Abolishing the draft (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

Ran across this post by Doug over at the PFR blog, and it got me thinking that this is a good idea. Thoughts?

Why do we have a draft?

The nominal reason for the draft is to give the worst teams the first shot at the top talent, thereby helping achieve competitive balance in the league. But it obviously doesn’t work that way.

If this were the old days, the Raiders could take Calvin Johnson or JaMarcus Russell and pay him nothing, while the Colts would take Ben Grubbs or Brian Leonard and pay him essentially the same nothing. That helps the Raiders.

But this isn’t the old days. The Raiders will have to pay whoever they take much more than the Colts will have to pay their pick. Because of the salary cap, that means the Raiders will have less to spend on other players. The recent academic paper by Cade Massey and Richard Thaler (which I’ve written about here, here, and here) argues that the reality of the situation is that this setup actually hurts the Raiders. I don’t think that’s quite right, but I agree that it doesn’t help the Raiders much if at all.

If the goal of the draft is to help even out the competitive landscape of the league, I don’t think it’s working. And as long as there is a salary cap, I don’t think it’s going to work.

That’s the nominal reason for the draft. The real reason for the draft, as observed by Jim A in the comments to an old post, is to keep money out of the hands of the rookies and in the hands of the owners and the veterans.

I have no evidence to back this up, but I’m not convinced that’s happening. Vince Young signed a deal last year that will be worth between 26 and 58 million dollars. Do you really think he would have gotten much more if he were on the open market? Before you answer yes and cite increased demand, remember that there would be increased supply too: the teams bidding for him would have had the option of bidding on Matt Leinart or Jay Cutler as well.

So the way I see it, the draft isn’t doing what it says it’s supposed to do. And it’s also not doing what it’s really supposed to do. It’s not working for anyone.

So I say let’s get rid of it. Rookies are free agents. They can negotiate with whatever teams they’d like and sign with the one that makes them the most attractive offer. Teams, likewise, can negotiate with and sign as many rookies as they can afford.

This seems like a radical idea, but I claim that the results won’t look too much different than they do under the current system. Bad teams often have lots of cap room and would (and should) be willing to roll the dice on a young player or two with superstar potential. The good teams in general won’t have as much money to burn and will likely settle for a less expensive rookies who plug specific holes. The teams that would lose out, compared to the draft system, are the ones that are bad but have no cap room. The winners are good teams with lots of cap space. That’s OK with me. A bad team with no cap room is one that in my opinion doesn’t deserve help.

If the results would be similar to what we see now, why do I favor a switch? Four reasons:

1. It’s just a morally better system. This is cliche, but these 22-year-olds should be allowed to negotiate with several potential employers just as 22-year-olds in other careers get to. I don’t mean to imply that rookies-to-be are being mistreated under the current system, but if it doesn’t do any harm to anyone else (and it wouldn’t), I do think it would be nice if they had the chance to explore various options like everyone else does.

2. It would end the ugly holdouts. Players wouldn’t have a team to hold out from. No particular city would have a platoon of journalists riling up the fan base about how cheap management is. Players opting not to sign would be forgotten about pretty quickly.

3. It would create more diverse strategies with regard to acquiring young talent. Some teams would go for several big name players. Others would load up on guys that would formerly have been considered second or third round picks. More diverse strategies almost always make for a more interesting game.

4. It’d be fun. Even more fun than draft season already is.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I like the draft and distributing players the way we do it for pretty much the same reasons I like any sport - it's entertaining.

But I don't disagree with Doug that it makes sense to do it this way like free agents. It's pretty much how they got to college.

But with that said, I wonder about the parity among the teams if they went this way. Teams with winning traditions and in cities that are considered "prime" places to live would have an advantage in they could get the same players for less money. That exists now in Free Agency (Moss taking less money to go to New England) but it would be exaggerated more if the rookies were under that.

J

 

[GregR_2]

Doug's version of how it works out seems to be based on the belief that the rookie players will chase the dollars and so a poor team with cap room will win out over a good team with little cap room, accomplishing the goal the draft was set to do.

But if Calvin Johnson is willing to take less money to have Manning or Brady throwing to him than he is to have Cleo Lemon or Jamarcus Russell throwing to him, that kind of throws a crimp in the plans.

And that is a possibility. If CJ realizes that Manning or Brady may help him become not just a star, but a super star, he may ultimately make more off endorsements than he gave up in salary by passing on the bigger contract from the lesser team.

I think Rookies may chase the bucks more than veterans who have been around for awhile but haven't had team success, but I'm not sure it's a sure enough thing I'd want to gamble on it. I'd rather see realistic rookie contracts be put in place.

 

[Angry Beavers]

Very interesting thought... although it would create a wider gap, IMHO, between the haves and haves not amongst the players

 

[Road Warriors]

I like the draft and distributing players the way we do it for pretty much the same reasons I like any sport - it's entertaining.But I don't disagree with Doug that it makes sense to do it this way like free agents. It's pretty much how they got to college.But with that said, I wonder about the parity among the teams if they went this way. Teams with winning traditions and in cities that are considered "prime" places to live would have an advantage in they could get the same players for less money. That exists now in Free Agency (Moss taking less money to go to New England) but it would be exaggerated more if the rookies were under that.J

That was my first thought. It sounds a lot like the college recruiting season, where the same top schools get the best players every year. I don't think the distribution of talent would be as diverse if the rookie player acquisition went this way, and the parity the league has been working towards would go out the window.

