mesoslo

If a team doesnt want to draft that high they can always trade down of just forfeit the pick by not selecting a player and just let time run out.

__________________
The Patriots logo looks the best!

DaBruinz

What you don't understand is that when the owners decided to null the CBA, they also nulled the salary cap for the final year. Unless a new CBA is done before the end of the 2009 season, there will be no salary cap for the 2010 season.

The current CBA states who is eligible for the draft and how much they can be paid. Going back to Kontradiction's idea, he's right, to an extent. The picks that are the most outrageously paid are the top 10 picks. And that is how the AGENTS want it. The only way to get things going better is to take the agents out of the equation. If the players did that, then things would be different. But, right now, the Agents have too much bargaining power in the NFLPA.

The NFL only has a hard cap until the end of the year. The salary cap is what has made the NFL better than both the other leagues. Its what propelled it ahead of MLB, the NHL, and the NBA. It wasn't that long ago that the NFL was fighting to scrape together good TV contracts and such. Now, their TV revenue pays a majority of the league salaries. Which is different than the other sports.

Explain.

Have you actuyally researched the NFL's Anti-Trust Exemptions? Do you know what they cover specifically?

Did you not read his explanation? Its very clear how it would encourage MORE tampering.

And it's not the millionaire players I'm worried about -- it's me, the fan, who doesn't want to watch the most promising prospects potentially ruined by being drafted by Oakland or Detroit. I mean, think about it -- the best QB in the draft usually ends up on the worst team in the league. Are there really so many quality QBs in the league that we can spare a few by sticking them on teams with no o-lines so they hear footsteps the rest of their careers?



Thanks. And honestly, I'm not sure it would work as well as I suggest either. I'm sure it would end up having a ton of problems -- the question is, would it have fewer than the system we've got in place now?

IMO, the draft is actively hurting competitive balance, and unnecessarily pissing off most of its new employees, and the only people benefiting by it are the agents.

I think that you don't have a clue about the complexity of NFL contracts and how long it takes for lawyers to vet them and make sure that everything is in order. And then for the league to vet them to ensure that they are done in accordance to the league rules.

If it is essentially an auction, what is to stop bidding wars from occuring on the rookies and driving the price up?

Instead of being progressive, you are basically saying that the rookies should be treated like slaves and that teams should bid on them the way slave traders used to bid on slaves in Africa. If that's not treating them like a piece of meat, I don't know what is.

jsull87

you are kidding. you think that stopping the draft will keep the nfl on a level playing field? if you are the best cb coming out why would you not go to the pats? if you are the best wr coming out y would you not go to pats or indy? e.t.c that would just make teams who are already strong even stronger. Weak teams e.g lions have the number one pick so they can get the best player available its no ones fault if they stuff up their scouting but it is the best way to ensure that teams e.g falcons can redevelop.

Fencer

I don't like the idea that somebody is essentially stuck with ONE choice of initial employer. So if abolishing the draft could work, that would be moral goodness.

Negotiating chaos would favor the teams. The idea is completely unworkable without strict limitations on the form of the contracts, so that negotiating a contract would amount to just agreeing on a few specific numbers.

There would be a huge gambling game in which unprepared young men, aided by agents of widely varying skills, would compete for varied outcomes. Much unfairness -- perceived and/or real -- would ensue.

Teams from which guys typically go on to good next contracts would have a huge recruiting advantage. E.g. Pats, Steelers.

Such teams would have even more incentive than now to bring in young guys cheap, coach them up, get some good play out of them, and let them move on for big bucks elsewhere.

Bottom line: Unfortunately, the idea wouldn't work.

Pats726

I understand what you are saying BUT...they work for the NFL...even without a draft it is still one EMPLOYER...but there are other leagues....arena football, the CFL...There was competition a long time ago and that was really tough...to the point of the merger...which I think in many ways saved football and helped its growth.

JoeSixPat

from a team perspective, I don't think the worst team should be forced to pick #1 in a draft that doesn't have a true #1 pick - or someone worth that money.


I think looking at a system that, say, allows the top 5 teams to pick wherever in the draft they want to pick makes some sense.... effectively it allows them to automatically trade back (though without trading) so if there's no one worth Jamarcus Russell type money, they're not forced to spend it.

Of course the teams from 6 on back would fill in the picks not used, and they might not be happy - but it creates more equity than the current system - and I'm sure the details could be worked out.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

DaBruinz

This is typical. You ask someone to give examples of all the players that have had their careers ruined by bad teams and they don't bother to answer. Why? Because you can't. Yes, an organization can inhibit player's career. However, good players overcome even bad coaching. Look at Barry Sanders. There are plenty of others out there as well. And no, I've never said imagine what BB could do with that player. Why? Because there is no guarantee that BB could have done better. Jonathan Sullivan is proof of that.

