Rationale behind compensatory draft picks?

[BTTA]

Why can't the kid who first took the toys now bully his way and take all the pops he wants….like Goodell?

In the analogy, the kids are the teams, and Mom is the collection of owners, represented by Goodell.

 

[IcyPatriot]

It punishes the stupid who just have to have expensive, shiny toys each spring. That's why the Pats rule with the concept. Best thing the NFL did.

Well said ... I like it.
Any idea that is exploitable by Belichick ... I like.

 

[JMC00]

The Patriots did bid, and quite hard, for both Revis and Talib.

At no time did they bid "quite hard" on either.

Talib tested the market and didn't like it and came back on a 1 year deal.
In '14 it's questionable if they even offered him a serious deal when they knew Revis was hitting the market.
Which for Revis it was either the Pats or jests, with the jests saying no Pats very easily won the Revis sweepstakes.
As for last year they knew Revis was gone. Ya they offered him a deal but they were all in on him if they were the option would have been picked up and then they would have worked out a deal

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

At no time did they bid "quite hard" on either.

Talib tested the market and didn't like it and came back on a 1 year deal.
In '14 it's questionable if they even offered him a serious deal when they knew Revis was hitting the market.
Which for Revis it was either the Pats or jests, with the jests saying no Pats very easily won the Revis sweepstakes.
As for last year they knew Revis was gone. Ya they offered him a deal but they were all in on him if they were the option would have been picked up and then they would have worked out a deal

Aqib Talib ‘Definitely Came Close’ To Re-Signing With Patriots In Offseason

It is well known the Patriots stayed in negotiations to drive up the price on Revis, which was the point I was referring to.

 

[GodBrady]

I don't think compensation picks make sense in the NFL.

Look at baseball: compensation picks in MLB make a lot of sense, because it's not a level playing field. Teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, et al. have payroll double/triple some of the small market teams. For teams like the Pirates, Athletics, or Rays, they're bound to lose star players to large market teams. Compensation picks help balance things out a little bit.

In the NFL though, everyone is playing by the same salary cap rules. Every team can afford to utilize all of their cap space (and not only that, there's a salary floor that they must meet). Yes, teams often lose players that they can't fit under their salary cap, but it's never because of a payroll disadvantage.

Anyway, Belichick works the system well, and we generally benefit from it. Obviously I love all of these extra picks. Objectively though, I don't really think the system makes a ton of sense.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I don't think compensation picks make sense in the NFL.

Look at baseball: compensation picks in MLB make a lot of sense, because it's not a level playing field. Teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, et al. have payroll double/triple some of the small market teams. For teams like the Pirates, Athletics, or Rays, they're bound to lose star players to large market teams. Compensation picks help balance things out a little bit.

In the NFL though, everyone is playing by the same salary cap rules. Every team can afford to utilize all of their cap space (and not only that, there's a salary floor that they must meet). Yes, teams often lose players that they can't fit under their salary cap, but it's never because of a payroll disadvantage.

Anyway, Belichick works the system well, and we generally benefit from it. Obviously I love all of these extra picks. Objectively though, I don't really think the system makes a ton of sense.

This is exactly right. Compensatory picks made sense back when there was no salary cap, with teams getting compensated to level the playing field against higher spenders. I think the Talib/Revis example illustrates this perfectly. The Patriots net a third-round pick for "not being able to sign" Talib, as that was the original intent of the rule, and then they go out and sign a more expensive cornerback a day later.

 

[Sicilian]

It's the same rationale behind giving the worst team the highest draft pick: To give bad teams some extra avenues to escape their own soul-crushing ineptitude. If a team stinks, and free agents flee them like rich white women on the Titanic, they get a little consolation prize to help them try to pull out of the gutter.

I like it, not only because the Patriots are good at incorporating it into their strategy, but also because when all the rules drive the league to parity, a team with extended success (like our team) just looks that much more impressive.

 

[fourhour]

How many what?

Picks! The NYFL enjoys taking them from the Pats too!

 

[GodBrady]

I like it, not only because the Patriots are good at incorporating it into their strategy, but also because when all the rules drive the league to parity, a team with extended success (like our team) just looks that much more impressive.

Are you really trying to spin compensation picks as some sort of parity-driven obstacle the Patriots have to overcome?

We are quite arguably (and in my opinion) the most well-run franchise in football, and yes, being a modern day dynasty with the current rules is an unbelievable accomplishment. But compensation picks, as they are currently incorporated into the modern NFL, are way too exploitable and hurt, not help, parity.

I hope we ride this gravy train as long as it lasts, but if I were on the competition committee I would fine tune the logic. Free agents nearly always sign with the highest bidder, and the teams that can bid the highest are more often than not the ****ty ones (e.g. teams with most cap space right now are the 49ers, Jaguars, Browns, Titans -- all laughingstocks).

 

[BTTA]

Picks! The NYFL enjoys taking them from the Pats too!

Yes, for supposed violations of rules. How does that relate to the compensatory picks? Is that the connection you are making?

 

[BradyFTW!]

The way I've always thought of it is that it rewards teams for properly developing talent, even in the event that that talent leaves and signs elsewhere.

In general, I'll always be for policies that reward teams that develop talent well. Teams that can't develop talent for **** already have more than enough built-in advantage, in that they're drafting at the top of every round and have tons of cap space to lure other teams' players since they aren't spending that space extending their own guys.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Are you really trying to spin compensation picks as some sort of parity-driven obstacle the Patriots have to overcome?

We are quite arguably (and in my opinion) the most well-run franchise in football, and yes, being a modern day dynasty with the current rules is an unbelievable accomplishment. But compensation picks, as they are currently incorporated into the modern NFL, are way too exploitable and hurt, not help, parity.

I hope we ride this gravy train as long as it lasts, but if I were on the competition committee I would fine tune the logic. Free agents nearly always sign with the highest bidder, and the teams that can bid the highest are more often than not the ****ty ones (e.g. teams with most cap space right now are the 49ers, Jaguars, Browns, Titans -- all laughingstocks).

There's a common cause there. They suck and have a ton of cap space for the same fundamental reason: because they aren't developing drafting and developing well, which means they don't have to spend their money extending their own young players coming out of their rookie deals. As a result, they have a bunch of money to lure talent away from other teams that do develop it well.

If I spend four years developing a bunch of young mid-round players into starter-caliber talent, just for the Browns to swoop in and sign a couple of them because they've ****ed up their last 3 draft classes like always, then I'm going to be pretty pissed. I think it's totally fair to argue that the team that developed all of that talent deserves some kind of compensation for its efforts.

 

[fourhour]

Yes, for supposed violations of rules. How does that relate to the compensatory picks? Is that the connection you are making?

I asked simple farken question. Please feel free to answer or ignore it!

 

[BTTA]

I asked simple farken question. Please feel free to answer or ignore it!

I'm trying. You are asking if the Patriots have lost any compensatory picks? I've never heard of anyone losing a comp pick, which is why I'm trying to figure out precisely what you are asking about.

 

[eom]

it might not be as bad as baseball, but there are always markets that would be inherently more attractive to fa, so there'd be a built in flow of fa away from the crap markets towards the more attractive teams, whether that's 'cuz of weather, winning, spending, size of markets + endorsements, or whatever.

so, this way even if the crap markets have a built in disadvantage in bidding for their own fa they get some compensation when the guy leaves to even things out + keep the markets more competitive.

smart teams are just smart about leveraging anything they can leverage.