What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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!

Grantland.com (1 Viewer)

Pierce called the NFL draft process "vile and (probably) utterly against antitrust law" in his Aaron Hernandez piece today. He's (probably) blowing stuff out of his butt when it comes to the legal stuff but I'm really glad he's a consistent voice in opposition to NFL practices.

 
roadkill1292 said:
Pierce called the NFL draft process "vile and (probably) utterly against antitrust law" in his Aaron Hernandez piece today. He's (probably) blowing stuff out of his butt when it comes to the legal stuff but I'm really glad he's a consistent voice in opposition to NFL practices.
Click to expand...
Not an antitrust violation if it is collectively bargained.

 
roadkill1292 said:
Pierce called the NFL draft process "vile and (probably) utterly against antitrust law" in his Aaron Hernandez piece today. He's (probably) blowing stuff out of his butt when it comes to the legal stuff but I'm really glad he's a consistent voice in opposition to NFL practices.
Click to expand...
Yeah. It definitely isn't against antitrust law. We have cases on that. Even if he's arguing that it should be against the law, I'd argue that he hasn't considered how that would kneecap collective bargaining.

 
roadkill1292 said:
Pierce called the NFL draft process "vile and (probably) utterly against antitrust law" in his Aaron Hernandez piece today. He's (probably) blowing stuff out of his butt when it comes to the legal stuff but I'm really glad he's a consistent voice in opposition to NFL practices.
Click to expand...
He's one of the worst writers on the site. Everything he writes is overdramatic and ridiculous. Every time I see some writer claim or insinuate that the NFL is akin to slavery I roll my eyes and stop ever taking that person seriously.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
roadkill1292 said:
Pierce called the NFL draft process "vile and (probably) utterly against antitrust law" in his Aaron Hernandez piece today. He's (probably) blowing stuff out of his butt when it comes to the legal stuff but I'm really glad he's a consistent voice in opposition to NFL practices.
Click to expand...
Yeah. It definitely isn't against antitrust law. We have cases on that. Even if he's arguing that it should be against the law, I'd argue that he hasn't considered how that would kneecap collective bargaining.
Click to expand...
Could you expand on this for someone who doesn't know much about this subject? Are you saying that the absence of a draft would seriously hamper the collective bargaining process? If so, how? TIA, scoob.

 
I did not see the piece, but I think all sports would be infinitely better if they did not have a draft - it would put the onus on strong front-office personnel to properly evaluate incoming talent.

Now there is a built in safety net for teams who suck to simply have the luck of the higher draft picks. If you make everyone "earn" their place, it elevates everyone.

 
GroveDiesel said:
roadkill1292 said:
Pierce called the NFL draft process "vile and (probably) utterly against antitrust law" in his Aaron Hernandez piece today. He's (probably) blowing stuff out of his butt when it comes to the legal stuff but I'm really glad he's a consistent voice in opposition to NFL practices.
Click to expand...
He's one of the worst writers on the site. Everything he writes is overdramatic and ridiculous. Every time I see some writer claim or insinuate that the NFL is akin to slavery I roll my eyes and stop ever taking that person seriously.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't get taken seriously on this subject either. But our tiny band of zealots will some day slay the dragon.

 
roadkill1292 said:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
roadkill1292 said:
Pierce called the NFL draft process "vile and (probably) utterly against antitrust law" in his Aaron Hernandez piece today. He's (probably) blowing stuff out of his butt when it comes to the legal stuff but I'm really glad he's a consistent voice in opposition to NFL practices.
Click to expand...
Yeah. It definitely isn't against antitrust law. We have cases on that. Even if he's arguing that it should be against the law, I'd argue that he hasn't considered how that would kneecap collective bargaining.
Click to expand...
Could you expand on this for someone who doesn't know much about this subject? Are you saying that the absence of a draft would seriously hamper the collective bargaining process? If so, how? TIA, scoob.
Click to expand...
It would be hard for collective bargaining to work if the agreement did not apply to people who were hired subsequent to the collectively bargained position.

