Abolishing the draft (1 Viewer)

[Spartans Rule]

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.

And what's so bad about nothing? In the salary cap system, isn't not having a player better than paying him far more than he's worth? Isn't that why we see so many "cap casualties" this time every year?

 

[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.

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.

Insurance isn't that expensive, and it would be a guarantee for one of the "high level" players to make this money that they think they have coming to them. It would be the only chance for the union to agree to some type of rookie contract, so some career ending insurance policy could make up for that.I'm not sure what you mean by the outsourcing comment, honestly, not sure what you mean there.As for why teams pay the big money to rookies that you asked later. Once the system starts there really is no way out without an executive change. One team can't try to change it themselves, they would loose talent, loose competitiveness, then loose revenue.Or maybe they teams really don’t mind this system as much as some of the fans do, I’ve never heard rookie contracts brought up as a major team issue except by fans. Has this issue really even been brought up in NFL labor talks?

 

[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.

And what's so bad about nothing? In the salary cap system, isn't not having a player better than paying him far more than he's worth? Isn't that why we see so many "cap casualties" this time every year?

would be a huge PR blow to the franchise if a team drafted a player #1 overall and then was unable to sign him. rookies who are drafted very highly have far too much leverage, IMHO.regardless, the draft after the first 10 picks or so seems to work just fine. players get slotted in with a reasonable salary and teams are normally able to hold onto them for 4+ years before they have to consider giving them a large contract extension. it's the very high picks where things are messed up.

 

[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.

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.

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?

Don't confuse good player evaluation with ability to work the cap. The Redskins are masters of the latter, but have a very spotty record as the former. The salary cap does equalize things to a degree, but not every team pays out compensation up to the limits of the cap, and not every team can affort to frontload contracts with cash paid out in bonus the way that, for example, the Redskins can and do in order to increase the de facto amount of cap room they have to work with.

What I like about the draft is that, for two days at least, the entire league is compelled to compete on an entirely even playing field. It's a great equalizer, and the best that the league has even after all of these years with trying to come up with others including the salary cap system.

 

[FUBAR]

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.

I also disagree, but more because you chose Miami and Oakland. If anything, Miami could benefit, along with other prime locales. It shouldn't surprise anyone if rookie players would prefer to play in Miami, Jacksonville, San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego (now, not when Marty was there), etc. Certain colleges could become quasi-farm teams to teams nearby. College players go to USC, Texas, etc. almost as much for the co-eds and weather as for the program. The real losers here would be the Lions, Bills, Vikings, Green Bay etc. the only way they'd compete is by hiring the top coaches, probably have to move into domes too (those who haven't already) - who wants to play in sub-zero temps if they can attempt to avoid it?

 

[GregR_2]

...would be a huge PR blow to the franchise if a team drafted a player #1 overall and then was unable to sign him. rookies who are drafted very highly have far too much leverage, IMHO.regardless, the draft after the first 10 picks or so seems to work just fine. players get slotted in with a reasonable salary and teams are normally able to hold onto them for 4+ years before they have to consider giving them a large contract extension. it's the very high picks where things are messed up.

Agreed. I realize Chase had a lot of posts to get back to when he returned to the thread, but I'm hoping he'll answer my post. If as he says the problem is the gap between the star rookies and the rest, then why not just fix the problem and make that gap smaller? Put limits on the picks so that some of the money currently going to the stars is spread out down the line. The gap becomes more in line with reality, the rookies make the same amount of money as a group that they did before, it wasn't transferred to vets or owners.

 

[Chase Stuart]

As for why teams pay the big money to rookies that you asked later. Once the system starts there really is no way out without an executive change. One team can't try to change it themselves, they would loose talent, loose competitiveness, then loose revenue.

Do you really think rookies are overpaid? Are you suggesting that every team then overpays their rookies, otherwise they would be at a competitive disadvantage? If a team chose to spend its money on veterans at bargain deals, and not overpay for rookies, they'd be at a competitive disadvantage? You've got it all backwards. Consider: Would the Dolphins trade the #1 pick for the #10 pick? The #10 pick costs a lot less, and you seem to think that the top pick is being overpaid. If the team with the #10 pick offered it up to Miami, why wouldn't they accept?

 

[Chase Stuart]

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.

I don't think there's a problem with the huge contracts that star rookies get anymore than I think there's a problem with the huge contract Nate Clements got from the 49ers.

 

[GregR_2]

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.

