It's not exactly a free and unregulated market economy. The price you pay for a draft pick is almost completely dominated by the position of the player and the pick #, and very little to do with the value you receive for what you pay, unfortunately. But that's all I'll say; I'm not foolish enough to argue with an economics professor ;)

"TheEngineer" wrote:

My beginning guess.

All rookies have a 3 year contract.

The first pick in the draft gets a three million dollar signing bonus.

The last pick in the draft gets a signing bonus equivalent to one year league minimum salary.

The rest of the signing bonuses are scaled accordingly by pick.

The 1st pick in the draft makes 3 million per year.

The last pick in the draft makes league minimum.

All picks in between are scaled accordingly.

RFA after 3. All of them.

Any hold out beyond one week after the draft will cost the equivalent of one week per week in bonus and salary. Team holds rights to any drafted player for full 3 years in the event of an attempted holdout. (The Crabdouche rule :thumbleft: )

"dfosterf" wrote:

I think its great that owners complain about rookies' salaries, when THEY are the ones writing the checks. "God dammitt rookies make too much money! Rabble rabble rabble! Oh, JaMarcus Russell, here's $32 million guaranteed. Matt Stafford, here's $40 million. Rabble rabble rabble!."

That would be like me going to the strip club, tipping the dancers $20 a song, and then bitching because I didn't have any money afterward.

Hilarious.

"IronMan" wrote:

"IronMan" wrote:

I carefully read your post Wade.

I think you are wrong. My slot system would not only work, I believe the players would see the equity in it. Many are making much more comparative to their higher picked counterparts than they would under the existing system, and the money is sick enough, long enough, into the picks that no one is feeling slighted financially. What's my gap between picks? A tad under 12k, yes?

Compare that to what we have now. I think the draft picks would love to just take it as it comes, and the only real problem (imo) is going to be the player's agents, and they are just going to have to get over it.

I say they are "going to have to get over it" because a version of "my" plan, including an allotment of the funds to former players, is precisely what the league is advocating. This was disclosed in a "leaked" memo by the NFLPA, so I admit that "my" plan is somewhat skewed by what is known about what is "coming down the pike".

I dismiss all of your lack of motivation due to pay discrepencies arguments immediately. If anything, we have that to a far larger degree presently than we would under my system, and the "dogging it due to pay issues" is an extreme exception now.

You failed to address possibly the key component in "my" plan that would assist in the "motivating a perceived slight" player. While it is true that my plan eliminates flexibility for players and agents for the duration of their rookie contract, they are ALL playing for that 2nd contract, and I would submit that the motivating aspects of a three year plan vs. up to 6 years (presently) is a huge improvement in that arena.

My numbers might be flawed, because I did not crunch them, but the plan is sound, and unlike most of the ideas I am seeing... it is realistic, contrasted with utopic. In fairness, it is my post that is "off-topic", because I was looking at what is in fact viable, contrasted with the title and most posts in this thread, which is "what is fair?" from, I assume, the various posters' perspective.

The danger in a rookie pool might come from some upstart league, players that opt to switch to a different sport, failure of players to even take up the sport, etc. due to perceived lack of renumeration comparative to other sports, etc. That would be your arena, and would look to you on those matters as an economist.

Leave the motivating of youth arguments to us experts. :thumbleft:

I say you are jaded due to some evidence that snot-noses bitching works in your environment, coupled with evidence that laziness is also at least tolerated to a certain degree. I would just say that in the NFL-and the military--bitching about shit is a far cry from not doing something just because you don't like it. It is so very common in both fields of endeavor, but in both it is the same...tough f$cking shit. :thumbleft: The fear of retribution in the military is (by far) the absolute smallest aspect of what motivates people, btw--This is an entire field of study that I will not get into, but you would start with peer pressure and not letting your "guys in the same f$cking boat as you" down. I submit that most of it is universal, and the analogies between professional sports and the military are sound...probably more so than any other "in the real world."

These are the same kids that geezers like me have been getting to knowingly risk stopping a bullet for around the rough equivalent of minimum wage for centuries. There is no risk of that where these "kids in question" are headed, job-wise, so the cash and the nature of employment more than make up the differences in "where they have been" and "how they have been treated". These kids might not be as smart as I'd like them, (I'll call them diverted/pre-occupied, to be fair) but they are damn sure go-getters, with very few exceptions, indeed.

"dfosterf" wrote: