Changing the structure of the NFL draft - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

***patchick*** · 03-04-2008, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PonyExpress

The commissioner, the head auctioneer, could introduce the players in pre auction estimated order of value, based on consultations with team and league representatives, and publish the order beforehand to alert all participants.

It seems to me this ordering is a huge problem. It undermines the free-market ideal of the whole system, and it's destined to be capricious, inequitable and subject to influence and manipulation.

Think about the mechanics of it. Do you have a committee of "draft experts," essentially putting the Mel Kipers of the world in control of the draft, with agents and team execs whispering in their ears? Or a committee of team execs, all trying to manipulate the system to their advantage a la the competition committee? Or a secret vote of all the teams, with all of them carefully trying to hide their intentions and stack the draft in favorable ways? It's the draft equivalent of replacing a playoff system with the BCS.

***ctpatsfan77*** · 03-04-2008, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patchick

It seems to me this ordering is a huge problem. It undermines the free-market ideal of the whole system, and it's destined to be capricious, inequitable and subject to influence and manipulation.

Think about the mechanics of it. Do you have a committee of "draft experts," essentially putting the Mel Kipers of the world in control of the draft, with agents and team execs whispering in their ears? Or a committee of team execs, all trying to manipulate the system to their advantage a la the competition committee? Or a secret vote of all the teams, with all of them carefully trying to hide their intentions and stack the draft in favorable ways? It's the draft equivalent of replacing a playoff system with the BCS.

Patchick--thank you for verbalizing my objection to it.

Seriously, though, there is a solution to this problem, but it basically raises its own host of problems. Namely, instead of having an actual auction-type event, you have a sealed-bid auction à la the postings for signing Daisuke Matsuzaka; in other words, you "bid" on every player at once.

But then, it raises the issue of figuring out how to handle the allocations of points, in which case you either end up back at your problem, or you probably end up with a far more complicated system than even the residency match for doctors (which doesn't make for good TV

).

PonyExpress · 03-04-2008, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patchick

It seems to me this ordering is a huge problem. It undermines the free-market ideal of the whole system, and it's destined to be capricious, inequitable and subject to influence and manipulation.

Think about the mechanics of it. Do you have a committee of "draft experts," essentially putting the Mel Kipers of the world in control of the draft, with agents and team execs whispering in their ears? Or a committee of team execs, all trying to manipulate the system to their advantage a la the competition committee? Or a secret vote of all the teams, with all of them carefully trying to hide their intentions and stack the draft in favorable ways? It's the draft equivalent of replacing a playoff system with the BCS.

It doesn't matter what order players are presented to auction, only how much is bid on those players, as long as all parties are aware of the order in advance. Just because a player is presented first for auction, doesn't mean he will have the most value points bid on him and receive the highest salary in the draft. It's like publishing an order of sale at an auction house- a Rembrandt at 5, a Picasso at 5:30, a Monet at 6. The Monet could sell for more than the Rembrandt, Braylon Edwards could get a higher value points bid than Alex Smith, and therefore end up slotted as the #1 salary. This isn't an undermining of the free market, it's the facilitation of it.

PonyExpress · 03-04-2008, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctpatsfan77

Patchick--thank you for verbalizing my objection to it.

Seriously, though, there is a solution to this problem, but it basically raises its own host of problems. Namely, instead of having an actual auction-type event, you have a sealed-bid auction à la the postings for signing Daisuke Matsuzaka; in other words, you "bid" on every player at once.

But then, it raises the issue of figuring out how to handle the allocations of points, in which case you either end up back at your problem, or you probably end up with a far more complicated system than even the residency match for doctors (which doesn't make for good TV

).

I honestly don't understand your point. If you could explain it a little more clearly, I'll try to explain mine in return.

***patchick*** · 03-04-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PonyExpress

It doesn't matter what order players are presented to auction, only how much is bid on those players, as long as all parties are aware of the order in advance. Just because a player is presented first for auction, doesn't mean he will have the most value points bid on him and receive the highest salary in the draft. It's like publishing an order of sale at an auction house- a Rembrandt at 5, a Picasso at 5:30, a Monet at 6. The Monet could sell for more than the Rembrandt, Braylon Edwards could get a higher value points bid than Alex Smith, and therefore end up slotted as the #1 salary. This isn't an undermining of the free market, it's the facilitation of it.

But it's not like an art auction, because each bidder has a limited number of points that they have to use or lose. So the order matters enormously. Imagine that, say, the ordering puts Matt Ryan as the 250th player up for bid. That means that every team in desperate need of a QB has two choices:

A. Conserve your points, passing on other players you'd really want if you lose the Ryan sweepstakes. If half a dozen teams take this path, they'd all be left with a ton of points unspent at the end with only a handful of players left. Meanwhile other, better teams get to pick up good players cheap, just because of the draft order.

B. Decide you can't afford the risk of waiting, and spend your points on a lesser QB prospect who comes up for draft earlier, missing out on your chance at the top player...and likely allowing a better team to walk away with the better prospect because the "big money" will already be spent.

The ordering IS the auction. The strategy wouldn't be about "who" and "how much," as you intend it to be -- it would be about "when."

***ctpatsfan77*** · 03-04-2008, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PonyExpress

I honestly don't understand your point. If you could explain it a little more clearly, I'll try to explain mine in return.

My point is basically the same as patchick's.

My suggestion was that the only immediately obvious workaround to ensure fairness to the players and prevent the possibility of gaming the system, is to distribute to each team a list of all the draft picks available, and to require teams to submit master lists for all of those picks at once; then the draft would consist of announcing who was the high bidder for each player's services.