 

[TLEF316]

the better plan is to limit rookie contracts considerably. do it like the NBA does it.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Kentucky Derby Style.

They get to pick their spots, so if they are worried about the money side, they can move down a few picks.

Better then abolishing.

 

[Wu-banger]

what would the world be without Mel Kiper...??

 

[Kiddnets]

a more realistic solution is a rookie salary slotting ala NBA shorter term contracts give the teams a chance to see what they have before locking up a player - player gets to FA quicker. Good system that the NFL should look at - I know the union will object but why should rooks get monster deals? The money saved will go to established vets who have more yrs in the system

 

[Godsbrother]

Doug's version of how it works out seems to be based on the belief that the rookie players will chase the dollars and so a poor team with cap room will win out over a good team with little cap room, accomplishing the goal the draft was set to do.But if Calvin Johnson is willing to take less money to have Manning or Brady throwing to him than he is to have Cleo Lemon or Jamarcus Russell throwing to him, that kind of throws a crimp in the plans.And that is a possibility. If CJ realizes that Manning or Brady may help him become not just a star, but a super star, he may ultimately make more off endorsements than he gave up in salary by passing on the bigger contract from the lesser team.

And the CJ may feel he is better off going to Indy or NE for a few years to establish a name for himself and then go to the highest bidder than he would if he started his career with a team with a poor passing game.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Very interesting thought... although it would create a wider gap, IMHO, between the haves and haves not amongst the players

Do you think it would be an undeserved gap? I don't envision some inefficient contracts taking place.

 

[FTRWRTR]

No offense to anyone but I think that is a stupid idea. The rookies would all sign with the good teams and teams like oakland and miami would be left out. Yes, eventually rookies will have to sign for less money if they want to go to a good team but we've seen guys take less money to go to a contender. At least with the draft system the bad teams are "guranteed" to get some of the best players in the draft. Sure they could end up being busts but that's what scouting is for.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I like the draft and distributing players the way we do it for pretty much the same reasons I like any sport - it's entertaining.But I don't disagree with Doug that it makes sense to do it this way like free agents. It's pretty much how they got to college.But with that said, I wonder about the parity among the teams if they went this way. Teams with winning traditions and in cities that are considered "prime" places to live would have an advantage in they could get the same players for less money. That exists now in Free Agency (Moss taking less money to go to New England) but it would be exaggerated more if the rookies were under that.J

That was my first thought. It sounds a lot like the college recruiting season, where the same top schools get the best players every year. I don't think the distribution of talent would be as diverse if the rookie player acquisition went this way, and the parity the league has been working towards would go out the window.

Well, I don't think college recruiting would look like it does now if colleges 1) paid their players and 2) had a salary cap.

 

[redman]

The draft is vitally important because it prevents the richest teams from hording the best players. Does anyone really think it would be a good thing for the league for a guy like Ben Roethlisberger to be very handsomely paid but sitting on the bench behind the likes of Favre or Manning or Brady? Before you scoff at that, that could very easily be done by cash rich teams like the Redskins or Cowboys.

 

[Chase Stuart]

the better plan is to limit rookie contracts considerably. do it like the NBA does it.

a more realistic solution is a rookie salary slotting ala NBA shorter term contracts give the teams a chance to see what they have before locking up a player - player gets to FA quicker. Good system that the NFL should look at - I know the union will object but why should rooks get monster deals? The money saved will go to established vets who have more yrs in the system

I know lots of people feel this way, but it comes off very anti-American to me. Why should we artificially cap how much money someone makes? People should be allowed to make as much money as they want; I don't know why it would be fair to take the money from GreatProspect and give it to OldVeteran or BillionaireOwner. Only one of the three "deserves" the money (since that person would get the money absent imposing restraints), and neither of the other two are really sympathetic figures. But sympathy aside, why take away the money from a guy who's been screwed out of money for the last three or four years, too?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Doug's version of how it works out seems to be based on the belief that the rookie players will chase the dollars and so a poor team with cap room will win out over a good team with little cap room, accomplishing the goal the draft was set to do.But if Calvin Johnson is willing to take less money to have Manning or Brady throwing to him than he is to have Cleo Lemon or Jamarcus Russell throwing to him, that kind of throws a crimp in the plans.And that is a possibility. If CJ realizes that Manning or Brady may help him become not just a star, but a super star, he may ultimately make more off endorsements than he gave up in salary by passing on the bigger contract from the lesser team.

And the CJ may feel he is better off going to Indy or NE for a few years to establish a name for himself and then go to the highest bidder than he would if he started his career with a team with a poor passing game.

But Indy and NE don't have the cap room to sign CJ.

 

[TLEF316]

the better plan is to limit rookie contracts considerably. do it like the NBA does it.

a more realistic solution is a rookie salary slotting ala NBA shorter term contracts give the teams a chance to see what they have before locking up a player - player gets to FA quicker. Good system that the NFL should look at - I know the union will object but why should rooks get monster deals? The money saved will go to established vets who have more yrs in the system

I know lots of people feel this way, but it comes off very anti-American to me. Why should we artificially cap how much money someone makes? People should be allowed to make as much money as they want; I don't know why it would be fair to take the money from GreatProspect and give it to OldVeteran or BillionaireOwner. Only one of the three "deserves" the money (since that person would get the money absent imposing restraints), and neither of the other two are really sympathetic figures. But sympathy aside, why take away the money from a guy who's been screwed out of money for the last three or four years, too?

Limiting the $$ that rookies earn puts more money into the veteran salary pool. They'll get it "back" eventually if they earn it. I don't really see any type of tangible downside. The purpose of the draft is to give the worst players the best team. I don't see any more fair way to do it.

 

[Chase Stuart]

No offense to anyone but I think that is a stupid idea. The rookies would all sign with the good teams and teams like oakland and miami would be left out. Yes, eventually rookies will have to sign for less money if they want to go to a good team but we've seen guys take less money to go to a contender. At least with the draft system the bad teams are "guranteed" to get some of the best players in the draft. Sure they could end up being busts but that's what scouting is for.

Don't you think it's at least a debatable point whether JaMarcus Russell for $60M is a better deal than Kevin Kolb for $4M? I don't think it's clear that the team with the #1 pick is making out much better than the team with the 31st pick. It's like saying someone who got a Ferrarri got a much better deal than someone who bought a Camry.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The draft is vitally important because it prevents the richest teams from hording the best players. Does anyone really think it would be a good thing for the league for a guy like Ben Roethlisberger to be very handsomely paid but sitting on the bench behind the likes of Favre or Manning or Brady? Before you scoff at that, that could very easily be done by cash rich teams like the Redskins or Cowboys.

Why doesn't that happen now?The Patriots could draft Matt Ryan with the 7th pick. Do you think they will?

 

[Chase Stuart]

the better plan is to limit rookie contracts considerably. do it like the NBA does it.

a more realistic solution is a rookie salary slotting ala NBA shorter term contracts give the teams a chance to see what they have before locking up a player - player gets to FA quicker. Good system that the NFL should look at - I know the union will object but why should rooks get monster deals? The money saved will go to established vets who have more yrs in the system

I know lots of people feel this way, but it comes off very anti-American to me. Why should we artificially cap how much money someone makes? People should be allowed to make as much money as they want; I don't know why it would be fair to take the money from GreatProspect and give it to OldVeteran or BillionaireOwner. Only one of the three "deserves" the money (since that person would get the money absent imposing restraints), and neither of the other two are really sympathetic figures. But sympathy aside, why take away the money from a guy who's been screwed out of money for the last three or four years, too?

Limiting the $$ that rookies earn puts more money into the veteran salary pool. They'll get it "back" eventually if they earn it. I don't really see any type of tangible downside. The purpose of the draft is to give the worst players the best team. I don't see any more fair way to do it.

I think we agree that giving huge contracts to star rookies isn't a great way to improve bad teams. We're just disagreeing on the way to fix it. You think artificially limiting what rookies can earn is a good way; I think removing the restriction on where rookies can sign is a good way.Maybe the Dolphins could sign lots of stud rookies, and use their significant caproom, under this system. That would make them better quicker than just having one top-30 pick.

 

[redman]

The draft is vitally important because it prevents the richest teams from hording the best players. Does anyone really think it would be a good thing for the league for a guy like Ben Roethlisberger to be very handsomely paid but sitting on the bench behind the likes of Favre or Manning or Brady? Before you scoff at that, that could very easily be done by cash rich teams like the Redskins or Cowboys.

Why doesn't that happen now?The Patriots could draft Matt Ryan with the 7th pick. Do you think they will?

There's only one 7th pick. When you aren't limited to using the more scarce resource that is draft picks, then you can effectively have more than one 7th pick if you're willing and able to pay the money.

 

[The Tick]

the better plan is to limit rookie contracts considerably. do it like the NBA does it.

a more realistic solution is a rookie salary slotting ala NBA shorter term contracts give the teams a chance to see what they have before locking up a player - player gets to FA quicker. Good system that the NFL should look at - I know the union will object but why should rooks get monster deals? The money saved will go to established vets who have more yrs in the system

I know lots of people feel this way, but it comes off very anti-American to me. Why should we artificially cap how much money someone makes? People should be allowed to make as much money as they want; I don't know why it would be fair to take the money from GreatProspect and give it to OldVeteran or BillionaireOwner. Only one of the three "deserves" the money (since that person would get the money absent imposing restraints), and neither of the other two are really sympathetic figures. But sympathy aside, why take away the money from a guy who's been screwed out of money for the last three or four years, too?

I think that is how most companies are. Coming out of College into a company, from my experience, you are given an entry level salary. There is often some negotiating room, but it's usually limited, and most companies in the same field have very similar entry level salaries. You also don't usually get much of a raise your first year or so. After the first two years of a career is when you really start to see people separate from the ones that will always be lower level employees to the ones that will be on the fast track to management.I don't seem to see that as an un-American system, and it seems to me that is how most things work.I think that easily translates to the NFL players come with short contracts at an entry level position, and the ones that deserver the raise will see big raises after the first couple years. I think this is great for the 6th round players that come in, end up starting after a year, and play for NOTHING for the first 4+ years. The only guys that really loose in that situation are the busts that will never see their big pay day because they don’t deserve it and never earn it.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

For better or worse I think pro sports leagues need drafts.

