Goodell concerned about rookie salaries - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Goodell concerned about rookie salaries

Moderator: Football Moderators

Re: Goodell concerned about rookie salaries

Postby moochman » Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:34 am

Stomper, I am sorry that my poor use of the word pimp offends you and that you feel it weakens my argument. I will use mouthpiece, carnival barker, or puppet if it helps. I know he works for the owners, but he is supposed to be working in the best interests of the league. And Goodell looks to be considering the owners pocketbooks over the good of the league. IMO.
Someday I might find the time to see where I mentioned exploited in this thread, not that I would deny the players are exploited. You affix to literal a meaning to the word and ignore the spirit of it. I think that is also the reason so many have such a difficult time grasping my oddball conspiracy theories on this topic.
Your example of how rookies should be paid sounds great. But is it impossible to consider why an elite athlete would agree to it? As I laid out a few post ago, rookies will never be able to make up the money they would lose with this change.

I don’t think bad teams stink because of big rookie contracts. They stink because they are badly run. The Lions aren’t suffering because they drafted and paid Joey Blueskies, Charles Rogers, or Mike Williams. They suck because they haven’t drafted a viable player after round two in the Matt Millen error. Think about it. A team drafts a big money rookie who turns out to suck. Do you think that team would be able to sign a FA to fill the void if they had the money back? No, they would sign a FA who would suck.

Dgan, you are missing my point. Players who could make huge contracts may have incentive to stay in school, improve their game and get drafted higher. But if there is no pot of gold there is no reason to do so. So more players would leave school early.
Also, if you care to look back a few posts I give an example of how veterans might get paid more, but ultimately never have the high ceiling that they could have if big rookie deals exist.
For that reason, I don’t think this is a problem that needs to be fixed. The owners can simply stop paying so much silly money. But they don’t. Because it would cost them more than paying up would. Or maybe they are just bad businessmen.

Humpback, I just went through this. The % is not static either. There is a max and a min to the cap. That teams wish to stay competitive make many, though not all, hover near the cap. But they could all gravitate toward the bottom of the cap. Really, read again what I posted. We are on totally different side on this. I feel that escalating salaries has aided the demand to increase the cap, not the revenue.
No, younger and cheaper players wouldn’t stay that way. That would be static!!!!!!! They would grow into vets and be phased out in favor of some other younger players.
I am not going to discuss performance or incentive contracts again. The fact it that it would lead to players feeling cheated when teams wouldn’t give them the opportunity to meet targets.
Though you say your intent was not to insult I once again have to clarify that I hold no ill will, or despise any owners on this topic. My beef is with the lie use to set up a mechanism whereby owners hope to reduce the inflationary trend in player salaries. It is one issue, just not one that’s cut and dried. So lets agree to disagree. But do try to understand that my opinion has nothing to do with weather I like owners or not. I don’t have to dislike some one to disagree with them.

To clarify: you see it as rookies vs. vets, but I don’t see it as owners vs. rookies. I see it as owners or management vs. employees.
Image


I think, therefore I am. I think fantasy, therefore I am unreal?
moochman
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterSurvival Of The Fittest WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 16300
(Past Year: 80)
Joined: 20 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Living in the shame only a Lions fan knows

Re: Goodell concerned about rookie salaries

Postby buffalobillsrul2002 » Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:37 am

dgan wrote:
2) If I am in school and I know that my rookie year will be at a discount, then wouldn't I want to get that rookie year over with as soon as I could. So how many more juniors would come out of school early so they don't lose a year of earning potential.


So you're saying kids will come out early to get a discounted contract, but they won't come out early to get a 30 mil contract? I think that is pretty much a wash. If anything, I think you'd get kids making the right LIFE decisions regarding their education because the money won't be as much of a factor.

Sorry mooch, but at this point I can't even talk to you about this. You've got about 40 people in this thread arguing your logic, yet you think all of us are wrong and you're right. You can have any opinion you want, but you can't argue the facts.

- There is a fixed percentage of how much money will be paid to players
- Out of the 1400 players or whatever are in the league, (x) amount is paid to rookies
- If you reduce the value of (x), that means all non-rookies (veterans) must be paid more

If you think there is more to it than that and there are other reasons the owners have, fine. (I disagree - they didn't void a permanent contract - they simply ended it a couple years earlier which was their option. Just like a player who has the option to void a 5 year contract after 3 years. But you're entitled to your conspiracy theory...I'm always up for a good one. :-b ) But can you at least admit that this is a legitimate argument, and something they should fix?