Isn't it the teams own fault for giving out ridiculous contracts now? How is what you propose going to change that? It won't. You keep yammering on about the cap, but its gone after this year.

Thank you for proving that you don't understand the current situation in the NFL. Because the owners chose to shorten the CBA, the salary cap is gone after 2009 unless they reach an extension. If they don't reach an extension, then players whose contracts expire after the 2009 season must have at least 6 years of experience to become UFA. Otherwise they are RFA.

As I said, you need to educate yourself on the current situation in the NFL.

At least I gave examples. Unlike you who generalized totally. And Those were only two examples. I could name plenty more.

You don't understand how its a counter-argument? Part of the basis of your argument is the supposed disparity in pay based on the round a person was drafted in. The reality is that the actual salary is basically the same for players drafted from the 2nd to the 7th round with minor differences in the signing bonus and the incentives included in their contracts. So, if they are the same, this idea that there is a chip on their shoulders is bogus. And if that is bogus, then the idea that players don't re-sign with their original teams because of that "chip" is also bogus.

Well, how would a player know what "first round money was" if there was no draft. He wouldn't, so, he wouldn't know what his payday should be. There are plenty of instances of players getting extensions prior to their free agency that gives them better pay.

You keep going on about this discrepancy without understanding that its primarily the top of the 1st round that is the issue, not the entire draft. What you also don't understand is that, under the current CBA, there won't be a salary cap after 2009. And because of that, players won't be allowed to be UFA until they've earned 6 years of service in the league. So, signing a one or two year contract doesn't do them any good because there is nothing that guarantees them an increase in pay since they would be restricted free agents. The player would lose most of his leverage since a team could hold the player's rights, sign a replacement player, and keep the one who wanted more money from playing on another team.


You can disagree all you want. But the reality is that a majority of the players re-sign with their own teams. How is Clinton Portis an example for you? Portis was traded so that the Broncos could get Champ Bailey. Not because of contract issues with Portis.

A majority of the players re-sign with their old teams. You've not provided anything to disprove that.

How would your scenario prevent an Asante Samuel situation? It wouldn't. You'd still have them.

The problem is that your "rebuttals" aren't supported by fact. Your initial premis was extremely flawed and won't have nearly the affect you believe. In fact, if anything, it would make the situation 10 times worse becuase an Auction would make the players feel like slaves or pieces of meat and all the pomp and circumstance and fluff wouldn't change that it would be nothing more than a glorified slave market.

LiveShot

By eliminaing the draft it would only insure that the wealthy teams will get the best talent. Who wants to play for a discombobulated franchis like the Lions, Oakland, Buffalo, etc. Teams like Dallas, Patriots with lots of money that doesn't go into the players salary pool would be at a distince advantage. I think it would ascerbate the current problem. The answer likes in the compensation for the incoming draftees. The Oakland quarterback, if you can label him as such, is paid more than Peyton and Brady but he stiinks and is already named as a bust. I believe the lowering of the compensation for incoming rookies, who have not proved a damn thing, should be vastly reduced.
I hear Charley Casserly asked how many teams asked for a trade up when he held the "#1 pick at Washinton and he replied ZERO. I'd bet Miami had few offers last year even though the pick was a 99% success at a critical position. Few franchises want a pick in the top ten unless it's a dire team need and the player is a 90% guarantee to succeed.

RDS11

True to an extent...would Steve Young, Vinny Testaverde, Doug Williams have been any good being stuck in Tampa ? I don't think so...
They became good only when they left Tampa. Steve Young is a HOF and could not do anything with the Bucs. So having a good team and good coaches has an impact for sure.
Archie Manning is another example. Probably had the talent to be in the HOF, but we'll never know, as he played all of his career with below average teams

jmt57

I disagree with the theory that the best players would all go to the best teams, while nobody would go to the 'bad' teams. If that was the case, why does that not hold true in free agency? For example a year ago the Falcons were considered the worst team in the NFL, yet they landed the top running back in free agency, Michael Turner. The Lions have signed eight free agents this off-season that were with other teams last year, as well as re-signing several of their own free agents.

The best QB is not going to consider the Colts because of Manning, the best NT is not going to consider the Pats because of Wilfork; and those teams are not going to consider that rookie either because the idea is that this would be put in to place if, and only if, there was a hard salary cap in effect. The salary cap is what keeps things level for all teams and all players.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.