 

[Chase Stuart]

the better plan is to limit rookie contracts considerably. do it like the NBA does it.

a more realistic solution is a rookie salary slotting ala NBA shorter term contracts give the teams a chance to see what they have before locking up a player - player gets to FA quicker. Good system that the NFL should look at - I know the union will object but why should rooks get monster deals? The money saved will go to established vets who have more yrs in the system

I know lots of people feel this way, but it comes off very anti-American to me. Why should we artificially cap how much money someone makes? People should be allowed to make as much money as they want; I don't know why it would be fair to take the money from GreatProspect and give it to OldVeteran or BillionaireOwner. Only one of the three "deserves" the money (since that person would get the money absent imposing restraints), and neither of the other two are really sympathetic figures. But sympathy aside, why take away the money from a guy who's been screwed out of money for the last three or four years, too?

I think that is how most companies are. Coming out of College into a company, from my experience, you are given an entry level salary. There is often some negotiating room, but it's usually limited, and most companies in the same field have very similar entry level salaries. You also don't usually get much of a raise your first year or so. After the first two years of a career is when you really start to see people separate from the ones that will always be lower level employees to the ones that will be on the fast track to management.I don't seem to see that as an un-American system, and it seems to me that is how most things work.I think that easily translates to the NFL players come with short contracts at an entry level position, and the ones that deserver the raise will see big raises after the first couple years. I think this is great for the 6th round players that come in, end up starting after a year, and play for NOTHING for the first 4+ years. The only guys that really loose in that situation are the busts that will never see their big pay day because they don’t deserve it and never earn it.

In most companies, a 15-year worker is more valuable, independent of salary, than a 1st-year worker. That's not true in the NFL. It's not at all unusual for a 1st or 2nd year worker in the NFL to be the most valuable person on the team. That almost never happens in most companies.What about the 6th round pick that comes in, ends up starting after a year, and plays for NOTHING for the first 4 years and then suffers a career ending injury?What's the point in delaying payment? Would you like your job if they said they'll pay you 50% salary for the first four years, and 200% salary for the next four? That's ludicrous.

 

[FTRWRTR]

No offense to anyone but I think that is a stupid idea. The rookies would all sign with the good teams and teams like oakland and miami would be left out. Yes, eventually rookies will have to sign for less money if they want to go to a good team but we've seen guys take less money to go to a contender. At least with the draft system the bad teams are "guranteed" to get some of the best players in the draft. Sure they could end up being busts but that's what scouting is for.

Don't you think it's at least a debatable point whether JaMarcus Russell for $60M is a better deal than Kevin Kolb for $4M? I don't think it's clear that the team with the #1 pick is making out much better than the team with the 31st pick. It's like saying someone who got a Ferrarri got a much better deal than someone who bought a Camry.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but in that case your argument becomes the amount of money rookies make and not there being a draft order. I don't have a problem with limiting rookie contracts but IMO if that's the case then you have to gurantee contracts which the NBA also does. But I don't understand how someone can say since the #1 pick gets a $60 mil contract and others get much less that means there shouldn't be a #1 pick.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The draft is vitally important because it prevents the richest teams from hording the best players. Does anyone really think it would be a good thing for the league for a guy like Ben Roethlisberger to be very handsomely paid but sitting on the bench behind the likes of Favre or Manning or Brady? Before you scoff at that, that could very easily be done by cash rich teams like the Redskins or Cowboys.

Why doesn't that happen now?The Patriots could draft Matt Ryan with the 7th pick. Do you think they will?

There's only one 7th pick. When you aren't limited to using the more scarce resource that is draft picks, then you can effectively have more than one 7th pick if you're willing and able to pay the money.

I see your point, but I think the salary cap fixes this. There were people who didn't want free agency, either. They probably thought what if in one off-season, one of the best teams in the league adds Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Donte Stallworth and Adalius Thomas? Well, we managed to survive that.The Redskins have huge huge off-season splashes, as you know. Most teams can't afford to do that except every few years. And I don't think the league has been less competitive since free agency. Removing the draft is just another layer of free agency.

 

[TLEF316]

the better plan is to limit rookie contracts considerably. do it like the NBA does it.

a more realistic solution is a rookie salary slotting ala NBA shorter term contracts give the teams a chance to see what they have before locking up a player - player gets to FA quicker. Good system that the NFL should look at - I know the union will object but why should rooks get monster deals? The money saved will go to established vets who have more yrs in the system

I know lots of people feel this way, but it comes off very anti-American to me. Why should we artificially cap how much money someone makes? People should be allowed to make as much money as they want; I don't know why it would be fair to take the money from GreatProspect and give it to OldVeteran or BillionaireOwner. Only one of the three "deserves" the money (since that person would get the money absent imposing restraints), and neither of the other two are really sympathetic figures. But sympathy aside, why take away the money from a guy who's been screwed out of money for the last three or four years, too?

Limiting the $$ that rookies earn puts more money into the veteran salary pool. They'll get it "back" eventually if they earn it. I don't really see any type of tangible downside. The purpose of the draft is to give the worst players the best team. I don't see any more fair way to do it.

I think we agree that giving huge contracts to star rookies isn't a great way to improve bad teams. We're just disagreeing on the way to fix it. You think artificially limiting what rookies can earn is a good way; I think removing the restriction on where rookies can sign is a good way.Maybe the Dolphins could sign lots of stud rookies, and use their significant caproom, under this system. That would make them better quicker than just having one top-30 pick.

