This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
unfair? no. These guys can ask for whatever they want, as far as I am concerned.Unrealistic? Definitely. Considering what he is asking for--more money than a guy taken before him, that plays the same position--has never happened, it seems pretty unrealistic to me.
On the other hand, when you are "only" the 10th worst team in the league, and you are allowed to pay #7 draft slot money for #5 draft slot talent, that's a pretty good turn of events for you, no?
Until next year, when the guy you take 16th plays the same position as a guy that went 8th. Then you got troubles.
It wasn't unrealistic for Haynesworth to ask to be the first defensive player to sign a contract for $100M.
I hope it's not as much trouble as losing a first round pick for nothing.
Exactly. Crabtree can hold out for as long as he wants, or he can even retire from football and try his hand at accounting or whatever. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.It would just be a really poor decision for him.
NFL teams and previously drafted players (along with their agents). There was no formal slotting proposal; it's just what teams and players have always done in the past because it makes good sense.
It's about as surprising as a player arguing for his "slot" money and a team disagreeing. Either side can buck the system if it wants; although doing so doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.In fact, it makes less sense for Crabtree to hold out for a better-than-slotting deal than it would make for the 49ers to do so. Crabtree needs the Niners more than the Niners need Crabtree.
You already know the response to this. Someone signs a new "biggest contract ever" every year. The 1st overall pick always gets the biggest rookie deal ever.But: "more money than a guy taken before him, that plays the same position" has never happened.
Exactly. SF brass does not earn the benefit of the doubt imo. Two other points - fair market value is meaningless in regard to top rookie picks. Many of them would likely command more cash if they were true fa's. I don't think SF has shown they can function just as well without Crabtree. If he is all he's expected to be, he could have really helped them pick up some first downs against the Vikings to lock down the win.
I find your double standard quite interesting. The players are greedy for wanting more money, but the owners aren't greedy for refusing to pay more?
Link to me saying anything about how much they should be paid?I simply said that Crabtree thinks he is above the pay structure that has been in place forever. Just like Parcells said, "Your record is what your record says you are" it's the same with your draft position. Crabtree thinks he should have been a top three pick, but quite a few teams decided to pass on him. You get paid what your draft position says you get paid. It's your market value. I don't care if some owner decides to pay the number one pick two billion dollars a year, but it needs to get lower from that point.
When you are drafted, and only one team can pay you, that's not a market.
This whole Crabtree debacle is purely business at this point.Are you serious? He signs the dotted line and he immediately becomes a multi-millionaire. And for what? Because he can run fast and catch a ball? His 'market value' is established by the players drafted before and after him. If it was simply a business decision, you'd see multiple holdouts every season where guys skip teh entire season and re-enter the draft.This is a prima donna move and a guy who's illusuion of how good he is is greater than the opinion of how good ten teams think he is.
I don't fault Crabtree for wanting more money.
Why on earth you would openly root for this guy a bust I don't understand. He thinks he's worth more than he's being offered. He made a decision and is sticking to his guns at this point. Why the hate?
For all SF's poor strategic decisions over the last 10 years, they have a reputation for negotiating fairly with players. This isn't an organization like AZ that is constantly in the press because its players are holding out or demanding new deals or whatever. Before Crabtree, they hadn't had a serious problem signing rookies. They have one of the best cap guys in the NFL.Now, could it be that SF has been lying through their teeth about offering a "fair" deal? Sure. But, based on the organization's history in contract negotiations, it seems a little out of character. Just because the team has been terrible in deciding who to pick (talent wise) doesn't mean they have been terrible in getting them signed.
This is a pretty godawful post. All players get paid money simply because they can run fast, catch the ball, etc. A) We have no idea how SF has offered him money.B) Players hold out all the time.There are lots of reasons to hate this guy and I'm fine with other SF homers disagreeing with me about this whole situation. But calling him injury prone or asking if he was scared to do the combine is stupid. And I don't understand why so many people need to hate on a guy for believing in his talents and asking to be compensated as such. The Raiders are idiots. To take another example mentioned in this thread, if you told me before the draft SF could get the #5 talent at the #7 price while drafting from the #10 spot, I'd be delighted.I still think this will get worked out and Crabtree will sign. I wouldn't expect any fantasy impact in redraft leagues. His agent is a pretty good one; people keep forgetting this isn't some rookie agent trying to make a name for himself.Enough with this 'fair market' talk. If this were a free market Crabtree would very likely make the most of all the wr's, Sanchez would have been paid a lot more, etc.
Why is it stupid? He didn't go tpo teh combine. That may very well have had something to do with his stock dropping.Also, I'm pretty sure that every player drafted in the first round 'believes in his talent'. Thjey just happoen to be football players who want to sign the dotted line (at fair market value, aka- paid for by draft position) and prove how much they're worth ON THE FIELD. Not by showing college highlights.
Im pretty sure we already know the answer to this question
What a stupid post. Aren't we all "all about getting paid."Why should Crabtree be stupid enough to accept less money, just b/c he plays football?There's a name for people who work for less money than they could earn, it's called a schmuck.uconnalum said:
He's not being asked to accept less money. He's been offered the money for his draft slot... period.
