How the NFL can solve a dozen problems with one bold move: ditch the draft

[lamafist]

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.

I didn't give you a list of examples for 3 reasons:

1) the only purpose doing so would serve would be to derail the thread from its original topic onto a lengthy tangent about whether 'player x' would have been good or not if he'd gone somewhere else. Now that's a fun debate to have, too, and I'm game for it -- just in another thread.
2) I didn't want to respond because you were inadvertently employing a rhetorical fallacy in which you shift the burden of proof on to me. There are two contrary propositions here, "A Players Career Can be Derailed By Playing On a Bad Team" and "A Players Career Will Proceed Independently of the Quality of Team He Starts On." Neither needs proving more than the other.
3) I don't like getting into the list game because the plural of anecdote is not data. If I named a bunch of promising prospects who went to bad teams, and ended up out of the league, what does that prove? Conversely, what does citing Barry Sanders, a player everyone recognizes as pretty much unique in his abilities, tell us about anyone else? Does Jonathan Sullivan's failure w/ the Pats really tell us that things wouldn't have been entirely different if he'd started his career under BB? (Nothing, and no.)

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.

Not to the rookies, it isn't. The agents have taken the rookie pay scale and used it to pretty much lock teams into paying 1st round picks based on what previous picks in that slot have gotten, not how much the team thinks the player is worth.

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.

Whoah, there, nellie. You seem to be getting a wee bit too worked up over this. I'm "yammering on"? I'm "proving that don't understand the current situation"? I "need to educate myself?"

Why do you feel the need to fortify your argument with empty and aggressive rhetorical flourishes like this? Veiled insults don't actually strengthen any point you're trying to make, and, obviously aren't going to convince me that I'm wrong. At best, it's useless posturing, at worst, it's bullying.

Now, as for your assertion that I don't understand what's going in the NFL: nothing could be further from the truth. It's just that I don't think it's a fait accompli that the uncapped year(s) will ever happen. Despite what the scandalmongers in the media want you to believe, I find it doubtful that the owners would ever let that happen, and Goodel's recent comments support that. Furthermore, I think the players have indicated that they're looking to negotiate by selecting an attourney, and not a former player, as their union representative.

So, yes, I believe we'll eventually see a new CBA, possibly after a midnight extension or two. In truth, I kind of assumed that people would understand that changing anything about the draft, let alone abandoning it, presupposes a new CBA being reached, because a CBA is the only way the league could alter the draft regulations.

My suggestion would have to be be part of the new CBA -- and to be honest, I think offering to do away with draft (and also, therefore, the rookie pool) and have players enter the league as free agents would be a big enough concession by the owners to get the players to agree to a cap structure that the owners find more palatable.

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

Again, the plural of anecdote isn't data. We could both name names all we want, and it wouldn't tell us anything. I'd rather stick with rational generality than ascribe fallacious significance to anecdotal specifics.

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.

I honestly didn't see how it was a counter-argument, hence my asking you to clarify. Now that you have, I can offer my dissenting opinion:

As many in this thread have pointed out, the problem with the rookie pay structure is that 1st round picks -- especially early 1st rounders -- get WAY too much money, completely disproportionally to how much less of a risk they are than a 2nd or 3rd or 4th rounder.

Now, your average late-round draft pick is just happy to be getting drafted at all. They don't expect much, they usually don't end up amounting to much, and the ones who do become players of stature usually are fairly grateful to the organization that gave them a shot. But the guys in the 2nd, 3rd and even 4th rounds, have a legitimate beef right off the bat -- it's natural that they'd make less than the 1st rounders, but not to such an extent. And many of them feel that if it weren't for a senior year injury, an a**hole coach who badmouthed them, unfair rumors about their character, etc., they'd have been a 1st rounder. It's these guys who missed the cut that usually end up having the biggest dustops with their franchises.

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.

Again, I feel like you're making my argument for me: without the draft, there is no "1st round money" vs. "2nd round money." A players' value will be determined on the open market, and there won't be these big arbitrary paygrade tiers. The player will know that his contract reflects what he could get at the time, and not boxed into a ballpark based on draft position. Plus, as I pointed out, he'd have more flexibility in terms of what kind of contract he wants and where he ends up signing.

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.

Not only do I understand that it's primarily the top of the 1st round that throws things out of whack, my whole point is based on that understanding. There is a huge discrepancy in the amount of money these guys make vis a vis how much better of an investment they are, and that needs to be fixed. You could try to do that by artificially tinkering with the structure, but that's going to be a pretty hard sell for something that is at best a temporary fix. Or you could address the discrepancy by having the market set the values, a fluid solution which will adapt when the makeup of the crop of rookies changes year to year.

(continued)

 

[lamafist]

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.

Well, you also haven't provided anything to prove it. And even if I ceded the fact, it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means, because you haven't begun to consider what a baseline percentage for player re-signing would be. As I pointed out, the majority of NFL players are fairly anonymous JAGs. Their pay will be more or less the same anywhere, so if their original team still wants them, they may as well stay. That's not going to change much whether there's a draft or not. Then you have the star players who are big enough that the owners feel they'd take a PR hit if they left. They often get resigned. That's not going to change much either.

So I posit that the baseline for player retention would be over 50% under any reasonable rookie-distribution system. The question is, would doing away with free agency increase player retention in that key demo -- the 2nd-4th round pick borderline star who's been playing (as you pointed out) for not much more than a 7th round pick for the past 4 years.

Oh, and if you remember, the Portis trade came about because he was making a lot of noise about his contract and threatening a holdout, and the Broncos figured it was easiest to trade him to a team that was willing to pay him.

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

There are a number of reasons. First of all, without the 1st rounders earning disproportionally more than their worth, the guys who end up 2nd-4th rounders will likely make more than they are now. And if there aren't so many rookies getting ridiculous contracts, then players like Asante don't walk into negotiations feeling like they should have been making an amount of money no rookie should, and that their original team should compensate for the time already served.

Also, the contract that the Asante-like player signs as a rookie will be one he agrees to, determined by what he could get someone to offer him, and not by some arbitrary structure based on pick location, that we all seem to agree is a problem.

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.

Seriously, dude, you need to calm down, and take your rhetoric down a notch. We're all Pats fans here, and to my knowledge, I haven't done anything other than make a point you disagree with. There's no need for the posturing and ad hominem you're giving me. The previous 1,000 words you wrote did a pretty good job of telling me that you think my premise is flawed and that my rebuttals lack facts. After all that, stating so is just trying to position your opinions as "fact" and mine as not, and doesn't add anything to the debate.

Is there really any call for your aggressive and dismissive posture? Are you unwilling or unable to argue without all the dialectical equivalents of stamping your feet and shaking your fists? Or do you think people really take your opinions more seriously when you add in empty, unsupported digs at other peoples' knowledge and reason?

Now, as for your slave auction comparison -- well, the biggest problem with your assertion is that the slaves weren't the ones with the final say over who got them, and they weren't getting the money they were "bought" for. That kind of makes all the difference.

Do veteran players find it demeaning when they auction off their services in free agency? Does the graduating class at Harvard law feel it's demeaning when they take offers from firms' headhunters in the weeks preceding graduation? Do the directors of movies feel demeaned when the distribution rights for their movies are bid on at Sundance?

No. When you get the money, and you have the final decision, having people compete for your services actually feels quite nice.

 

[spacecrime]

This thread is so dumb.

There is an issue with about 5-8 of the top picks in the draft, and you guys think it is easier to scrap the entire draft rather than fix those 8.

And the rationale is that the draft is counterproductive to helping level the playing field?

So if the bad teams getting the best players is counter-productive, giving the better players to the good team will be productive?

The only real problem is the first few draft picks get too much money so that if they are a bust, the team is hamstrung with dead money.

But it is still better for a weak team to get to pickahead of strong teams to maintain a better balance.

Scrapping an entire process creates more problems thatn it solves, and in this case the process is fine. It merely needs tweaking.

I keep reading these posts and thinking they are bad attempts at jokes or sarcasm, and then am amazed when I have to admit that you guys are serious.

This is like a debate between astrologers and astronomers about the effects of planets and stars being in "alignment." The arguments put forth by astrologers is so lacking in any semblence of logic or any basis in fact that there can be no real discussion. Same here.

This is the weirdest thread I've seen here since I joined about 9 years ago.

 

[Joker]

More weird than the "We need to get Bledsoe back from Buffalo!" thread from 8 years ago?...now that WOULD be weird

 

[mb6592]

Whoah, there, nellie. You seem to be getting a wee bit too worked up over this. I'm "yammering on"? I'm "proving that don't understand the current situation"? I "need to educate myself?"

Why do you feel the need to fortify your argument with empty and aggressive rhetorical flourishes like this? Veiled insults don't actually strengthen any point you're trying to make, and, obviously aren't going to convince me that I'm wrong. At best, it's useless posturing, at worst, it's bullying.

Seriously, dude, you need to calm down, and take your rhetoric down a notch. We're all Pats fans here, and to my knowledge, I haven't done anything other than make a point you disagree with. There's no need for the posturing and ad hominem you're giving me. The previous 1,000 words you wrote did a pretty good job of telling me that you think my premise is flawed and that my rebuttals lack facts. After all that, stating so is just trying to position your opinions as "fact" and mine as not, and doesn't add anything to the debate.

Is there really any call for your aggressive and dismissive posture? Are you unwilling or unable to argue without all the dialectical equivalents of stamping your feet and shaking your fists? Or do you think people really take your opinions more seriously when you add in empty, unsupported digs at other peoples' knowledge and reason?

Because he's appalled that someone would come on this board with an interesting debate that didn't come from him or one of his lackeys. Because you dared to provoke thought on his watch (and with only 147 posts to boot!).

 

[mb6592]

In truth, I kind of assumed that people would understand that changing anything about the draft, let alone abandoning it, presupposes a new CBA being reached, because a CBA is the only way the league could alter the draft regulations

Yes, most of us got this.

 

[Deus Irae]

Because he's appalled that someone would come on this board with an interesting debate that didn't come from him or one of his lackeys. Because you dared to provoke thought on his watch (and with only 147 posts to boot!).

Ummm... DaBruinz is having that "interesting debate" despite the many problems with the OP's position. lamafist may not like DaBruinz' style, but DaBruinz posts that way in general, not just because of your "lackey" assertion. The OP did, in fact, concede that his own plan would have all kinds of problems.

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.

The reality is that the draft system, as a whole, is not broken. The pay scale at the top end needs to be revamped, but that's a far cry from completely overhauling a system that's worked for over 50 years in favor of one as poor as the OP essentially concedes his to be.

 

[condon84]

Simple fix to the draft: ROOKIE SALARY CAP.

 

[Fencer]

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.

It's not treating them like a piece of meat when they're running the auction.

What he's saying is that teams should STOP treating players like slaves. Maybe the plan is workable and maybe it isn't (I lean to the latter theory), but the idea that his suggestion would be MORE slave-like is possibly the single stupidest thing I've seen on this board ... notwithstanding that I've read quite a number of your other posts.

 

[mb6592]

Ummm... DaBruinz is having that "interesting debate" despite the many problems with the OP's position. lamafist may not like DaBruinz' style, but DaBruinz posts that way in general, not just because of your "lackey" assertion. The OP did, in fact, concede that his own plan would have all kinds of problems.



The reality is that the draft system, as a whole, is not broken. The pay scale at the top end needs to be revamped, but that's a far cry from completely overhauling a system that's worked for over 50 years in favor of one as poor as the OP essentially concedes his to be.

Here we go, here comes tweedle dumb. The "debate" isn't the problem here. "Posts that way in general" - and therein lies the problem. I do agree with you second part, however, lamafist is one sharp dude and I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss him.

 

[Deus Irae]

Here we go, here comes tweedle dumb. The "debate" isn't the problem here. "Posts that way in general" - and therein lies the problem. I do agree with you second part, however, lamafist is one sharp dude and I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss him.

Love the hypocrisy.

 

[PatOnTheArse]

I've always been intrigued by the draft system. Isn't the NFL the most competitive top sporting league in the world?

In the last fifteen years the Steelers, Giants, Colts, Patriots, Bucs, Ravens, Rams, Broncos, Packers, Cowboys and 49ers have all won the superbowl. That is eleven different winners.

The Patriots managed to get into the superbowl only four years after finishing rock bottom. If we look at the soccer equivalent, will we see FC Basel progressing into the Champions League final (soccer's finest club achievement) any time soon?

The Colts, Giants and Dolphins are the other teams in recent history to transform into playoff sides in a matter of seasons.

Now I know you are saying that the salary cap will keep things competitive but still... I guess if it aint broke then there is no need to fix it - don't tamper with the big mac!

I reckon the system could be great for a couple of years but what about when the owners get greedy? What happens when many of the franchises salary caps becomes full but their roosters are still incomplete. Suddenly they don't want the salary cap. And eventually this will lead to those with the highest turnovers snaping up all the best players.

Ditching the draft will take you one step closer to a football oligarch - basically only three or four teams will be able to win the superbowl and these teams will stay the same throughout history...

 

[Pats726]

Now, your average late-round draft pick is just happy to be getting drafted at all.

Wrong Assumption....Actually in reality late round picks are less happy about being picked at all. Why?? If they do not get chosen in the draft they have can have a better chance to pick the team they will have a chance to play for being a UDFA. This thread has a lot of interesting assertions but it's not thought through. Take away the draft and what is it replaced by?? A mess that is worse than the draft.

