The NFL should have a rookie salary scale (1 Viewer)

[Weapon of Mass Instruction]

It is my opinion that the salary cap has had an unintended effect in that veterans are cut in the latter years of their contracts. It is a shame that you don't see many players on one team for their entire career.

One reason for this is the astronomical money being paid to rookies. Dudes that haven't played a single down of professional football. 30, 40, 50 million guaranteed...for an unproven 21 year old.

What the NFL should do is to implement some sort of rookie salary scale like the NBA. I really have very little use for the NBA except that it keeps Marv Albert busy. However, they've got it right on this one.

1. It would institute a little economic sanity into the NFL. You could have a rookie WR signing a contract that is inequitable with the 5 year veteran, proven WR. The rookie may never deserve that money but since it was spent on him it wasn't available to be spent on the proven WR.

2. It would reduce some of the hijinx that go on with college players and prospective draftees. You aren't going to be tempted to "buy" a guy when you know he isnt' going to get $30mm guaranteed.

3. It would let the money be paid...to those that are playing, not to those that never made it.

4. It would prevent some of the "draft dodging" that has occured with Mario Williams/Reggie Bush and the possibility that the Dolphins could pass on the first slot in this year's draft (I know it is rumored that Long will sign today -- but, seriously, would they take him if they could take ANYONE and just pay about 4-5mm guaranteed instead of knowing they'd have to pay 40mm guaranteed?)

5. Frankly, it would let more money be freed up for the aging and hurting retired players.

Reaction?

 

[TLEF316]

totally agree. The rookies should have to pay their dues for a few years to make sure they wont totally be stealing money. Would they get more on the open market? Sure. But doing it this way would give the poor teams the advantage drafting at the top was intended. If a guy plays well, he'll make his big $$ on the 2nd contract. That's how it should be.

 

[Weapon of Mass Instruction]

totally agree. The rookies should have to pay their dues for a few years to make sure they wont totally be stealing money. Would they get more on the open market? Sure. But doing it this way would give the poor teams the advantage drafting at the top was intended. If a guy plays well, he'll make his big $$ on the 2nd contract. That's how it should be.

Now that quick. Evidently much of the NFL agrees with me, too.NFL Players want rookie salary structure

 

[Bob Henry]

I'm really surprised that it didn't get done or wasn't a major topic in the round of collective bargaining. Owners would benefit and veteran players would benefit. It makes too much sense all the way around.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Once again, this topic rears its ugly head.

Two somewhat new thoughts:

1) How do we know that Derek Anderson and his new contract isn't going to bust and not be worth it anymore than Matt Ryan and his new contract?

2) Why do we see teams tank it, or see fans want teams to tank it, if high draft picks are overpaid?

You can't have it both ways. Either tanking is something teams should do or rookies are paid correctly.

Rookies are not overpaid. Repeat this 100 times.

 

[uwgb96]

Once again, this topic rears its ugly head.

Two somewhat new thoughts:

1) How do we know that Derek Anderson and his new contract isn't going to bust and not be worth it anymore than Matt Ryan and his new contract?

2) Why do we see teams tank it, or see fans want teams to tank it, if high draft picks are overpaid?

You can't have it both ways. Either tanking is something teams should do or rookies are paid correctly.

Rookies are not overpaid. Repeat this 100 times.

Derek Anderson has PLAYED professional football and at least Cleveland has some idea of what he can do at this level. Could he regress and not be worth the money? Of course.Rookies ARE overpaid. Repeat this 1000 times. They have proven NOTHING at this level.

Baseball has it somewhat right in that the teams have some control early and pay goes up in the early years loosely based on performance. Then when arbitration hits the players get commensurate pay (see Ryan Howard's $10mil this year) and then eventually become free agents. The fully guaranteed part causes problems though.

 

[T Man]

A salary scale would be of benefit to veterans IF the owners agreed to a higher minimum salary.

Unlike years ago, when veterans were cut simply for lower priced rookies, the CBA now allows for the payment of veterans at a much lower cap rate. And, IIRC, the CBA also allows for a salary floor (in addition to the salary cap).

As a result, each team has to spend a certain minimum amount on players salaries. With that said, it would seem clear to benefit the veterans if more of that required money was spent on veterans.

And while I agree that Derek Anderson may bust, he has at least proven he could play at the pro level which is more then Matt Ryan has done -- although I think he will be a good pro. Whether Ryan or Anderson will ultimately bust or be better players is really irrelevant.

The issue is that the rank and file players should want the salary scale since it forces the teams to give more money to the veteran players - especially those who have proven they can play and be starters in the league.

 

[TLEF316]

Once again, this topic rears its ugly head.

Two somewhat new thoughts:

1) How do we know that Derek Anderson and his new contract isn't going to bust and not be worth it anymore than Matt Ryan and his new contract?

2) Why do we see teams tank it, or see fans want teams to tank it, if high draft picks are overpaid?

You can't have it both ways. Either tanking is something teams should do or rookies are paid correctly.

Rookies are not overpaid. Repeat this 100 times.

1) We don't, but at least he has put on a uniform and proven himself a little bit. 2) Teams want the best players so they can get better. The fact that they have to overpay them is an inconvenience that they have learned to deal with. In general, lousy teams have less expensive players on the current roster so they can afford it. Most fans(the people on this board are not the average fan) don't give a crap about the salary cap because A) they have no idea how it works and B) It isn't their money.

