If you're not enamoured with who's on the table, why not pass?

[Caveman_Nick]

Every team would have a chance at every player to fill their needs as they saw fit.

 

:divingboard:

[Bronco Billy]

Just as a matter of interest, is there any level of underhanded corporate trickery you wouldn't support?

 

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

Trickery? Where's the trickery? One team slipping provides opportunities for others. It's all calculated risk. At the end of the day, is any less paid out to players as a whole? I don't see where trickery comes into this.

 

Do you think it's above-board that teams need to shell out tens of millions to get a completely untested player they drafted to even step on the field for them? This goes both ways and quite frankly is a natural and rational response to agents abusing the teams in the upper half of the draft.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[NAUgrad]

Non-issue. Rookie cap. It doesn't matter how much money your team makes, you can only spend so much of that on rookies. And, again, you give the last place team the biggest rookie cap and move down from there. Problem solved.

Not sure if it would work that well, but it definitely is creative. Certainly something to think about.

 

One issue that comes to mind is what's to stop a team from not spending the majority of their rookie cap and being a perennial bottom feeder. This may also be a non-issue, but after this last year were it appeared some teams like Carolina did everything they could do drop salary and just let players go.

[BearBroncos]

Every team would have a chance at every player to fill their needs as they saw fit.

 

:divingboard:

 

And how would that be fair for GB to have access to a Robert Quinn or Von Miller when a team like Cleveland need that position filled a hell of allot more then GB does! That's why GB is the 32nd pick because they are national champions and don't really need a allot of new talent at any specific postion. If they do, they can find a way to trade up at the cost of additional draft picks.

[detlef]

Trickery? Where's the trickery? One team slipping provides opportunities for others. It's all calculated risk. At the end of the day, is any less paid out to players as a whole? I don't see where trickery comes into this.

 

Do you think it's above-board that teams need to shell out tens of millions to get a completely untested player they drafted to even step on the field for them? This goes both ways and quite frankly is a natural and rational response to agents abusing the teams in the upper half of the draft.

On this I completely agree. And, technically, nobody is getting ripped off. Assuming that each pick is slotted to a salary (which they essentially already are and will be regardless of what comes out of the negotiations, even if it's not specific and prescribed by the CBA), then somebody, ultimately, will get picked in that 4th spot that the Bengals vacated and will be able to demand what the Bengals were going to have to pay for whomever they would have picked there. Then, the Bengals will pay whatever they 10th pick (or whatever pick they end up selecting from) goes for.

 

That assumes that the agents even play ball in this regard. But that's the "worst case scenario" for the players as "victims" of this "trickery".

[detlef]

Not sure if it would work that well, but it definitely is creative. Certainly something to think about.

 

One issue that comes to mind is what's to stop a team from not spending the majority of their rookie cap and being a perennial bottom feeder. This may also be a non-issue, but after this last year were it appeared some teams like Carolina did everything they could do drop salary and just let players go.

Each team has a salary floor. They already do. You need to spend the money on someone. If you ignore the rookie auction/FA thingy, then you need to go out and sign some Vets. You can't not spend it somewhere.

 

And how would that be fair for GB to have access to a Robert Quinn or Von Miller when a team like Cleveland need that position filled a hell of allot more then GB does! That's why GB is the 32nd pick because they are national champions and don't really need a allot of new talent at any specific postion. If they do, they can find a way to trade up at the cost of additional draft picks.

You might think that Robert Quinn or Von Miller is markedly better than whomever the 3rd or 4th rated guy at that position is, but history shows that there are plenty of elite players and plenty of busts taken at every spot in the 1st round. At very least, Quinn or Miller aren't 3-5x more likely to succeed as whatever DL or LB who comes off the board at 32. Yet, Cleveland has no choice but to pay that.

 

And, again, if CLE wants Quinn, they can out-bid GB for them. In fact, assuming those names come up before either team has won any other auctions, it will be impossible for GB to out-bid CLE if CLE truly wants the player, because they'll have a higher rookie cap.

 

The fact is, teams like NE and Pitt and Indy may actually be given an advantage by the current system because they're not being forced to spend a ton of money on the most unproven players in the league.

Edited April 14, 2011 by detlef

[Furd]

You have options: Choose not to report. Or just holdout like the NFL players do and see how quickly the company will bow to your demands.

 

 

is that a roundabout way of admitting that the scheme does not engender feelings of goodwill toward the employer?

