Patriots About to Be Singled Out For Lack Of Labor Interest

Wildo7 said:

You need to learn the difference between "open market" and "market." A market with restrictions is still a market, and NFL teams have to act according to what a player could get if he were to sit out. Nobody except you has used the term "free market" here, you're creating your own little straw man.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Unless they slot the picks like MLB recommends---though no team listens---there's a market.

Deus Irae said:

There is no market for a drafted player. It's the point of the draft. The rookie contract standards come from the CBA, which will be overhauled if a rookie wage scale is brought in to replace the current rookie cap system. That's the whole point.

Click to expand...

Setting a ceiling on a rookie salary does not mean that a standard or pay scale has been set. If it isn't set, they are negotiating a player's contract based on what he could get if he refused to sign with you and waited. Otherwise they would hardly pay them anything. This is just common sense and it's a market influence.

Deus Irae said:

There is no market for a drafted player. It's the point of the draft. The rookie contract standards come from the CBA, which will be overhauled if a rookie wage scale is brought in to replace the current rookie cap system. That's the whole point.

Click to expand...

There's always a market to be made, too, Deus. Unless you're the MLB and you bar trading picks or traded drafted players within a year, there's a secondary market.

When Belichick trades picks...that's figuratively the definition of a marketplace. It's the beauty of the secondary market.

mikegibbons said:

Not trying to be a d-bag, but price and market price are the exact same thing. That's economics 101. Not sure the origin or when market was dropped.

But when you say the "price of a Snickers bar is $.75," you can substitute 'market price' for 'price' and it's the same thing---or vice-versa.

And free agency and the draft is a market. To claim otherwise is just stubbornness or ignorance.

Click to expand...

Price and market price are NOT the same thing if there is no market, at least not in the context of the discussion you were setting up. I assume you weren't trying to say "don't complain about the need to change the market rules because they are the market rules":

Why are the rookie salaries ridiculous? If someone's willing to pay them, that's the market price.

Click to expand...

Think that through for a second. A dehydrated man may willing to pay everything he owns for a glass of water. That doesn't mean that such a payment is a fair market price rather than being ridiculous unless you're actually going to claim there's a booming market in the "dying of thirst from being caught in the desert" sector. In the absence of a fair and open market for essential goods and services, one can't argue price, one can only argue the fairness of that price and attempt to implement guidelines to insure that fairness.

For crying out loud, we criminalize this as price gouging in this country. What is so difficult about this for you two to understand?

mikegibbons said:

There's always a market to be made, too, Deus. Unless you're the MLB and you bar trading picks or traded drafted players within a year, there's a secondary market.

When Belichick trades picks...that's figuratively the definition of a marketplace. It's the beauty of the secondary market.

Click to expand...

Post-draft player signing is not a market. Pre-draft picks is a market. There's a difference. If you don't think there is, feel free to look back to the Rivers/Manning situation.

Deus Irae said:

Post-draft player signing is not a market. Pre-draft picks is a market. There's a difference. If you don't think there is, feel free to look back to the Rivers/Manning situation.

Click to expand...

You have first rights to sign the player and you can trade him, so...

mikegibbons said:

You have first rights to sign the player and you can trade him, so...

Click to expand...

When the Chargers and Giants made their trade, did the allotted salaries by the NFL move with the commodities?

I don't really understand why Pats fans would want this right now anyway. This is only going to help lesser teams and create more parity. Not to mention that for every Ryan Leaf, there's an Adrian Peterson. To tell me that AP shouldn't have the biggest contract on the Vikings right now is just unfair, and capping his salary at "risk-aversion" rates is seriously disadvantageous to players that have a short shelf life in the NFL (RBs etc.) who have immediate and large impacts.

The point of scouting and smart managing is to avoid a huge costly busts, if the Lions are going to sign an unproven player in a skill position that has an incredibly high rate of attrition, that's just a risk they are willing to take. What you're going to see is crappier teams taking higher upside players that carry more risk, and not have to pay for it when it falls through.

Deus Irae said:

For crying out loud, we criminalize this as price gouging in this country. What is so difficult about this for you two to understand?

Click to expand...

The difference between you and I boils down to that statement.

To me, there's no such thing as price gouging. That's a pejorative term to demonize what's actually the fairest way to allocate resources: supply, demand and price equilibrium.

mikegibbons said:

The difference between you and I boils down to that statement.

To me, there's no such thing as price gouging. That's a pejorative term to demonize what's actually the fairest way to allocate resources: supply, demand and price equilibrium.

Click to expand...

Price gouging involves artificially raising prices independent from market equilibrium. This isn't what's going on here, demand is influencing these salaries (prices).

mikegibbons said:

The difference between you and I boils down to that statement.

