Eugene should get 22.8m Guaranteed
Well.. I properly gonna get killed for this entry but hey... I guess thats life.
Being very bored at work today I had a look at NFL.COM and found a page showing the different deals the first rounds had signed this year. The thing about these deals is that they are pretty closely linked with a slow decline from spot 1 to 32.
Having nothing better to do I decided to transfer that into a graph. Fought that would shine some light over what Eugene's contract should look like. I remembered somebody writing that Jaguars offered 18m and Eugene's agent wanted 23m.
So here is the graph.

Pink is total package, Yellow is garantied and blue is the number of years.
First thing you will notice is how ugly the graph is - Sorry about that.
Second thing I noticed is how straight the guaranteed money line is all the way to Brian Cushing. So, what I'm hinting at is that for a graph like this to have any truth to it, the plotted points have to be consistent. Otherwise you cant really tell anything about the un-plotted points.
Okay, so if Eugene was to be paidd within the margins of the other deals he should get a five year deal, worth 36.5m with 22.8m in guaranteed .
Just stats.. But interesting.. If you are bored!
Carsten
0 recs |
21 comments
Comments
You think that shows a slow decline?
After about #15, it levels but the early draft picks are sperated by considerable margins.
I hate to point this out, but that graph represents real money. $2 mil contributes to keeping one or two well performing veterans.
Remember, you need to pay 53 people plus coaches, not just one or two people.
Big Cat Country!:: The Official Home of the Unofficial Blog of the Jacksonville Jaguars!
by Tkopa on Aug 6, 2009 11:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
True
But I think this whole system is way out of control and has been for years now. I think I stand with many who agree that there should be a salary cap system put on rookies in the NFL, and then pay them based on how well they play and contribute to the team. The NFL is a business right? Well the business is loosing money on a lot of 1st round failures, and rookies who don’t bring it to the table on Sundays. I believe that no matter who you are in the NFL, you should be paid based on your team commitments. If all rookies came in and got paid a set amount for their first 2-3 years in the league, but then showed that their contributions significantly contributed to the success of a team then, and only THEN, show them the money. Not only will this help the NFL and NFL teams save money in an already jaked up economy, but it will motivate rookies to bring it on game day and REALLY show what their worth. Case in point, can you show me any reason now, looking back over the past three years, why Marcedes Lewis should have gotten more money than MoJo in his initial contract? Mojo has proved that he is a valuable asset not only to the Jaguars, but to the NFL all together. He is a hard working guy and a stellar role model for the youth of America, and clearly earned his pay check. Lewis? Not so much.
I know I’m probably beating a dead horse here, but something has got to change.
by JagsJon on Aug 6, 2009 11:21 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Or teams like the Jaguars just have to stand up and say NO!
We’re NOT paying that much. And I don’t care what the guys before and after got. You want to sit out the season, go ahead.
by pksiv on Aug 6, 2009 11:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I like the theory, but since 8,9, and 10 haven't signed... we see the graph as it is...
You can’t say what he should make when the guys behind him haven’t signed…
Great work putting it all together though… You should update this each time there is a signing around Monroe, see how much it changes the number…
The End Is Nigh... www.infowars.com
by silencecs on Aug 6, 2009 11:43 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If Raji signed for 16 mil guaranteed, then the graph would definitely be lower than 22.8.
Plus, it assumes that the space btw each player is equal. It’s not because the space isn’t quantifiable… I really don’t want to get into the problems with the graph and research bc I like the idea so much, but it’s off base…
Nobody thinks that the price of guaranteed money should drop only 700k btw #7 and #8. Which is what your graph suggests… I like the concept, but it’s inaccurate…
The End Is Nigh... www.infowars.com
by silencecs on Aug 6, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I mean... and this is a better way of explaining it...
The space btw players decreases as we get further from the 1st pick.
So, the contract difference btw #3 and #4 is exponentially larger than the difference in contract numbers (comparitively) of #27 and pick #28… make sense? So there will be millions of dollars seperating number 3 and number 4, but only a million (hypothertically) seperating number 26 and number 27…
I’m still not explaining it well I don’t think…
The End Is Nigh... www.infowars.com
by silencecs on Aug 6, 2009 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
DHB threw the whole thing outa wack
the raiders gave a 20 percent increase over last years number 7 not the customeay 15 cuz they wanted to bring DHB to camp on time but that is the hold up AL DAVIS stikes agian
"The only yardstick for success our society has is being a champion. No one remembers anything else." John Madden
by BRIANMULHALL on Aug 6, 2009 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
.. with all of you.. Im just providing the numbers.. :)
Good idea to keep updating it. I would be fun (in a “Im on the job and have nothing to do” kind of way) to see if it will hold true.
by Alxgarder on Aug 6, 2009 11:47 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The whole thing is out of wack!!!!
A second round pick can outplay his contract, go into a hold-out, have his caontract re-negotiated and get moremoney…..
There should be something in place for management to take money away from underperforming 1st round bumbs when they don’t play to their contract. Why is it allowed on one side.
I dont care they get outrageous pay but its money is only flowing ONE way at the moment thats what pisses me of. Maybe their would be so many players complaining if the 1st round salaries were set and capped.
by floridaboiterk on Aug 6, 2009 12:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The teams have the ability to cut a player at any time and void the rest of his "contract".
The teams will lose the guaranteed portion of the contract, but at least they can cut their losses. Players have to stop playing and stop getting paid. That is not as easy as some make it sound. If this is one sided in any way, it is for the NFL owners, not the players.
Personally, I think you are worth [in dollars] what anyone is willing to pay you. No one is holding a gun to the NFL management’s head here. If they want to make a point and refuse to pay the player what the player is demanding, they have that right. I am surprised that more [any?] teams don’t do that.
by NorthLeft12 on Aug 6, 2009 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem
is the players think they are worth more than the teams are willing to pay, hence the holdout.
by Ewdtrey on Aug 6, 2009 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, when you hook up with an employer who does not want to minimize what they pay their employees, please let me know.
Owners/Corporations always bitch about how they “overpay” their employees and search for ways to reduce these costs. Too bad they did not feel the same way about upper management pay.
by NorthLeft12 on Aug 7, 2009 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see the intersection on the graph...
…reading more like 21.8 & 35.5, which is a little closer to reality. I see 20 to 21 mil as being the end number. The system is still broke tho.
by whazaaap on Aug 6, 2009 12:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Nice work Alxgarder.
The QBs are really on their own scale though. Look at Stafford, Sanchez, and Freeman. They are definitely over the trend for the other players.
The other issue is the comparison to the 2008 draft choices. From what I understand Heyward-Bey was paid over twenty per cent higher than the 2008 #7. I don’t think Jacksonville, and other clubs, think that kind of jump is warrented. Also Crabtree is making a lot of noise that he expects to be paid like a top five pick because that’s where he should have gone. Try that logic sometime on your boss. So the guys around him are sort of on hold because they don’t want to sign, then see somebody make as much or more after them.
I agree, it is pretty stupid for the first ten picks. After that it is pretty normal.
by NorthLeft12 on Aug 6, 2009 1:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I just..
fought it was fun see what would happen if I did this graph. I do understand that there is also a diff between signings/teams/positions. Sadly there wasnt enough OT signings. Otherwise I would have added another line where I plottet just them.
I do however see a pattern. To me only Stafford stands out (when talking garanteed money). Otherwise they do fit nicly together. And speaking of Stafford. He is the only 6 year deal of the bunch. Thats also why his numbers are higher. If you divide his 41,7 with 6 and multiply it with 5 you get 34,75. That, to me, fits nicely into the graph.
The only thing Im taking from this is:
1) Yeah, only 2 hours more to go until I can go home from work and
2) The Jags offered 18m. That way to low in this market. I think the market is insane but well.. Thats how it is until the NFL and the union can agree on a change.
by Alxgarder on Aug 6, 2009 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It spikes up for Sanchez and Freeman. Especially Freeman.
QBs are different. Stafford got the double bonus of being #1 and the first QB too.
by NorthLeft12 on Aug 7, 2009 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Mark Sanchez's number has skewed this chart.
QB’s guarantees are generally outliers in an otherwise logarithmic graph. Basically, there should never be a straight line in any segment of this chart. However, considering the sparse amount of first round signings, this is an excellent effort.
by Kbot on Aug 6, 2009 4:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Monroe got like 19.5m guarenteed right?
"HULU: An evil plot to destroy the world. Enjoy"
by TheTealDeal on Aug 19, 2009 3:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

by 