[detlef]

is that a roundabout way of admitting that the scheme does not engender feelings of goodwill toward the employer?

This assumes that 1) the team ends up with the exact same player at pick 8 as they would have at pick 4 and 2) that the player absolutely knows they would have taken him at 4 rather than someone else. And 3) that player has any right to feel slighted by the fact that he was unable to take advantage of the fact that, despite the market saying he's the 8th most coveted guy in the board, he almost got lucky and went 4th because that happened to be the the spot where the team who wanted him the most was originally slotted.

 

At the end of the day, if he was really the 4th best player on the board, he'd go 4th. Now someone else will.

 

What remains entirely unchanged is that someone gets picked at every spot in the draft and gets paid what they get paid.

 

Would it be "sleazy" if Cinci just called up the team picking #8 and just offered to swap picks, maybe asking for something like a 7th round pick in 3 years just to pretend that they were actually "getting something" for the pick? It's the same difference. Would the player they ultimately chose at #8 have any right to be slighted by that move? Would the guy who got chosen at #4 have any right to be pissed, knowing that Cinci would rather move back in the draft than take him?

 

Again, nobody loses. Cinci moves back, someone else moves up.

 

ETA: But, of course, this could all be so much easier and tidier if Cinci, feeling that they liked all the guys ranked from #3-#10 the same could just decide what they're willing to pay for any of them and bid accordingly. Bowing out of any auction once the price got higher than they were willing to spend. And if they all got too high, well there's 7 teams against whom they'll have a significant advantage bidding against when the next name comes up.

Edited April 14, 2011 by detlef

[NAUgrad]

Each team has a salary floor. They already do. You need to spend the money on someone. If you ignore the rookie auction/FA thingy, then you need to go out and sign some Vets. You can't not spend it somewhere.

I'm with you and would make sense, but keep in mind last year there was not a floor and a couple of teams spent below what would've been the floor if it existed.

[detlef]

I'm with you and would make sense, but keep in mind last year there was not a floor and a couple of teams spent below what would've been the floor if it existed.

Of course. However, there was one right up until last year and there will almost assuredly be one in whatever agreement results in football being played again.

 

One of the ways the NFL is selling a rookie cap or scale to the players is that it will result in more money for veterans. And the only way they can make that promise have any validity at all is to impose a salary floor. The players (and their lawyers) would have to be naive as hell to accept the rookie cap without a total salary floor.

[BearBroncos]

You might think that Robert Quinn or Von Miller is markedly better than whomever the 3rd or 4th rated guy at that position is, but history shows that there are plenty of elite players and plenty of busts taken at every spot in the 1st round. At very least, Quinn or Miller aren't 3-5x more likely to succeed as whatever DL or LB who comes off the board at 32. Yet, Cleveland has no choice but to pay that.

 

And, again, if CLE wants Quinn, they can out-bid GB for them. In fact, assuming those names come up before either team has won any other auctions, it will be impossible for GB to out-bid CLE if CLE truly wants the player, because they'll have a higher rookie cap.

 

The fact is, teams like NE and Pitt and Indy may actually be given an advantage by the current system because they're not being forced to spend a ton of money on the most unproven players in the league.

 

The only benefit I could see to an auction style draft would be teams would be less likely to tank for draft positions but I still don't see why a team with a good capital stream should be able to have access to potential top ten draft players. It takes teams that are rebuilding and makes it that much more difficult to those needing players because now you’re fighting 32 other teams. Just think where Bradford would have ended up if this scenario was in place.... Dallas? San Fran? Minnesota? Bradford has taken a last place team and nearly put them into the playoffs last year... Granted, their division sucked but from worst to nearly winning their division. 1 player CAN make the difference. And yes, there is that potential for another Russell or Leaf but that's what the rookie cap is trying to mitigate.

 

I think this style only turns the NFL into a monopoly of a few sound teams, i.e. NYG, DAL, PIT etc.

[Bronco Billy]

is that a roundabout way of admitting that the scheme does not engender feelings of goodwill toward the employer?

 

Maybe. On the other hand, maybe not.

[Ursa Majoris]

Trickery? Where's the trickery? One team slipping provides opportunities for others. It's all calculated risk. At the end of the day, is any less paid out to players as a whole? I don't see where trickery comes into this.

 

Do you think it's above-board that teams need to shell out tens of millions to get a completely untested player they drafted to even step on the field for them? This goes both ways and quite frankly is a natural and rational response to agents abusing the teams in the upper half of the draft.