Let's say you negotiate on behalf of the steamfitter's union. And you negotiate for seniority rules, meaning that more senior members are generally selected for jobs first. If every new steamfitter is not subject to that agreement, that seniority rule means nothing. And in fact, selecting that senior steamfitter for the job before the new steamfitter is now a Sherman Act violation.

Or let's take a more relevant example. Let's say that the draft is illegal. The salary cap, as applied to football players not currently in the NFL would also be illegal. If that were true, no union would agree to a salary cap that prejudiced its members against newly signed players. And the NFL wouldn't negotiate a labor agreement with no teeth. The only answer would be to forgo collective bargaining completely and hold that every negotiation with every player must stand alone. Of course, the unions could already force that by decertifying and staying decertified. That they haven't done so suggests that they agree with the proposition that the federal labor laws encouraging unionization are more worker friendly than competition laws. Even among sports leagues where the union members are millionaires. I can assure that the question is nowhere near as close among Teamsters or plumbers or even teachers.

 
I found this take interesting: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9348666/the-mlb-draft-work-quite-possibly-immoral-replace-it

Let's conduct a thought experiment. Let's say you're a computer whiz. I don't mean you were able to recover your Word document that one time when your Lenovo crashed — I mean you're an absolute prodigy in front of a laptop. You taught yourself to code your own website when you were 9 years old. By the time you were 11, you were running a profitable side business consulting on software issues for your parents' friends. You graduated from high school with straight A's because you hacked into the system after catching WarGames on late-night TV. 
By the time you finish college, you've established a reputation as one of the brightest young minds in the computing industry. Google is interested in hiring you. Bigwigs at Apple have met you on campus for several friendly chats. Facebook follows you constantly — well, they follow everyone constantly, but in your case they're tracking you with actual human beings. Yahoo sees you as a key piece in their rebuilding strategy. Twitter and LinkedIn have called.

And then, a week after graduation, you get a phone call. Microsoft is on the line — you're their first-round pick! They've made you an offer for a fraction of what your value is worth on the open market. If you don't agree to their contract, then you can't work for any other tech company for another year — when some other company will draft you and you'll go through the same process all over again.

You think Microsoft is terrible at developing programmers and that you won't learn anything while working there? Tough. You were hoping to settle in Silicon Valley and have no interest in moving to Redmond? Sorry, bub. It was your childhood dream to work for Google? Maybe you'll get to revisit that dream in 10 years, when you're finally free to work for whoever you want.

Does this sound ridiculous? Congratulations! You've picked up on the inherent absurdity of the sports draft.
Click to expand...
The article's argument for expanding the current system used to sign international talent was interesting.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sarnoff said:
I found this take interesting: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9348666/the-mlb-draft-work-quite-possibly-immoral-replace-it

Let's conduct a thought experiment. Let's say you're a computer whiz. I don't mean you were able to recover your Word document that one time when your Lenovo crashed — I mean you're an absolute prodigy in front of a laptop. You taught yourself to code your own website when you were 9 years old. By the time you were 11, you were running a profitable side business consulting on software issues for your parents' friends. You graduated from high school with straight A's because you hacked into the system after catching WarGames on late-night TV. 
By the time you finish college, you've established a reputation as one of the brightest young minds in the computing industry. Google is interested in hiring you. Bigwigs at Apple have met you on campus for several friendly chats. Facebook follows you constantly — well, they follow everyone constantly, but in your case they're tracking you with actual human beings. Yahoo sees you as a key piece in their rebuilding strategy. Twitter and LinkedIn have called.

And then, a week after graduation, you get a phone call. Microsoft is on the line — you're their first-round pick! They've made you an offer for a fraction of what your value is worth on the open market. If you don't agree to their contract, then you can't work for any other tech company for another year — when some other company will draft you and you'll go through the same process all over again.

You think Microsoft is terrible at developing programmers and that you won't learn anything while working there? Tough. You were hoping to settle in Silicon Valley and have no interest in moving to Redmond? Sorry, bub. It was your childhood dream to work for Google? Maybe you'll get to revisit that dream in 10 years, when you're finally free to work for whoever you want.

Does this sound ridiculous? Congratulations! You've picked up on the inherent absurdity of the sports draft.
Click to expand...
The article's argument for expanding the current system used to sign international talent was interesting.
Click to expand...
Once again, there's a very simple fix for this. De-certification.