I don't think there's a problem with the huge contracts that star rookies get anymore than I think there's a problem with the huge contract Nate Clements got from the 49ers.

This guy seemed to agree it was the problem with a rookie distribution system meant to allow bad teams to improve.

I think we agree that giving huge contracts to star rookies isn't a great way to improve bad teams.

 

[Riffraff]

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.

Nice sarcasm. However misguided and ill-informed.Green Bay is community owned. They will lose the franchise if they have to compete with billionaire owners with money to spend and big cities to offer.Buffalo has been in danger of losing their franchise for many years due to a lack of fan support (hello Toronto fans).They are out in the middle of nowhere and only have a small support base. Players wouldn't want to go there as a primary spot due to less amenities (early 20 year olds with money need these), small fan base (not a lot rooting for them regionally), and low pay (can't compete with the big cities).Plenty of people attend places like the University of North Dakota (smaller school out in the middle of nowhere). But that doesn't mean they actually stay there to live and work. Some do, most don't.Welcome to the world of business. Small teams get eaten by big cities. The salary cap, profit sharing, and the draft keep these smaller cities in the league.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Buffalo has been in danger of losing their franchise for many years due to a lack of fan support (hello Toronto fans).

speaking of being ill-informed, this couldn't be much further from the truth.

 

[Riffraff]

Buffalo has been in danger of losing their franchise for many years due to a lack of fan support (hello Toronto fans).

speaking of being ill-informed, this couldn't be much further from the truth.

Do explain why the owner would like to move or sell and now Toronto will get "home games" if it's not about $$$. Fan support pays the $$$.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Buffalo has been in danger of losing their franchise for many years due to a lack of fan support (hello Toronto fans).

speaking of being ill-informed, this couldn't be much further from the truth.

Do explain why the owner would like to move or sell and now Toronto will get "home games" if it's not about $$$. Fan support pays the $$$.

it's about money, not about a lack of fan support.http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/attendance?s...l&year=2007

and the owner does not want to move or sell. Wilson has said many times that he has no plans to sell the team before he dies.

 

[Chase Stuart]

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.

I don't think there's a problem with the huge contracts that star rookies get anymore than I think there's a problem with the huge contract Nate Clements got from the 49ers.

This guy seemed to agree it was the problem with a rookie distribution system meant to allow bad teams to improve.

I think we agree that giving huge contracts to star rookies isn't a great way to improve bad teams.

The Raiders last year weren't much better thanks to paying JaMarcus Russell big bucks. I don't have a problem with Russell making big bucks, though. I don't understand the question/confusion.

 

[Chase Stuart]

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.

Nice sarcasm. However misguided and ill-informed.Green Bay is community owned. They will lose the franchise if they have to compete with billionaire owners with money to spend and big cities to offer.Buffalo has been in danger of losing their franchise for many years due to a lack of fan support (hello Toronto fans).They are out in the middle of nowhere and only have a small support base. Players wouldn't want to go there as a primary spot due to less amenities (early 20 year olds with money need these), small fan base (not a lot rooting for them regionally), and low pay (can't compete with the big cities).Plenty of people attend places like the University of North Dakota (smaller school out in the middle of nowhere). But that doesn't mean they actually stay there to live and work. Some do, most don't.Welcome to the world of business. Small teams get eaten by big cities. The salary cap, profit sharing, and the draft keep these smaller cities in the league.

Were you against free agency, too?

 

[The Tick]

As for why teams pay the big money to rookies that you asked later. Once the system starts there really is no way out without an executive change. One team can't try to change it themselves, they would loose talent, loose competitiveness, then loose revenue.

Do you really think rookies are overpaid? Are you suggesting that every team then overpays their rookies, otherwise they would be at a competitive disadvantage? If a team chose to spend its money on veterans at bargain deals, and not overpay for rookies, they'd be at a competitive disadvantage? You've got it all backwards. Consider: Would the Dolphins trade the #1 pick for the #10 pick? The #10 pick costs a lot less, and you seem to think that the top pick is being overpaid. If the team with the #10 pick offered it up to Miami, why wouldn't they accept?

I believe most top 10 pick players are overpaid for their performance for the first couple of years. Some mature into their contracts, others never do, and are to expensive and too much of a PR hit to cut.Beyond top 10 or 15 or so, no, I don't think it's an issue, the contracts come down to earth and teams aren't giving millions to someone who has never set foot on a pro football field.

Would the dolphins trade #1 for #10 straight up? No, because it would be a PR nightmare. Not picking anyone would be worse then making the wrong pick. Do I think some team maybe like the dolphins would be better off doing that and saving the money some years? HECK YES I do. I think the dolphins know they are going to be stuck overpaying a player this year, that's why they want to get out of the pick. I also think every team in the league knows they will be overpaying, so no one wants to give them the perceived value to jump up there. At that point you can't reach on a player you want because you have to pay them too much money, you become stuck paying someone superstar money no matter if you think they will become one or not.

And actually the more I think about this, the more ridiculous and un-American it is because those #1 picks don't get paid based off their performance, they get paid based on what was given out last year. Even if this was the worst draft class in history, and the best player in the draft is only as skilled as the player drafted #33 last year, this #1 player is going to get a contract based on the position picked, not his skill relative to the rest of the league at all.

 

[Chase Stuart]

As for why teams pay the big money to rookies that you asked later. Once the system starts there really is no way out without an executive change. One team can't try to change it themselves, they would loose talent, loose competitiveness, then loose revenue.

Do you really think rookies are overpaid? Are you suggesting that every team then overpays their rookies, otherwise they would be at a competitive disadvantage? If a team chose to spend its money on veterans at bargain deals, and not overpay for rookies, they'd be at a competitive disadvantage? You've got it all backwards. Consider: Would the Dolphins trade the #1 pick for the #10 pick? The #10 pick costs a lot less, and you seem to think that the top pick is being overpaid. If the team with the #10 pick offered it up to Miami, why wouldn't they accept?

I believe most top 10 pick players are overpaid for their performance for the first couple of years. Some mature into their contracts, others never do, and are to expensive and too much of a PR hit to cut.Beyond top 10 or 15 or so, no, I don't think it's an issue, the contracts come down to earth and teams aren't giving millions to someone who has never set foot on a pro football field.

Would the dolphins trade #1 for #10 straight up? No, because it would be a PR nightmare. Not picking anyone would be worse then making the wrong pick. Do I think some team maybe like the dolphins would be better off doing that and saving the money some years? HECK YES I do. I think the dolphins know they are going to be stuck overpaying a player this year, that's why they want to get out of the pick. I also think every team in the league knows they will be overpaying, so no one wants to give them the perceived value to jump up there. At that point you can't reach on a player you want because you have to pay them too much money, you become stuck paying someone superstar money no matter if you think they will become one or not.

And actually the more I think about this, the more ridiculous and un-American it is because those #1 picks don't get paid based off their performance, they get paid based on what was given out last year. Even if this was the worst draft class in history, and the best player in the draft is only as skilled as the player drafted #33 last year, this #1 player is going to get a contract based on the position picked, not his skill relative to the rest of the league at all.

This same Miami team that was so PR-conscious that it cut Zack Thomas?The Dolphins wouldn't trade the #1 pick for the #10 pick straight up because it would be a PR nightmare; they won't trade the pick because it would be stupid. General managers and coaches don't try and make the press happy, they try to win. If the team was better off doing X, they would do that.

As for your hypo, the #1 player isn't going to get a contract based on the position he was picked; he'll get a contract that his agent and his team think is fair. The team isn't required to give him #1 pick money by any means.

 

[Riffraff]

Buffalo has been in danger of losing their franchise for many years due to a lack of fan support (hello Toronto fans).

speaking of being ill-informed, this couldn't be much further from the truth.

Do explain why the owner would like to move or sell and now Toronto will get "home games" if it's not about $$$. Fan support pays the $$$.

it's about money, not about a lack of fan support.http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/attendance?s...l&year=2007

and the owner does not want to move or sell. Wilson has said many times that he has no plans to sell the team before he dies.

I'll concede the total numbers game, they do have a division with big city fans in it (NY, Miami, and the New England region).Do notice - Using your same link, sort by percent (of stadium filled). Buffalo is 31st in the league for home games and over-all games. 88.8% and 93.6% respectively, of the seats filled. They do well on the road at 15th place (due to the home team filling up the stadium).

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/attendance?s...c&year=2007

Stats can be used just about any way we want them to be used.

I still say Buffalo would eventually lose their team if the draft and salary cap went away.

 

[FUBAR]

Buffalo has been in danger of losing their franchise for many years due to a lack of fan support (hello Toronto fans).

speaking of being ill-informed, this couldn't be much further from the truth.

