Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are Rookies Overpaid Article

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Are Rookies Overpaid Article

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009...-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.

  • #2
    I don't need to read the article to find the answer. Yes.

    Comment


    • #3
      Of course they are.

      Originally posted by Tebowfan85
      too bad the Sea hawks are starting Hasselback and not Whitehorsest (sp)They are gonna loose any ways .

      Comment


      • #4
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          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

          sig by jkpigskin

          2007 SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS

          2011 SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS

          Comment


          • #6
            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.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by hugegmenfan View Post
              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.
              Last edited by whatadai; 04-30-2009, 09:35 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Only like the top 6-8 players are overpaid.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by whatadai View Post
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Absolutely. Stafford has done nothing in the NFL but he has a bigger contract than Peyton Manning? Does that make any sense?

                    BoneKrusher

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by whatadai View Post
                        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.
                        Originally posted by Scott Wright
                        I honestly believe Reggie Bush has turned into exactly the type of player I envisioned.
                        Originally posted by PossibleCabbage
                        I would like it if there were more successful black Quarterbacks in the NFL...
                        Originally posted by bearsfan_51
                        iamcandian lives in a cabin in the Yukon Territory and writes letters to railroad barons about the price of hard tack.
                        Originally posted by GatorsBullsFan
                        I could possibly see Matthew Stafford Dropping out of the 1st round
                        Originally posted by GoRavens
                        Tahj Boyd has the best fundamentals of any QB in this class, I think his game translates great to the NFL.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by pr0d1gy View Post
                          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.
                          Sam Bradford will be a bust- 2/24/2010

                          Colts Cardinals Bulls Hurricanes

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Bob Sanders Dreadlock View Post
                            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
                            -Boston Red Sox-New England Patriots-Boston Celtics-

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Staubach12 View Post
                              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.


                              Originally Posted by scottyboy
                              my lord...I cannot imagine such a world where I can mention Raymell Rice's thighs around a girl and not be the only one sexually aroused
                              But for everyone reading this in Buffalo and Cleveland and everywhere else, take solace in the following: As crazy as it sounds, you're lucky. Your Mount Everest experience is still ahead of you. It's waiting, and it's glorious.- Bill Simmons

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X

                              Debug Information