Here's what mooch is trying to say, I think (or at least, what would be legitimate about what mooch is trying to say). If the rookie contracts become smaller, the vets win .... until there is a new CBA. Lowering rookie salaries takes away some of the players "leverage" when it comes time to make a new CBA (if rookie contracts are larger, then vets can argue that they need more pie. If the rookies keep their share of pie, and the vets believe that they deserve a higher % of the rookie/vet pie, then the only solution is to make a bigger pie B-). However, if the rookies get their part of the pie made smaller, then the vets don't need as much pie to make things "fair" between rookies and vets.... }:-)

It might make some sense, I'm not sure. The league really better watch out though, if they don't come to a solution on this that pleases the players, any competing leagues could really screw the NFL over by outspending them for players....
buffalobillsrul2002
Defensive Assistant
Defensive Assistant


Posts: 635
Joined: 17 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Goodell concerned about rookie salaries

Postby moochman » Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am

Not quite, Buffalobillsrul. Rookie contract become small, all players lose. Not today, but in the future. Rookie gets $10 and vet make $5. Vet goes to the renegotiate his deal and says “why is he making more than me”? Vet gets $11. Other vet renegotiates and says “if he is getting $11, why am I only making $1”? He gets $1.25. Everybody makes more eventually. Rookie doesn’t get paid, pressure to increase other players salaries is reduced. They have less bargaining power. That is the crux of my incredibly hard to fathom assertion.
Image


I think, therefore I am. I think fantasy, therefore I am unreal?
moochman
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterSurvival Of The Fittest WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 16300
(Past Year: 80)
Joined: 20 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Living in the shame only a Lions fan knows

Re: Goodell concerned about rookie salaries

Postby Manja » Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:18 am

And even if the team the player belongs to doesn't have enough money to give the player, the player can bolt to another team that has the money to shell out.

It seems you guys are arguing about different points of the CBA.
Manja
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1736
Joined: 6 Jul 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Goodell concerned about rookie salaries

Postby Humpback » Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:31 am

Sorry, Mooch, but you're just wrong here. How can you feel that the escalated salaries has aided the demand to increase the cap, not the revenue? The cap is 100% a function of the "total football revenues". It is a simple math equation- take "total football revenues" and multiply by 59.5%, there's the cap. Take that cap and multiply by 85.2%, there's the minimum. The salaries themselves are a function of the cap, which is a direct function of the revenues. It's really not debatable. The % is static, it's spelled out in the CBA. They can't force a team to spend an exact dollar amount down to the penny on salaries obviously, that's why there's a max and a min. Almost every team is at or near the max, none are close to the minimum. Whatever isn't spend in salaries by the teams to make up that 59.5% must be paid out to the players in other ways. It's not like the players call for an increase to the cap every year and the owners fight them over it, it's all negotiated before hand. There's nothing to discuss once the CBA is signed.

I can't really comment on these "changes" you speak of since we have no idea what they would be. It's not like there's a new CBA in place. If there were some hard facts and figures we could look at it, then we could discuss it, but you seem to keep assuming that the owners are going to screw the players. That may very well be the case, but that's a pretty big assumption at this point. For instance, if the rookies become free agents after 1-3 yrs (i.e. veterans), then they very well could recoup that money (or more) that you feel they will lose by simply performing. That would also help offset the phasing out of vets and replacing them with younger guys that you assume would happen since guys would become veterans sooner. I have no clue if this is going to be the case, but the point is, there could be any number of things in the CBA that would change things quite a bit. It's a 2-way street you know, it's not like the players are just going to agree to whatever the owners suggest. That's why they opted out now, because it's going to take a few years to hammer out all of the details of a new one. It's kind of pointless to discuss it without knowing all of the details.