Do explain why the owner would like to move or sell and now Toronto will get "home games" if it's not about $$$. Fan support pays the $$$.

it's about money, not about a lack of fan support.http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/attendance?s...l&year=2007

and the owner does not want to move or sell. Wilson has said many times that he has no plans to sell the team before he dies.

It seems to be a matter of high-revenue boxes and not the local fans. Then again, what's there to do in Buffalo except football, hockey, and ice fishing?

It is interesting that Buffalo only has one year with over 90% capacity. Huge stadium, but that is much lower than I thought - also, no other team was below 90% in 07 or 06, except Jacksonville.

 

[The Tick]

This same Miami team that was so PR-conscious that it cut Zack Thomas?The Dolphins wouldn't trade the #1 pick for the #10 pick straight up because it would be a PR nightmare; they won't trade the pick because it would be stupid. General managers and coaches don't try and make the press happy, they try to win. If the team was better off doing X, they would do that. As for your hypo, the #1 player isn't going to get a contract based on the position he was picked; he'll get a contract that his agent and his team think is fair. The team isn't required to give him #1 pick money by any means.

1 for 10 a little much, not going to happen, you likely hit a big talent drop-off by that point. I would bet there are a lot of teams with the #1 or #2 pick that would love to be sitting at #5 instead. A good portion of the time they can probably get the player they want and manage to save a ton of money.You make it sound really easy for a team to sign a player for what they feel they are worth. Just because they think they can get a player at 5 but draft him at 1, there is no chance they can sign him for the same money they guy actually drafted at 5 makes. There will be contract issues, holdouts, the player will threaten to go back into the draft, and the team really looses. Hell players don't want to get paid where they are drafted half they time because they feel they were more valuable then their draft spot.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Buffalo has been in danger of losing their franchise for many years due to a lack of fan support (hello Toronto fans).

speaking of being ill-informed, this couldn't be much further from the truth.

Do explain why the owner would like to move or sell and now Toronto will get "home games" if it's not about $$$. Fan support pays the $$$.

it's about money, not about a lack of fan support.http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/attendance?s...l&year=2007

and the owner does not want to move or sell. Wilson has said many times that he has no plans to sell the team before he dies.

I'll concede the total numbers game, they do have a division with big city fans in it (NY, Miami, and the New England region).Do notice - Using your same link, sort by percent (of stadium filled). Buffalo is 31st in the league for home games and over-all games. 88.8% and 93.6% respectively, of the seats filled. They do well on the road at 15th place (due to the home team filling up the stadium).

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/attendance?s...c&year=2007

Stats can be used just about any way we want them to be used.

I still say Buffalo would eventually lose their team if the draft and salary cap went away.

Buffalo is one of the smallest markets in the league with one of the largest stadiums.Buffalo is a cold weather city without a dome.

The economy in Buffalo is not very good and the city has almost no corporate base compared to other NFL markets.

The Bills haven't made the playoffs since the 1999 season.

yet, they still sold more tickets than 23 other NFL franchises last year.

they may lose the franchise eventually. like I said, "lack of fan support" is not the reason. not even close.

 

[Chase Stuart]

This same Miami team that was so PR-conscious that it cut Zack Thomas?The Dolphins wouldn't trade the #1 pick for the #10 pick straight up because it would be a PR nightmare; they won't trade the pick because it would be stupid. General managers and coaches don't try and make the press happy, they try to win. If the team was better off doing X, they would do that. As for your hypo, the #1 player isn't going to get a contract based on the position he was picked; he'll get a contract that his agent and his team think is fair. The team isn't required to give him #1 pick money by any means.

1 for 10 a little much, not going to happen, you likely hit a big talent drop-off by that point. I would bet there are a lot of teams with the #1 or #2 pick that would love to be sitting at #5 instead. A good portion of the time they can probably get the player they want and manage to save a ton of money.You make it sound really easy for a team to sign a player for what they feel they are worth. Just because they think they can get a player at 5 but draft him at 1, there is no chance they can sign him for the same money they guy actually drafted at 5 makes. There will be contract issues, holdouts, the player will threaten to go back into the draft, and the team really looses. Hell players don't want to get paid where they are drafted half they time because they feel they were more valuable then their draft spot.