 
GroveDiesel said:
roadkill1292 said:
Pierce called the NFL draft process "vile and (probably) utterly against antitrust law" in his Aaron Hernandez piece today. He's (probably) blowing stuff out of his butt when it comes to the legal stuff but I'm really glad he's a consistent voice in opposition to NFL practices.
Click to expand...
He's one of the worst writers on the site. Everything he writes is overdramatic and ridiculous. Every time I see some writer claim or insinuate that the NFL is akin to slavery I roll my eyes and stop ever taking that person seriously.
Click to expand...
You may not agree with his points but Charlie Pierce is one of the most talented living sportswriters.

 
Workhorse said:
GroveDiesel said:
roadkill1292 said:
Pierce called the NFL draft process "vile and (probably) utterly against antitrust law" in his Aaron Hernandez piece today. He's (probably) blowing stuff out of his butt when it comes to the legal stuff but I'm really glad he's a consistent voice in opposition to NFL practices.
Click to expand...
He's one of the worst writers on the site. Everything he writes is overdramatic and ridiculous. Every time I see some writer claim or insinuate that the NFL is akin to slavery I roll my eyes and stop ever taking that person seriously.
Click to expand...
You may not agree with his points but Charlie Pierce is one of the most talented living sportswriters.
Click to expand...
He's more talented than all of the dead ones too

 
Workhorse said:
GroveDiesel said:
roadkill1292 said:
Pierce called the NFL draft process "vile and (probably) utterly against antitrust law" in his Aaron Hernandez piece today. He's (probably) blowing stuff out of his butt when it comes to the legal stuff but I'm really glad he's a consistent voice in opposition to NFL practices.
Click to expand...
He's one of the worst writers on the site. Everything he writes is overdramatic and ridiculous. Every time I see some writer claim or insinuate that the NFL is akin to slavery I roll my eyes and stop ever taking that person seriously.
Click to expand...
You may not agree with his points but Charlie Pierce is one of the most talented living sportswriters.
Click to expand...
The guy is a hack. He constantly tries to stir things up but rarely has any argument of substance to back them up. He is a race baiter and an agitator, nothing more.

 
I think Pierce is generally full of ####, but he's full of #### in a more interesting way that most sportswriters. I think the draft shot was the least stupid part of his Hernandez piece. The entire piece seemed built around a premise (that we are currently being subjected to lots of bloviating and speculation about Hernandez's background and the Patriots Way) that I just haven't seen.

I've seen speculation about the next steps in the legal process. I've seen attempts to report on news and rumors. I'm sure there have been a few columns and think pieces, but I certainly haven't been bombarded with them.

I also think calling attention to the hypocrisy he sees in NFL teams seeking "high character" guys is silly and naive. We all understand that teams research character because draft picks who get into legal trouble are, on average, worse investments than draft picks who don't. Literally nobody disputes that. So what?

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
I think Pierce is generally full of ####, but he's full of #### in a more interesting way that most sportswriters.
Click to expand...
I wish I'd have heard this line before this past Saturday's lunch with my friend, the sports editor of the local daily. He would have been highly amused at the cleverness of the insult, and thus known I'd stolen it from someone else. :lol:

 
Am I the only one who thinks many of the articles are 25% too long? Just clicked on an article on the state of the Red Sox. It's 26 paragraphs. I want to get caught up. I don't want to spend 10-15 minutes on that one topic. I appreciate the effort but It's too much. Just edit it down a bit.

 
Does Simmons even write anymore? The few times I'm bored enough to check the site out, it's usually just a podcast.

 
Daywalker said:
Am I the only one who thinks many of the articles are 25% too long? Just clicked on an article on the state of the Red Sox. It's 26 paragraphs. I want to get caught up. I don't want to spend 10-15 minutes on that one topic. I appreciate the effort but It's too much. Just edit it down a bit.
Click to expand...
Longform writing is kind of Grantland's purpose
 
I don't follow hockey but Sean McIndoe's piece this week about "fixing" the sport had one brilliant idea in it -- that the draft order of the non-playoff teams be determined by the number of points accumulated by each team after they had been mathematically eliminated from playoff contention.

