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

[Ursa Majoris]

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.

What happens if two or more teams go the whole hog, bidding to the salary cap level for that player?

[Bronco Billy]

What happens if two or more teams go the whole hog, bidding to the salary cap level for that player?

 

Flip a coin

[detlef]

What happens if two or more teams go the whole hog, bidding to the salary cap level for that player?

There are no ties in live auctions. There's an auctioneer who recognizes the first person to bid whatever price they bid. If there are no raises they win the auction. I don't see why this would be any different.

 

People have been auctioning off things for all time and "ties" have never been an issue.

 

ETA: Lastly, once nobody has enough money to bid the rookie minimum for anyone, the "draft" is over. Towards the end, when teams don't have much money left, dudes will just start throwing out rookie minimum bids and will likely get them uncontested because everyone is just going down their personal wish list. If you're the last team left with any money, you just grab who you want at rookie minimum. You could come out of the draft with 20 dudes if you lay off the early round bidding wars.

Edited April 14, 2011 by detlef

[bpwallace49]

There are no ties in live auctions. There's an auctioneer who recognizes the first person to bid whatever price they bid. If there are no raises they win the auction. I don't see why this would be any different.

 

People have been auctioning off things for all time and "ties" have never been an issue.

 

There is an issue if there is a defined limit on what everyone can spend. Hence if all teams have say . . 3 million. And 4 teams all bid the max of 3 million for the same player, how do you separate the bids? You cant OVERbid.

[detlef]

There is an issue if there is a defined limit on what everyone can spend. Hence if all teams have say . . 3 million. And 4 teams all bid the max of 3 million for the same player, how do you separate the bids? You cant OVERbid.

Have you ever been to an auction? At every bid, the auctioneer recognizes someone as the first to make the bid. How is this any different than an auction where you can bid however much you want but nobody is willing to raise? Who gets it then? The dude who was recognized as the first to make that bid. Bidders have paddles and the auctioneer has spotters. First dude to bid is the bid. Everyone else can suck it. If you can raise, go ahead. If you can't, you're screwed, you'll need to find someone else to spend your money on.

 

Hell, you could use electronic buttons that would make it clear without a doubt, who was the first team to bid, in this case, 3 million.

Edited April 14, 2011 by detlef

[Furd]

[AdrianPeterson] Auction? [/AdrianPeterson]

[detlef]

Alex, I'll take "The rapists" for $200.

 

*sigh* That's "Therapists".

OK, so we have Lord Opie with $200 for Big Ben. Do I hear $225?

[detlef]

[AdrianPeterson] Auction? [/AdrianPeterson]

I was waiting for that. Sure, sounds pretty "slave-like". Then again, is it really any different than a fixed rookie salary structure like the NBA? You are slotted to a non-negotiable "price" depending on where you were taken. From there, you have two choices. You take the money and play or you find another way to make a living.

[Ursa Majoris]

There are no ties in live auctions. There's an auctioneer who recognizes the first person to bid whatever price they bid. If there are no raises they win the auction. I don't see why this would be any different.

 

People have been auctioning off things for all time and "ties" have never been an issue.

 

ETA: Lastly, once nobody has enough money to bid the rookie minimum for anyone, the "draft" is over. Towards the end, when teams don't have much money left, dudes will just start throwing out rookie minimum bids and will likely get them uncontested because everyone is just going down their personal wish list. If you're the last team left with any money, you just grab who you want at rookie minimum. You could come out of the draft with 20 dudes if you lay off the early round bidding wars.

OK, so there would still be a draft order then, for the bidding order, presumably? If team #1 bids 3 million on a 4 million capped rookie, team #2 would have the option to overbid?

 

I dunno, I kinda like the idea behind this but there has to be some order in there somewhere. Wouldn't the auctioneer have to name the rookies who were next up and if that's so, who decides what order they come up in?

[Bronco Billy]

Still amazes me that some guys are convinced that they know the business of the NFL better than the owners of the 31 teams and the management of the 32nd team, almost all of whom are good enough business men that they have been able to build their own empires as well build the NFL into the phenominal success that it is.