I think if a team with the #1 pick wanted to be sitting at #5, it would be really easy to do that. The Jets, Cardinals and Chargers traded out of the 1st or 2nd spot easily in the past fifteen years, and all received significant premiums to do so. The #5 pick isn't better than the #1 pick, otherwise those teams would make that trade.I understand that it's not easy to sign a player to a contract he doesn't want, but that's true all the time. It's not like the rookie has a ton of leverage in the negotiations. There's no law that the #5 pick can't be paid more than the #3 pick.It would be a lot of fun to see the rookies just enter free agency like regular NFL players. It would certainly make the off-season a bit more interesting, as teams could decide to spend a lot on rookies and not a lot on veterans, vice-versa, or some mixture of both. Plus the teams could get the players they really wanted. Think of an auction vs. a draft in FF.

 

[Riffraff]

Were you against free agency, too?

Not sure what you mean. I see free agency as the unemployed looking for employment.Workers will go where the jobs are. In this case, 32 cities have the jobs.Supply and demand. If the NFL lost the draft and the cap, the jobs would relocate out of certain places. Free agents will go to the new team locations, regardless of where they are because they want to be employed in their profession of choice. Not necessarily because they like the city they are moving to, but because they get to play football. And yes, some locations will have "higher position openings" than others (starting jobs, higher pay, etc). Employees will look for those as well, regardless of location.Not sure that answered your question though.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Were you against free agency, too?

Not sure what you mean. I see free agency as the unemployed looking for employment.Workers will go where the jobs are. In this case, 32 cities have the jobs.Supply and demand. If the NFL lost the draft and the cap, the jobs would relocate out of certain places. Free agents will go to the new team locations, regardless of where they are because they want to be employed in their profession of choice. Not necessarily because they like the city they are moving to, but because they get to play football. And yes, some locations will have "higher position openings" than others (starting jobs, higher pay, etc). Employees will look for those as well, regardless of location.Not sure that answered your question though.

I'm not saying we should abolish the salary cap. I'm saying abolish the draft. Huge difference there.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

It's not like the rookie has a ton of leverage in the negotiations.

wow. I think the rookie absolutely has a ton of leverage in the negotiations.

 

[GregR_2]

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.

I don't think there's a problem with the huge contracts that star rookies get anymore than I think there's a problem with the huge contract Nate Clements got from the 49ers.

This guy seemed to agree it was the problem with a rookie distribution system meant to allow bad teams to improve.

I think we agree that giving huge contracts to star rookies isn't a great way to improve bad teams.

The Raiders last year weren't much better thanks to paying JaMarcus Russell big bucks. I don't have a problem with Russell making big bucks, though. I don't understand the question/confusion.

You came in here asking about Doug's proposed change to the system, and then have made a slew of posts supporting it. Doug's proposal was largely based on the big gap in early pick salaries vs other rookies being a problem that keeps the draft from fulfilling its purpose. You have made a bunch of posts expressing that you too see this problem.Whether or not you have a problem with pick 1.1 making a lot of money doesn't change that you're advocating a change intended to deal with a problematic gap between his salary and other rookies. If you have some other problem you are trying to address, you should #### and get off the pot and tell us what it is and stop playing devil's advocate. If not, then don't be surprised when it's assumed you are trying to address the same issue Doug was and the same one you keep indicating is a problem for bad teams improving. Now back to what I suggested. You are advocating a system with the exact same effect of lowering the salary of the guy who would be pick 1.1.... I'm suggesting you lower it by setting the salaries by collective bargaining and shift some of the money to the other rookies until that problematic gap is gone. You are suggesting a change that lowers the 1.1 player's leverage to where he will normally get less money, and that money will be shifted to other rookies, to vets, or possibly kept by owners.How is that better than just targeting the actual problem with the draft fulfilling what it was meant to do?

 

[Chase Stuart]

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.

I don't think there's a problem with the huge contracts that star rookies get anymore than I think there's a problem with the huge contract Nate Clements got from the 49ers.

This guy seemed to agree it was the problem with a rookie distribution system meant to allow bad teams to improve.

I think we agree that giving huge contracts to star rookies isn't a great way to improve bad teams.

The Raiders last year weren't much better thanks to paying JaMarcus Russell big bucks. I don't have a problem with Russell making big bucks, though. I don't understand the question/confusion.

