peepinmofo Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 So lets say Detroit was in talks with the few guys they are (Stafford, Smith, Curry), and a deal cant really be reached immediately. What would happen if they called someone like Andre Smith, or Mark Sanchez and said, "We will make you our top pick this year. We dont want to pay you like the number one overall, but we will pay you more than you would have made at any other draft slot." In other words, what if they contacted one of the players not mentioned to be the #1, but decided what the hell, and took a guy that was slotted 5-10? This of course would have to be made a guarantee that they would sign for less than the top 1-3 projected would get, but still more than they would have made at say spots 5-10. Would this alter the payment structure of the top picks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Hammock Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 So lets say Detroit was in talks with the few guys they are (Stafford, Smith, Curry), and a deal cant really be reached immediately. What would happen if they called someone like Andre Smith, or Mark Sanchez and said, "We will make you our top pick this year. We dont want to pay you like the number one overall, but we will pay you more than you would have made at any other draft slot." In other words, what if they contacted one of the players not mentioned to be the #1, but decided what the hell, and took a guy that was slotted 5-10? This of course would have to be made a guarantee that they would sign for less than the top 1-3 projected would get, but still more than they would have made at say spots 5-10. Would this alter the payment structure of the top picks? I like the thinking; however the flaw in this would be that no one in the top 10 would get signed at all. The agents of the top picks use the contract numbers from the first pick to start negotiating with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted April 24, 2009 Author Share Posted April 24, 2009 I like the thinking; however the flaw in this would be that no one in the top 10 would get signed at all. The agents of the top picks use the contract numbers from the first pick to start negotiating with. But they get more $ either way, so they should be thrilled this would happen - both the agent and player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 This is sorta what happened with Aaron Curry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted April 24, 2009 Author Share Posted April 24, 2009 This is sorta what happened with Aaron Curry. Yeah but Curry is almost a top 3 lock. Im talking even further down than that. And we dont really know this happened with Curry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Bryant McKinnie is a good one to ask. He's the Vikings' selection when they missed their pick and dropped down a few slots. They signed him in the middle of the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delicious_bass Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Bryant McKinnie is a good one to ask. He's the Vikings' selection when they missed their pick and dropped down a few slots. They signed him in the middle of the season. Wasnt that Kevin Williams that they took at 9 when they were slotted at 7? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 (edited) Wasnt that Kevin Williams that they took at 9 when they were slotted at 7? That could be the way. I thought that McKinnie's contract fiasco was due to the slotted issue. The Vikes were trying to sneak their pick in ahead of the Cowboys late choice when McKinnie was selected. The Vikes would've taken Ryan Sims but that was when the Chiefs "blocked" the Vikings rep on the way up to the podium. KC had an interest in the selection as well. link Edited April 24, 2009 by MikesVikes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted April 24, 2009 Author Share Posted April 24, 2009 That isnt the same scenario. Im talking about the #1 pick, and them guaranteeing someone else around slots 5-10 a higher salary then they would get, but not as high as the 1-3 guys always seem to want. Is there REALLY that much of a difference in talent in the top 10 picks? Sometimes yes, but often times no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 There's no way that any #1 pick would take less than a #7 or #8 will. It will never happen so there's no answer to the hypothetical question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted April 24, 2009 Author Share Posted April 24, 2009 There's no way that any #1 pick would take less than a #7 or #8 will. It will never happen so there's no answer to the hypothetical question. How is it taking less? I just said they would pay him MORE than he would have made at 5-10, but less than the 1-3. It makes all the sense in the world unless they are dead set on one of the guys 1-3 and are willing to spend the $$$. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 The Player selected will be the first choice in the draft. Just because he was expected to be taken 4th or 5th doesn't mean that he isn't going to want the #1 money. The player will never justify accepting less than the overall #2 or overall #3 just because he didn't think he'd be the top pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted April 24, 2009 Author Share Posted April 24, 2009 The Player selected will be the first choice in the draft. Just because he was expected to be taken 4th or 5th doesn't mean that he isn't going to want the #1 money. The player will never justify accepting less than the overall #2 or overall #3 just because he didn't think he'd be the top pick. But they would still be making more money than they would have at spot 5-10. Why WOULDNT they accept a deal like that? One good reason is all Im looking for. Regardless of what the next guy makes, they would still make more at #1 than NOT accepting a deal like that and waiting to be drafted at spots 5-10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted April 24, 2009 Author Share Posted April 24, 2009 i