Not sure why you don't want to discuss pay for performance again. It's the crux of the issue- rookies are getting paid like HOFers without taking a single snap, while guys with multiple Super Bowl victories and pro bowls are making a fraction of some of them. I'm not talking about incentive base deals (bonus for 1000 yds. or 14 starts or whatever), just less guaranteed money up front. Again, why should Jake Long get paid more than almost every O-lineman in the history of the league when he has a chance to be a complete bust? Why not take "only" $10MM up front (still more than a lot of more proven O-linemen make) and earn the balance over the first couple of years? If he does well, he gets paid either by his existing team or another in FA, if not, he doesn't deserve the extra money anyway. If he didn't perform and got cut, that difference wouldn't go into the owners pockets, it would go to other more proven players. Contractually in the CBA, it would have to.

Your feelings are that the owners are using this as an excuse to lower overall players salaries, but I see zero evidence to support that. It's more just a feeling on your part IMO. The fact that almost every team is within dollars of the cap max is evidence (although not proof obviously) against that being the case. The way it's set up with the fixed % to owners and players, that just CAN'T be the case right now. I believe they are entirely different issues.
Humpback
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Fantasy Expert
Posts: 3333
Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Goodell concerned about rookie salaries

Postby moochman » Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:47 am

Humpback, just because you cannot grasp what I am saying does not make me wrong. At best it makes me a poor communicator, at worst you simply don’t understand. The hard facts and figures you are craving show that you cannot seem to grasp how a change in the parameters can bring about a change in a marketplace. You are applying linear (or static) thinking to a dynamic (non-linear) issue. Obviously doesn’t work.
You totally miss the point in you poor interpretation of how escalating salaries influence the cap. It’s not about the % that set a cap number. It’s about how that % is determined. It’s not a static figure, as it is subject to change. Your unwillingness to consider how player salaries can impact the amount of revenue that has to be paid to players is to me befuddling. If that makes me wrong, so be it.
Go back and read my example of how Jake Long would never make the money he is getting now under a NBA type rookie pay-scale system.
Your concerns over how pointless it is to discuss because we don’t know the details (again those hard facts and figures you crave) only serve to prove my point. That we need to consider how today’s actions may shape our future. What may appear to be great-giving more money to players who have proven they can produce could in fact end up costing them earning potential. Which one could reasonably expect would cost them money at the contract table. So they would not make more, but less. You see, from a player standpoint, Jake Long should be paid more than any OL in history so that other OL can get paid more. It’s free market economics, or as close as the league can get to it now.

Oh, tell me. Which one of Ryan Leafs’ teammates got paid more because he was cut? Give me hard facts and figures.

(Clue: The answer is that none did. They got paid more because he got a big contract to begin with)

And, just curious, but why do you think the owners want to stop paying big money rookie contract deals?
Image


I think, therefore I am. I think fantasy, therefore I am unreal?
moochman
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterSurvival Of The Fittest WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 16300
(Past Year: 80)
Joined: 20 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Living in the shame only a Lions fan knows

Re: Goodell concerned about rookie salaries

Postby Humpback » Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:14 pm

moochman wrote:Humpback, just because you cannot grasp what I am saying does not make me wrong. At best it makes me a poor communicator, at worst you simply don’t understand. The hard facts and figures you are craving show that you cannot seem to grasp how a change in the parameters can bring about a change in a marketplace. You are applying linear (or static) thinking to a dynamic (non-linear) issue. Obviously doesn’t work.
You totally miss the point in you poor interpretation of how escalating salaries influence the cap. It’s not about the % that set a cap number. It’s about how that % is determined. It’s not a static figure, as it is subject to change. Your unwillingness to consider how player salaries can impact the amount of revenue that has to be paid to players is to me befuddling. If that makes me wrong, so be it.
Go back and read my example of how Jake Long would never make the money he is getting now under a NBA type rookie pay-scale system.
Your concerns over how pointless it is to discuss because we don’t know the details (again those hard facts and figures you crave) only serve to prove my point. That we need to consider how today’s actions may shape our future. What may appear to be great-giving more money to players who have proven they can produce could in fact end up costing them earning potential. Which one could reasonably expect would cost them money at the contract table. So they would not make more, but less. You see, from a player standpoint, Jake Long should be paid more than any OL in history so that other OL can get paid more. It’s free market economics, or as close as the league can get to it now.

Oh, tell me. Which one of Ryan Leafs’ teammates got paid more because he was cut? Give me hard facts and figures.

(Clue: The answer is that none did. They got paid more because he got a big contract to begin with)

And, just curious, but why do you think the owners want to stop paying big money rookie contract deals?


