Exploding NFL QB Salaries | Page 5 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Exploding NFL QB Salaries

Feverdream said:
I disagree on the idea that players dont like salary ceilings. In general, yes, players want to make more, but this is a player vs. player issue where 90% of the players want money that is being lavished on 10% of the players.

In this PARTICULAR contract, there is a set pie. The teams are assigned a set number of dollars to be allocated among about 100 players. If 80 of the players were to see that they'd get 500k extra, and that money would come directly out of the highest paid 10 players, those 80 players would vote for that.

I've got actual experience in negotiating a contract like this. I watched a group of nurses overwhelmingly vote for a contract that gave them large increases while the maintenance guys recieved very little. The nurses didn't care... but the same Union represented both groups and there were a LOT more nurses.

So... if the NFLPA put forward a suggestion that the vet minimum went from 1m/year to 2m/year... over half the players would vote for that.
Click to expand...
for all intents and purposes, if they were given a chance, as long as the total pie and total payouts and their rate of growth stayed intact, i suspect the players would vote against the rookies (for all intents and purposes already happened with the cap on rookie salaries slotted by draft position which the players union had to approve), and against the QBs, to spread more money to the rest of them. the numbers are grossly in favor of non QBs by about 50 to 3. will they get the chance? that i tend to doubt it because not heard a single rumbling yet and the NFL may like it the way it is due to parity. although maybe the commish likes it, but i bet the owners might be starting not to like it. nobody likes to hand out contracts like that especially in a sport w injury risk and alot of unknowns. get that one contract wrong, your team is screwed for years.
 
Feverdream said:
I disagree on the idea that players dont like salary ceilings. In general, yes, players want to make more, but this is a player vs. player issue where 90% of the players want money that is being lavished on 10% of the players.

In this PARTICULAR contract, there is a set pie. The teams are assigned a set number of dollars to be allocated among about 100 players. If 80 of the players were to see that they'd get 500k extra, and that money would come directly out of the highest paid 10 players, those 80 players would vote for that.

I've got actual experience in negotiating a contract like this. I watched a group of nurses overwhelmingly vote for a contract that gave them large increases while the maintenance guys recieved very little. The nurses didn't care... but the same Union represented both groups and there were a LOT more nurses.

So... if the NFLPA put forward a suggestion that the vet minimum went from 1m/year to 2m/year... over half the players would vote for that.
Click to expand...
Another thing to consider on the veteran and rookie minimums is how many players might possibly be out of the league altogether as a result of that floor. For instance, if a new veteran minimum gets enacted but not a new rookie minimum, now there's ample reason for the league to turn to more rookie talent from various sources, including walk-ons as opposed to taking a flyer on an aging veteran.

All these ideas can have unintended consequences depending on how they are enacted. I'm generally more of a free market-ist in that I see regulations as often being well-meaning but rife with consequences. There's got to be reasons why the QB position has inflated value today, and a lot of them probably tie back to league rule changes over the past couple of decades. There's also got to be reasons why the RB position is losing bargaining power in salary discussions. For right now, this league prizes QBs absurdly and it is reflected in the salaries. There's ways of changing that without NFLPA buy in.
 
Feverdream said:
I disagree on the idea that players dont like salary ceilings. In general, yes, players want to make more, but this is a player vs. player issue where 90% of the players want money that is being lavished on 10% of the players.

In this PARTICULAR contract, there is a set pie. The teams are assigned a set number of dollars to be allocated among about 100 players. If 80 of the players were to see that they'd get 500k extra, and that money would come directly out of the highest paid 10 players, those 80 players would vote for that.

I've got actual experience in negotiating a contract like this. I watched a group of nurses overwhelmingly vote for a contract that gave them large increases while the maintenance guys recieved very little. The nurses didn't care... but the same Union represented both groups and there were a LOT more nurses.

So... if the NFLPA put forward a suggestion that the vet minimum went from 1m/year to 2m/year... over half the players would vote for that.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, do you have an idea how many vet min players there are per year?

I ask because I don't think it is anywhere near enough to carry the vote. That's not to say the vote would be clear cut along those lines. Just pondering your proposal.
 
AgentXof12 said:
Another thing to consider on the veteran and rookie minimums is how many players might possibly be out of the league altogether as a result of that floor. For instance, if a new veteran minimum gets enacted but not a new rookie minimum, now there's ample reason for the league to turn to more rookie talent from various sources, including walk-ons as opposed to taking a flyer on an aging veteran.

All these ideas can have unintended consequences depending on how they are enacted. I'm generally more of a free market-ist in that I see regulations as often being well-meaning but rife with consequences. There's got to be reasons why the QB position has inflated value today, and a lot of them probably tie back to league rule changes over the past couple of decades. There's also got to be reasons why the RB position is losing bargaining power in salary discussions. For right now, this league prizes QBs absurdly and it is reflected in the salaries. There's ways of changing that without NFLPA buy in.
Click to expand...
The only way without union support would be collision. Owners are not going to endanger their multi billion $ cash cow with anything that even remotely smells of that.
 
Mach2 said:
The only way without union support would be collision. Owners are not going to endanger their multi billion $ cash cow with anything that even remotely smells of that.
Click to expand...
There were claims of collusion in MLB when big free agents weren't getting the offers they expected. Football needs its "saber" moment.
 