hear ya and like it. Like DET calling Brian Cushing and saying they'll do $10mil guaranteed instead of $40mil to Stafford. I wonder if the union would "allow" it? BINGO! to clarify, i'm sure you're saying they'd sign him BEFORE the draft. And correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcmast Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 (edited) The Player selected will be the first choice in the draft. Just because he was expected to be taken 4th or 5th doesn't mean that he isn't going to want the #1 money. The player will never justify accepting less than the overall #2 or overall #3 just because he didn't think he'd be the top pick. But they would still be making more money than they would have at spot 5-10. Why WOULDNT they accept a deal like that? One good reason is all Im looking for. Regardless of what the next guy makes, they would still make more at #1 than NOT accepting a deal like that and waiting to be drafted at spots 5-10. Before a team would try this they would have to work out the contract with the player, so he would be signing before the 2-4 players. I don't see why he wouldn't take less than the #4 if he knew it was guarenteed to be higher than he would have gotten from his original draft spot. I don't see an agent doing this as he will be known for getting less for a #1 pick than a #3 pick...although maybe he would land more 5-10 talent again??? Edited April 24, 2009 by kcmast Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Peep is looking for just one good reason for this to happen. There must not be one since it's never happened nor will it ever happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted April 24, 2009 Author Share Posted April 24, 2009 Peep is looking for just one good reason for this to happen. There must not be one since it's never happened nor will it ever happen. Whether it will or not, I still want to know opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 (edited) Last night some dude came home and told his wife that he got a hugh promotion at work. He was very excited about it. Now he gets to oversee all the employees on the 6th floor and not just the ones in his office and also that he has alot more work and responsibilities than he had before. The wife asked if he will be making more money. Dude said no. Wife said congratulations honey. Edited April 25, 2009 by MikesVikes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Dick Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 This theory actually makes a lot of sense given the landscape of the economics of the top 5 picks. Baseball has been doing this for years based on signability issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 So the Lions would take some kid who most experts have ranked outside of the top 5 and argue that since no one expected him to be drafted so high, they are not going to pay him that kind of money? Sorry, just strikes me as funny. Assuming an agent would buy into this logic, which is unlikely, I think the Lions would like everyone to forget their horrendous drafting record of recent years and this would just make them look stupid once again. Take the plunge, draft Stafford, pay him the going rate and hope he can be the franchise QB you've been missing for decades. No one can blame you for trying if it doesn't work out. Squandering the #1 pick on some lesser player because you don't want to open your wallet will just reinforce what a lot of people already believe, which is that they are a joke franchise and don't deserve to be in the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Dick Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 So the Lions would take some kid who most experts have ranked outside of the top 5 and argue that since no one expected him to be drafted so high, they are not going to pay him that kind of money? Sorry, just strikes me as funny. Assuming an agent would buy into this logic, which is unlikely, I think the Lions would like everyone to forget their horrendous drafting record of recent years and this would just make them look stupid once again. Take the plunge, draft Stafford, pay him the going rate and hope he can be the franchise QB you've been missing for decades. No one can blame you for trying if it doesn't work out. Squandering the #1 pick on some lesser player because you don't want to open your wallet will just reinforce what a lot of people already believe, which is that they are a joke franchise and don't deserve to be in the league. You are forgetting the Joey Harrington fiasco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 You are forgetting the Joey Harrington fiasco. I would call it the Matt Millen fiasco. Harrington never had a chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 So the Lions would take some kid who most experts have ranked outside of the top 5 and argue that since no one expected him to be drafted so high, they are not going to pay him that kind of money? Sorry, just strikes me as funny. Assuming an agent would buy into this logic, which is unlikely, I think the Lions would like everyone to forget their horrendous drafting record of recent years and this would just make them look stupid once again. Take the plunge, draft Stafford, pay him the going rate and hope he can be the franchise QB you've been missing for decades. No one can blame you for trying if it doesn't work out. Squandering the #1 pick on some lesser player because you don't want to open your wallet will just reinforce what a lot of people already believe, which is that they are a joke franchise and don't deserve to be in the league. This, more than any other reason is why this would never happen. The unfortunate things is, it is totally wrong but is the perspective of the fans and that is ultimately what matters. The customer, after all, is always right. This goes back to exactly what I've been saying for years now. Having a top 5, hell a top 10 pick is a bad thing. Straight up. I've analyzed past drafts and how the players ultimately turned out. There's just no marked increase in success of players picked in the top 1/3 of the round compared to either of the other 1/3s. Yes, even no better than the last 10 picks of the round. So, you can either tie up 30-50 million or 6-10 million on one of two players who are historically equally likely to turn out to be either a bust, a solid player, or a stud. This isn't just about economics, this is about being competitive because even if you have all the money in the world, there's still the cap to worry about, so you still need to spend it wisely. And getting a player who is no less likely to pan out for 1/3 or less of the money is, by definition, spending it wisely. Sure Kiper and all the rest are absolutely certain that this guy or that guy is better, but history shows that it is simply not the case. None the less, even if it is completely sound logic, if a team just flat out swapped the 3rd pick for the 15th, the fans would be outraged and want the GMs head. The fans would be wrong, but it wouldn't matter. What peep suggests is a less dramatic version of what I'm talking about but would still piss off the fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 This, more than any other reason is why this would never happen. The unfortunate things is, it is totally wrong but is the perspective of the fans and that is ultimately what matters. The customer, after all, is always right. This goes back to exactly what I've been saying for years now. Having a top 5, hell a top 10 pick is a bad thing. Straight up. I've analyzed past drafts and how the players ultimately turned out. There's just no marked increase in success of players picked in the top 1/3 of the round compared to either of the other 1/3s. Yes, even no better than the last 10 picks of the round. So, you can either tie up 30-50 million or 6-10 million on one of two players who are historically equally likely to turn out to be either a bust, a solid player, or a stud. This isn't just about economics, this is about being competitive because even if you have all the money in the world, there's still the cap to worry about, so you still need to spend it wisely. And getting a player who is no less likely to pan out for 1/3 or less of the money is, by definition, spending it wisely. Sure Kiper and all the rest are absolutely certain that this guy or that guy is better, but history shows that it is simply not the case. None the less, even if it is completely sound logic, if a team just flat out swapped the 3rd pick for the 15th, the fans would be outraged and want the GMs head. The fans would be wrong, but it wouldn't matter. What peep suggests is a less dramatic version of what I'm talking about but would still piss off the fans. One could argue that the teams drafting in the top ten are there because of poor coaching and/or management, so those players are going into a more difficult situation to succeed. One could most definitely make that argument about the Lions in recent years. And by the same token, the players drafted in the 20s and up are going to better teams where there is less pressure to turn a franchise around in one year, and better personnel from whom to learn the pro game. I think there is far too much "bust" labeling of players and not nearly enough blame placed on horrible coaches and shortsighted management who can completely dismantle a young player's confidence. Within two or three years a kid in that environment might completely bust out because he no longer even believes he can play. He stops working as hard and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. He gets labeled a bust when he never had a chance, he was surrounded by incompetence and got poisoned by it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 (edited) One could argue that the teams drafting in the top ten are there because of poor coaching and/or management, so those players are going into a more difficult situation to succeed. One could most definitely make that argument about the Lions in recent years. And by the same token, the players drafted in the 20s and up are going to better teams where there is less pressure to turn a franchise around in one year, and better personnel from whom to learn the pro game. I think there is far too much "bust" labeling of players and not nearly enough blame placed on horrible coaches and shortsighted management who can completely dismantle a young player's confidence. Within two or three years a kid in that environment might completely bust out because he no longer even believes he can play. He stops working as hard and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. He gets labeled a bust when he never had a chance, he was surrounded by incompetence and got poisoned by it. There's plenty to this but what also can't be discounted is the minute differences that must exist between the 1st and 5th best players (especially when you consider how little consensus there is among scouts) among the already very selected and elite that have played at the college ranks. Is the likelihood of the guy rated #1 at his position making it 3-5x better than the guy rated #5? Because that's the what you're paying in terms of odds. Certainly you have to blame the inept management for the fact that Det and Oak have been picking in the top 5 for a number of years in a row now but it also can't help that they're forced to tie up an inordinate amount of their cap space on the most unproven of all players. Meanwhile other teams are only needing to fork over 2-3 mil per year for their top rookies, and thus able to open up the pocket book to either keep their veterans or lure coveted FAs. We talk about how savvy Pitt and NE are to stay competitive picking from the back of the draft every year but maybe they're actually being given an "unfair" advantage. Also, considering free agency, few teams find themselves stuck at the top of the draft year after year. There's just not that many teams that have that culture of failure you speak of. Certainly Detroit does come to mind. Edited April 25, 2009 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.