OK, I hate Bad-ell but I like this...

[zarakotas5]

Re: OK, I hate Bad-ell but I like this . . .

I don't like changing the draft to make it more watchable. Of course, I don't watch it (and I can't understand how those of you who watch it enjoy it).

The purpose of the draft should be for team-building, not entertainment. The first should not be sacrificed for the latter.

I love the rookie scale idea and hope it gets done. That'll probably have to wait for the next CBA. Isn't the current one going to be terminated after 2008?

I agree completely and I usually DO watch the draft. Trying to streamline the process by a few hours? Decisions during the draft impact 16-19 game seasons played over several months, year after year.

15 minutes per team already seems sufficiently streamlined to me.

 

[Truck]

5 min per pick is plenty of time. Give the team 1 "extra 5 min" card to use in any of the rounds.
Teams have all done their research before hand, they know exactly their ranking of the prospects (especially in the first round). They might want to talk to the agent, but that can be done in under 10 minutes (if they start talking during the previous team's pick time, and/or use up the extra 5 min card). As for last minute trades, teams should have those possibilities sorted out before hand (they have all month to figure it out).

I'm kindof against the rookie cap. Basketball & hockey have it, and I think its unfair. If you're going to be a star in your first year, why should you be stuck with a way way below market contract. No one is holding a gun to the team's head and telling them to pay the top draft picks 7 years/42 million. They're making the choice. They could make the choice to pay the top picks 1 year, 3 million, and then if he's the real deal they'll end up paying him more in the end.

The pats have had many 'bargain' rookie contracts under this current system (a contract that both sides agreed was to their best individual interests)...And since I'm a pats fan, I'm all for keeping it the way it is.

 

[Wildo7]

I disagree completely with the rookie salary cap idea and I don't really care about the 10 minute limit. Rookies should get what teams are willing to pay for them because that is their value. I don't think it's been a huge problem so far. These guys can get injured and have no guaranteed money, signing fairly long term deals. If they were asking for too much money then you would have seen rookies sitting out their first years and then getting bigger contracts elsewhere. I haven't really seen many examples of teams getting screwed over by a rookie's agent that asked for a huge contract and then underperformed or was turned down for a year and went somewhere else. We're in the age now where a lot of these guys make a huge impact straight out of college. Are you really trying to tell me that Adrian Peterson should be held to a cap that puts his value somewhere around that of Ted Ginn? It's up to the teams and the scouts to get this right, and that's part of the game, and it's the agent's job to sniff out whether it's worth it ultimately demand the amount of money that they can get. Don't forget that if a rookie's agent can't come to terms they than have to factor in the year they will lose v. the contract they think they will get next year, which means they have to be sure that there is another team out there that will be willing to pay double up front (or the equivalent of) in their first year.

I think the system works fine now, and I think this is just another concession to the owners that will ultimately hurt the players that deserve more, in a league where they have to rely on Gene Upshaw to represent them, which he does a lousy job of. I know I'll probably get flamed for this, but I really think Goodell is trying way to hard to leave his mark on the NFL and that this is a crappy policy. It's always unpopular to stand up for the "overpaid" "star" athletes, but no one seems to be complaining about how much money these owners are raking in. They are a business and it's their job to make good business decisions for their company, namely who they employ and for how much. And it's up to the employee to decide whether they think they are getting a fare wage or whether they think someone else will offer them more.

 

[alamo]

Re: OK, I hate Bad-ell but I like this . . .

I guess vets would not oppose. But the nflpa would never agree without getting something. They really can't. They have duties to their entire constituency and can't favor one segment over the other.

How many existing union members would be hurt? Not a single one. They are all veterans, most of whom would favor the proposal.

Even if you take incoming members next year into account, only a dozen or two would be hurt. That's about 1%. Because the target of this cap would be the salaries at the very top of the draft, where a draftee can become the best-paid player at his position before every playing a down.

I disagree completely with the rookie salary cap idea. Rookies should get what teams are willing to pay for them because that is their value. I don't think it's been a huge problem so far.

I don't think you've been paying attention, then. Every highly-paid megabust has an agent and a player laughing all the way to the bank.

I think the system works fine now, and I think this is just another concession to the owners that will ultimately hurt the players that deserve more, in a league where they have to rely on Gene Upshaw to represent them, which he does a lousy job of.

Lousy job? He's more than doubled the average salary of his members this decade. I am unaware of a single union in the country that's done better.

A rookie cap doesn't save the owners money, because the funding for the rookie cap comes from inside the overall cap, so all this does is increase the amount available for veterans. If the owners offer to raise minimum salaries in exchange for a more stringent rookie cap the union should jump on it, it will benefit the hundreds of players who play for minimum, only hurt a handful of incoming rookies, and be economically neutral to the owners.

 

[Wildo7]

Re: OK, I hate Bad-ell but I like this . . .

How many existing union members would be hurt? Not a single one. They are all veterans, most of whom would favor the proposal.

Even if you take incoming members next year into account, only a dozen or two would be hurt. That's about 1%. Because the target of this cap would be the salaries at the very top of the draft, where a draftee can become the best-paid player at his position before every playing a down.