Let teams figure out what works by themselves... If paying QBs top money is a mistake, then there's a way to exploit that mistake. This is what games are for, I think it's stupid to protect players from their own stupidity, let the good players find the right strategies... Just my opinion.
 
eMCee85 said:
Hopefully something is figured out with this. Kind of like when they adjusted the rookie salaries in the early 2000s. Rookies were making millions, more than vets, then they changed it.
Click to expand...
They should go back to the old system. No rookie scale. Let capitalism win. Whatever a team is willing to offer you is on them.
 
phinsforlife said:
Interesting article. Key chart shows QB salaries not only increasing, but taking up a higher % of the salary cap over time. Highest contract was 19% of the cap in 2018, 25% of the cap in 2023. "From 2018 to 2023, the NFL’s highest-paid quarterback saw their APY increase a total of 64 percent, while the NFL’s salary cap increased just 26.5 percent. And it’s not just the top of the market that has benefited. The tenth-highest QB salary in 2018, Joe Flacco’s $22 million, covered 12.4 percent of the cap. In 2023, Josh Allen’s $43 million ranked 10th, but still covered 19.1 percent (which is more than Rodgers, the highest-paid QB, took up in 2018)."

For whatever reason, QBs have an increasing amount of leverage and are commanding more in the way of salary (as measured by % of the cap). The salary curve has also become somewhat flat - QB10 makes close to QB1, because of the leverage QBs now have, which in my view is ridiculous. Is this an issue, and should it be addressed by the NFL? No issue? Or an issue, but it is what it is and free markets should be left to solve for themselves? Link to article below the chart.

The bad news is concluding point in the article: Only one team has won a Super Bowl with a quarterback taking over 14 percent of its cap (Patrick Mahomes in 2023, at 17.2 percent). Teams know this, yet they still keep giving the QBs higher percentages of the cap. It shows you, the NFL is a business, and these are business decisions as much as they are football decisions.


View attachment 171104

www.nytimes.com

Scoop City: Exploding NFL quarterback salaries, explained

Comparing the rise of quarterback salaries to the salary cap before Trevor Lawrence's inevitable extension.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...

It really is a startling metric, and absolutely leads into the philosophy of “draft a QB every year.”
 
The Goat said:
It really is a startling metric, and absolutely leads into the philosophy of “draft a QB every year.”
Click to expand...
more broadly, it wasn't until about the 15th pick in this years NFL draft that a defensive player was even chosen. that means even bo nix was picked well before any defensive players.
 
Last edited:
phinsforlife said:
for all intents and purposes, if they were given a chance, as long as the total pie and total payouts and their rate of growth stayed intact, i suspect the players would vote against the rookies (for all intents and purposes already happened with the cap on rookie salaries slotted by draft position which the players union had to approve), and against the QBs, to spread more money to the rest of them. the numbers are grossly in favor of non QBs by about 50 to 3. will they get the chance? that i tend to doubt it because not heard a single rumbling yet and the NFL may like it the way it is due to parity. although maybe the commish likes it, but i bet the owners might be starting not to like it. nobody likes to hand out contracts like that especially in a sport w injury risk and alot of unknowns. get that one contract wrong, your team is screwed for years.
Click to expand...

The rookies go up at the same rate as vet minimum... here's why.

Late in camp... your 780k UDFA and your vet making 2m are in a camp battle. Which one do you cut?

This is why the vets drag the rookie scale to about as much as a vet min makes
 
AgentXof12 said:
Another thing to consider on the veteran and rookie minimums is how many players might possibly be out of the league altogether as a result of that floor. For instance, if a new veteran minimum gets enacted but not a new rookie minimum, now there's ample reason for the league to turn to more rookie talent from various sources, including walk-ons as opposed to taking a flyer on an aging veteran.

All these ideas can have unintended consequences depending on how they are enacted. I'm generally more of a free market-ist in that I see regulations as often being well-meaning but rife with consequences. There's got to be reasons why the QB position has inflated value today, and a lot of them probably tie back to league rule changes over the past couple of decades. There's also got to be reasons why the RB position is losing bargaining power in salary discussions. For right now, this league prizes QBs absurdly and it is reflected in the salaries. There's ways of changing that without NFLPA buy in.
Click to expand...
I just answered this... Hell... it might be this thread... been a long day.

Vet minimum goes up... so does rookie wage. They are linked and you explained why. The vets don't want to be cut for a cheap rook.
 
andyahs said:
You mean like Daniel Jones?

I'm sure a lot of players would prefer the salaries are more even across the team but it's not the way the market works with NFL players.
Click to expand...
is Daniel even good? I'd say he's average or what one of my bosses used to describe himself as... "perfectly mediocre"...
 
Mach2 said:
Out of curiosity, do you have an idea how many vet min players there are per year?

I ask because I don't think it is anywhere near enough to carry the vote. That's not to say the vote would be clear cut along those lines. Just pondering your proposal.
Click to expand...
If I counted it correctly... and brother, I am lit...

We have 23 guys of our 51 making less than 2m/ year.

All of them would vote yes. Plus the ones near that amount would likely vote yes, as well.

Figure 30 or so just to start. And I think the PS guys get to vote... there's 16 more.
 
Man all the defenses that get blocked out cause of all those High profile QB's.
Imagine a defense that keeps you in the game with a high profile "QB" to win it!?!?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom