potential. How average or great they can be is predicted by the GMs, coaches, etc. according to how they think they'll be able to develop the player. Yeah, there's a sense of uncertainty and it's always a gamble, but it's the same thing with veterans too. There are plenty of free agent signings that "bust". But some teams also have a lot more success than others, so it can't be blamed on rookies only if teams don't pick them at the right value or have such a huge ego that they draft a player too high thinking they have the skills to develop the player to the value of the pick. Most players' success also depends on the rest of the talent around them, you don't always get a Peyton Manning right off the bat, most of the players in the league are better just because many good players are put together. If a team can't do that, you can't blame the player.

nyqua
04-30-2009, 09:42 PM
Only like the top 6-8 players are overpaid.

JLaw45
04-30-2009, 10:22 PM
But people know how well the vet is going to do. The vet's potential is also not as high and therefore he is being paid market value.

But many of the vets who are making less than these rookies ARE proven players, pro bowlers even. Stafford, to use one prominent example, is making more than all of them.

The rookie however has much more potential and while they're being paid for the skill they showed in college, they are also being paid for their potential. How average or great they can be is predicted by the GMs, coaches, etc. according to how they think they'll be able to develop the player.

I think the potential thing needs to be clarified. Matt Stafford doesn't necessarily have the potential to be far and away better than some of the veterans who are making less than him. His best case scenario is to be a consistent all-pro and super bowl winning QB. Players with that type of status are already making less than he is.
That is what people are complaining about. He is not a pro bowler or a super bowl champ yet but he is being paid more than guys who already are.

Yeah, there's a sense of uncertainty and it's always a gamble, but it's the same thing with veterans too. There are plenty of free agent signings that "bust".

Less of an issue given the fact that the majority(omitting a handful of notable exceptions who were arguably far overpaid) of veterans who receive these huge contracts have played in the league and are proven commodities.
That isn't quite the same as giving a guy who hasn't played a down in the league a massive, league leading contract.

But some teams also have a lot more success than others, so it can't be blamed on rookies only if teams don't pick them at the right value or have such a huge ego that they draft a player too high thinking they have the skills to develop the player to the value of the pick. Most players' success also depends on the rest of the talent around them, you don't always get a Peyton Manning right off the bat, most of the players in the league are better just because many good players are put together. If a team can't do that, you can't blame the player.

So wait-you're saying that we should just pay them as is simply because the draft is an inexact science and the future success of the drafted player can be difficult for teams to predict because it is based on so many different factors(team chemistry, etc, etc)?

Wait, isn't that fact alone a pretty good reason to cap their pay? Keep the cap for their first couple of years until they prove themselves and can then receive a much larger contract? The fact that the draft is so inexact of a science and that these guys are unproven and unknown was(at least IMO) one of the most compelling reasons for preventing these rookies from making so much more than veterans.

I mean, face it-the chance of any prospect being a Peyton Manning(or similarly dominant player) is low. Knowing this, why would you pay an unproven commodity more money than you'd pay a Peyton Manning even though, by your own admission, this player will likely not play like a peyton manning early on(and, realistically, probably not ever)?

This doesn't make sense to me.

And yeah, its true a rookie might get thrown into a bad situation in which the team that drafts him can't surround him with good talent. A cap on rookie pay could actually help rectify that issue by giving more teams room to pay the supporting cast as opposed to their top pick.
The fact remains, though, that your salary solution still doesn't make sense. Bad situations are unfortunate, but that doesn't justify the rookie making more than proven all-pros. He'd essentially just be making money off of the benefit of the doubt-yeah, he has a bad cast, and thus he's playing poorly, but we're gonna just assume automatically that he'd be an all-pro Peyton Manning type if he had a better cast and pay him as such? We have no real evidence, we'll just make the assumption and be done? I can't see the merit of that.

Staubach12
04-30-2009, 10:24 PM
Absolutely. Stafford has done nothing in the NFL but he has a bigger contract than Peyton Manning? Does that make any sense?

pr0d1gy
05-01-2009, 05:09 AM
Still, it would be extremely unfair to force rookies to sing long term contracts at lower pay though. They would need to find a work-around if they were to consider lowering the rookies' pay. I don't agree with it, though, because the top draft picks all earned that money with multiple great years for their college....and basically tried out for a few years for free. It's late here so I hope this makes some sense. They make absurd money, but it isn't a huge amount when you consider how well the NFL does monetarily. They could really afford to pay more, honestly.