I don't think you've been paying attention, then. Every highly-paid megabust has an agent and a player laughing all the way to the bank.



Lousy job? He's more than doubled the average salary of his members this decade. I am unaware of a single union in the country that's done better.

A rookie cap doesn't save the owners money, because the funding for the rookie cap comes from inside the overall cap, so all this does is increase the amount available for veterans. If the owners offer to raise minimum salaries in exchange for a more stringent rookie cap the union should jump on it, it will benefit the hundreds of players who play for minimum, only hurt a handful of incoming rookies, and be economically neutral to the owners.

Please name some "high name megabusts laughing their way to the bank" And Gene Upshaw (whose salary is around 6mil a year v. 1-2mil a yr. for the MLB, NBA and NHL union reps) isn't responsible for the salaries going up, the popularity of the sport is and the overall revenue of the league (the product of players performance). And it doesn't just free up money for those hard working underpaid veterans, it gives owners a chance to go shop for star free agents, especially the ones drafting high who stink (i.e. getting the most valuable rookies). So while I think it's unfair to rookies that will make an immediate impact, it's also a pretty raw deal for the top teams (like the Pats) who will see crappy teams draft high and then still have money to go out and buy all of the expensive free agents. If that's how you want to "even" out the league that's fine, but in my mind, you might as well just make a rule saying we should take turns winning the SB.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

The rookie salary cap is something most sane people have been calling for for years. But...



More fan and tv-friendly? How about more "player drafting" friendly? I'd much rather sit through some boring television than reduce teams' flexibility to make deals. This strikes me as a particular disadvantage to a team like the Patriots that typically does a lot of draft-day wheeling and dealing.

EXACTLY my thoughts on both subjects.

Now I don't need to add anything to this discussion. :rocker:

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

I disagree completely with the rookie salary cap idea and I don't really care about the 10 minute limit. Rookies should get what teams are willing to pay for them because that is their value. I don't think it's been a huge problem so far. These guys can get injured and have no guaranteed money, signing fairly long term deals. If they were asking for too much money then you would have seen rookies sitting out their first years and then getting bigger contracts elsewhere. I haven't really seen many examples of teams getting screwed over by a rookie's agent that asked for a huge contract and then underperformed or was turned down for a year and went somewhere else. We're in the age now where a lot of these guys make a huge impact straight out of college. Are you really trying to tell me that Adrian Peterson should be held to a cap that puts his value somewhere around that of Ted Ginn? It's up to the teams and the scouts to get this right, and that's part of the game, and it's the agent's job to sniff out whether it's worth it ultimately demand the amount of money that they can get. Don't forget that if a rookie's agent can't come to terms they than have to factor in the year they will lose v. the contract they think they will get next year, which means they have to be sure that there is another team out there that will be willing to pay double up front (or the equivalent of) in their first year.

I think the system works fine now, and I think this is just another concession to the owners that will ultimately hurt the players that deserve more, in a league where they have to rely on Gene Upshaw to represent them, which he does a lousy job of. I know I'll probably get flamed for this, but I really think Goodell is trying way to hard to leave his mark on the NFL and that this is a crappy policy. It's always unpopular to stand up for the "overpaid" "star" athletes, but no one seems to be complaining about how much money these owners are raking in. They are a business and it's their job to make good business decisions for their company, namely who they employ and for how much. And it's up to the employee to decide whether they think they are getting a fare wage or whether they think someone else will offer them more.

Boy are you wrong.

 

[Wildo7]

Boy are you wrong.

insightful criticism

 

[alamo]

Re: OK, I hate Bad-ell but I like this . . .

Please name some "high name megabusts laughing their way to the bank"

Robert Gallery comes immediately to mind as a start, you could probably put Alex Smith and Pacman Jones from that draft in the same category. I am not going to go through the past few years of the draft and name them, though I could. The top 10 in the draft usually get paid commensurate with the very best at their position and half of them usually turn out to be slightly above average or worse.

And Gene Upshaw (whose salary is around 6mil a year v. 1-2mil a yr. for the MLB, NBA and NHL union reps) isn't responsible for the salaries going up, the popularity of the sport is and the overall revenue of the league (the product of players performance). [/quote[

The NFLPA has adopted more of a "partnership with owners" attitude than other unions, I think this is not the entire erason but is a significant reason for the sport's inccreasing popularity. If the union took a hard line like MLB, for example, the negative fan reaction would hurt the NFL signiicantly, IMO.

And it doesn't just free up money for those hard working underpaid veterans, it gives owners a chance to go shop for star free agents, especially the ones drafting high who stink (i.e. getting the most valuable rookies). So while I think it's unfair to rookies that will make an immediate impact, it's also a pretty raw deal for the top teams (like the Pats) who will see crappy teams draft high and then still have money to go out and buy all of the expensive free agents. If that's how you want to "even" out the league that's fine, but in my mind, you might as well just make a rule saying we should take turns winning the SB.

You have somehow shifted the topic from fairness to players to parity, I don't know how. As far as I am concerned, the ability to succeed via free agency has much less to do with cap room than it does with a solid front office with the ability to sign players who will thrive in their system. Free agency spending has ruined more teams than it has helped.