Are rookies and 1st round picks paid too much?

[Irn-Bru]

We had a discussion on that topic on THN a while back. . .I think at the time NFL Network talking heads were talking about it. Surprisingly, old veterans were somehow unhappy that rookies could make more money than them, so the NFL Network was full of people saying that it wasn't fair at all. No one was advocating the other side of the debate.

As I recall, the board seemed more split on this.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1492

Some proof that first round picks, as a group, are not overpaid
Posted by JKL on Tuesday, February 24, 2009

I could go into a long dissertation on why first round picks, even the top ones, are actually underpaid relative to their average performance over the life of the contract, trot out charts and graphs, and post a study of the cap numbers for teams to see which players actually underperform their cap figures.

I could point out that, despite the public posturing from [gasp] the teams that have a financial incentive to complain that rookies are paid too much[/gasp], no team has actually intentionally passed on a pick or traded it for a later draft pick straight up.

Or I could just say this:

Meet your 2008 Franchise Players.

More at the link. . .

I'm glad someone is making this comparison argument. I couldn't understand why it was so repugnant to pay Jake Long a lot of money when he was clearly in a better position to contribute to your team than any other offensive lineman you had. Just saying 'he hasn't played a down [in the NFL]' doesn't seem like a good response.

But then you look at what franchised players are going to make. . .

[PulpExposure]

Well, the point is that teams can choose to franchise a player or not; however, if you draft 1st overall, you have to pay the player according to previous overall 1st picks, there is no choice involved. The guy also makes a stupid, thoughtless error; he conflates a one-year, non-guarenteed deal with rookie contracts that usually include massive amounts of guarenteed money (see below). And as we all know, it's the guarenteed money that is the kicker in the NFL.

And whereas you presumably would franchise a player you know actively contributes to your team (except for the Steelers inexplicably franchising Max Starks), you have no idea if the player you draft will plan out. For every Jake Long (who got 30 million guarenteed, more than any veteran offensive lineman) or Matt Ryan (34.75 million guarenteed, more than Brady or Manning), there's a Robert Gallery (7 year contract, 60 million, 18.5 guarenteed), or an Alex Smith (who has earned 49 million as a backup).

Additionally, as mentioned above, the franchise designation isn't even a good comparator; you CAN pay them the franchise number for that year (which is NOT guarenteed), but you're not locked into a long-term contract with them at that number, and most importantly, there is no guarenteed money in a franchise tender. Whereas the rookies get 5-7 year deals with massive amounts of guarenteed money (for top guys). And while there's a good argument that there is value for most rookies in the 1st round, that Jake Long got more in guarenteed money than any other offensive lineman in NFL history, without playing a snap, is patently absurd. Or that Matt Ryan, without throwing a pass, has more guarenteed money in his contract than Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. How does that make any sense? No one is arguing that rookies shouldn't get paid well, especially top players. The argument is that the rookie pay scale is just fundamentally out of whack.

No other industry would pay a potential prospect at start, as much as one of its top performers. None.

[Bob 0119]

I'm not split on it, rookies shouldn't get the big contract until their second year at the earliest.

Let the team determine their value based on their NFL performance as we've all seen that college greatness does not necessarily translate to the NFL

[Jake]

Yes... the rookies are way overpaid. When you think about it, every player in the NFL, except for maybe the practice squad players, is overpaid. But especially the rookies.

[Irn-Bru]

Yes... the rookies are way overpaid. When you think about it, every player in the NFL, except for maybe the practice squad players, is overpaid. But especially the rookies.

When I think about it I don't come to that conclusion. Funny.

[Irn-Bru]

I'm not split on it, rookies shouldn't get the big contract until their second year at the earliest.

Let the team determine their value based on their NFL performance as we've all seen that college greatness does not necessarily translate to the NFL

NFL success in one season does not necessarily translate to success in the next season. I could use your same argument to put off a player's pay day ad infinitum.

[Bob 0119]

I'm not split on it, rookies shouldn't get the big contract until their second year at the earliest.

Let the team determine their value based on their NFL performance as we've all seen that college greatness does not necessarily translate to the NFL

NFL success in one season does not necessarily translate to success in the next season. I could use your same argument to put off a player's pay day ad infinitum.

I'd agree with that too. Haynesworth is a great example of that right now. He's going to land a big contract this year with some other team, and whose to say he will do as well with that team?

I promise you he wouldn't do as well with the Redskins as he did last year.

So I still don't see why their shouldn't be a cap on player salaries, especially rookies.

I know, I know free-market blah, blah, blah. I've heard it all before, but you know what, Haynesworth is moving on becuase his team won't be able to afford him, and he'll wind up playing for someone who is willing to mortgage their team just to have him.

If there is going to be a salary cap, then players' salaries should be capped accordingly.

[ChocolateMilk]

I'm not split on it, rookies shouldn't get the big contract until their second year at the earliest.

Let the team determine their value based on their NFL performance as we've all seen that college greatness does not necessarily translate to the NFL

NFL success in one season does not necessarily translate to success in the next season. I could use your same argument to put off a player's pay day ad infinitum.

I'd agree with that too. Haynesworth is a great example of that right now. He's going to land a big contract this year with some other team, and whose to say he will do as well with that team?

I promise you he wouldn't do as well with the Redskins as he did last year.

So I still don't see why their shouldn't be a cap on player salaries, especially rookies.

I know, I know free-market blah, blah, blah. I've heard it all before, but you know what, Haynesworth is moving on becuase his team won't be able to afford him, and he'll wind up playing for someone who is willing to mortgage their team just to have him.

If there is going to be a salary cap, then players' salaries should be capped accordingly.

well there might not be a cap anymore soon

[Bob 0119]

Oh there will be. Otherwise teams like the Steelers, Packers and Cardinals won't be able to compete. They don't make enough money to be able to hire players without the Cap.

[Irn-Bru]

Well, the point is that teams can choose to franchise a player or not; however, if you draft 1st overall, you have to pay the player according to previous overall 1st picks, there is no choice involved.

There is more leeway than you are allowing for here, but point taken.

The guy also makes a stupid, thoughtless error; he conflates a one-year, non-guarenteed deal with rookie contracts that usually include massive amounts of guarenteed money (see below). And as we all know, it's the guarenteed money that is the kicker in the NFL.

I don't think that's a mistake. By the time these rookies collect on the big numbers, they will no longer be the 'highest paid X' in history. The NFL is about what you can do for me now, and the contracts are actually about what you can pay me now. The comparison between Darren Sproles, Brandon Jacobs, and Adrian Peterson is telling IMO.

And whereas you presumably would franchise a player you know actively contributes to your team (except for the Steelers inexplicably franchising Max Starks), you have no idea if the player you draft will plan out.

In order for the bold part of the quoted paragraph to be true, you'd have to establish that there is no correlation between high draft picks and positive performance. But are we really going to debate that just because there exists a man named Heath Schuler?

For every Jake Long (who got 30 million guarenteed, more than any veteran offensive lineman) or Matt Ryan (34.75 million guarenteed, more than Brady or Manning), there's a Robert Gallery (7 year contract, 60 million, 18.5 guarenteed), or an Alex Smith (who has earned 49 million as a backup).

Really? The top picks have a 50% bust rate?

Additionally, as mentioned above, the franchise designation isn't even a good comparator; you CAN pay them the franchise number for that year (which is NOT guarenteed), but you're not locked into a long-term contract with them at that number, and most importantly, there is no guarenteed money in a franchise tender.

What percentage of franchised players make as much money as their contract nominally says they will? What percentage of rookies make as much money as their contract nominally says they will? 'Guarenteed' is one thing, but if franchised players get their money 99% of the time, what's the practical difference?

Look, I agree that these are two different kinds of contracts, but that doesn't mean that comparisons are off the table.

[Irn-Bru]

So I still don't see why their shouldn't be a cap on player salaries, especially rookies.

Well, that's one discussion, and it's one that interests me. But what bothers me is that there appears to be a consensus that rookies make "too much" money compared to veterans. I disagree that this last claim is the case, necessarily. At the very least, it shouldn't be the consensus it is just because people can name 5 busts from the last few years. Are there not busts with FAs? How about with re-signed players? Etc.

I know, I know free-market blah, blah, blah.

Free market doesn't have anything to do with these debates. People who bring that up—especially as a knee-jerk—typically don't understand what a free market is.

I've heard it all before, but you know what, Haynesworth is moving on becuase his team won't be able to afford him, and he'll wind up playing for someone who is willing to mortgage their team just to have him.

Why can't the same be said about these high draft picks? I don't see a real difference in the 'freedom' teams have here.

If there is going to be a salary cap, then players' salaries should be capped accordingly.

There is a good argument to be made for this. Like I said, I'm open to this idea. But the discussion we're (supposed to be) having is the one that is my pet peeve.

[PulpExposure]

In order for the bold part of the quoted paragraph to be true, you'd have to establish that there is no correlation between high draft picks and positive performance. But are we really going to debate that just because there exists a man named Heath Schuler?

No, that's not what I mean. But you can't say for certain that the guy you draft at the top of the 1st, and pay a ton of money to, will pan out. Robert Gallery was the highest rated offensive lineman to come out of college in over a decade, and has been an unmitigated bust.

Really? The top picks have a 50% bust rate?

That's also not what I said. However, with quarterbacks, it's around that, and I'd be curious to see what the success rate overall with top 10 picks would be. With the money you pay them, you're expecting pro bowl results. I wonder how often that actually works out.

I mean hell, I just randomly looked at the top 10 players picked in 2005.

1. Alex Smith
2. Ronnie Brown
3. Braylon Edwards
4. Cedric Benson
5. Carnell Williams
6. Pacman Jones
7. Troy Williamson
8. Antrel Rolle
9. Carlos Rogers
10. Mike Williams

Perhaps that's just a bad draft I randomly picked out, but do you see a single guy on that list who has earned with their play the money in their rookie contract? The best player on that list, Ronnie Brown, is a good running back. With a 5 year deal for 35 million, with 20 million guarenteed...

'Guarenteed' is one thing, but if franchised players get their money 99% of the time, what's the practical difference?

But you're ignoring the important part of this. Guarenteed money is the absolute most important part of an NFL contract. The rest is basically fluff.

Yes, franchised players may get their money for that year, but if they suffer a career ending injury during that franchise year, that's the end of the gravy train for them. If Jake Long had shredded his knee stepping on to the practice field with the Dolphins, he still would have gotten that year's salary plus the 30 million dollars guarenteed.

In addition, if the franchise player turns out to be a total bum, you can cut him the next year without any sort of salcap hit. You cannot do that with a top draft pick, because of that signing bonus albatross.

[PulpExposure]

But what bothers me is that there appears to be a consensus that rookies make "too much" money compared to veterans.

Well here, let me ask you this. How do you justify Matt Ryan earning more guarenteed money in his contract than either Tom Brady or Peyton Manning?

As I said before, not a single other profession that I know of, would sign a young up and comer to a compensation schedule that is equal to the top performers.

[Irn-Bru]

No, that's not what I mean. But you can't say for certain that the guy you draft at the top of the 1st, and pay a ton of money to, will pan out. Robert Gallery was the highest rated offensive lineman to come out of college in over a decade, and has been an unmitigated bust.

Can't we say the same thing about free agents? Heck, even guys that hit 'payday' on your team after playing through their first lean contract? It's not just rookies that there are no guarantees for.

That's also not what I said.

How else am I supposed to take "for every X, there is a Y"? Let's say there are 50 Xs; you are making it sound like there are going to be 50 Ys. But what if there are only 2 Ys for every X? And, since we're talking about rookies here, how might the X and Y comparison go with FAs or team re-signings?

However, with quarterbacks, it's around that, and I'd be curious to see what the success rate overall with top 10 picks would be. With the money you pay them, you're expecting pro bowl results. I wonder how often that actually works out.

I wonder all these things too. Nobody is claiming that rookies are iron-lock picks. But I think the people claiming that rookie pay is unjustified don't take into account the uncertainty of the rest of the league. It's also telling that the arguments rely on anecdotes ("how'd Ryan Leaf work out?"), not trends.

With the rest of your post, I understand the arguments and am sympathetic to some. My problem is I don't see a unified point to any of it. If we tried just as hard to cast FAs in a bad light you could make the case that they need a salary cap. Or other classes of players. In other words, I don't see enough honest rigor in making the case.

Do you see my concern?

[Irn-Bru]

But what bothers me is that there appears to be a consensus that rookies make "too much" money compared to veterans.

Well here, let me ask you this. How do you justify Matt Ryan earning more guarenteed money in his contract than either Tom Brady or Peyton Manning?

The respective contracts were signed years apart. Two years from now you'll be comparing some upstart to Ryan who isn't making 'as much as he should.'

These players sign longer-term deals with guaranteed money to lock in certain amounts of wealth. Let's say that Peyton refused to sign more than a one or two year deal. Would he have made more than Ryan last year? Yes. You pay for security, and there is a clear bias in the NFL towards the most recently signed players.

As I said before, not a single other profession that I know of, would sign a young up and comer to a compensation schedule that is equal to the top performers.

How many professions function as 30 mini-franchises that have, for all practical purposes, unlimited funds within the cap set by the central office? How many professions look like the NFL in any respect? I don't see the force of this argument.

Keep in mind that "young up and comers" can in many instances perform as well as the "top performers". Another thing that is somewhat exclusive to the NFL, as compared to other professions.

[PulpExposure]

With the rest of your post, I understand the arguments and am sympathetic to some. My problem is I don't see a unified point to any of it. If we tried just as hard to cast FAs in a bad light you could make the case that they need a salary cap. Or other classes of players. In other words, I don't see enough honest rigor in making the case.

See, I don't have a problem with paying free agents or franchise players with big contracts. They've proven they have the ability to produce in the NFL. Rookies haven't.

Whether or not the FA lives up to his contract is another thing. But every industry rewards for past performance.

Right now, having rookies rewarded for college performance, to me, is just like a brand new MBA grad getting the same employment compensation as a Fortune 500 CEO. It's absurd.

[PulpExposure]

The respective contracts were signed years apart. Two years from now you'll be comparing some upstart to Ryan who isn't making 'as much as he should.'

No, you'll never hear me say that. I already think football players are ridiculously well compensated for playing a kids game. And the recent signing bonuses for mid-level free agents like Justin Smith are insane as well.

I just happen to think unproven rookies are ridiculously compensated as a comparison. And I know you're going to say "but not to their contemporaries." Fine. In 2007, the Redskins signed Laron Landry to a 5 year, 41.5 million deal, with 17.5 million guarenteed. A few months later (August), the Steelers extended Troy Polamalu's contract...and he got a 5 year, 33 million deal, with 15.375 million guarenteed.

It sure makes sense to have Landry paid more than Polamalu, doesn't it?

Also in 2007, the biggest free agent contract went to Adalius Thomas (5 years, 35 million, 20 mill guarenteed). The biggest rookie contract was Jamarcus Russel, who got 6 years, 64 million, with 31.5 million guarenteed.

Yes, I know that QBs get paid more than LBs, but that's a striking difference.

How many professions function as 30 mini-franchises that have, for all practical purposes, unlimited funds within the cap set by the central office? How many professions look like the NFL in any respect?

The NBA has a rookie salary cap. Baseball doesn't (doesn't have a salcap either), but I don't think the NFL wants to emulate baseball much...

[Irn-Bru]

The NBA has a rookie salary cap. Baseball doesn't (doesn't have a salcap either), but I don't think the NFL wants to emulate baseball much...

This is ultimately where I think I'm leaning on this one. The salary cap is good for the league IMO, but it does create distortions that need the occasional ironing out. I actually agree that SOME rookies get paid too much in comparison to SOME other players.

But I don't see it as a systemic problem so much as a problem with individual, ad hoc cases.

However. . .the arguments that no rookie should be paid more than any veteran still get under my skin, though. Even you have to admit those arguments are cringe-worthy, Pulp.

[PulpExposure]

The NBA has a rookie salary cap. Baseball doesn't (doesn't have a salcap either), but I don't think the NFL wants to emulate baseball much...

This is ultimately where I think I'm leaning on this one. The salary cap is good for the league IMO, but it does create distortions that need the occasional ironing out. I actually agree that SOME rookies get paid too much in comparison to SOME other players.

But I don't see it as a systemic problem so much as a problem with individual, ad hoc cases.

However. . .the arguments that no rookie should be paid more than any veteran still get under my skin, though. Even you have to admit those arguments are cringe-worthy, Pulp.

Listen, I should have been clear. I completely believe that most of the first round contracts are completely fair; you're drafting a guy to be a starter on your team...so pay him like one.

I just don't like the top 5-10 rookie contracts, in where the rookie is compensated similarly to a star NFL player...without having stepped foot on the field. Those are the contracts I have a real issue with. There really is an absurd jump in compensation from even pick 5 to pick 1 overall, and there's no real reason for that jump.

[Irn-Bru]

Yes, I think that's reasonable. Unfortunately, the pundits on the NFL network (and some contributors on THN) have more than that in mind.

[Deadskins]

Maybe rookies' contracts should be tied to performance incentives. They could make the big bucks, but only if their on-field performance warrants it. Injury pay would have to be taken into account, but I see nothing wrong with that approach.