You came in here asking about Doug's proposed change to the system, and then have made a slew of posts supporting it. Doug's proposal was largely based on the big gap in early pick salaries vs other rookies being a problem that keeps the draft from fulfilling its purpose. You have made a bunch of posts expressing that you too see this problem.Whether or not you have a problem with pick 1.1 making a lot of money doesn't change that you're advocating a change intended to deal with a problematic gap between his salary and other rookies. If you have some other problem you are trying to address, you should #### and get off the pot and tell us what it is and stop playing devil's advocate. If not, then don't be surprised when it's assumed you are trying to address the same issue Doug was and the same one you keep indicating is a problem for bad teams improving. Now back to what I suggested. You are advocating a system with the exact same effect of lowering the salary of the guy who would be pick 1.1.... I'm suggesting you lower it by setting the salaries by collective bargaining and shift some of the money to the other rookies until that problematic gap is gone. You are suggesting a change that lowers the 1.1 player's leverage to where he will normally get less money, and that money will be shifted to other rookies, to vets, or possibly kept by owners.How is that better than just targeting the actual problem with the draft fulfilling what it was meant to do?

The draft was made in pre-salary cap days, and addressed a pre-salary cap problem.If we removed the draft, I think the #1 pick would get more money, the #5 pick would get a lot more money, and the #30 pick would get a ton more money. I think it would be fun to have the rookies enter free agency and give teams more flexibility with their offseason outlook. Maybe the Jets could get Chris Long if they really wanted him badly, and wouldn't have to overpay for him (to say, the Rams) if the Rams wanted him, too. It would also be more fair to the rookies to have some input in the process.

 

[Riffraff]

I'm not saying we should abolish the salary cap. I'm saying abolish the draft. Huge difference there.

I think to help level the playing field, the draft is needed. Free agency is normal for most of society, but the NFL is it's own special entity.The NFL is trying to have a quality product from top to bottom (team wise). The draft is a way of keeping the balance. A necessary evil.A completely free market would disturb the balance the NFL is trying to maintain.Humans are a community based species, we congregate and make larger populations. Large cities would have a distinct advantage over smaller ones for bringing in talent.

 

[Chase Stuart]

It's not like the rookie has a ton of leverage in the negotiations.

wow. I think the rookie absolutely has a ton of leverage in the negotiations.

I think almost every rookie would make money if they were free agents than if they were slotted in the draft like they currently are.It's essentially a bilateral monopoly situation, but the rookie has more to lose. The money is worth more to him than the value of the play is to the team, because the team can replace his contributions through free agency or trade, and can punish him in non-monetary ways (rookies that hold-out know that their odds of starting and playing are lower, increased injury risk, etc.). If JaMarcus Russell doesn't sign with the Raiders, he's got to hope to get a similar contract (minus the time value of the signing bonus and the first year base salary, along with the costs associated with reaching free agency a year later) but may not, because other teams in the league may be scared off. If the Raiders don't get Russell, they could trade for Derek Anderson, or draft Matt Ryan, or sign Drew Brees. Essentially, only the middle option is available to Russell -- be drafted by another team -- because of NFL rules requiring the player to re-enter the draft.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'm not saying we should abolish the salary cap. I'm saying abolish the draft. Huge difference there.

I think to help level the playing field, the draft is needed. Free agency is normal for most of society, but the NFL is it's own special entity.

The NFL is trying to have a quality product from top to bottom (team wise).

The draft is a way of keeping the balance. A necessary evil.

A completely free market would disturb the balance the NFL is trying to maintain.

Humans are a community based species, we congregate and make larger populations.

Large cities would have a distinct advantage over smaller ones for bringing in talent.

It's not a completely free market. There's a salary cap. It's not a free market. If there was no salary cap, I would agree with you that abolishing the draft is a bad idea. Since there's revenue sharing and a salary cap, I disagree.

 

[roadkill1292]

I'm not saying we should abolish the salary cap. I'm saying abolish the draft. Huge difference there.

I think to help level the playing field, the draft is needed. Free agency is normal for most of society, but the NFL is it's own special entity.

The NFL is trying to have a quality product from top to bottom (team wise).

The draft is a way of keeping the balance. A necessary evil.

A completely free market would disturb the balance the NFL is trying to maintain.

Humans are a community based species, we congregate and make larger populations.

Large cities would have a distinct advantage over smaller ones for bringing in talent.

It's not a completely free market. There's a salary cap. It's not a free market. If there was no salary cap, I would agree with you that abolishing the draft is a bad idea. Since there's revenue sharing and a salary cap, I disagree.

As do I. We had this argument four years ago and many of the arguments against abolition of the draft focused around free agents not wanting to play in San Diego or Cincinnati. People using those same arguments today regarding Green Bay or Buffalo are equally misguided.The draft isn't fair for the rookies and it isn't fair for the successful teams. To sacrifice that fairness in the interest of parity is an injustice. As I said in the linked topic, it should be about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. Subsidizing the inept with a more advantageous draft position rubs me the wrong way.