 

[Fencer]

Isn't the NFL the most competitive top sporting league in the world?

That's far from obvious. Even money bet: Who's more likely to win the Super Bowl next season -- one of NE, Pitt, Indy, SD, Baltimore, or the NYG, or one of the other 26 teams combined?

Admittedly, the answer would be even more clear if I rattled off the Celtics, Lakers, Cavs, Magic, and Spurs ...

 

[mb6592]

Love the hypocrisy.

Love the moral equivalency.

 

[lamafist]

Wrong Assumption....Actually in reality late round picks are less happy about being picked at all. Why?? If they do not get chosen in the draft they have can have a better chance to pick the team they will have a chance to play for being a UDFA. This thread has a lot of interesting assertions but it's not thought through. Take away the draft and what is it replaced by?? A mess that is worse than the draft.

If you don't get drafted, you also have a better chance of not being able to find any team that wants to sign you, let along being able to "pick" a team, and then have to travel from camp to camp hoping to get picked up on somebody's practice squad. Then you have to start wondering if it's worth it to you to head up to the CFL, or play Arena ball, and hope, or whether you should just pack it in.

I highly doubt that anyone would choose this over the relative security of being drafted in the 6th or 7th round.

 

[Metaphors]

Since the advent of the salary cap era, the NFL draft has been at best redundant and, presently, actually counterproductive as a tool to help instill competitive balance among the teams in the NFL.

The draft is actually an excellent way of giving teams the opportunity to acquire players with long-term potential. But it is just that...a chance. The fact that it doesn't automatically lead to competitive balance is not a function of the draft. It is a reflection of the teams doing the drafting.

Draft picks are assets and failing teams are allocated better assets than successful ones. What's not to like? If a team has lots of cap space, a top 10 contract shouldn't bother them much. If a team doesn't want to use the cap space on a top 10 pick, they can trade out and collect a different mixture of assets. It may take some work (may not be able to do it in one trade), but it can almost certainly be done if you discount the pick enough.

 

[lamafist]

Ummm... DaBruinz is having that "interesting debate" despite the many problems with the OP's position. lamafist may not like DaBruinz' style, but DaBruinz posts that way in general, not just because of your "lackey" assertion. The OP did, in fact, concede that his own plan would have all kinds of problems.



The reality is that the draft system, as a whole, is not broken. The pay scale at the top end needs to be revamped, but that's a far cry from completely overhauling a system that's worked for over 50 years in favor of one as poor as the OP essentially concedes his to be.

While I may not care for his frequent use of ad hominem tactics, his attempts to shif the burden of proof, his tendency to convince anecdote with evidence, and his general tone of anger directed at someone who simply expressed an opinion he disagrees with, I do appreciate that DaBruinz' readiness to engage.

By taking the time to respond to my arguments on a point-by-point basis, he's actually showing my opinions far more respect in deed than he does in words.

Now, as for my supposed concession of the poor quality of my "plan" -- while I readily admit that it would have its share of problems, that doesn't mean that I don't think it would have ultimately fewer problems than our current system does.

Pointing to the drafts' 50 years in place ignores the fact that in the interceding time, the circumstances of the NFL have drastically changed. When the draft was instituted, there was no players union, there was no free agency system, no salary cap, and no off-season programs, in part because players weren't paid so much that they could afford not to work second jobs.

Really, when you think about it, the fact that it was invented to address the realities of the 1936 NFL is all the more evidence that it's NOT a sensible system for the NFL of 2009.

Now, a lot of people are suggesting that the draft system isn't broken, and that all you need to do is "tweak" it, by limiting the salaries at the front end of the draft. As if it were that easy. What, exactly, could the owners concede to the NFLPA in return? Otherwise, why should the NFLPA agree to limit the pay of some of its impending constituents with no guarantee that any of that money will end up back in other players' pockets?

No, the owners would have to agree to have some sort of rookie salary floor, or to raise the general salary floor already in existence. And there's no way you'd get any decisive majority of owners to go for a deal that raised the minimum they're allowed to allocate to player salaries.

No, with the two sides as entrenched as they are, it's possible that a big, paradigm-changing move might actually be easier to make than any small "tweak."

 

[ausbacker]

So we finish the eighteenth and he's gonna stiff me. And I say, "Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know." And he says, "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

So we finish the eighteenth and he's gonna stiff me. And I say, "Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know." And he says, "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.

This has to be some Aussie kinda code which unless I dally someone will decrypt for me