Yeah, that's it, I can't grasp it :*). There is nothing to grasp since it's all just hot air. There is zero evidence to back up your conspiracy theory, and plenty of evidence to point in the opposite direction. The % is static as we know it right now. Call it linear, call it whatever you want, but facts are facts. If the rookie salaries were to be reduced today, the veteran salaries would have to be increased today to get to the static 59.5%. It's not subject to change, not under the terms of the current CBA. You just keep dealing with hypotheticals. Yes, this could lead to that which could lead to that which could cause this.... I'll deal with probabilities, and it's very likely that the owners will continue to spend up to the cap if the rookies contracts are reduced somewhat. They would have to spend at least the minimum, and any difference would have to be paid out to the players in another way if not via salary. The salary cap doesn't exist because the owners want to spend less money (almost everyone spends the max and most teams would spend much more if they were allowed), it exists because of revenue sharing and to maintain a balance of power in the league.

You are just wrong in your interpretation of the salary cap. It's a fact, there's no disputing it, yet you continue to try and do so. Escalating salaries have nothing to do with the salary cap. Zero. If I sign a $500MM contract, the salary cap does not change a penny. Even if that leads to other $500MM contracts, there is zero change, for this year or for future years. It is purely a function of the revenues. It's really simple, but I guess I'm the one who can't grasp things, right? Revenue is what drives the NFL, not escalated rookie contracts. A better product leads to more revenue, and allocating more money to proven veterans and less to unproven rookies leads to a better product IMO. Don't freak out and assume I'm saying this is a precise equation, but it's generally the way it works.

As for Ryan Leaf, he was cut after the 2000 season. Before the 2001 season, SD signed LT2, Brees, Flutie, Marcellus Wiley, and Ryan McNeil, some of them to big time deals, just to name a few. It's not hard facts and figures, but the fact is, they couldn't have signed all of those guys to as much money as they did if they still had Leaf's big contract on their hands because of the cap. Of course, with your backwards logic, they were only signed because Leaf got a big contract, not because they didn't have to pay him anymore. Makes perfect sense. ;-7

I think the owners want to stop paying as much to the rookies so they can put their money to use on more know quantities (the more established veterans). Obviously it's a business for them, and putting a quality team on the field is good for business. Putting most of their eggs in the basket of a complete unknown is a huge risk. It makes perfect sense to give a Jake Long type deal to a 2 or 3 yr. vet who has established himself in the league, but not to a guy who hasn't. Best case scenario, he plays well and earns his deal. Worst case, he stinks, and it sets the franchise back several years. It's one thing if you're talking MLB- you can dish out ridiculous contracts to a bunch of guys, and if a few of them are busts, it doesn't matter, you can just sign more theoretically. In the NFL, you can't because of the cap. There's only so much to go around, so the more the rookies get, the less the vets get in any given year. Free market economics doesn't exist in the NFL. Not with revenue sharing, a salary cap and floor, etc.

I've wasted enough time here. I tried to be civil, but your last post was much more condescending than any of mine have been that you complained about. You're right, I'm wrong (and I guess almost everyone else is too). It's an absolute certainty that the only reason the owners and Goodell want to lower rookie contracts is to increase the owners share over the players (even though that's locked in place). There's no chance that it's because it's in the best interest of everyone besides the top few rookies. Run with it.
Humpback
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Fantasy Expert
Posts: 3333
Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Goodell concerned about rookie salaries

Postby moochman » Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:01 pm

Humpback wrote:Yeah, that's it, I can't grasp it :*). There is nothing to grasp since it's all just hot air.


Good enough. I have no need to read beyond that.
Image


I think, therefore I am. I think fantasy, therefore I am unreal?
moochman
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterSurvival Of The Fittest WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 16300
(Past Year: 80)
Joined: 20 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Living in the shame only a Lions fan knows

Re: Goodell concerned about rookie salaries

Postby dgan » Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:44 am

I know I should let this go, but it really bugs the crap out of me...