 

[trader jake]

Um, no...the draft is one of the best aspects of the NFL. Other than lowering the amount spent on 1st round picks (more of that cash should go to proven veterans) I don't see why we fans would want this changed in favor of free agency for rookies.

 

[trader jake]

The draft isn't fair for the rookies and it isn't fair for the successful teams. To sacrifice that fairness in the interest of parity is an injustice. As I said in the linked topic, it should be about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. Subsidizing the inept with a more advantageous draft position rubs me the wrong way.

Solid post but the NFL isn't interested in rewarding greatness, they're interested in making money. Having 32 viable teams with energized fan bases makes for a great league. The draft offers that in spades every year. Free agency for rookies would give Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder more face time and divide the leagues owners between the cash haves and the havenots...much like major league baseball. I doubt anybody wants to go down THAT road.Not fair for rookies? The 1st round picks make a lot of cash considering they haven't proven anything in the NFL. Players selected rounds 2-7 (or even street free agents) have a great opportunity to make a lot of money if they can play. That wouldn't change one bit with free agency for rookies because only the top players would cash big checks from day 1 anyway.

 

[FUBAR]

Were you against free agency, too?

Not sure what you mean. I see free agency as the unemployed looking for employment.Workers will go where the jobs are. In this case, 32 cities have the jobs.Supply and demand. If the NFL lost the draft and the cap, the jobs would relocate out of certain places. Free agents will go to the new team locations, regardless of where they are because they want to be employed in their profession of choice. Not necessarily because they like the city they are moving to, but because they get to play football. And yes, some locations will have "higher position openings" than others (starting jobs, higher pay, etc). Employees will look for those as well, regardless of location.Not sure that answered your question though.

I'm not saying we should abolish the salary cap. I'm saying abolish the draft. Huge difference there.

I propose a compromise. Salary cap which includes all players NOT in their first contract. An NBA style structure for rookies. Maintain competitive balance (attempt anyway) and the draft doesn't hurt the bad teams.

 

[coolnerd]

One of the problems with this discussion is that many think of the NFL as 32 separate busineeses. It is a single business with 32 offices. It is not in the game of free market capitalism, but of selling one unit ( the National football league) even though the 32 have their own particular interests. The draft is essentially a manner in which one business allows its offices to select and pay for its key employees. For the entire business called the NFL, parity is an important concept even if it is not fair for the indivdiual employess (players) or offices (teams). The NFL is not a vechicle of free market capaitalism nor does it intend to be.

 

[GregR_2]

One of the problems with this discussion is that many think of the NFL as 32 separate busineeses. It is a single business with 32 offices. It is not in the game of free market capitalism, but of selling one unit ( the National football league) even though the 32 have their own particular interests. The draft is essentially a manner in which one business allows its offices to select and pay for its key employees. For the entire business called the NFL, parity is an important concept even if it is not fair for the indivdiual employess (players) or offices (teams). The NFL is not a vechicle of free market capaitalism nor does it intend to be.

 

[FUBAR]

One of the problems with this discussion is that many think of the NFL as 32 separate busineeses. It is a single business with 32 offices. It is not in the game of free market capitalism, but of selling one unit ( the National football league) even though the 32 have their own particular interests. The draft is essentially a manner in which one business allows its offices to select and pay for its key employees. For the entire business called the NFL, parity is an important concept even if it is not fair for the indivdiual employess (players) or offices (teams). The NFL is not a vechicle of free market capaitalism nor does it intend to be.

True, although it's more like a business that sells franchises than one with branch offices.

 

[coolnerd]

One of the problems with this discussion is that many think of the NFL as 32 separate busineeses. It is a single business with 32 offices. It is not in the game of free market capitalism, but of selling one unit ( the National football league) even though the 32 have their own particular interests. The draft is essentially a manner in which one business allows its offices to select and pay for its key employees. For the entire business called the NFL, parity is an important concept even if it is not fair for the indivdiual employess (players) or offices (teams). The NFL is not a vechicle of free market capaitalism nor does it intend to be.

True, although it's more like a business that sells franchises than one with branch offices.

Agreed. Neither is a perfect model, because of the dollars involved or rights of the employees, but a dozen or so year ago when i was in fast food management, I literally was "traded" from one location to another depending on the particular needs at a given moment and actually was placed in my initial store after some bidding (or draft) process that I had no control over.