To me, there's no such thing as price gouging. That's a pejorative term to demonize what's actually the fairest way to allocate resources: supply, demand and price equilibrium.

Click to expand...

Clearly, there is such a thing as price gouging. I admire the attempt to eliminate a word from the lexicon, though.

And, by the way, "fair" is a term of art. It's the word used by those who oppose price gouging, in fact, and it's why these debates always end up sucking. What you think is "fair" is often completely different from what other interested parties think is "fair". Socialists don't think it's "fair" that rich people (other than themselves) should be rich while others are poor. Capitalists don't think it's fair that what they've earned should be taken from them and given to others.

Whether you like it or not, there is such a thing as price gouging, and it's applicable to what's happening in the top 7 slots of the NFL draft in recent years every bit as much as your assertion regarding a "market price".

Deus Irae said:

Clearly, there is such a thing as price gouging. I admire the attempt to eliminate a word from the lexicon, though.

And, by the way, "fair" is a term of art. It's the word used by those who oppose price gouging, in fact, and it's why these debates always end up sucking. What you think is "fair" is often completely different from what other interested parties think is "fair". Socialists don't think it's "fair" that rich people (other than themselves) should be rich while others are poor. Capitalists don't think it's fair that what they've earned should be taken from them and given to others.

Whether you like it or not, there is such a thing as price gouging, and it's applicable to what's happening in the top 7 slots of the NFL draft in recent years every bit as much as your assertion regarding a "market price".

Click to expand...

No, it's a false term just like "assault rifles."

In a hurricane, generators and bottled water prices always spike. Now, isn't that actually a good thing? If you place price ceilings in, a precious resource in this time, is snatched up at a low price by fewer people who are hoarding precious goods. Because there's not a limitless supply of clean water or generators during a hurricane. So the fairest way to allocate the resources, sans government hand-delivering water, is by letting the market decide the price. Just as there's not a limitless supply of QBs with strong arms and some intelligence (Stafford).

It's all about scarcity, Deus. I don't understand why a fairly simple, economic concept is escaping you. Why is a Derek Jeter rookie card worth more than a Derek Jeter Topps 2008 card? Scarcity.

mikegibbons said:

When has paying for past performance been a pillar of capitalism? Doesn't that ****** economic growth?

Click to expand...

Well, I said "pay for performance" has been a pillar of capitalism. For some reason, you converted that to "pay for past performance".

I agree with you that paying for past performance is not a pillar of capitalism. But that's irrelevant to this conversation because that is not what either businesses or the NFL tends to do. They both pay for expected future performance (once an player hits unrestricted free agency in the NFL.)

TruthSeeker said:

Well, I said "pay for performance" has been a pillar of capitalism. For some reason, you converted that to "pay for past performance".

I agree with you that paying for past performance is not a pillar of capitalism. But that's irrelevant to this conversation because that is not what either businesses or the NFL tends to do. They both pay for expected future performance (once an player hits unrestricted free agency in the NFL.)

Click to expand...

My fault. I misinterpreted what you said. I completely agree---you're paying for the expected performance.

mgteich said:

"Ridiculous rookie salaries" affect a most 10 players a year and a very small percentage of the total cap. Even among these six, sometimes a player turns out to be actually worth the cap space...

So, who cares?

Click to expand...

The teams that are essentially forced into overpaying for unproven rookies care. Many fans care since they see it hurting their team to overpay for unproven rookies.

It may be a very small percentage of the total cap, but it can be a very significant percentage of an individual team's cap space, anywhere from 5% to about 8% a year for the very top picks.

mgteich said:

This is certainly not an issue for the union.

Click to expand...

Since a union would have to agree for a rookie salary cap to be put into place, it is clearly an issue for the union. I'd also argue that this impacts every player in the NFL, not just rookies, since a salary cap means that every dollar paid out to one rookie (who, by the way, is not even in the union until after his first contract) is less dollars available to be paid out to everyone else.

mgteich said:

This will only be a real issue when 10 owners a year are not willing to pay the money and players refuse the lower amounts offered.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's an issue now - hence why we are talking about it.

The NFL succeeds to some extent because of parity and the existing rookie salary structure is one of the things that tends to diminish parity.

From what you've said, I gather that the rookie wage scale is a minor issue to the union. If it's really that minor an issue, then the union should be willing to make an accomodation to the owners pretty easily (since negotiaters don't "go to the mat" over minor issues; they reach agreement pretty easily). What do you think the chances of that are? And the crazy thing is that it is actually in the union's best interest to have a rookie salary cap. That's life in a union.

mikegibbons said:

No, it's a false term just like "assault rifles."

