Why do we keep saying the market determines the cost of a player contract

[InTheZone]

when it's teams overpaying for certain players to begin with that the market is then based on? What is happening is a lot of average players are getting huge raises for their second or third contracts just because some few top tier players are paid considerably more.

So I ask, why do teams feel the need to overpay for average players instead of paying what they're worth? And why is it such a bad thing to let that average player go or possibly get draft picks in a trade and you can then find a much cheaper option in the draft? Sure the draft isn't guaranteed, but when we're talking about average players I'll take that chance every time. It's not like the average players about to be overpaid are the best players on the team.

 

[ItzKelz]

The market does determine. If a team over pays someone no matter how good or bad they are; the market changes at that position or Role. For example Sam Bradford signed a contract that was worth 20 mil with incentives. Of course Foles is going to get more than that.

 

[gimmesix]

It is a bidder's market, so the value is determined by the amount teams are willing to pay. In an ideal world, teams would not overpay for average players, but if I want said average player and you're willing to pay a little more for him, then I'm going to pay a little more than that.

If you pay the average player more than he's worth, then the above-average player is going to want even more than that so it inflates salaries across the board. The choices are to pay the going rates or sit back and let other teams "overpay." The problem with sitting back is that when multiple teams are willing to overpay, then that amount becomes the market.

You can set a value you think they are worth, but if everyone is willing to pay more then your values are below market. Welcome to capitalism!

 

[charron]

when it's teams overpaying for certain players to begin with that the market is then based on? What is happening is a lot of average players are getting huge raises for their second or third contracts just because some few top tier players are paid considerably more.

So I ask, why do teams feel the need to overpay for average players instead of paying what they're worth? And why is it such a bad thing to let that average player go or possibly get draft picks in a trade and you can then find a much cheaper option in the draft? Sure the draft isn't guaranteed, but when we're talking about average players I'll take that chance every time. It's not like the average players about to be overpaid are the best players on the team.

Well in free agency you are looking only at a pool of available agents. Then you ranked those available players. I don't care that cole was ranked 81st player in all of football what matters is out of who is available how good is he and how badly do teams need him. Apparently bad enough to give more than what dallas offered. While teams like dallas aren't giving out big $ we also aren't signing anyone who can make us better.

 

[John813]

JMO

Most teams want to improve their roster and some GMs are on the hot seat.
The ones in the hottest seats look to improve the team ASAP and worry about the contract 2-3 years down the road.
For the Jets, they had 90+mil to burn, and wanted instant talent since their rookie QB is on an ELC.

Signing Mosley to that 5 year deal probably equates to 3 guaranteed years and maybe a 4th on his play. He's a great player setting the new bar for Linebackers.

But guys like Preston Smith getting 13 mil per sounds a lot until you realize the going rate for top edge players will probably eclipse 23mil per year for JD Clowney and or Lawrence.
He's almost getting 60% of what an elite pass rusher would get.

 

[408Cowboy]

If you've ever seen the game hungry hungry hippo that's the first wave of FA. Hippo GM's go into a frenzy trying to get marble FA's.

 

[DasSchnitzel]

The "free agency market" is the collection of free agents and the deals they sign.

By definition, the market is "set" at a position based on the deals made. If 5 non-PB players at one position get 10M/YR, then the 1 PB player at the same position will understandably expect more money, they just gotta find a buyer.

 

[conner01]

Because it is

 

[408Cowboy]

when it's teams overpaying for certain players to begin with that the market is then based on? What is happening is a lot of average players are getting huge raises for their second or third contracts just because some few top tier players are paid considerably more.

So I ask, why do teams feel the need to overpay for average players instead of paying what they're worth? And why is it such a bad thing to let that average player go or possibly get draft picks in a trade and you can then find a much cheaper option in the draft? Sure the draft isn't guaranteed, but when we're talking about average players I'll take that chance every time. It's not like the average players about to be overpaid are the best players on the team.

They get paid their worth all the time. If they weren't viewed as being worth what they get the contract wouldn't have been offered. Supply and demand is all it comes down to. In the end it's a buyer's market.

 

[CouchCoach]

32 teams and no position has 32 high quality players. Average is going to get much better money. All based on needs and some upgrading.

It's "the girls all get prettier at closing time" concept.

 

[CouchCoach]

They get paid their worth all the time. If they weren't viewed as being worth what they get the contract wouldn't have been offered. Supply and demand is all it comes down to. In the end it's a buyer's market.