IMO, this could be a recipe for disaster. One bad offseason could sink a team for multiple years. Lets just say the NFL adopts your system. The dolphins sign Matt Ryan, Glenn Dorsey and Jake Long to huge contracts. Now 2 years later, Ryan busts, Dorsey's knee doesn't hold up and Jake Long becomes nothing more than a servicible RT on a bad team. Now, the Dolphins have 60 million + tied up in 3 players who are barely helping them win. They suck, but now they dont have any type of cap space to sign the next year's crop of rookies.I just think the NBA really does it very well. (other than the 1 year rule, which is garbage) They do what they can to limit tanking (although i think the lottery should be weighted a little more towards the bottom 2 or 3 teams) and give the bad teams the best shot at the best prospects. The top picks get paid, but not enough to bust the salary cap, and their deals arent long enough to kill a team for years (like a busted franchise QB) When their initial contract is up, the teams that draft them have control over them and have an advantage in re-signing them (the bird rights)

 

[Tau837]

I like the draft and distributing players the way we do it for pretty much the same reasons I like any sport - it's entertaining.

But I don't disagree with Doug that it makes sense to do it this way like free agents. It's pretty much how they got to college.

But with that said, I wonder about the parity among the teams if they went this way. Teams with winning traditions and in cities that are considered "prime" places to live would have an advantage in they could get the same players for less money. That exists now in Free Agency (Moss taking less money to go to New England) but it would be exaggerated more if the rookies were under that.

J

That was my first thought. It sounds a lot like the college recruiting season, where the same top schools get the best players every year. I don't think the distribution of talent would be as diverse if the rookie player acquisition went this way, and the parity the league has been working towards would go out the window.

Well, I don't think college recruiting would look like it does now if colleges 1) paid their players and 2) had a salary cap.

Fixed

 

[Chase Stuart]

No offense to anyone but I think that is a stupid idea. The rookies would all sign with the good teams and teams like oakland and miami would be left out. Yes, eventually rookies will have to sign for less money if they want to go to a good team but we've seen guys take less money to go to a contender. At least with the draft system the bad teams are "guranteed" to get some of the best players in the draft. Sure they could end up being busts but that's what scouting is for.

Don't you think it's at least a debatable point whether JaMarcus Russell for $60M is a better deal than Kevin Kolb for $4M? I don't think it's clear that the team with the #1 pick is making out much better than the team with the 31st pick. It's like saying someone who got a Ferrarri got a much better deal than someone who bought a Camry.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but in that case your argument becomes the amount of money rookies make and not there being a draft order. I don't have a problem with limiting rookie contracts but IMO if that's the case then you have to gurantee contracts which the NBA also does. But I don't understand how someone can say since the #1 pick gets a $60 mil contract and others get much less that means there shouldn't be a #1 pick.

My point is the amount of money the top picks make negates their value as life rafts for the bad teams in the league.

 

[Grahamburn]

The draft is vitally important because it prevents the richest teams from hording the best players. Does anyone really think it would be a good thing for the league for a guy like Ben Roethlisberger to be very handsomely paid but sitting on the bench behind the likes of Favre or Manning or Brady? Before you scoff at that, that could very easily be done by cash rich teams like the Redskins or Cowboys.

Why doesn't that happen now?The Patriots could draft Matt Ryan with the 7th pick. Do you think they will?

There's only one 7th pick. When you aren't limited to using the more scarce resource that is draft picks, then you can effectively have more than one 7th pick if you're willing and able to pay the money.

The point is, can you realistically afford to pay those "extra" seventh round picks and still fill out a competitive 53 man roster with the current salary cap rules? Those players will obviously be more expensive than a lesser player. I think the main flaw with this logic/theory is the amount of time that would be needed to scout all of these players and then negotiate contracts with each of them. There simply wouldn't be enough time between the end of one season and the beginning of the next to get all of these players on teams. With the current system, players are drafted and then they negotiate the contract and many of those players still don't always manage to get into camp on time.I really like the idea for rookies coming into the NFL this way, I just don't think it could really work.

 

[Chase Stuart]

the better plan is to limit rookie contracts considerably. do it like the NBA does it.

a more realistic solution is a rookie salary slotting ala NBA shorter term contracts give the teams a chance to see what they have before locking up a player - player gets to FA quicker. Good system that the NFL should look at - I know the union will object but why should rooks get monster deals? The money saved will go to established vets who have more yrs in the system

I know lots of people feel this way, but it comes off very anti-American to me. Why should we artificially cap how much money someone makes? People should be allowed to make as much money as they want; I don't know why it would be fair to take the money from GreatProspect and give it to OldVeteran or BillionaireOwner. Only one of the three "deserves" the money (since that person would get the money absent imposing restraints), and neither of the other two are really sympathetic figures. But sympathy aside, why take away the money from a guy who's been screwed out of money for the last three or four years, too?

Limiting the $$ that rookies earn puts more money into the veteran salary pool. They'll get it "back" eventually if they earn it. I don't really see any type of tangible downside. The purpose of the draft is to give the worst players the best team. I don't see any more fair way to do it.

I think we agree that giving huge contracts to star rookies isn't a great way to improve bad teams. We're just disagreeing on the way to fix it. You think artificially limiting what rookies can earn is a good way; I think removing the restriction on where rookies can sign is a good way.Maybe the Dolphins could sign lots of stud rookies, and use their significant caproom, under this system. That would make them better quicker than just having one top-30 pick.

IMO, this could be a recipe for disaster. One bad offseason could sink a team for multiple years. Lets just say the NFL adopts your system. The dolphins sign Matt Ryan, Glenn Dorsey and Jake Long to huge contracts. Now 2 years later, Ryan busts, Dorsey's knee doesn't hold up and Jake Long becomes nothing more than a servicible RT on a bad team. Now, the Dolphins have 60 million + tied up in 3 players who are barely helping them win. They suck, but now they dont have any type of cap space to sign the next year's crop of rookies.I just think the NBA really does it very well. (other than the 1 year rule, which is garbage) They do what they can to limit tanking (although i think the lottery should be weighted a little more towards the bottom 2 or 3 teams) and give the bad teams the best shot at the best prospects. The top picks get paid, but not enough to bust the salary cap, and their deals arent long enough to kill a team for years (like a busted franchise QB) When their initial contract is up, the teams that draft them have control over them and have an advantage in re-signing them (the bird rights)

The NBA and the NFL are different animals. The #1 and #2 picks in the NBA draft are worth so much more than the 6th or 7th picks; that's not how it is in the NFL. There are usually only one or two real difference makers in an NBA draft, and they're almost never not the top picks.How is your Dolphins hypothetical any different than regular free agency? Look what the 49ers did this off-season. They had a ton of money and used it all. If those players busted, the 49ers would stink. Well, the 49ers still aren't very good.I'm not sure why your hypo is any different than run of the mill free agency.

 

[GregR_2]

the better plan is to limit rookie contracts considerably. do it like the NBA does it.

a more realistic solution is a rookie salary slotting ala NBA shorter term contracts give the teams a chance to see what they have before locking up a player - player gets to FA quicker. Good system that the NFL should look at - I know the union will object but why should rooks get monster deals? The money saved will go to established vets who have more yrs in the system

I know lots of people feel this way, but it comes off very anti-American to me. Why should we artificially cap how much money someone makes? People should be allowed to make as much money as they want; I don't know why it would be fair to take the money from GreatProspect and give it to OldVeteran or BillionaireOwner. Only one of the three "deserves" the money (since that person would get the money absent imposing restraints), and neither of the other two are really sympathetic figures. But sympathy aside, why take away the money from a guy who's been screwed out of money for the last three or four years, too?

Limiting the $$ that rookies earn puts more money into the veteran salary pool. They'll get it "back" eventually if they earn it. I don't really see any type of tangible downside. The purpose of the draft is to give the worst players the best team. I don't see any more fair way to do it.

I think we agree that giving huge contracts to star rookies isn't a great way to improve bad teams. We're just disagreeing on the way to fix it. You think artificially limiting what rookies can earn is a good way; I think removing the restriction on where rookies can sign is a good way.Maybe the Dolphins could sign lots of stud rookies, and use their significant caproom, under this system. That would make them better quicker than just having one top-30 pick.

If the problem is the huge contracts that star rookies get that other rookies don't, why not just bring the two closer in line?You don't have to take money from the star rookies and allocate it to vets or have owners keep it. You just need to shift it from the huge star rookies to some of the other rookies.

 

[BoulderBob]

The "essence" of a level playing field is vital for sport...business practice/capitalism aside, certain teams already have inherent advantages that skew the ideal level playing field, this change would worsen things, and we would have a broken system similar to major league baseball...

I know some consider this to be un-American, socialist, etc...but I believe these controls are in place for a very good reason. The players still have the ability to make more money than an entire population of a third-world country...I don't cry for them...

 

[Wombat Killer]

the better plan is to limit rookie contracts considerably. do it like the NBA does it.

a more realistic solution is a rookie salary slotting ala NBA shorter term contracts give the teams a chance to see what they have before locking up a player - player gets to FA quicker. Good system that the NFL should look at - I know the union will object but why should rooks get monster deals? The money saved will go to established vets who have more yrs in the system

I know lots of people feel this way, but it comes off very anti-American to me. Why should we artificially cap how much money someone makes? People should be allowed to make as much money as they want; I don't know why it would be fair to take the money from GreatProspect and give it to OldVeteran or BillionaireOwner. Only one of the three "deserves" the money (since that person would get the money absent imposing restraints), and neither of the other two are really sympathetic figures. But sympathy aside, why take away the money from a guy who's been screwed out of money for the last three or four years, too?

Are you against the salary cap? The cap cleary puts limits on how much money a player is paid.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I like the draft and distributing players the way we do it for pretty much the same reasons I like any sport - it's entertaining.But I don't disagree with Doug that it makes sense to do it this way like free agents. It's pretty much how they got to college.But with that said, I wonder about the parity among the teams if they went this way. Teams with winning traditions and in cities that are considered "prime" places to live would have an advantage in they could get the same players for less money. That exists now in Free Agency (Moss taking less money to go to New England) but it would be exaggerated more if the rookies were under that.J

That was my first thought. It sounds a lot like the college recruiting season, where the same top schools get the best players every year. I don't think the distribution of talent would be as diverse if the rookie player acquisition went this way, and the parity the league has been working towards would go out the window.

Well, I don't think college recruiting would look like it does now if colleges 1) paid their players and 2) had a salary cap.

Hi Chase,I think you can say colleges do have a cap. (A cap of zero - at least technically). Meaning the colleges are all supposedly offering the same thing. An education and a chance to play football. I do tend to think a free agent rookie system would have the same "problems" the college system has. You'd have the great programs with more to offer getting the players they wanted. Now you could make a case that's not all bad as college football is uber popular. But I think it would definitely decrease the parity we have now.J

 

[The Tick]

In most companies, a 15-year worker is more valuable, independent of salary, than a 1st-year worker. That's not true in the NFL. It's not at all unusual for a 1st or 2nd year worker in the NFL to be the most valuable person on the team. That almost never happens in most companies.

Good point of a flaw in my comparison, however, I feel that’s something that could easily be taken care of by bonuses in the default contract. That would allow the players that deserve the big cash to get a decent pay day while the busts wouldn't be drains on a teams salary cap.

What about the 6th round pick that comes in, ends up starting after a year, and plays for NOTHING for the first 4 years and then suffers a career ending injury?

They are no worse off then they are now, and with the money saved across the league and a little statistical work, along with a contract they could be given a decent insurance policy based on round picked.

What's the point in delaying payment? Would you like your job if they said they'll pay you 50% salary for the first four years, and 200% salary for the next four? That's ludicrous.

The point is the majority of players getting those huge contracts end up not working on in the NFL. A player that really is that good and starts playing like it would likely have a contract extension pretty quickly with a signing bonus and such since the original contract term could be very short. I see no loss for anyone. And they too could have guaranteed insurance in case of injury so they wouldn't loose there either.

 

[Road Warriors]

The draft is vitally important because it prevents the richest teams from hording the best players. Does anyone really think it would be a good thing for the league for a guy like Ben Roethlisberger to be very handsomely paid but sitting on the bench behind the likes of Favre or Manning or Brady? Before you scoff at that, that could very easily be done by cash rich teams like the Redskins or Cowboys.

Why doesn't that happen now?The Patriots could draft Matt Ryan with the 7th pick. Do you think they will?

Of course not, because as of the current system its all an "either/or" system, and a team has to take the highest value to them on the board. The proposed dissolution of the draft would create a potential "and" system, where a team could take the highest value available, regardless of need, provided they had the necessary cap room. And teams with preferred environments, winning or lifestyle or whatever value the rookies valued, would likely enjoy some amount of discounting to their deals to further stretch their cap dollars.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The "essence" of a level playing field is vital for sport...business practice/capitalism aside, certain teams already have inherent advantages that skew the ideal level playing field, this change would worsen things, and we would have a broken system similar to major league baseball...I know some consider this to be un-American, socialist, etc...but I believe these controls are in place for a very good reason. The players still have the ability to make more money than an entire population of a third-world country...I don't cry for them...

Do you really think MLB has less parity than the NFL? And removing the draft would in no way make the NFL more like MLB. Apples and oranges.

 

[Chase Stuart]

the better plan is to limit rookie contracts considerably. do it like the NBA does it.

a more realistic solution is a rookie salary slotting ala NBA shorter term contracts give the teams a chance to see what they have before locking up a player - player gets to FA quicker. Good system that the NFL should look at - I know the union will object but why should rooks get monster deals? The money saved will go to established vets who have more yrs in the system

I know lots of people feel this way, but it comes off very anti-American to me. Why should we artificially cap how much money someone makes? People should be allowed to make as much money as they want; I don't know why it would be fair to take the money from GreatProspect and give it to OldVeteran or BillionaireOwner. Only one of the three "deserves" the money (since that person would get the money absent imposing restraints), and neither of the other two are really sympathetic figures. But sympathy aside, why take away the money from a guy who's been screwed out of money for the last three or four years, too?

Are you against the salary cap? The cap cleary puts limits on how much money a player is paid.

The salary cap, arguably, is revenue generating for NFL players.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I like the draft and distributing players the way we do it for pretty much the same reasons I like any sport - it's entertaining.But I don't disagree with Doug that it makes sense to do it this way like free agents. It's pretty much how they got to college.But with that said, I wonder about the parity among the teams if they went this way. Teams with winning traditions and in cities that are considered "prime" places to live would have an advantage in they could get the same players for less money. That exists now in Free Agency (Moss taking less money to go to New England) but it would be exaggerated more if the rookies were under that.J

That was my first thought. It sounds a lot like the college recruiting season, where the same top schools get the best players every year. I don't think the distribution of talent would be as diverse if the rookie player acquisition went this way, and the parity the league has been working towards would go out the window.

Well, I don't think college recruiting would look like it does now if colleges 1) paid their players and 2) had a salary cap.

Hi Chase,I think you can say colleges do have a cap. (A cap of zero - at least technically). Meaning the colleges are all supposedly offering the same thing. An education and a chance to play football. I do tend to think a free agent rookie system would have the same "problems" the college system has. You'd have the great programs with more to offer getting the players they wanted. Now you could make a case that's not all bad as college football is uber popular. But I think it would definitely decrease the parity we have now.J

If every BCS college was given $10M/year to give to its student athletes, do you think college football parity would increase or decrease?

 

[Chase Stuart]

In most companies, a 15-year worker is more valuable, independent of salary, than a 1st-year worker. That's not true in the NFL. It's not at all unusual for a 1st or 2nd year worker in the NFL to be the most valuable person on the team. That almost never happens in most companies.

Good point of a flaw in my comparison, however, I feel that’s something that could easily be taken care of by bonuses in the default contract. That would allow the players that deserve the big cash to get a decent pay day while the busts wouldn't be drains on a teams salary cap.

What about the 6th round pick that comes in, ends up starting after a year, and plays for NOTHING for the first 4 years and then suffers a career ending injury?

They are no worse off then they are now, and with the money saved across the league and a little statistical work, along with a contract they could be given a decent insurance policy based on round picked.

What's the point in delaying payment? Would you like your job if they said they'll pay you 50% salary for the first four years, and 200% salary for the next four? That's ludicrous.

