Misunderstanding about players big paydays

[aikemirv]

Overall I’d have to agree but there are exceptions to the rule.

What id suggest is when there are Rookies who excel early like a Zeke or Mahomes for example , they shouldn’t have to wait until their 5 year Rookie deal matures.

And on the other side I’d suggest not having minimums for veterans which makes it a tougher choice for a team to retain them even in a backup role if they can pay a Rookie much less.

The minimum is the minimum isn't it - whether for rookies or vets?

I am all for vet minimums.

 

[MyFairLady]

I am all for vet minimums.

Unless you are a veteran that isn't worth the minimum.

 

[McKDaddy]

His 14.5 sacks in 2017 was really good, but still not enough to make him the highest paid DE in the league which he was when he got his deal.

But it will look like a bargain down the road.

 

[aikemirv]

Unless you are a veteran that isn't worth the minimum.

Good point but then what would some NFL owners lowball people for so they could play?

 

[Diehardblues]

The minimum is the minimum isn't it - whether for rookies or vets?

I am all for vet minimums.

But it’s not the same for both .

 

[McKDaddy]

I don't agree on the second contract being a reward. Teams don't look at it like a straight up reward, b/c you don't pay for past performance. You do use it as a metric and ask how likely it is the player will perform as well or better in the future.

Seems like a contradictory statement. Teams don't admit they are paying for past performance but IMO that is exactly what some of it is. Like you said it's a metric that the employee has demonstrated good production and can be counted on.

Same thing happens every day in every other business. Employee who has outperformed their pay is very likely to receive a larger raise than one who has performed marginally. The organization should reward them accordingly.

 

[Diehardblues]

Good point but then what would some NFL owners lowball people for so they could play?

The bigger point is if owners could retain veterans for closer to what they could pay Rookies we’d see more seasoned veterans retained. And probably have more experience on the bench which in effects adds more depth .

Which has been one of the casualties in Cap era and why injuries to starters are so much more devastating. Too much drop off in talent and experience.

 

[CouchCoach]

Excellent thread and opening post, Bullet.

I think we are so far on the outside looking in on how these teams allocate their contracts/salaries. We focus on the parts while they look at the whole.

Every team has X dollars they are going to have to spend and every team has overpaid players and bargain players just as they know they're going to be paying players that can't even take the field.

We focus on the contracts for Lawrence, Elliott, Cooper and now, Prescott just as we did on players before them. The fact is Dak Prescott, in his rookie season, was the most affordable starting QB in league history and continued to overperform his salary during his 1st contract but the bill was coming due as it should have.

Want to be fair about attaching these values to players, which I think is absurd to begin with, then take the entire life of that contract with that player. Take Elliott's, Lawrence's and especially, Prescott's, total contracts over their Cowboys careers and divide that by the years. In Prescott's case, by 2024, he will have averaged 21,666,667 per year over his Cowboys career. It's not fair not to include the bargain years over the life of the entire contract. And at the end of 2024, where do you think his contract will rank?

 

[Creeper]

But it will look like a bargain down the road.

We are down the road and it is a worse bargain now then it was in 2019.

 

[aikemirv]

The bigger point is if owners could retain veterans for closer to what they could pay Rookies we’d see more seasoned veterans retained. And probably have more experience on the bench which in effects adds more depth .

Which has been one of the casualties in Cap era and why injuries to starters are so much more devastating. Too much drop off in talent and experience.

I never really paid attention that there was a difference.

 

[Risen Star]

Bob, thank you for clearing that up.

 

[Diehardblues]

I never really paid attention that there was a difference.

Before the Cap era teams could afford to stockpile talent. Many backups that might could be starting elsewhere. Rarely do we see that now.

In Cap era we still have cream at the top. But there’s more of a severe drop off of talent and experience on the bench.

In past era teams season weren’t necessarily over with a rash of injuries.

 

[Ranching]

Nice post Bob, everyone would love to win on a team full of rookie contracts but the fact is your going to have to give out second contracts if you have drafted well.

Way too long....cut to the chase!

 

[JD_KaPow]

Good.summary, Bob. For the most part, second contracts are market driven within the confines of the salary cap. It is not all that different from the corporate world where salaries are benchmarked across industry sectors for various job types.

The rub, though, is that professional sports pays astronomically better than the corporate world.

Does it? There are about 1700 players in the NFL, the bottom several hundred of whom are making $600-750k, and usually for just a couple years before roster churn takes them out.

What do the top 1700 earners in the corporate world make? Certainly the top CEOs make way more than the top NFL players (factoring in bonuses/stock vs. endorsements). And there are certainly way more than 1700 execs in the country making 7 figures.

 

[atlantacowboy]

Seems like a contradictory statement. Teams don't admit they are paying for past performance but IMO that is exactly what some of it is. Like you said it's a metric that the employee has demonstrated good production and can be counted on.

Same thing happens every day in every other business. Employee who has outperformed their pay is very likely to receive a larger raise than one who has performed marginally. The organization should reward them accordingly.

Past performance AND the likelihood such performance will continue in the future are two of the main determining factors in any new player contract. The Cowboys determined that Dak could improve and get better given his age and decided to give him a huge contract extension rather than moving on. A few years ago, we made an entirely different decision with Demarco Murray. He was the league's offensive MVP and the cowboys determined he was not likely to repeat the performance. So, he was not paid for his MVP performance. He remains one of the best bargains in cowboy history and made very little money in Dallas.

 

[kskboys]

Does it? There are about 1700 players in the NFL, the bottom several hundred of whom are making $600-750k, and usually for just a couple years before roster churn takes them out.

What do the top 1700 earners in the corporate world make? Certainly the top CEOs make way more than the top NFL players (factoring in bonuses/stock vs. endorsements). And there are certainly way more than 1700 execs in the country making 7 figures.

You're comparing employees to bosses. Not a correct parallel.

 

[kskboys]

The minimum is the minimum isn't it - whether for rookies or vets?

I am all for vet minimums.

No. The minimum salary goes up each year a player is in the league. A 10 year vet, for instance, would get a minimum prolly around a mil or so. Maybe more.

 

[JD_KaPow]

You're comparing employees to bosses. Not a correct parallel.

You're making an arbitrary distinction. An EVP of a large company is still an employee, someone who was promoted into that position, not a founder or owner (generally). The top 1700 employees in the corporate world are certainly in management positions of some sort. The top 1700 employees in the NFL world are on the field. They're still the top employees in their given professions, and compensated as such.

 

[kskboys]

You're making an arbitrary distinction. An EVP of a large company is still an employee, someone who was promoted into that position, not a founder or owner (generally). The top 1700 employees in the corporate world are certainly in management positions of some sort. The top 1700 employees in the NFL world are on the field.

You think employees are the same as bosses/managers? Why? That really doesn't make sense. Kinda sounds as if you're arguing semantics.

Plus, professional sports is a job like no other. Nothing even close.

 

[McKDaddy]

Past performance AND the likelihood such performance will continue in the future are two of the main determining factors in any new player contract. The Cowboys determined that Dak could improve and get better given his age and decided to give him a huge contract extension rather than moving on. A few years ago, we made an entirely different decision with Demarco Murray. He was the league's offensive MVP and the cowboys determined he was not likely to repeat the performance. So, he was not paid for his MVP performance. He remains one of the best bargains in cowboy history and made very little money in Dallas.

But then you come full circle. If you feel the player should get fairly rewarded for his performance, Demarco got screwed big time.

I know there are some escalators for performance in contracts but IMO there are plenty of metrics that could be used to more fairly compensate a player at the end of each year. Ie, reducing base salaries and having a significant portion of their earnings tied to performance. Thus eliminating (or at least reducing) either side getting completely screwed over. But that delves into a much deeper & controversial subject.