If I were running the No. 5 sport in this country, I think I'd take a shot at doing some things differently than every other sport I was competing against.

 
roadkill1292 said:
I don't follow hockey but Sean McIndoe's piece this week about "fixing" the sport had one brilliant idea in it -- that the draft order of the non-playoff teams be determined by the number of points accumulated by each team after they had been mathematically eliminated from playoff contention.

If I were running the No. 5 sport in this country, I think I'd take a shot at doing some things differently than every other sport I was competing against.
Click to expand...
It would make the Browns vs Jaguars more meaningful.

 
culdeus said:
Loved the counting crows vs nirvanna piece today.
Click to expand...
I didn't. It comes across like he's having to justify the existence of "August" when most anyone with ears and a brain knows it as one of the best pop rock records of the 90's. And trying to explain "Anna begins" - which is easily one of the top ten songs of the decade - shows that the author is out of touch with a few things. In fact, I think more people know the crowd album much more than In Utero, which has sold two million fewer copies than the counting crows record.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Abraham said:
culdeus said:
Loved the counting crows vs nirvanna piece today.
Click to expand...
I didn't. It comes across like he's having to justify the existence of "August" when most anyone with ears and a brain knows it as one of the best pop rock records of the 90's. And trying to explain "Anna begins" - which is easily one of the top ten songs of the decade - shows that the author is out of touch with a few things. In fact, I think more people know the crowd album much more than In Utero, which has sold two million fewer copies than the counting crows record.
Click to expand...
:lol: What is so great about "Anna begins"? Hell, what the hell is so great about Counting Crows?

 
Never listened to My Bloody Valentine nor Guided by Voices. This guy has two of their albums up there with OK Computer, so I'll have to give them a whirl on Spotify.

 
Two decades of perspective isn't necessarily a good thing when it comes to rock criticism. If Cobain had survived and Nirvana went on to release a fourth LP, In Utero would be viewed today in an entirely different context. It was a reaction to the stardom they suddently achieved after Nevermind and it's impossible to separate the album's raw intensity from the state of mind of Cobain. It's still a powerful album today but not an easy listen.

Perception of Counting Crows' album also gets colored by what happened next. Duritz had to deal with some mental health issues of his own. If he blew his dreadlocked head off in 1994, maybe the cool kids would remember his band more fondly today rather than unfairly lumping them in with the Wallflowers, Cracker and Third Eye Blind. They made some decent albums after August with a couple handfuls of excellent songs. No matter how many revisionist articles get run in Grantland, they'll never be revered in the same way Nirvana is. Counting Crows can still consider themselves fortunate to have had their run during the end of the coke & hookers stage of the music industry.

 
I have as much fun as the next guy bagging on my buddies who like the Counting Crows, but they are clearly a few cuts above the other '90s radio crowd like Third Eye Blind and the Wallflowers. ANd hey, don't we all have trouble acting normal when we're nerrrrrrvous?

 
Apple Jack said:
I have as much fun as the next guy bagging on my buddies who like the Counting Crows, but they are clearly a few cuts above the other '90s radio crowd like Third Eye Blind and the Wallflowers. ANd hey, don't we all have trouble acting normal when we're nerrrrrrvous?
Click to expand...
Not round here.

 
Apple Jack said:
I have as much fun as the next guy bagging on my buddies who like the Counting Crows, but they are clearly a few cuts above the other '90s radio crowd like Third Eye Blind and the Wallflowers. ANd hey, don't we all have trouble acting normal when we're nerrrrrrvous?
Click to expand...
Ball cancer is a cut above Third Eye Blind.

The Wallflowers released a song last year called "Reboot the Mission" that sounded like an outtake from Combat Rock

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DJackson10
HBO MAX Info and News
2
Replies
73
Views
4K
tonydead
T
fantasycurse42
In this thread we recap Shuke's ratings, all manner of his ratings
Replies
11
Views
1K
Pip's Invitation
Pip's Invitation
GregR
Greg's Useless Trivia #18
Replies
3
Views
965
Short Corner
S

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top