KRFL : Forum / topic
/football/
en-gb2024-03-28T17:31:59-04:00algykrebbs@nospam.comhourly12000-01-01T12:00+00:00Discussion (not a rule change proposal) of annual player salary increases
http://www.aaroncraneinstitute.com/football/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?14935
2024-03-28T17:31:59-04:00So a coach has asked whether or not it make sense that if you have two players, one drafted with a salary of $2.0mi and another drafted with salary of $0.5mil, and both are signed to four year contracts that their salary difference in season #4 is the same as in season #1? Currently:Player A drafted with a $2.0mil salary would have a salary of $3.0mil in season 2, $4.0mil in season 3 and $5.0mil in season 4.Player B drafted with a $0.5mil salary would have a salary of $1.5mil in season 2, $2.5mil in season 3 and $3.5mil in season 4.Over the life of their contracts player A would have been paid $14.0mil and player B would have been paid $8.0mil. But does it make sense that after four seasons the difference in their salaries is the same $1.5mi as it was in season #1? Player A was drafted for a salary four times higher than player B, yet by the end of their contract, player A's salary is only 1.4 times higher than player B's salary. And the salary paid to player A over his career is less than double the career salary paid to player B even though player A was drafted at a salary four times more than player B?Should the two players salaries increase at the same $1.0mil annually like they do now or should they increase at a different rate reflecting the fact that player A was drafted for a salary four times higher than player B? To do that we'd have to change how the annual salary increase works and likely make it a percentage of the prior season's salary. For example, instead of increasing $1.0mil per season, a player's salary would increase, say, 50% per season. That would make their salaries over a four year contract be:Player A drafted with a $2.0mil salary would have a salary of $3.0mil in season 2 (same), $4.5mil in season 3 ($0.5mil higher) and $6.75mil in season 4 ($1.75mil higher).Player B drafted with a $0.5mil salary would have a salary of $0.75mil in season 2, $1.125mil in season 3 and $1.6875mil in season 4. His salary in seasons 2-4 would be HALF of what they are under the current rule.Over the life of their contracts, player A would have been paid $16.25mil instead of $14.0mil and player B would have been paid $4.0625mil instead of $8.0mil. In every season, and for the four years of their contracts player A's salary remains four times higher than player B's salary. The argument to keep the current rule is player salaries shouldn't increase at the same percentage because players drafted with a higher salary tend to be veteran/older/better players whose upside is more limited compared young up-in-coming players. And (the biggest reason) their KRFL salary is more in line with their actual value. You are playing more now for the older/veteran player because they are already a good proven player, and the likelihood that their performance/ratings/stats will increase in the future (like the 50% a season in the example above) is small. In fact, they may decline. So you are not willing to make that kind of long term contract commitment to the player if there salary would increase 50% per season. Think of a player like Grady Jarrett or Trent Williams. On the other hand, an up and coming player like Travon Walker or Kayvon Thibodeaux was likely drafted at a KRFL salary much lower than his actual value, and so you are willing to sign them to a longer term contract with potentially a salary increase of more than 50% a season because they are already undervalued. And while their KRFL salary may eventually come closer to their actual value, their performance could/will improve as well. So in that respect, our current annual salary increase rules make good sense. Though perhaps the annual increase should be more than $1.0mil per season (like $1.5mil) for a contract of four years or less and more than $1.5mil annually (like $2.0mil) for a contract of five years or more. Or perhaps Rookie salaries should be increased, which I've already proposed prior to getting this coach's inquiry.What do you think?Re: Discussion (not a rule change proposal) of annual player salary increases
http://www.aaroncraneinstitute.com/football/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?14935
2024-03-28T17:31:59-04:00markI’m in favor of keeping salary structure as is. Like it states, theirs a risk reward to signing long term contracts.Re: Discussion (not a rule change proposal) of annual player salary increases
http://www.aaroncraneinstitute.com/football/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?14935
2024-03-28T17:31:59-04:00bfletchI am too new to this system to determine right nowRe: Discussion (not a rule change proposal) of annual player salary increases
http://www.aaroncraneinstitute.com/football/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?14935
2024-03-28T17:31:59-04:00KRFL-BayCityoppose....