Example:

Let's say the total of all 32 team's revenue is $5,376. (You'll see the reason for that number in a minute)
Divide that by the 32 teams. = $168
The CBA says the salary cap is 59.5% of this number. = $100
The most a team can spend on player salaries is $100.
The CBA says a team MUST spend 85.2% of that on player salaries. = $85

Mooch, your assertion is that the teams refuse to spend that extra $15, so high rookie contracts force them to do that. Our assertion is that almost every team is already at the cap every year, so we are simply talking about how to divide up that $100. If you pay Matt Ryan $25, you have to divide the other $75 between 42 other players...that is an average of $1.79 per player, or 7% of what Matt Ryan is making!

If you only pay Matt Ryan $10, yet only paid the minimum rather than the full salary cap, you'd still have to pay the same amount to the other players. It doesn't cost them a dime, and if the team does choose to spend the $15 they saved, that is a 20% pay increase to the other players.

Tell me the last time you got a 20% pay increase...

And if you still think owners are cheap - as of March 10 (BEFORE signing any draft picks and many free agents), over half the teams were already over the minimum. 2 teams (Colts and Redskins) were already over the cap.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2349505

So I don't want to hear another argument on this matter, mooch, unless you can produce actually numbers that support your argument that higher rookie contracts equal more money paid to veterans - not a handful of higher veteran contracts - more TOTAL money paid to veterans. That is what we're talking about here.
Image
dgan
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Eagle Eye
Posts: 2941
Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: The frozen tundra of Lambeau Field

Re: Goodell concerned about rookie salaries

Postby moochman » Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:33 pm

dgan wrote:I know I should let this go, but it really bugs the crap out of me...

Example:

Let's say the total of all 32 team's revenue is $5,376. (You'll see the reason for that number in a minute)
Divide that by the 32 teams. = $168
The CBA says the salary cap is 59.5% of this number. = $100
The most a team can spend on player salaries is $100.
The CBA says a team MUST spend 85.2% of that on player salaries. = $85

Mooch, your assertion is that the teams refuse to spend that extra $15, so high rookie contracts force them to do that. Our assertion is that almost every team is already at the cap every year, so we are simply talking about how to divide up that $100. If you pay Matt Ryan $25, you have to divide the other $75 between 42 other players...that is an average of $1.79 per player, or 7% of what Matt Ryan is making!

If you only pay Matt Ryan $10, yet only paid the minimum rather than the full salary cap, you'd still have to pay the same amount to the other players. It doesn't cost them a dime, and if the team does choose to spend the $15 they saved, that is a 20% pay increase to the other players.

Tell me the last time you got a 20% pay increase...

And if you still think owners are cheap - as of March 10 (BEFORE signing any draft picks and many free agents), over half the teams were already over the minimum. 2 teams (Colts and Redskins) were already over the cap.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2349505

So I don't want to hear another argument on this matter, mooch, unless you can produce actually numbers that support your argument that higher rookie contracts equal more money paid to veterans - not a handful of higher veteran contracts - more TOTAL money paid to veterans. That is what we're talking about here.


Have you ever gotten a raise at work becuase somebody else made more money than you? I have. So too do players make more money becuase of higher paid athletes. The rookie contracts escalate this process. It's basic economics, truely.
My point of view only works if you can accept that the money paid to one player can affect the next player's money when time comes for their next negotiation. Does that seems unrealistic to you? Do they not franchise a player to spare them a salary dispute, thus ensuring paying them what????? Paying them like the top five average salaries for players for that postition. So do you think what other players would make, and what rookies would make, affect what other players make?
Now using your numbers and the owners desire to reduce the cap to 55% would reduce the max payroll to $92.4 and the min to $78.7 Saving teams over $7 mil for doing nothing to make the product better, only by reducing the payroll. Does reducing a payroll sound like a way to pay veterans more money? So what are they really trying to do when they want those rooks to stop making big money?

Your arguement that owners aren't cheap (or the corporate structue or buisness division of a team) becuase over half are above the min and two are over the cap is lost on me. They have to because they agreed to a salary cap. Otherwise their would be teams with very low payrolls and not very competitive teams out there. See the league knows there are owners out there who don't really care about winning, just being able to say they own a NFL team or raking in the guaranteed money for owning a team.
Image


I think, therefore I am. I think fantasy, therefore I am unreal?
moochman
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterSurvival Of The Fittest WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 16300
(Past Year: 80)
Joined: 20 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Living in the shame only a Lions fan knows

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 2:08 hours
(and 38 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact