SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all PFR content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.
Also, our existing PFR blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.
Pro-Football-Reference.com ยป Sports Reference
For more from Chase and Jason, check out their work at Football Perspective and The Big Lead.
ShareThisCheckdowns, Rants: Rookie Wage Scale
Jason Lisk (f/k/a JKL of the PFR Blog) continues to kill it over at the Big Lead. You can read all of Jason's work here, and I highly advise you to do so. His latest piece? A large rant against the idea of a rookie wage scale in the NFL. Jason, Doug and I are in the tiny minority of NFL fans who don't think rookies are overpaid, even the most highly drafted ones. My favorite piece in his article today? A link to a sportswriter complaining in April that Ndamukong Suh was going to recieve similar guaranteed money to Albert Haynesworth. What an injustice!
We've discussed this on the PFR blog before. In February 2009, Jason wrote that some proof that first round picks, as a group, are not overpaid. In May 2008, I came up with a modern Draft Pick Value Chart, which confirmed my believe that the top rookies are not overpaid. Brian Burke wrote an insightful article on how NFL players are gladiators, not bricklayers, and I believe Burke is with the PFR Crew w/r/t rookie salaries.
And then, today, I got bored and did a tongue-in-cheek rant over at the Footballguys message boards. You can read it and follow the anticipated ridiculous comments here, but I'll re-post it as well below:
How in the world can it be justified to pay Jim Harbaugh 7 or 8 million dollars are you? Are you kidding me? Putting aside that, ya know, that's more money than most people will make in their entire lives, what has Harbaugh done to deserve it? He did a good job coaching in a decent conference in college? He never even won his conference! Yet all of the sudden he's somehow worthy of one of the richest contracts in NFL history?
Mike Tomlin has won a Super Bowl and has Pittsburgh as an annual contender, and he's making 4.8 million per year. Jeff Fisher, one of the most respected coaches in the league, is making just shy of 6 million per year. Tom Coughlin, after he won the freakin Super Bowl, is making just over 5 mill per year. How in the world can you justify paying Jim Harbaugh more than all of them? More than Bill Belichick, who's making 7.5 per year?
It's just absurd. Harbaugh's a college guy who hasn't proven a single thing in the NFL. Why not make him PROVE his worth first, then pay him? Wouldn't a 3-year, 6 million dollar deal still put him in the top .0001% of rich people and not cripple the franchise if he's a bust? If Harbaugh's actually a good NFL coach, surely his next contract would be in the 6-7 million dollar a year range. So if he's a good coach, he'll make a ton of money. If he's a bad coach, he'll still make good money but not crazy money. Why won't Roger Goodell step in and do something about this? As an average NFL fan, I have to say it turns me off to the whole sport to see an unproven whippersnapper like Harbaugh come in and make more money than my family will make for generations. For coaching freakin' football. Make him prove it, then pay him. Isn't that how every other industry in the world works?
Please, NFL and Goodell, do something.
This entry was posted on Friday, January 7th, 2011 at 8:59 am and is filed under Checkdowns, Rant, Rule Change Proposals. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Great comment.
However, I have to disagree with you regarding the rookie wage scale. I think, regarding the top picks, that their SALARIES may be justified, but their BONUSES are not. It's one thing for them for them to make a salary that is in the top half of their position--but their bonuses are outrageous. IMO, the lower round picks (prob. 4th and down) aren't paid enough, but they still make a good salary compared to the rest of the work force. The "minimum wage" players could prob. use a 10% hike across the board (regardless of experience), and the top picks should have their bonuses cut in HALF, at least. Since the salary cap is so high now, the smart NFL clubs are locking up their good players a year, sometimes more, before their contract is up--and in some cases giving them a nice bonus for doing so.
It would be interesting to find out the difference in Manning's total NFL income vs. Brady's, considering that they are of equal value to their teams. Manning's is sure to be more because of his longer career and high draft status--but the more interesting #'s to me would be the per-year-average up to this point, and the comparison yr by yr. To me, if they play the same # of years, Brady will make up most of the difference. In other words, the only difference in their pay is how they were perceived before they got ANY paychecks.
Okay, after reading the post, JKL's thought's and logic are solid. However, there must be give and take--if you drop the salary and/or bonuses, you MUST shorten the length of the contract--say, 3 yrs. for 1st-3rd rounders, 2 yrs for everyone else. And I still stand by my point above--lock in the salaries where they are, get rid of the ridiculous bonuses. For example, new top first-rounders would make around $6m annually for 3 yrs, with max bonuses of say $2m per year. BUT, if they were to get franchised instead of an extension, they get 120% or avg of top 5 under the current CBA--that would mean they get at least a raise to $7.2m for the year--and at some positions, to $10m+/yr. I would also say that a clause should be added to protect the 4th rounders and down--similar to what they have--EXCEPT this: if their current team does not offer a contract for MORE than 200% of their salary, they become an UNRESTRICTED FA--not restricted. In other words, no keeping cheap labor around for more than 2 years--you have to PAY for it. Realistically, upping 5th rounder who is developing into capable backup/borderline starter from $300K/yr to $600K+/yr. is still getting "cheap" labor--just paying more for it.
Who wrote this? Obama?
The NFL wants to follow the MLB business model. Make the young guys produce, and the old guys then cash in on their work from back in the day.
We'll have Andrew Luck making $2 million in 2012, which will make him similar to Billy Volek and David Carr in 2009. This is somehow fair to the warped-minded.
William Llyod Garrision,
I assume you mean who wrote the NFL drastic reduction and artificial cap which is a restraint on free market, and not a post pointing out that players might be worth what the market is currently paying them.
They're going to put it in, it's going to blow up in their face the first time some moron G.M. like A.J. Smith tells his second-year, two-time All Pro player, "No, sorry, you're under contract for three more years. But I'm sure you'll get paid your big money once you're a free agent at age 28, and your career nearly over."
Like John Mellencamp once sang, "I know there's a balance, I see it when I swing past."
I think the days of 28 being "career nearly over" are at an end, with the exception of RBs. Well, also with the exception of those who aren't 2 time all-pros. Great talents seem to be regularly playing quite a ways into their 30s.
That brings up another interesting question though... Should RBs be paid more to compensate for their shorter careers?
I agree that the market value for the non-bust rookies is actually less than a free agent. The Su-Haynesworth reference was GENIUS. However, I do think there should be a way to
1.) Make a rookie cap that is fluctuant to the league rates. For example, the franchise tag's guaranteed money is structured this way, in that it takes an average of players' pay at the position to determine it rate each year. I just came up with that, so I haven't studied how to insert the details, but it should be adjustable as the league changes.
2.) protect against the busts. As mentioned reduce initial signing bonuses. Maybe place a roster bonus requirement at the beginning of each season of their contract that is equal to the difference in their salary from players in their position with the same range of production.
Player A drafts into the league as a top five pick and is granted a contact that includes guaranteed money over five years equivalent to the average of a certain range of players across the league from the year he was drafted. It's not grand that first year, but fair. He tears it up and becomes the rookie of the year and produces among the top five at his position. As he enters his second year, the single-year average (including any prorated bonus) of the top five of his position is calculated. That figure is compared to his second year guaranteed salary and the difference is due as a roster bonus at the start of the year. The team then has the option to pay up and keep him, renegotiate a completely new contract that replaces the rookie contract, or release him into free agency with a penalty only equal to the original deal. This comparison is made indepently each year of their rookie contract.
Oops. I failed to specify what would happen if the above mentioned player performs like, well, a rookie. If he's not out-playing his contract, then he's simply payed his original contract until the team determines that he's either a bust and release him, he develops into a player that begins to out-play his contract (again, as long as the player is playing under his rookie deal, the calculation takes place each year), or simply settles in as one of the hundreds of "solid" players the league has who play significant roles on their team and make a decent football wage.
Oh, and by the way, few are aware that this kind of "out-play" compensation is already within the rules of the league. As a Cowboys' fan I read within the past couple years where CB Orlando Scandrick out-played his contract and was granted a bonus the following year as directed by league rules. Therefore this concept isn't really mine or out of the realm of possibility.
"Should RBs be paid more to compensate for their shorter careers?"
*Head Explodes*
No! No they bloody well shouldn't! They should be paid what they can make in a free market or something close to one - and the draft as it currently stands is not as ludicrously far as you might think, because if another team had wanted a player badly enough to pay him much more than the team that actually drafted him, they could have traded up and picked him themselves. Running backs are worth less than players at most other positions, so they get drafted lower and paid less. That is all.
Count me firmly in the "no rookie pay scale" camp. Veteran and rookie contracts both carry elements of risk. At present, rookie contracts represent better value on average than veteran ones. Sam Bradford a year ago had a higher expected value than Brady or Manning. Much more variable, but higher. The present system undercompensates rookies in an attempt to increase year-to-year parity by rewarding crappy teams. If you want to argue for a rookie pay scale, frame it as a drive for greater parity, not some quasi-moralistic hokum.