Rethinking The Draft Value Chart... and #1 Pick

[ocop]

I'll edit this a little later to make it clearer since its 3am, but for now I've pulled together a little bit of data (using the 3000 "value" of the number one pick). This really isn't conclusive or expansive, but I think it highlights a few important things.

1. Guaranteed $$ for '08 is based on a linear estimate (which it works out to... very, very roughly)

2. I know salary guarantees are spread out across the length of the contract, contract lengths vary, etc. BUT, since the cap grows roughly (again, very roughly) linearly, measuring the size of the guarantee in the rookie contract against the size of that years cap is useful.

3. 1st pick guarantees are growing at a faster rate than the salary cap, meaning you tie more and more of your cap space into a single player.

4. The "trade chart" value per $ of guarantee has dropped, and dropped a lot. The 2002 1st round pick (the fact that David Carr is terrible notwithstanding) was arguably worth more than 2008's will be, because of value/$ and the ratio of salary:cap space.

5. If we are going trade out of the top pick, using the "3000" point system probably isn't useful (unless NFL GM's still believe it...) for the same reasons.

6. Pray we trade out of the top pick.

 

[JCowScot]

Very insightful. All the more reason to redo the CBA and put a cap on rookie salaries (like NBA). 30% of a team's total cap room is FAR too much to invest in a player that has, statistically, been a bust 60% of the time. *By 'bust' I mean anything less than franchise player.* Eventually the vets are going to realize that there's something wrong with having played for 8+ years and still not having made as much as the new rook got in the guaranteed portion of his contract. Question is, how long is that going to take??

 

[ocop]

Very insightful. All the more reason to redo the CBA and put a cap on rookie salaries (like NBA). 30% of a team's total cap room is FAR too much to invest in a player that has, statistically, been a bust 60% of the time. *By 'bust' I mean anything less than franchise player.* Eventually the vets are going to realize that there's something wrong with having played for 8+ years and still not having made as much as the new rook got in the guaranteed portion of his contract. Question is, how long is that going to take??

Just to clarify, its not necessarily 30% of the cap room, the guaranteed $$ can be spread out over the length of the contract. Regardless it ends up with a rookie having 5-10% of yearly cap space, and barring a new agreement that will probably get worse.

 

[JCowScot]

Just to clarify, its not necessarily 30% of the cap room, the guaranteed $$ can be spread out over the length of the contract. Regardless it ends up with a rookie having 5-10% of yearly cap space, and barring a new agreement that will probably get worse.

I still don't know enough about the ins and outs of the salary cap, so thanks for the clarification. I was speaking more of the majority of #1 picks who don't stay with their team, being either cut or traded in the first 3-4 years. That team is going to take a huge cap hit that year, right? Especially if they've already exercised an option bonus (a'la Mario Williams) not wanting to give up on their #1 overall pick. But, then again, smart teams (read:good lawyers) will find a way to mitigate their losses and make that money disappear somehow. Even still, 5-10% (and rising) is FAR too much too be tied up in an unproven player. Thanks again for setting me straight.:up:

 

[jim1]

Drafting Jake Long at a resonable contract level works for me.

 

[Pauly]

There are two seperate issues.

1) Q: Is the 1st overall pick really worth 3,000 points.
A: Yes, If you go back over the last 40 years the #1 overall pick in particular and top5 overall picks in general are the most likely place to find HOFers in the draft.

2) Q: Is it worth paying top 5 picks as if they're already HOFers?
A: If they play like HOFers from the 1st down after they're drafted yes, in all other cases almost certainly not. Considering what they're being paid there is an argument that makes financial sense to draft positions where rookies and sophomores can make big contributions (e.g. DT, RB).