I'd say more of a sellers' market. Shortage of blue chippers vs a lot of needs to be met. And some lose out on Player A and are willing to go more for player B so they don't end up with player D.

 

[JD_KaPow]

when it's teams overpaying for certain players to begin with that the market is then based on? What is happening is a lot of average players are getting huge raises for their second or third contracts just because some few top tier players are paid considerably more.

So I ask, why do teams feel the need to overpay for average players instead of paying what they're worth? And why is it such a bad thing to let that average player go or possibly get draft picks in a trade and you can then find a much cheaper option in the draft? Sure the draft isn't guaranteed, but when we're talking about average players I'll take that chance every time. It's not like the average players about to be overpaid are the best players on the team.

Teams don't need to overpay. Nobody's forcing them. They're paying what they think the player is worth to them. That's exactly what "the market determining the cost" means.

Note that we would expect players to be overpaid in such a market, thanks to the Winner's Curse effect. The player goes to the team that bids highest; that team is by definition an outlier in how they value the player. That makes it much more likely that they'll be overpaying than underpaying for his services.

 

[Qcard]

when it's teams overpaying for certain players to begin with that the market is then based on? What is happening is a lot of average players are getting huge raises for their second or third contracts just because some few top tier players are paid considerably more.

So I ask, why do teams feel the need to overpay for average players instead of paying what they're worth? And why is it such a bad thing to let that average player go or possibly get draft picks in a trade and you can then find a much cheaper option in the draft? Sure the draft isn't guaranteed, but when we're talking about average players I'll take that chance every time. It's not like the average players about to be overpaid are the best players on the team.

Simple reason Boss...NFL contracts grading scales are a foreign concept to most fans.
I'MHO most fans delude themselves into thinking they can form contracts based on watching only televised games..

 

[CF74]

Some teams over pay just to get said player to move to their city...

 

[tm1119]

Yikes, what kind of economics class did OP class go to? Of course the market is set by buyers, it’s called supply and demand.

Of course there is also the fact that there are 31 other GM’s out there that aren’t billionaires that refuse to fire themselves and have a need and desire to win playoff games. I can understand why OP doesn’t understand this being a cowboys fan

 

[408Cowboy]

I'd say more of a sellers' market. Shortage of blue chippers vs a lot of needs to be met. And some lose out on Player A and are willing to go more for player B so they don't end up with player D.

And it still comes down to the buyers that set the price by paying it. Whether they are paying more in the hopes of getting their guy and not having to settle for less doesn't change it.

 

[cowboy_ron]

Supply and demand.

 

[Whyjerry]

when it's teams overpaying for certain players to begin with that the market is then based on? What is happening is a lot of average players are getting huge raises for their second or third contracts just because some few top tier players are paid considerably more.

So I ask, why do teams feel the need to overpay for average players instead of paying what they're worth? And why is it such a bad thing to let that average player go or possibly get draft picks in a trade and you can then find a much cheaper option in the draft? Sure the draft isn't guaranteed, but when we're talking about average players I'll take that chance every time. It's not like the average players about to be overpaid are the best players on the team.

Who decides what they are worth? You? Their value is determined by who is willing to pay what amount. If they overpay, the market will correct. That Collins contract needs to blow up in the Commanders face, which it will. When that happens GMs will think twice.

 

[MaaS]

when it's teams overpaying for certain players to begin with that the market is then based on? What is happening is a lot of average players are getting huge raises for their second or third contracts just because some few top tier players are paid considerably more.

So I ask, why do teams feel the need to overpay for average players instead of paying what they're worth? And why is it such a bad thing to let that average player go or possibly get draft picks in a trade and you can then find a much cheaper option in the draft? Sure the draft isn't guaranteed, but when we're talking about average players I'll take that chance every time. It's not like the average players about to be overpaid are the best players on the team.

Because this is how supply and demand markets work. There are more teams that need help at most positions than there are quality players available. Thus, teams compete for the player's services up to the point that the price outweighs the player.

Sure, an agent probably pulls a fast one here and there, but generally, players are paid exactly what they're worth to the buyers at that point in time. They aren't "overpaying" because paying less wouldn't get them the player.

 

[InTheZone]

32 teams and no position has 32 high quality players. Average is going to get much better money. All based on needs and some upgrading.

It's "the girls all get prettier at closing time" concept.

lol truth