BigBanger
05-01-2009, 06:47 AM
But people know how well the vet is going to do. The vet's potential is also not as high and therefore he is being paid market value. The rookie however has much more potential and while they're being paid for the skill they showed in college, they are also being paid for their potential.
You don't pay someone for a job you think they can do. You pay someone for a job they can do. When a vet, for instance James Harrison, plays like a defensive player of the year when he's making 2 million dollars, you can expect him to be rewarded. Not for what he's going to do, but for he has already proven to do, and thus, you're paying him to do the same task for the next six years while rewarding him for the job he's already done (DPOY).

With a rookie, or a top 8 pick, they're getting disproportionate amounts of money to other rookies drafted anywhere else in the draft. Why is that? Because they were the best players in college? As we all know, the college level and NFL level are two different things. Just because Matthew Stafford won a lot of games and threw for a lot of yards in college doesn't mean he can do it in the NFL. Even though he has potential (good and bad potential), it's still very uncertain how well he'll do. And there is no reason to give a person a ton of money for a job you're not positive they can perform since they haven't proven they can perform it. Brandon Pettigrew isn't going to see anywhere close to the amount of money Matthew Stafford is, but he was an accomplished player and regarded as the best player at his position, so why isn't he going to be the highest paid TE in the NFL like Stafford will be the highest paid QB?


It's a deeply flawed system that makes zero sense, and it needs to be fixed.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
05-01-2009, 07:20 AM
They're not overpaid. It's a fair method of rewarding professionals for stellar collegiate performance

Tim Tebow should be given a billion dollar contract with the key to the world. He deserves it afterall.

Nalej
05-01-2009, 07:34 AM
Tim Tebow should be given a billion dollar contract with the key to the world. He deserves it afterall.

lol


I don't understand how anyone can justify their pay with a straight face

Bills2083
05-01-2009, 07:38 AM
Absolutely. Stafford has done nothing in the NFL but he has a bigger contract than Peyton Manning? Does that make any sense?

Couldn't have said it better myself.
The system is deeply flawed and needs to be addressed ASAP.

There is no reason why a team who went 0-16 last season should be contemplating skipping their pick, and/or trading it due to money.

wicket
05-01-2009, 09:21 AM
the top 5/10 picks are significantly overpaid but the rest is more like underpaid then overpaid

Iamcanadian
05-01-2009, 09:47 AM
The NFL knows what it is doing and they really don't care a whole lot about changing the system. To the NFL, rookie salaries are just a bargaining chip in CBA negotiations. The NFL main purpose in cancelling the CBA is to change the percentage of revenue that goes to the players to a significantly lower figure. That means veterans won't see a dime more in their contracts from a rookie salary cap and the Union, players and their agents know it.
The Union, players and their agents also know that rookie salaries in the end are the driving force that causes their salaries to increase so the Union isn't very likely to agree to a rookie salary cap unless the NFL is prepared to allow rookies to be FA's after 1 or 2 years and there is no way in h-ll the NFL will ever agree to that. All your going to see in the new CBA is a smaller percentage of overall revenues going to the players which could mean a very serious strike.

jth1331
05-01-2009, 11:16 AM
I'm laughing at the posts that are trying to defend the rookies getting paid so much. Pay them for their potential? Seriously? So, say I'm an Accounting graduate, should I make more money than every other accountant in the company I go to because I could become the CFO 20 years down the line? No.
Rookies should be on like 3-5 year contract, and guess what, if they perform, they will get their big monies.

bitonti
05-01-2009, 11:21 AM
every year there are literally about a 1000 prospects who think they are draftable

out of that 1000 there are maybe 500 who really do have a shot

out of that 500 there are only 250 or so actual draft picks

out of that 250 or so the top 10 players are about a half of 1% of the entire draft.

so lets Imagine we are talking about Matt Stafford. This guy is literally the best player in all of college football. Out of thousands of wanna be's, 250 actual draft picks, he was the first overall. The best.

Considering the scope the top picks should make more than the others... they are much much rarer.

Should they make as much as they do? maybe not... maybe a small reduction is in order...

but let's be real - we are talking about supposedly the best player in college football, a team can pick anyone and they decide to make this guy the #1 pick - that guy should be rich, he beat tremendous odds. he's literally one in a million type of player... and this year that guy is Matt Stafford and there are concerns but other years he's Payton Manning or John Elway and is a no brainer pick.

In the end I don't see what the big fuss is about. A player that elite should make elite money.

Nalej
05-01-2009, 11:37 AM
That's a bunch of BS if you ask me.
Rookies haven't done a damn thing in the NFL.
Who care if they beat out 500 college players (half who have no NFL future)
Who cares if he's the best player in his draft.
What about the years where the draft is WEAK.
SOMEONE has to be taken 1st. Just 'cause he's the best of a **** list doesn't mean he deserves to be paid more then Peyton Manning.

At the least- I think rookie contracts should be all about incentives.
Produce and get paid. Dont' produce and you get ****. Simple enough

themaninblack
05-01-2009, 11:45 AM
I had an argument with a friend about this and I simply could not believe that he didn't think the top rookies are overpaid. Its really not even debatable if your a sane human being.

Nalej
05-01-2009, 12:55 PM
I had an argument with a friend about this and I simply could not believe that he didn't think the top rookies are overpaid. Its really not even debatable if your a sane human being.

Exactly. I'm seriously surprised by all the people who believe there isn't a problem with it. It's ridiculous

Bills2083
05-01-2009, 02:34 PM
every year there are literally about a 1000 prospects who think they are draftable

out of that 1000 there are maybe 500 who really do have a shot

out of that 500 there are only 250 or so actual draft picks

out of that 250 or so the top 10 players are about a half of 1% of the entire draft.

so lets Imagine we are talking about Matt Stafford. This guy is literally the best player in all of college football. Out of thousands of wanna be's, 250 actual draft picks, he was the first overall. The best.

Considering the scope the top picks should make more than the others... they are much much rarer.

Should they make as much as they do? maybe not... maybe a small reduction is in order...

but let's be real - we are talking about supposedly the best player in college football, a team can pick anyone and they decide to make this guy the #1 pick - that guy should be rich, he beat tremendous odds. he's literally one in a million type of player... and this year that guy is Matt Stafford and there are concerns but other years he's Payton Manning or John Elway and is a no brainer pick.

In the end I don't see what the big fuss is about. A player that elite should make elite money.

So you're telling me that because someone 'beats the odds' or is 'elite,' that they should be paid like one of the elite players in the NFL? You think that Matthew Stafford is already on the same level as Peyton Manning, or Tom Brady?

There is absolutely no reason why a player who was great at the college level, should be paid as if he is already a great player in the NFL. You should have to earn an elite contract in the NFL, not have it be handed to you before you step onto the field.

Saints-Tigers
05-01-2009, 02:41 PM
Rookies are worth whatever owners are willing to pay them.

pr0d1gy
05-01-2009, 04:03 PM
Tim Tebow should be given a billion dollar contract with the key to the world. He deserves it afterall.

Tebow isn't a pro-level QB talent, though, there is a difference.

benchod
05-01-2009, 05:31 PM
They're not overpaid. It's a fair method of rewarding professionals for stellar collegiate performance, not unlike you see in the real world for recent graduates. Guys who graduate from Harvard are, if they prioritize correctly, going to earn far greater amounts of money than people who graduate from your local community college.

Tebow isn't a pro-level QB talent, though, there is a difference.[/b]

Disconnect. You conveniently ignore your previous argument to justify a single point.

The top 5-10 players in the draft are the only ones have the legitimately absurd contracts. Give them a 3 year max deal for their rookie deal and more opportunities for free agency, where the real money is eventually earned.

The weeding out argument is dumb. Sure they have entered a profession that is hard to enter, but it does not guarantee financial benefit.

The NFLPA is responsible for making sure that their union members maximize the money they earn. Their responsibility is for their members, not the future members. Currently, they have a deal set up where a certain percentage of league revenue is paid to players. It makes sense for them to limit the money rookies earn in order to increase their contracts

pr0d1gy
05-01-2009, 09:43 PM
Disconnect. You conveniently ignore your previous argument to justify a single point.

The top 5-10 players in the draft are the only ones have the legitimately absurd contracts. Give them a 3 year max deal for their rookie deal and more opportunities for free agency, where the real money is eventually earned.

The weeding out argument is dumb. Sure they have entered a profession that is hard to enter, but it does not guarantee financial benefit.

The NFLPA is responsible for making sure that their union members maximize the money they earn. Their responsibility is for their members, not the future members. Currently, they have a deal set up where a certain percentage of league revenue is paid to players. It makes sense for them to limit the money rookies earn in order to increase their contracts

Correction, YOU try to dance around what I am saying, and working it to look how you want it to look, instead of taking what I said word for word and understanding it.

Tebow does not deserve all that money because he will not get picked in the top 10, or even the top 20, because he is not an NFL-level talented QB prospect. How hard is that to understand from the point I made? Why do people try to talk around the point others are making just to serve their own agendas? This is a draft forum, you will never make money doing this and, if you miraculously are already, you really need to work on your job instead of arguing on forums with people who already know more than you....despite not being in your field, again, should you be a current scout/agent/etc/wtfever.

benchod
05-01-2009, 09:57 PM
I simply took two lines that you said. Where did I dance around it?

Yes, Tebow is not a player that will be a top 20 pick, but your argument was a stellar collegiate career being rewarded with a big pro contract, unless I'm missing something there.

This is a draft forum to debate, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing and discussing it. You're the one who seems to be offended by a simple disagreement and have turned it into a typical 'this is the internet' argument. There's nothing wrong with discussion.

This is a draft forum, you will never make money doing this and, if you miraculously are already, you really need to work on your job instead of arguing on forums with people who already know more than you...despite not being in your field, again, should you be a current scout/agent/etc/wtfever.

What does that even mean?

pr0d1gy
05-02-2009, 03:17 AM
I simply took two lines that you said. Where did I dance around it?

Yes, Tebow is not a player that will be a top 20 pick, but your argument was a stellar collegiate career being rewarded with a big pro contract, unless I'm missing something there.


Obviously, you are missing some clearly obvious things that every other person who has read this thread used COMMON SENSE to interpret.

themaninblack
05-02-2009, 11:18 AM
common sense and this argument have no place together.

pr0d1gy
05-02-2009, 07:07 PM
common sense and this FORUM have no place together.


Corrected for accuracy.

JT Jag
05-02-2009, 07:20 PM
You say that elite college players deserve All-Pro money on day one.

And yet you also say that Tim Tebow, arguably the most successful college player in history, does not deserve All-Pro money.

Am I getting this right?

RealityCheck
05-02-2009, 07:31 PM
I kind of agree. Seventy-plus million bucks for a guy that never step on a pro football field? That's more than everybody on this board combined will get in life.

JLaw45
05-02-2009, 08:25 PM
I kind of agree. Seventy-plus million bucks for a guy that never step on a pro football field? That's more than everybody on this board combined will get in life.

More importantly, its more money than current all-pros(Brady and Manning among them) will make. That's the biggest issue. I really don't see how any sane person could argue for things as they are, it really isn't very debateable.

Xonraider
05-02-2009, 09:16 PM
I think most athletes are overpaid.. but whatever, that won't ever change

StorminNorman
05-03-2009, 12:09 PM
Rookies are worth whatever owners are willing to pay them.
Bingo.jhkjhkjhk

StorminNorman
05-03-2009, 12:11 PM
You say that elite college players deserve All-Pro money on day one.

And yet you also say that Tim Tebow, arguably the most successful college player in history, does not deserve All-Pro money.

Am I getting this right?

No, you're not.

He is saying that elite performers from the college level whose skills are highly coveted by the NFL are worth as much money as teams pay them.

If Tim Tebow is evaluated as the NFL player with the most potential in this draft (as Stafford was by the Lions), he will get Stafford money based on that potential.

nepg
05-03-2009, 01:39 PM
The Top 5 are grossly overpaid. 6-12 are slightly over, the rest are reasonable.

cdf_2108
05-03-2009, 06:11 PM
Absolutely. Stafford has done nothing in the NFL but he has a bigger contract than Peyton Manning? Does that make any sense?

This isn't true. Manning signed a 7 year 100 million dollar deal in 2004 which pays more per year than Stafford's 6 year 78 million. Peyton also got 34.5 million that same day, whereas Stafford's "guaranteed" 42 million might be spaced over the contract. Also, at the time (in 2004), Peyton Manning's QB contract dwarfed the contract Eli got as the 1st overall pick so you have to expect if someone like, Ben Roethlisberger, gets a new contract this season, I'm sure it will dwarf Staffords.

Also don't forget that there is still huge variance among salaries paid to the top 6-8 players because it depends on position. Matt Ryan got a bigger contract than #1 pick jake long cuz QB gets a premium. Similarly, Jay cutler got a huge deal at #11 (bigger tha most players between (1-10) cuz he was a QB.

So saying that Stafford shouldn't make more than all these pro bowlers doesn't make sense unless you compare him to other probowl QBs. When Rivers, Eli, Roethlisberger all resign, I guarantee they make more than Stafford.

RealityCheck
05-03-2009, 07:06 PM
Tim Tebow should be given a billion dollar contract with the key to the world. He deserves it afterall.

He doesn't deserve the key to the world. He deserves the key to the universe.

TheGoods
05-04-2009, 07:40 AM
It seems that people are ignoring the rest of the draft picks. Yes, the top 10-15 picks are overpaid, but what about the rest?

whatadai
05-04-2009, 10:22 AM
It seems that people are ignoring the rest of the draft picks. Yes, the top 10-15 picks are overpaid, but what about the rest?

Without the top 15 being somewhat overpaid, the rest would probably be paid even less. I'm not doing the math for it, it's just a guess. I could be wrong.

pr0d1gy
05-04-2009, 05:39 PM
You say that elite college players deserve All-Pro money on day one.

And yet you also say that Tim Tebow, arguably the most successful college player in history, does not deserve All-Pro money.

Am I getting this right?

Go back, re-read the thread, find the answer to your point; which I already have seen in this thread and refuted, and then come back and say sorry for not reading this thread before posting a repeat question.