 

[dominus]

I think they should just cap rookie salaries.... they are way overpaid and unless Lawrence Taylor or Joe Montana is coming out, you don't want the #1 pick.

 

[ratbast]

Shouldn't it be the Team's responsibility to trade? If the weight of the first is too heavy, trade down.

 

[3nOut]

So if they get rid of the draft, how do we select our fantasy players?

 

[redman]

So if they get rid of the draft, how do we select our fantasy players?

By height.

 

[coolnerd]

Shouldn't it be the Team's responsibility to trade? If the weight of the first is too heavy, trade down.

The issue is who wants to trade up. I saw an quote from some GM (don't remember where) that his response to any one who wanted to trade down from a high first round pick was "so you are going to give the number 1 and what for us move up"In most cases (there are very notable exceptions), the teams in the top 1/3 of the draft all have the same problem; multiple needs. They are not willing to trade up at even "bargain" prices. Essentailly, you asking a team with bunches of problems to potentially resolve only one or two and pay more money not to address the team's lack of overall talent.

 

[Jedimaster21]

I have a problem with unproven rookies making more money than players that have been in the league several years and performed at a high level. Nate Clements got his contract because he played at an elite level IN THE NFL for several years. Jamarcus Russel has never shown anything beyond the college level, and he is making more money than many of the best QBs in the league. It just doesn't make sense, and there needs to be some kind of cap to the rookie contracts.

Even if the system stays as it is, and the top pick is still paid so much money that it hinders a teams cap position, eliminating the draft would severely affect parity in the league. After those first 10 picks, the money becomes a lot more reasonable, and the worst team not only gets that first pick in the draft, but the first pick in every single round of the draft. After seven rounds, that becomes a lot of value, even after you factor in the money spent on the first pick.

 

[roadkill1292]

What I like about the draft is that, for two days at least, the entire league is compelled to compete on an entirely even playing field. It's a great equalizer, and the best that the league has even after all of these years with trying to come up with others including the salary cap system.

red, my good friend, I don't see what is so even about a team getting the first pick every round while another team gets the 32nd pick every round. This isn't like one of our fantasy drafts where No. 32 also gets the 33rd pick.

 

[roadkill1292]

It would be a lot of fun to see the rookies just enter free agency like regular NFL players. It would certainly make the off-season a bit more interesting, as teams could decide to spend a lot on rookies and not a lot on veterans, vice-versa, or some mixture of both. Plus the teams could get the players they really wanted. Think of an auction vs. a draft in FF.

This very concisely sums up my feelings on this issue. I like the greater freedoms, and ensuing greater challenges, provided to a team in building its roster. Yes, some teams will fail miserably. I don't have a problem with that. It's a pipe dream, to say the very least, but a televised NFL rookie auction would be ridiculously entertaining.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I think almost every rookie would make money if they were free agents than if they were slotted in the draft like they currently are.

I assume you meant to say that every rookie would make *more* money if they were free agents. I completely disagree with that premise. In fact, I think most would make less, and in the case of the players drafted at the top of round 1 in most years, considerably less than they do now.

 

[Christo]

Only one thing to do. All 32 teams gather around a big table and have an auction draft.

 

[westbrook36]

The draft is fine the way it is. The main problem is the fact that there is no rookie salary cap. What the NFL needs to do is have a rookie salary cap like the NBA does(one of the very few things the NBA does well). When you get drafted to the NBA, each pick has a set value. There is no contract negotiations, no hold outs, and no enormous contracts to the top draft picks. The first two years of the contract are guaranteed, then the third and fourth years of the deal are team options.

If the NFL adopted this system the league would be much better off. You would never see players like Jamarcus Russell get $30 million worth of guaranteed money on his rookie contract.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I have a problem with unproven rookies making more money than players that have been in the league several years and performed at a high level. Nate Clements got his contract because he played at an elite level IN THE NFL for several years. Jamarcus Russel has never shown anything beyond the college level, and he is making more money than many of the best QBs in the league. It just doesn't make sense, and there needs to be some kind of cap to the rookie contracts.

Contracts don't reward players for past performance, but rather pay players for expected future performance. Knowing what Nate Clements will do in the future is a crapshoot just like guessing what JaMarcus Russell will do in the future.There's a reason the Raiders are willing to pay so much money to Russell. It's because the chance to grab an elite QB at a young age happens only once a decade or so for most franchises. Look how much the Falcons and Giants paid in money and draft picks to get a chance to grab Vick and Manning.