This is subjective, not objective. Objectively, he is #10 draft slot talent.
Well, that's the Patriots for ya.
Sure, SF is the bad guy because they want to pay him the same as any other team would who drafted him at #10.
You already know the response to this. Someone signs a new "biggest contract ever" every year. The 1st overall pick always gets the biggest rookie deal ever.But: "more money than a guy taken before him, that plays the same position" has never happened.It wasn't unrealistic for Haynesworth to ask to be the first defensive player to sign a contract for $100M.
I really hate to really weak strawman arguments in the Shark Pool. I expect it in the FFA.Haynesworth's situation is absolutely NOTHING like this. Haynesworth proved his worth on the NFL level, and he was a free agent. He was able to imporess potential suitors for his services with NFL game tape, and that alleviated some of his baggage. He got signed to a huge, and some would say exorbitant contract. It was clearly not unrealistic to try and be the highest paid defensive player when you have shown what you can do to that extent - and people get bigger deals all the the time. Crabtree hasn't proven nothing, and when it came time for him for impress his suitors above & beyond what he showed on the NCAA field, he failed to impress. He blew a very exclusive job interview process, which causes some organizations to decide he wasn't a worthy candidate for them to pursue hiring. Admittedly, some of them may not always make good decisions, but that happens in many fields. This is a union job, but while there is a starting salary scale, it's somewhat flexible, and some new employees get more than those who've been on the job a while. He doesn't like the scale, so he decides not to work - which is perfectly fine.However, new employees generally slot in a certain way, and that's fairly well established. I doubt he gets more than his slot.Honestly, if I'm the 49ers, I just wait until it is time to trade away his rights.So now he's a better RB than Coffee?
great twitter to follow!!
There's none better when it comes to following this team.Because that's his only option. Accept less money now or gamble that the Raiders will draft you next year.
Fixed.
A market requires open competition; there is no open competition for Crabtree's services right now. The Jets might have been willing to pay him more money than DHB, but they didn't get the chance because of the closed system which is the NFL draft. They can be fined and punished even for talking to Crabtree. It's fallacious to call the slotting system "market value"--it's a game that's rigged in favor of the owners, and the rookies have no leverage at all, because the market isn't open.
So you're against the draft and every college kid should be able to just come out and be a free agent?
That's a different argument. And really, what we as fans would want probably isn't best for the players. Heck, fans aren't even happy with the draft, they also want a rookie cap.
I'm not "against the draft," I'm just saying that the idea that the draft produces fair market values for incoming picks is fallacious. The fact that the slotting system generates approximate values for each pick does not mean that those values are fair.Among other things, consider that teams which pick early in the first round are more likely to have bad management than teams which pick late in the first round. Let us assume that a team with bad management (like the Raiders) is more likely to make a bad pick than a team with good management. If that assumption is true, the draft and the related slotting system will inherently produce incorrect values for players; it will overvalue bad players and undervalue good players.
The bolded section is exactly what I think. Does anyone expect if he goes back to the draft next year for him to go higher? I just couldn't see that happening, or is next years rookie WR class pretty horrible? I dont wish any injuries on Crabtree, but if he is unwilling to sign his rookie contract, I hope that his draft stock does go way down and he realizes what a mistake he made.Matthias said:
Exactly correct. Next year, there are going to be teams that shy awaty from him simply because of his Prima Donna atttude he's shown. He's already a mini-version of all the self-aborbed receivers this league has seen recently (Owens, Marshall, Chad Johnson, etc). He's probably going to get drafted even later next year. Bottom line is, he'll never get the money back that he would have earned this year.Thank God this guy gets to make a living with his body and not his brains.
Hmm, I drafted him this year then dropped him after week 2 or so. I guess I should try to grab him again, but I have no cap room so Johnny Knox & Shonn Greene would have to go.
Thought aabout dropping Felix Jones instead though since he seems to get hurt a lot & I am pretty goood at RB w/Mendy, MJD, Ronnie & Lynch...
I'd be surprised if he makes a fantasy impact this season.Hmm, I drafted him this year then dropped him after week 2 or so. I guess I should try to grab him again, but I have no cap room so Johnny Knox & Shonn Greene would have to go.
Well, the NFL is not a free market in the sense of a bunch of entities competing tooth and nail with each other for the same dollar. It's a league, a collective of franchises with a common interest, and the owners and players all agree to certain parameters to help maximize economic viability for all concerned. The rookie pay structure makes sense for the league as a whole and for obvious reasons is supported by both the veteran players and the owners. So yeah, Crabtree's "market value" as a rookie is more or less pre-determined. Of course, if he doesn't like it nobody is holding a gun to his head to sign, but if he wants to play football in the NFL, that's how the system works. End of story.
I feel ya man, but you'll forget as soon as he's in uniform.
Seems to me it's *very* likely he would go lower in next years draft. Quite possibly significantly lower. If Crabtree was foolish enough to sit out the entire year and try his luck again in 2010, even if he was the second WR off the board after Dez Bryant, I certainly don't see him going 10th overall.