[I realize a certain amount of gamesmanship is already inherent in the system. That said, the final determiners of where a player is currently drafted are the teams themselves. If you had, say, a "draft board" that determined the exact order, you have a decent chance of players getting screwed over, plus, because there are necessarily fewer points available at the end of the draft, the players who are "ranked" lower are automatically more likely to "earn" fewer points and thus a lower salary (i.e., "reaches"--however you care to define that term--would become less likely).

PonyExpress · 03-04-2008, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patchick

But it's not like an art auction, because each bidder has a limited number of points that they have to use or lose. So the order matters enormously. Imagine that, say, the ordering puts Matt Ryan as the 250th player up for bid. That means that every team in desperate need of a QB has two choices:

A. Conserve your points, passing on other players you'd really want if you lose the Ryan sweepstakes. If half a dozen teams take this path, they'd all be left with a ton of points unspent at the end with only a handful of players left. Meanwhile other, better teams get to pick up good players cheap, just because of the draft order.

Your critique is a good argument for doing as I suggested: the commissioner publishing an auction order based on a consensus "draft board" from #1 to #224, furnished by insider experts and made available to all teams and press a week or two in advance. The auction order would merely represent a guideline of value, not a bible; maybe a player will be out of place here or there, but usually not by more than 30 slots, as we see in today's draft and predraft boards. Maybe Brandon Siler would be up for auction at #84, and nobody would raise a finger, and the auction would move on. Or Logan Mankins would be up for auction at #75, and an unexpected bidding war would break out which the Pats would win paying what is deemed an extraordinary price by experts, enough to give Mankins the #32 salary slot in the whole draft. Such a system would allow teams that lose early bidding wars time to redirect their budgets toward fallback options. If Atlanta loses out for Ryan to Miami at #1, then Atlanta has time to look at every other player in the draft with all its resources intact. Looking at the 2005 draft, with an auction system, SF wouldn't have been forced to take A. Smith or A. Rodgers because they couldn't trade the pick. That was the true injustice, which my system corrects. You seem to be arguing in favor of an auction order based on consensus value, not against it.

B. Decide you can't afford the risk of waiting, and spend your points on a lesser QB prospect who comes up for draft earlier, missing out on your chance at the top player...and likely allowing a better team to walk away with the better prospect because the "big money" will already be spent.

The ordering IS the auction. The strategy wouldn't be about "who" and "how much," as you intend it to be -- it would be about "when."

10 characters

PonyExpress · 03-04-2008, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctpatsfan77

My point is basically the same as patchick's.

My suggestion was that the only immediately obvious workaround to ensure fairness to the players and prevent the possibility of gaming the system, is to distribute to each team a list of all the draft picks available, and to require teams to submit master lists for all of those picks at once; then the draft would consist of announcing who was the high bidder for each player's services.

[I realize a certain amount of gamesmanship is already inherent in the system. That said, the final determiners of where a player is currently drafted are the teams themselves. If you had, say, a "draft board" that determined the exact order, you have a decent chance of players getting screwed over, plus, because there are necessarily fewer points available at the end of the draft, the players who are "ranked" lower are automatically more likely to "earn" fewer points and thus a lower salary (i.e., "reaches"--however you care to define that term--would become less likely).

When a player is auctioned does not determine his salary. Just because a player is presented to auction first overall, does not mean he will receive the highest salary. For example, if Alex Smith is offered for auction first and Tampa wins the bid for 2,000 value points; and Ronnie Brown is offered 2nd, and Miami wins the bid for 2200 value points; and B Edwards is offered 3rd, and Cleveland wins for 2400 value points, the salary order is

1. B Edwards
2. Ronnie Brown
3. A. Smith.

The salaries are preslotted based on appreciation from the previous season's contracts. At the conclusion of the auction, players would be ranked in order based on highest to lowest bids, and given salaries preassigned to those slots.

I don't see the logic that such an auction order prejudices the draft. The Patriots have their own value board, which only rates players that fit their system. They would apportion their own budget toward those desirable players and bid accordingly, no matter where they fall chronologically in the league auction, as would all other teams.

PonyExpress · 03-04-2008, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PonyExpress

It doesn't matter what order players are presented to auction, only how much is bid on those players, as long as all parties are aware of the order in advance. Just because a player is presented first for auction, doesn't mean he will have the most value points bid on him and receive the highest salary in the draft. It's like publishing an order of sale at an auction house- a Rembrandt at 5, a Picasso at 5:30, a Monet at 6. The Monet could sell for more than the Rembrandt, Braylon Edwards could get a higher value points bid than Alex Smith, and therefore end up slotted as the #1 salary. This isn't an undermining of the free market, it's the facilitation of it.

I'll clarify these comments so as not to have the discussion spin off at an unnecessary tangent due to confusion. Just because M Ryan is offered for auction 1st overall based on consensus projections of value, it doesn't guarantee he will receive the highest bid when the auction actually starts. Teams may offer less than anticipated, and Ryan may end up, when all is said and done, with only the 7th highest bid among all players. It would be as though he had actually been "drafted" #7 overall for salary purposes, no matter what the order of auction had been. That was my point.

***patchick*** · 03-04-2008, 03:26 PM

PonyExpress, first I just want to say that I love this topic! I don't agree with your particular proposal, but it's certainly possible that there are better/more exciting ways to conduct the draft.

I've already stated my objections to the "expert" ordering process. IMO the slotting of players must be determined by the market, which is to say by teams actually choosing one player over another.

So here's a simple variant: a point system as you suggest, but what you're bidding for is just the chance to choose the next player. Still plenty of pitfalls, but it least it gets you out of the pre-ordering business.