Sort of curious about the math...

[detlef]

Does anyone know the final number in terms of how much more than the current $1 Billion the owners wanted to peel off the top?

 

I found this article detailing the last offer from the NFL and can't, for the life of me, see how it adds up.

 

So, apparently the salary cap increases, benefits to former players increase, the owners cut increases, and even compensation to late round picks increase. All without adding a single game and seemingly entirely on the backs of first round rookies? Is there that much money to be saved there?

 

I mean, the market already takes care of things by the time you start getting to the back half of the first round. The average annual salary of players taken in 2010 is as follows for each 1/3 or the first round, $9.75, $3.96, and $2.45. And, given this passage from the NFL's proposal...

 

An entry level compensation system based on the Union's "rookie cap" proposal, rather than the wage scale proposed by the clubs. Under the NFL proposal, players drafted in rounds 2-7 would be paid the same or more than they are paid today. Savings from the first round would be reallocated to veteran players and benefits.

 

One would have to assume that salaries won't go down by all that much for that last third of the 1st round lest they actually end up lower than high 2nd round picks. Which, would also limit how much lower the 2nd 3rd could get. So, say the last third gets shaved to $2 milllion on average and the 2nd third goes to $3 million. That's a total of $14 million in savings. Say you chop the top 1/3 in half, there's another $49 million. That's a total of $63 million dollars right there for the entire league. How does this begin to touch all the increases the NFL claims their proposal promises? How does this even pay for the increase in total salary cap, late round rookie salaries, and retired players, let alone mean a larger cut for the owners to take home?

 

Now, I get the fact that the current rookie situation results in each team, theoretically having anywhere from 3-5 players playing under their original rookie contract. So, in some respects, you need to multiply that number by a factor to determine how much money the teams would be saving in a given year if those contracts were all smaller to begin with. However, say you multiply that $63 million by 4, that still leaves less than $8 million per club per year, which is less than half the proposed increase in salary cap per year ($20 million).

 

Just sort of puzzled by it.

[Cunning Runt]

Does anyone know the final number in terms of how much more than the current $1 Billion the owners wanted to peel off the top?

 

I found this article detailing the last offer from the NFL and can't, for the life of me, see how it adds up.

 

So, apparently the salary cap increases, benefits to former players increase, the owners cut increases, and even compensation to late round picks increase. All without adding a single game and seemingly entirely on the backs of first round rookies? Is there that much money to be saved there?

 

I mean, the market already takes care of things by the time you start getting to the back half of the first round. The average annual salary of players taken in 2010 is as follows for each 1/3 or the first round, $9.75, $3.96, and $2.45. And, given this passage from the NFL's proposal...

 

 

 

One would have to assume that salaries won't go down by all that much for that last third of the 1st round lest they actually end up lower than high 2nd round picks. Which, would also limit how much lower the 2nd 3rd could get. So, say the last third gets shaved to $2 milllion on average and the 2nd third goes to $3 million. That's a total of $14 million in savings. Say you chop the top 1/3 in half, there's another $49 million. That's a total of $63 million dollars right there for the entire league. How does this begin to touch all the increases the NFL claims their proposal promises? How does this even pay for the increase in total salary cap, late round rookie salaries, and retired players, let alone mean a larger cut for the owners to take home?

 

Now, I get the fact that the current rookie situation results in each team, theoretically having anywhere from 3-5 players playing under their original rookie contract. So, in some respects, you need to multiply that number by a factor to determine how much money the teams would be saving in a given year if those contracts were all smaller to begin with. However, say you multiply that $63 million by 4, that still leaves less than $8 million per club per year, which is less than half the proposed increase in salary cap per year ($20 million).

 

Just sort of puzzled by it.

 

I think that's some of it, but the rest comes from the increased television money.

[detlef]

I think that's some of it, but the rest comes from the increased television money.

So, when we hear things like "The NFL's proposal means more money for the veterans, more money for the owners, and more money for the retired players", we're not really talking "more money" in relative terms, we're talking "more money" because the pie will ultimately grow. Which, of course, we already knew, so really isn't any amazingly innovative new structure. It's just the owners peeling off a bigger slice than they have been and complicating the issue by talking about how the players will get the comparatively smaller piece (percentage-wise) they'll now be getting.

 

Which, again, may be completely reasonable, but let's just call it what it is.

 

I mean, if you listen to how some describe the owner's last offer, you'd think they players would be even better off with that than they were with the recently expired CBA. Which, of course, doesn't appear to be the case.

Edited April 12, 2011 by detlef

[Bronco Billy]

No, it's not.

 

The players model shows a steady 8% growth rate for the next 4 to 5 years. The owners have demonstrated that 8% is unsustainable and that the growth rate will be closer to 5%. The owner's plan resets the numbers for increased expenses since the previous agreement and for the 5% growth rate.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[darin3]

Oh great, another detlef vs. Bronco Billy pissing match thread.

[Bronco Billy]

Oh great, another detlef vs. Bronco Billy pissing match thread.

 

That's all I'm posting on this. I've posted this several times before as well as run the numbers here. There's no point in rehashing what has been well laid out. I'm done with the pissing contests too.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[Ursa Majoris]

I'm done with the pissing contests too.

Truly, this is a sad day for pissing contests everywhere.

[Bronco Billy]

Truly, this is a sad day for pissing contests everywhere.

 

Piss off

[detlef]

No, it's not.

 

The players model shows a steady 8% growth rate for the next 4 to 5 years. The owners have demonstrated that 8% is unsustainable and that the growth rate will be closer to 5%. The owner's plan resets the numbers for increased expenses since the previous agreement and for the 5% growth rate.

:trying not to piss:

 

What is not?

[detlef]

Ultimately, my suspicion is with the language and in the inclination to label things as concessions when they really aren't.

 

For instance, the NFL could come out and say they're prepared to raise the veteran minimum and that would sure sound like something they're "giving up". However, if there is not a corresponding increase in the cap or, more importantly the salary floor, than that is not a concession at all. Because it's just a redistribution of money they were already paying to the players. Paying the bottom more at the expense of how much they pay the top. That's not giving the players anything. If they want to slash 1st round rookies and pay the vets more, again, same thing. That's not a "win" for the players. That's just paying some players more and some players less. If they want to cut rookie salaries and give only some of that to the vets, then it is, most certainly not a "win" for the players, it is very much a net loss.

 

But you can be damned sure that they'd be selling it to the public as the players just not being satisfied with a very generous concession.

 

In this very debate, Billy has already tried to paint the owners shaving money off the top as a bad deal for them and paint their last offer as a "win-win", when, in fact, one side is very tangibly improving it's standing at the expense of the other. So, surely, someone is believing that offering net-zero-sum changes to the relationship between players and owners is, in some way, a way that the owners are more willing than the players to truly negotiate.

 

That, at the end of the day, the conflict is about one thing and one thing only. The owners want a bigger cut. And, again, more power to them for wanting it. I would just prefer that they not sugar-coat that fact.

[Ursa Majoris]

Piss off

 

I knew you'd like that.

[Bronco Billy]

 

I knew you'd like that.

 

[tazinib1]

The NFL's most recent proposal to the NFLPA for a revamped rookie compensation system would funnel $300 million from first-round picks to veteran players and their benefits.

Guaranteed payments to first-round picks had increased by a whopping 233 percent over the past 10 years. Per the proposal, all first-round picks would receive five-year contracts. The owners also proposed a system that would attempt to eliminate rookie holdouts by reducing the "maximum allowable salary" by training camp, and veteran holdouts by prohibiting contract talks during preseason action. There's been no movement on talks since March 11.

Source: Associated Press

Apr 13, 1:37 PM

 

[Square]

There is some downside for vets if they pay rookies too little. At some point rookies will be too cheap of replacements (with possible upside) and vets could see their careers shortened. Just something to think about.

[tazinib1]

There is some downside for vets if they pay rookies too little. At some point rookies will be too cheap of replacements (with possible upside) and vets could see their careers shortened. Just something to think about.

 

Here is a better article on the proposal.

 

[detlef]

So my quick math wasn't far off. I guessed at $63 million in a given season (knowing only what averages were for last year, but having to estimate how low they could make salaries going forward and still preserve salaries high enough to make getting picked #1 better for a player than getting picked later) and multiplied that by 4, assuming 4 players per roster who were 1st round picks playing under their 1st contract. Again, plenty of guessing.

 

Of course, the NFL also said their way would mean higher contracts for later picks as well, so that's another slice out of that pie which still equals less than $10 mil per team. And this doesn't begin to take into account whatever larger slice the owners want.

 

Regardless, this is not a net gain for the players. This is just taking money from one batch of players and handing it to another. Mind you, I don't think square's concerns about making rookies cheaper means vets are more at risk to lose their jobs.

 

Once again, assuming that the NFL means what they say that later round picks will not get paid less as rookies (and possibly even more), then this cap really only majorly affects 10 players per season, the first 10 picks of the draft who are commanding the dizzying salaries. Salaries work their way down to reasonable levels pretty quickly after that.

 

So it's not like this opens the door to a vastly cheaper work-force. If anything, it might make your basic rookie "foot soldier" a bit more expensive and a less viable option to unseat a vet.

[tazinib1]

Agreed. My wacko was more geared to the enormous uptick in guaranteed $ to rookies over the past 10 years. That has to be fixed somehow.