In a hurricane, generators and bottled water prices always spike. Now, isn't that actually a good thing? If you place price ceilings in, a precious resource in this time, is snatched up at a low price by fewer people who are hoarding precious goods. Because there's not a limitless supply of clean water or generators during a hurricane. So the fairest way to allocate the resources, sans government hand-delivering water, is by letting the market decide the price. Just as there's not a limitless supply of QBs with strong arms and some intelligence (Stafford).

It's all about scarcity, Deus. I don't understand why a fairly simple, economic concept is escaping you. Why is a Derek Jeter rookie card worth more than a Derek Jeter Topps 2008 card? Scarcity.

Click to expand...

"Assault rifles" is only a "false term" because it doesn't actually have a workable definition. This is what's known as a red herring.

As for your hurricane argument, the answer is "no" if I choose a different morality than you did. It's not "fair" that the same water, which you already had in your store as a sunk cost, was $1 yesterday and is suddenly $5 today just because there was a storm and you want to milk profits out of people's misery. See how easy that was?

Again, you bring in the concept of "fairness", but that's a lousy term used by all sides of arguments when they can't sway the other sides with logic and reason. The law of supply and demand is not about "fair", after all, because "fair" doesn't really exist. "Fair" is a false term in that sense, like "assault rifle". "Agreed upon" is closer to accurate, but it can mask sub-issues.

You keep trying to equate this all to the market, but the draft was set up precisely to prevent that. It's a fatal point to your argument, so I don't see why you continue.

mikegibbons said:

No, it's a false term just like "assault rifles."

In a hurricane, generators and bottled water prices always spike. Now, isn't that actually a good thing? If you place price ceilings in, a precious resource in this time, is snatched up at a low price by fewer people who are hoarding precious goods. Because there's not a limitless supply of clean water or generators during a hurricane. So the fairest way to allocate the resources, sans government hand-delivering water, is by letting the market decide the price. Just as there's not a limitless supply of QBs with strong arms and some intelligence (Stafford).

It's all about scarcity, Deus. I don't understand why a fairly simple, economic concept is escaping you. Why is a Derek Jeter rookie card worth more than a Derek Jeter Topps 2008 card? Scarcity.

Click to expand...

uh...price gouging a good thing?? Figures you would say that...Usually when merchents do that in short time they are dealt with with heavy fines applied AS IT SHOULD be!! When one equates baseball cards to actual player's salaries..I think you just do NOT get it..If intelligence was a commodity here. I think you'd come out on the short end of the stick.

mikegibbons said:

Don't confuse "market price" with me saying the NFL is a free-market system. I never said that, to be clear.

Market price is referring to the price that the good (a player) will go for in the NFL marketplace.



He's not more valuable, but certainly worthy of the contract because of simple supply and demand: yes. To the Detroit Lions, they need a quarterback. A lot of other teams this year need a QB. This is the demand. And with the supply being Jeff Garcia, Sage Rosenfels, and JP Losman...that's the price you have to pay.

Click to expand...

The draft does NOT equal a marketplace...or do you NOT understand that??

Pats726 said:

The draft does NOT equal a marketplace...or do you NOT understand that??

Click to expand...

If the Lions were taking offers for the 1st pick with teams offering x pick in 2011 or x-player and x-pick...isn't that a market? It's the by the book definition of the secondary market.

You misundersand me. We have the status quo. We have changes to the status quo that are of interest to each side, some to one, some to other. There are lost of proposals that management might make that the union would reject.

I said that the union has no interest at all in a rookie cap. Of course, it is an issue for them if the owners will not sign a new agreement with such an condition. In that sense, every issue is important to both sides.

To say that the rookie cap is an contract issue merely because it is being discussed here is ridiculous. It will be an issue when the majority of owners are willing to make this one of their most important requests.

TruthSeeker said:

The teams that are essentially forced into overpaying for unproven rookies care. Many fans care since they see it hurting their team to overpay for unproven rookies.

It may be a very small percentage of the total cap, but it can be a very significant percentage of an individual team's cap space, anywhere from 5% to about 8% a year for the very top picks.



Since a union would have to agree for a rookie salary cap to be put into place, it is clearly an issue for the union. I'd also argue that this impacts every player in the NFL, not just rookies, since a salary cap means that every dollar paid out to one rookie (who, by the way, is not even in the union until after his first contract) is less dollars available to be paid out to everyone else.



Actually, it's an issue now - hence why we are talking about it.

The NFL succeeds to some extent because of parity and the existing rookie salary structure is one of the things that tends to diminish parity.

From what you've said, I gather that the rookie wage scale is a minor issue to the union. If it's really that minor an issue, then the union should be willing to make an accomodation to the owners pretty easily (since negotiaters don't "go to the mat" over minor issues; they reach agreement pretty easily). What do you think the chances of that are? And the crazy thing is that it is actually in the union's best interest to have a rookie salary cap. That's life in a union.

Click to expand...