Re: OT: Larry Johnson wanting Tomlinson money - Like Asante situation wanting Clement
When you can make something more equitable, you try to do it. Saying life isn't fair is just an excuse. No one asked for completely fair. I don't know why we're generalizing like this.
I never said the NFL should adopt the ENTIRE NBA system. I said they should adopt the same restrictions on free agency after the first contract. Big difference.
I'd say my suggestions do this a great deal better than the current system.
It's like I'm repeating myself at this point. I said the first rounders. 32. Heck, baseball keeps guys in servitude for 6 years. All I'm saying is that the top draft choices earn say $1 million for 3 years before their next contract. Not too much to ask.
Yes. It really doesn't matter to me that it's not a big part of the pie. I'm talking about the ludicrous fact that Gallery makes so much.
Every NFL team has baggage from these first round contracts. There aren't many Rodney Harrisons out there either, UDFAs performing at a high level. I'd say there are just as many Gallery's out there as Harrisons.
Fair is something that comes to your county in the summertime and gives out blue ribbons for pies.
No rule is necessary to regulate the money paid to first-round draft choices. The teams pay them on the expectation they can play. And their rookie deals aren't even stratospheric compared to the vets who strike it rich.
Yeah, it is weird. Especially the way a #1 #1 gets paid, compared to the guys down at the end where we usually draft. And no, nobody wants a rookie holdout situation... but if teams want to control those contracts, they have to fight the battle with the draft picks as they come in. Unfortunately, by the time a team is picking high in the first round, it is desperate and looks at its high draft pick in messianic terms. Look at the Maroney deal: less than 9M for 5 years (with much of that guaranteed, granted.) That's shy of 2M APY. A number 1 overall pick is another story, of course. But even Mario Williams' deal comes out to $20M and change (I think,) again, much of it in the form of a 12M bonus this year. Still, that's not the money a proven vet gets, even a halfway decent vet (not even a superstar), in free agency.
The teams are weighing risk and reward, and guaranteeing themselves that those blue-chip guys that really
are blue-chip guys are actually
cheap, in terms relative to the cost of the equivalent "proven" product. I do agree that bringing down that cost, if it is excessive in comparison to the value the players provide on average, may be appropriate. But the notion of enforcing a ceiling on these contracts strikes me as out of step with the free agency/salary cap era.
All you get when you "pick" a guy is exclusive negotiating rights. If he wants to play in the NFL, he still has to play for
you.
So the question's not whether it's "fair," the question is whether your team gets decent return on investments come draft time. A team picking first over and over again obviously is not getting the ROI it would expect, and needs to look at its scouting and front office for solutions.
PFnV
