A thought I had regarding the NFL draft

[Puddy]

As time has gone by it seems that many teams view getting the number one pick (or top five) as somewhat of a curse due to the high cost of that pick. It has become obvious that most years it is next to impossible to trade down in the draft, simply due to the financial stranglehold that can put a franchise in. I do not know the history of the draft or when the salary cap was instituted. I believe the idea for the worst team from the previous year to get the top pick was intended to help the bad teams get better to level the playing field. I'm also guessing this idea was instituted many years ago.

 

Then later, another seemingly good idea was created to further enhance competitive balance in the NFL...the salary cap. Many would argue that it has been successful in that regard (look how many teams rotate in and out of the playoffs...not counting my Lions). However, this salary cap seems to have a negative impact on getting one of the top picks in the draft due to the financial commitment that must be made to the top picks.

 

So my idea is...let the teams pick the position they will draft out of in the following rookie draft. If a team just committed $40 million of guaranteed money to the previous years top pick and ended up with a top 3 or 4 pick the following year, it can have a large chunk of it's salary cap committed to a couple of players who may not even play to their draft position.

 

So if the idea is to help the worst team in the league the following year why not ask them where they want to draft. The days of "...they can get the best player in the draft" may not make sense any longer. Maybe they'd rather have the 10th best player since the salary cap inhibits what else they can do.

 

Am I nuts

Edited January 3, 2010 by Puddy

[The Mucca]

Rookie Salary Caps would be the best way, that way the worst teams still

get the best players.

[Chargerz]

Rookie Salary Caps would be the best way, that way the worst teams still

get the best players.

That issue may be on the table right now in the negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement.

[Infinity]

I personally am a huge fan of the way things work out. It's exciting when you see a unexpected team do big things. I figure that if a team stinks enough years they will have enough really solid players to start winning games.....Example : The Detroit Lions, i love watching them play because you don't know what to expect out of a Stafford/Johnson/Smith type offensive attack.

[FloppyMex]

There's actually a pretty famous article, "The Loser's Curse," which shows how much of a disadvantage a 1st round pick is:

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200605/football-sidebar

 

This makes sense. The amount invested in 1st rounders is preposterous relative to their potential impact. By definition, the majority of players will be busts in one way or another, so the value of a 2nd rounder is off the charts (picked slightly behind players graded with 1st-round grades, while paying virtually nothing in contract comparison). Once again, the Patriots perfectly exemplify knowing the statistics and odds to this system and constantly churn out their 1st rounders for 2nd rounders. It was interesting that last year when they traded away Matt Cassel, many analysts believed they could have gotten a much higher pick for a player that had shown the ability to be an NFL starter. The Patriots getting the last laugh, of course, did get what they valued the most-a 2nd round pick.

 

This system is extremely unfair for teams picking near the top of the 1st round. We can be cynical, and say those franchises need better management, but it's exactly their poor management that puts them in those spots. Look to Cleveland, Detroit, and Oakland as the quintessential examples of teams that have dug themselves into decade-long holes. Obviously making a wrong selection should be punished, but the way the system is set up, the punishment is just too severe when the league goes out of its way to create artificial parity (hard cap, unbalanced schedules).

 

What I wish more than anything, is for one of these crappy franchises to rock the vote and say screw it, we refuse to make the pick-we can't afford to be wrong. Of course, avoiding this embarrassment and protecting the shield is far more important to every team league wide; so it will never happen. Hopefully the upcoming labor talks can lead to a solution.

[Skilly]

Remember, the owners don't HAVE to throw those ridiculous contract offers at rookies. There is no mandate that says how much a team has to pay it's first round draft pick...that is why they need a rookie salary cap, to protect the owners from their dumb-ass selves.

[buddahj]

Remember, the owners don't HAVE to throw those ridiculous contract offers at rookies. There is no mandate that says how much a team has to pay it's first round draft pick...that is why they need a rookie salary cap, to protect the owners from their dumb-ass selves.

+1

these rookies are getting so much money & haven't proved anything @ the pro level. the should call it the "russell rule".

Edited January 3, 2010 by buddahj

[Chavez]

Rookie Salary Caps would be the best way, that way the worst teams still

get the best players prospects.

Fixed.

[whomper]

Remember, the owners don't HAVE to throw those ridiculous contract offers at rookies. There is no mandate that says how much a team has to pay it's first round draft pick...that is why they need a rookie salary cap, to protect the owners from their dumb-ass selves.

 

 

True , but then you run the risk of a Crabtree situation. Unless a rookie cap is put in, somebody that got taken lower in a draft is going to get paid and the bar gets set.

[Duchess Jack]

I have a redraft league where we do this, because the first person out of the hat might want the fourth guy and a better wrap-around

[LosGatosEnFuegos]

True , but then you run the risk of a Crabtree situation. Unless a rookie cap is put in, somebody that got taken lower in a draft is going to get paid and the bar gets set.

The Crabtree situation was only a disaster if you take a very shortsighted view. The 49ers lost him for a few weeks and his development was delayed, oh no! But he has already started making an impact and his career potential is just as high as it was before. The team didn't need to pay him for weeks missed, which would not have been very productive weeks anyway. I'd say this worked out just fine for the 49ers in the long run, which is what floundering organizations need to start focusing on instead of getting top picks and paying them too much money to get them suited up immediately.

 

Anyone interested in this topic should read Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game by Michael Lewis. It's about Billy Beane's time as GM of the Oakland A's and how he fielded a great team year in and year out that made consistent playoff appearances while keeping the team salary lower than almost every other team in the league. A very good read.

[wolfer]

it's not just a salary cap that's needed. Contracts can have up to 7 'incentives' or performance markers they can hit to trigger more money. Agents can dodge the fine print of a collective agreement to maximize dollars for the player who hasn't played one down of NFL football yet.

 

Add a salary cap, but also limit the bonuses and other ridiculous clauses that crop up nowadays.

[Ursa Majoris]

Rookie Salary Caps would be the best way, that way the worst teams still

get the best players.

+1. The NFLPA should be all in favor of this because if salary caps stay as they are there will be more money for the veterans. I wonder if agents would try to challenge a rookie scale in court?