I was referring to Furd's example and your response. Most people would think that a fairly wretched trick and generally dishonest.

 

It took a long time to drag you kicking and screaming into a reluctant admission that the NFL's deliberate underpayment to the players in order to amass a warchest from the TV networks wasn't exactly kosher.

 

I was just wondering if there is any level of corporate shenanigans aimed at screwing employees over that you wouldn't applaud.

[Bronco Billy]

I was referring to Furd's example and your response. Most people would think that a fairly wretched trick and generally dishonest.

 

It took a long time to drag you kicking and screaming into a reluctant admission that the NFL's deliberate underpayment to the players in order to amass a warchest from the TV networks wasn't exactly kosher.

 

I was just wondering if there is any level of corporate shenanigans aimed at screwing employees over that you wouldn't applaud.

 

Have you been drinking already? I took the absurd hypothetical one step further with a NFL analogy, no more.

 

Cheers!

[detlef]

The only benefit I could see to an auction style draft would be teams would be less likely to tank for draft positions but I still don't see why a team with a good capital stream should be able to have access to potential top ten draft players. It takes teams that are rebuilding and makes it that much more difficult to those needing players because now you’re fighting 32 other teams. Just think where Bradford would have ended up if this scenario was in place.... Dallas? San Fran? Minnesota? Bradford has taken a last place team and nearly put them into the playoffs last year... Granted, their division sucked but from worst to nearly winning their division. 1 player CAN make the difference. And yes, there is that potential for another Russell or Leaf but that's what the rookie cap is trying to mitigate.

 

I think this style only turns the NFL into a monopoly of a few sound teams, i.e. NYG, DAL, PIT etc.

OK, you need to forget the capital stream because it is absolutely a non-factor. The rookie cap for everyone would be low enough that the profitability of every team would not be a factor. And why doesn't this economic disparity already tilt the tables? Free Agents are a far better bet than rookies and it's open season for them. Would you rather spend $10 million a year for a guy who's proven himself at the pro-level or for a kid who's never played a down? Besides, Dallas is probably the most profitable team in the league and they've won like 1 play-off game in over 10 years.

 

You can't complain about rich, big-market teams swooping in and snapping up all the best rookies when your last comment specifically referenced Green Bay and this one mentions Pitt of all teams.

 

To be honest, I think tanking would actually start to be a concern because teams might actually want to be in the top slot. A bigger rookie cap may actually be a far greater advantage in improving your team through the rookie class than being slotted in a specific spot and having your hand forced as it currently is. Trust me, the last teams who would want this are the teams who have been getting rich by feasting on the nature of the current system.

 

Everyone loves to bring up Bradford, but keep one thing in mind, as great as he seems to be turning out, he wasn't the no-brainer pick that, say Payton Manning was. STL needed a QB and he was the best QB on the board, but, given his injuries, and questions about whether or not he was a system guy made that pick anything but a "OK, now STL is getting the golden ticket" pick.

 

The NFL could make the difference between the cap space for the best and worst teams big enough to all but assure that the worst teams will get their pick of whom they want. At least compared to the best teams. That the disparity is so great that GB would literally have to pull what Ditka did with Ricky Williams and essentially forfeit the rest of their draft if they truly want to outbid CLE for Von Miller or some such. They'd have to blow 90% of their rookie cap to offer what would cost CLE maybe 50-60% of theirs. Something like that. Which is basically something that could already happen. If GB was hell-bent on moving up ahead of CLE and pick up Miller or Quinn, they could offer up the rest of their picks and someone would surely bite.

Edited April 14, 2011 by detlef

[detlef]

auction would also eliminate holdouts and every rookie could report on day one!

Well, in fairness, so would slotting the picks to set salary amounts. So that is not a net-gain from the switch.

[detlef]

Ultimately, the only way the NFL could make the draft as effective a tool for teams to rebuild as giving them a drastic competitive advantage in an open bidding or FA system would be to make the difference between what the top picks and last picks of the first round really, really small. And that just completely hoses the best players.

 

Congratulations. Because you've proven yourself to be among the best players entering the league, you get to play for a crappy team and make barely more than a guy who has been given a much greater chance to ultimately succeed by being surrounded by other talented players not having his head kicked in on a crappy team.

 

Sounds great.

 

Sure, it would help the league be more competitive across the board, but I think that asks a bit much of the players.