[detlef]

OK, so there would still be a draft order then, for the bidding order, presumably? If team #1 bids 3 million on a 4 million capped rookie, team #2 would have the option to overbid?

 

I dunno, I kinda like the idea behind this but there has to be some order in there somewhere. Wouldn't the auctioneer have to name the rookies who were next up and if that's so, who decides what order they come up in?

First off, the rookie himself is not capped, what each team can spend in total during the rookie auction is. So, say for instance the last place team has $20 million to spend, the next has $19.5, the next has $19, and so on until you get to the SB champ who has like $10 or something. Like what is being currently proposed, rookie contracts would be of a fixed length depending on the round. So, the first 32 players chosen would be given a 4 or 5 year deal at whatever price they went for per year. The next 32 would get something like 3 years at that number. I don't know where that would bottom out but, again, it's not really any different than what the salary structure being suggested is going to be. The difference, of course, is that the market would decide each player's value rather than being slotted.

 

Obviously the league could set the cap ranges at whatever level they feel would 1) give the clear advantage to those teams who need the most help and 2) To create an overall lower amount of money spent on the rookie class each year.

 

As I think of it, perhaps $20 is likely too high for the 1st team because, considering how quickly salaries reduce through the draft, $20 million is probably at least as much as what the team with the 1st pick in the draft ends up spending on the total of their draft picks (per year, of course) right now. Again, I'm just throwing numbers out.

 

At any rate, I would imagine that each team could then throw out names for bid. In fact, there could be some sort of deal where a team can assure itself of getting the player they offer for bid with a qualified bid of some significant % of their rookie cap. That way, the last place team doesn't have to forfeit the entirety of their draft in order to land a player they truly covet. They'd have to pay something extreme, like 75% or so to win the auction uncontested, but, at least nobody could chase the bid up so high that they have to basically shoot their wad on one player. After round one, however, this likely wouldn't be needed and all players would go into open bid. Either that or the % of your total remaining cap increases with each round if you want to make a bid that qualifies to be uncontested.

 

Alternatively, the league could determine auction order by using some aggregate of player rankings. Like a Harris Poll for draft picks. Heaven knows there's no shortage of dudes out there ranking draft picks. Opening bids could start somewhere around $2 million for the beginning of the 1st round and tail off to $1 million by the end, ultimately going down to the rookie minimum by later rounds. One issue with having the league determine the order is that, in these later rounds, it would be much better to allow teams to offer players for bid because, I would guess, by this point, the vast majority of players will go, uncontested to a team for the minimum while teams are just trying to finish up their wish-list of random prospects.

 

I think the first way is more interesting and likely would move faster. Plus it has the built-in bit about allowing teams the luxury of assuring themselves a particular player if they really want him. Once again, you just need to make the % to do so high enough that it's not a super popular tactic or it just turns into basically the same thing we have.

 

And, of course, like now, if these players fail to make the roster, they don't get paid any more than whatever % of the contract is a signing bonus. Which is also something that could become a fixed % of the overall contract. Which, I would guess, is going to happen in the new CBA regardless.

 

So, in review it's better in a bunch of ways:

1) Players are more closely rewarded for their market value. Guys don't get overpaid because the team that happened to need the best player at that position was picking at 10 so that's where he want, even though he likely wouldn't have gone any higher than 20 otherwise. Meanwhile, all those players who would have gone ahead of that dude get paid more.

2) Teams have way more flexibility in how they approach the draft. Right now, if you want to load up on 2nd-4th round talent, you need to find a trade partner to facilitate that. If nobody wants to trade a bunch of middle of middle round picks for your high first, you're stuck. With the auction, you just lay off the bidding until the guys you want come up. And, again, I think this benefits bad teams in particular. If you've got a ton of holes to fill, you really might be better served laying off the one blue chip and buying a ton of guys who are upgrades at a bunch of roster spots.

3) It would be exciting as hell to watch. You think war-rooms are crazy now? Imagine what it would be like if it was a free-for-all?

 

Still amazes me that some guys are convinced that they know the business of the NFL better than the owners of the 31 teams and the management of the 32nd team, almost all of whom are good enough business men that they have been able to build their own empires as well build the NFL into the phenominal success that it is.

It amazes me that some people have no effing idea what the purpose is of a Football message board.

 

But, seriously, what's not to like?

[Furd]

I know that its fascinating to discuss, but I don't think that a plan to auction black guys to white buyers is going to get too far off of the ground.

[detlef]

I know that its fascinating to discuss, but I don't think that a plan to auction black guys to white buyers is going to get too far off of the ground.

You do realize 1) that in slave auctions, the slaves were not the ones getting paid the auction price and 2) letting teams pick whom they want and having that player slotted to a specific salary based on where they're picked is really no "better". For that matter, neither is allowing players to negotiate a contract once they're picked but having to do so within the confines of a very restrictive total rookie cap. Of those three, only the first comes close to allowing the player to get as much as the market will bear for his services.

 

The only completely un-slave auction like system would be to simply allow the players to go ahead and negotiate with whomever they want right out of school, without a rookie cap, and that ain't happening. Every other way is a somewhat unsavory method, the sting of which, of course, is reduced or eliminated by a very nice paycheck.

 

In essence, players are saying, "Who wants me? Let's start the bidding." Then, whomever wants them the most (with some restrictions), comes through with the most money and the players sells his services to the highest bidder. Who wouldn't want that? Would you rather be subjected to a situation where, not only had no choice of whom to work for but that they also didn't have to out-bid anyone for your services?

[Furd]

You do realize 1) that in slave auctions, the slaves were not the ones getting paid the auction price and 2) letting teams pick whom they want and having that player slotted to a specific salary based on where they're picked is really no "better". For that matter, neither is allowing players to negotiate a contract once they're picked but having to do so within the confines of a very restrictive total rookie cap. Of those three, only the first comes close to allowing the player to get as much as the market will bear for his services.

 

The only completely un-slave auction like system would be to simply allow the players to go ahead and negotiate with whomever they want right out of school, without a rookie cap, and that ain't happening. Every other way is a somewhat unsavory method, the sting of which, of course, is reduced or eliminated by a very nice paycheck.

 

In essence, players are saying, "Who wants me? Let's start the bidding." Then, whomever wants them the most (with some restrictions), comes through with the most money and the players sells his services to the highest bidder. Who wouldn't want that? Would you rather be subjected to a situation where, not only had no choice of whom to work for but that they also didn't have to out-bid anyone for your services?

 

I think that you're a bit delusional with this auction thing. Ain't no way that any organization, particularly one compromised of white men (exclusively or almost exclusively) is going auction off black men.

 

Why don't you run your plan by 8 or 10 black people and report back to us? To get a representative sample, make sure that at least one of them is older and was forced to use a separate restroom or lunch counter, or had to ride in the back of the bus.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Furd

[detlef]

I think that you're a bit delusional with this auction thing. Ain't no way that any organization, particularly one compromised of white men (exclusively or almost exclusively) is going auction off black men.

 

Why don't you run your plan by 8 or 10 black people and report back to us? To get a representative sample, make sure that at least one of them is older and was forced to use a separate restroom or lunch counter, or had to ride in the back of the bus.

Of course, in fairness, I would need to find 8-10 black people who think it's cool that guys can be given no choice as to which team they'll be playing for or how much they'll be getting paid to play for them because their salary will be slotted based on where they went.

 

Why are you ignoring the fact that this is really no worse for the players than what the NBA currently does or either a restrictive rookie cap or slotted salaries based on pick (the two options the NFL and players are discussing)?

 

I realize what you're saying. That people who are incapable or reason will think this is like a slave auction. And, honestly, that might be enough because there are a lot of stupid people in this world.

 

You do realize that the only difference between FA negotiations and an auction is that, in an auction, the player is required to accept the highest offer and in FA they can opt to accept less. In either case, if the player feels he's worth more than what the market is offering, his only recourse is to not play. Does anyone compare FA negotiation to "a bunch of white guys bidding on a bunch of black guys"? But that's exactly what is going on.

Edited April 15, 2011 by detlef