The point is the majority of players getting those huge contracts end up not working on in the NFL. A player that really is that good and starts playing like it would likely have a contract extension pretty quickly with a signing bonus and such since the original contract term could be very short. I see no loss for anyone. And they too could have guaranteed insurance in case of injury so they wouldn't loose there either.

Insurance isn't free, and doesn't pay that much. What's the point?You could also outsource the issue of getting 50% of your pay for four years, and 200% of your pay for the next four. That doesn't mean you would like companies with that pay system.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The draft is vitally important because it prevents the richest teams from hording the best players. Does anyone really think it would be a good thing for the league for a guy like Ben Roethlisberger to be very handsomely paid but sitting on the bench behind the likes of Favre or Manning or Brady? Before you scoff at that, that could very easily be done by cash rich teams like the Redskins or Cowboys.

Why doesn't that happen now?The Patriots could draft Matt Ryan with the 7th pick. Do you think they will?

Of course not, because as of the current system its all an "either/or" system, and a team has to take the highest value to them on the board. The proposed dissolution of the draft would create a potential "and" system, where a team could take the highest value available, regardless of need, provided they had the necessary cap room. And teams with preferred environments, winning or lifestyle or whatever value the rookies valued, would likely enjoy some amount of discounting to their deals to further stretch their cap dollars.

That's true. I don't think that's a big problem, though. That's what happens in free agency now. Isn't NE supposedly the best because of all the discount deals they get?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

the solution is not to abolish the draft, but to dramatically lower the cap on rookie salaries. there is no way that unproven high draft picks should get paid like elite veterans who have already proven themselves in the league. after they've been in the league for a few years and proven their worth, then they should get paid accordingly.

 

[Chase Stuart]

the solution is not to abolish the draft, but to dramatically lower the cap on rookie salaries. there is no way that unproven high draft picks should get paid like elite veterans who have already proven themselves in the league. after they've been in the league for a few years and proven their worth, then they should get paid accordingly.

If they shouldn't get paid that much, why do teams pay them that much?

 

[Spartans Rule]

No offense to anyone but I think that is a stupid idea. The rookies would all sign with the good teams and teams like oakland and miami would be left out. Yes, eventually rookies will have to sign for less money if they want to go to a good team but we've seen guys take less money to go to a contender. At least with the draft system the bad teams are "guranteed" to get some of the best players in the draft. Sure they could end up being busts but that's what scouting is for.

Disagree with this entirely.First of all, how big of a problem is that in free agency already? Miami managed to sign Joey Porter last offseason. Veterans would be even more likely than rookies to seek a winning team, but they don't always do so.

If you're a rookie, you've got to be thinking about money and playing time, things which weaker teams will generally be able to offer more of.

 

[Riffraff]

Teams like Green Bay and Buffalo would cease to exist. Nobody wants to play or live there when they come out of college.

 

[Spartans Rule]

Teams like Green Bay and Buffalo would cease to exist. Nobody wants to play or live there when they come out of college.

Good point. That's why cold-weather universities like Wisconsin and Michigan don't even offer football. And why no free agents have ever signed with the Bills or Packers in the history of those franchises.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

the solution is not to abolish the draft, but to dramatically lower the cap on rookie salaries. there is no way that unproven high draft picks should get paid like elite veterans who have already proven themselves in the league. after they've been in the league for a few years and proven their worth, then they should get paid accordingly.

If they shouldn't get paid that much, why do teams pay them that much?

they are forced to given the terms of the current CBA and the amount the players from similar draft positions have been paid in prior years. otherwise, the player can go back into the draft and the team will wind up with nothing.the current system sucks...so the argument that abolishing the draft would have similar results as what we have now does not seem like a very compelling reason to do so.

 

[David Yudkin]

We may not see the end of the draft . . . but we could see the end of the salary cap.

 

[Spartans Rule]

I like the draft and distributing players the way we do it for pretty much the same reasons I like any sport - it's entertaining.But I don't disagree with Doug that it makes sense to do it this way like free agents. It's pretty much how they got to college.But with that said, I wonder about the parity among the teams if they went this way. Teams with winning traditions and in cities that are considered "prime" places to live would have an advantage in they could get the same players for less money. That exists now in Free Agency (Moss taking less money to go to New England) but it would be exaggerated more if the rookies were under that.J

That was my first thought. It sounds a lot like the college recruiting season, where the same top schools get the best players every year. I don't think the distribution of talent would be as diverse if the rookie player acquisition went this way, and the parity the league has been working towards would go out the window.

Well, I don't think college recruiting would look like it does now if colleges 1) paid their players and 2) had a salary cap.

Hi Chase,I think you can say colleges do have a cap. (A cap of zero - at least technically). Meaning the colleges are all supposedly offering the same thing. An education and a chance to play football. I do tend to think a free agent rookie system would have the same "problems" the college system has. You'd have the great programs with more to offer getting the players they wanted. Now you could make a case that's not all bad as college football is uber popular. But I think it would definitely decrease the parity we have now.J

But money is a huge, huge, HUGE part of college football recruiting, even if it doesn't end up directly in the hands of the players The best teams have far more money, and they have the biggest stadiums, the nicest practice facilities, and the biggest recruiting budgets. USC's coaching staff can afford to scout and visit far more players than UAB's can.The college game doesn't have even CLOSE to the same level of financial parity as the NFL.