[BearBroncos]

There was absolutely a question about Bradfords past injuries and his ability to hold up in the NFL, but 99% of all analyst where calling Bradford a "once in a life time" pick. He was very sought after and there was no way that STL was going to move out of that position.

 

Under your scenario, STL would have to pony up the capital to match everyone else’s bids which could have driven Bradfords price even further or more guarantees. Your basically making it to where Bradford gets the option where he wants to play (not that he doesn't have that option now, but it's a hell of allot more difficult).

 

I like the thought of shaking up the draft, but I just think an auction style draft only hurts the smaller franchises.

 

I'm also curious to why your mocked my reference of GB and Pitt? GB is the smaller of franchise but their merchandise revenues are near the top end. Heck, Dallas could never receive another dime of TV revenues or ticket sales and they would still be one of the richest teams in the NFL with their merchandise revenue alone.

[Big John]

I'm also curious to why your mocked my reference of GB and Pitt? GB is the smaller of franchise but their merchandise revenues are near the top end. Heck, Dallas could never receive another dime of TV revenues or ticket sales and they would still be one of the richest teams in the NFL with their merchandise revenue alone.

Revenue from licensed merchandise sales are also shared amongst all teams.

[detlef]

There was absolutely a question about Bradfords past injuries and his ability to hold up in the NFL, but 99% of all analyst where calling Bradford a "once in a life time" pick. He was very sought after and there was no way that STL was going to move out of that position.

 

Under your scenario, STL would have to pony up the capital to match everyone else’s bids which could have driven Bradfords price even further or more guarantees. Your basically making it to where Bradford gets the option where he wants to play (not that he doesn't have that option now, but it's a hell of allot more difficult).

 

I like the thought of shaking up the draft, but I just think an auction style draft only hurts the smaller franchises.

 

I'm also curious to why your mocked my reference of GB and Pitt? GB is the smaller of franchise but their merchandise revenues are near the top end. Heck, Dallas could never receive another dime of TV revenues or ticket sales and they would still be one of the richest teams in the NFL with their merchandise revenue alone.

I honestly don't think you understand what I'm saying at all. For starters, Bradford would have no-more say in an auction format that he would in a draft format. In an auction format, the highest bid wins. He gets what the highest bid is from whomever it is. Further, it would only drive his price up as much as the limitations of what each team's cap allows. The SB Champ and other top teams would have to sacrifice their entire draft for one guy (just like they don't do now in terms of trading way up in the draft). So, if a player comes along that is really that coveted, only those teams with the worst records, and thus the most money allowed to spend on rookies, would have a realistic shot at him.

 

Like I said before, STL could match GB's absolute best offer and still have plenty of money left to spend on other rookies. That effectively removes GB from even being a player for Bradford unless they're prepared to come out of the draft with only one guy. And even still, St. Louis could still out-bid them.

 

On the other hand, in seasons where there is no Bradford, when the "best" player is Alex Smith, then he'll be easy pickings for whomever wants him and teams can shave their money for the veteran FA period as opposed to one team being forced to take him #1, because someone has to pick #1 and pay some kid whom they're not excited about a bunch of money.

[BearBroncos]

Your probably right in that I'm missing the boat on what you’re saying. I'm trying to grasp it but I think my analytical mind keeps side tracking me. I'll keep reading your post and think if it makes sense and or see if it's being discussed out on the net to gather some various opinions. Who knows, maybe I'll be on board with more information!

[Bronco Billy]

Are you asking Det to elaborate?

 

[BearBroncos]

Are you asking Det to elaborate?

 

No, not at all. I think the more we go down this road, the more confused I get. I'd rather look at it from another supporting perspective and see if maybe I can get the gist of it... Otherwise, I'll just walk away like nothing ever happened

[detlef]

What's more, having teams pick in order requires some pretty lame things like flipping a coin to determine who gets to pick first among two teams with the same record.

 

Imagine if there's a significant drop-off in how much the guys are coveted? One guy gets Drew Bledsoe, the other gets Rick Mirer by virtue of winning a coin flip.

 

If there was a bidding process and teams were given an advantage due to how they finished, there'd be no reason why every team with the same record couldn't get the same amount of rookie cap space.

 

Say the last place team gets $30 million and the SB Champ gets $15 million (just throwing numbers out there) and everyone else got something in between. If teams 4-8 have the same record, they all get the average of what slots 4-8 would be allotted individually.

[detlef]

Oh the irony. If there's one guy here at the huddle who is no place to make a big deal about my "tomes", it is you.