The NBA gets this right. The guys still make plenty of dough, but they have to prove themselves for a few years before they really cash in. Your second contract should be where you make your money. Seems fair to me

And before you come in with the "but they would get that much $$ on the open market"argument, i agree with you in some cases. But it wouldn't make the league better, which is what we all want. When you get to a point where the worst teams can't catch up because they can't afford to sign and later retain the top prospects, you foster inequity. See baseball, MLB. Rick Porcello, who was unquestionably one of the top 5 prospects in last year's draft, fell into the mid 20's to Detroit because of absurdity of the "Free Market system" for MLB draft picks. The crappy teams knew they couldn't afford to throw 8 figures at an 18 year old, so they had to draft inferior players. If we get to that point in football (where top players often make an impact much sooner than in baseball) you can kiss any semblance of parody good bye.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Once again, this topic rears its ugly head.

Two somewhat new thoughts:

1) How do we know that Derek Anderson and his new contract isn't going to bust and not be worth it anymore than Matt Ryan and his new contract?

2) Why do we see teams tank it, or see fans want teams to tank it, if high draft picks are overpaid?

You can't have it both ways. Either tanking is something teams should do or rookies are paid correctly.

Rookies are not overpaid. Repeat this 100 times.

Derek Anderson has PLAYED professional football and at least Cleveland has some idea of what he can do at this level. Could he regress and not be worth the money? Of course.Rookies ARE overpaid. Repeat this 1000 times. They have proven NOTHING at this level.

Baseball has it somewhat right in that the teams have some control early and pay goes up in the early years loosely based on performance. Then when arbitration hits the players get commensurate pay (see Ryan Howard's $10mil this year) and then eventually become free agents. The fully guaranteed part causes problems though.

Derek Anderson hasn't proven what he can do in 2009. Neither has Matt Ryan. No one has a crystal ball and will tell me how the players will do. Do you know if Bernard Berrian will be better than Robert Meachem this year? Of course not. We all have guesses, and that's it.Why not let the people who pay the bills -- you know, the GMs -- make those guesses as they see fit? If a GM wants to pay $30M for Chris Long instead of paying $30M to veterans, why should we stop a GM from doing that?

And if you institute a rookie cap -- which is incredibly unfair, arbitrary and unnecessary -- expect to see tanking problems go up in the league.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Once again, this topic rears its ugly head.

Two somewhat new thoughts:

1) How do we know that Derek Anderson and his new contract isn't going to bust and not be worth it anymore than Matt Ryan and his new contract?

2) Why do we see teams tank it, or see fans want teams to tank it, if high draft picks are overpaid?

You can't have it both ways. Either tanking is something teams should do or rookies are paid correctly.

Rookies are not overpaid. Repeat this 100 times.

1) We don't, but at least he has put on a uniform and proven himself a little bit. 2) Teams want the best players so they can get better. The fact that they have to overpay them is an inconvenience that they have learned to deal with. In general, lousy teams have less expensive players on the current roster so they can afford it. Most fans(the people on this board are not the average fan) don't give a crap about the salary cap because A) they have no idea how it works and B) It isn't their money.

The NBA gets this right. The guys still make plenty of dough, but they have to prove themselves for a few years before they really cash in. Your second contract should be where you make your money. Seems fair to me

And before you come in with the "but they would get that much $$ on the open market"argument, i agree with you in some cases. But it wouldn't make the league better, which is what we all want. When you get to a point where the worst teams can't catch up because they can't afford to sign and later retain the top prospects, you foster inequity. See baseball, MLB. Rick Porcello, who was unquestionably one of the top 5 prospects in last year's draft, fell into the mid 20's to Detroit because of absurdity of the "Free Market system" for MLB draft picks. The crappy teams knew they couldn't afford to throw 8 figures at an 18 year old, so they had to draft inferior players. If we get to that point in football (where top players often make an impact much sooner than in baseball) you can kiss any semblance of parody good bye.

There's a salary cap in the NFL. No comparison.If the "bad teams" think they're overpaying for the top draft picks, GET RID OF THE TOP DRAFT PICKS. We don't see teams trading the #1 pick for the #20 pick because the #20 pick is more valuable.

 

[TLEF316]

Once again, this topic rears its ugly head.

Two somewhat new thoughts:

1) How do we know that Derek Anderson and his new contract isn't going to bust and not be worth it anymore than Matt Ryan and his new contract?

2) Why do we see teams tank it, or see fans want teams to tank it, if high draft picks are overpaid?

You can't have it both ways. Either tanking is something teams should do or rookies are paid correctly.

Rookies are not overpaid. Repeat this 100 times.

Derek Anderson has PLAYED professional football and at least Cleveland has some idea of what he can do at this level. Could he regress and not be worth the money? Of course.Rookies ARE overpaid. Repeat this 1000 times. They have proven NOTHING at this level.

Baseball has it somewhat right in that the teams have some control early and pay goes up in the early years loosely based on performance. Then when arbitration hits the players get commensurate pay (see Ryan Howard's $10mil this year) and then eventually become free agents. The fully guaranteed part causes problems though.

Derek Anderson hasn't proven what he can do in 2009. Neither has Matt Ryan. No one has a crystal ball and will tell me how the players will do. Do you know if Bernard Berrian will be better than Robert Meachem this year? Of course not. We all have guesses, and that's it.Why not let the people who pay the bills -- you know, the GMs -- make those guesses as they see fit? If a GM wants to pay $30M for Chris Long instead of paying $30M to veterans, why should we stop a GM from doing that?

And if you institute a rookie cap -- which is incredibly unfair, arbitrary and unnecessary -- expect to see tanking problems go up in the league.

Thats the thing... They don't WANT to pay 30 million for Chris Long. They have fallen into a situation where they have to. And i don't think tanking problems would go up much (if at all). If a crappy team wants to take to tank for player X (who they believe is a franchise changing player) they will do so whether he costs 10 million dollars or 30 million dollars.

 

[TLEF316]

Once again, this topic rears its ugly head.

Two somewhat new thoughts:

1) How do we know that Derek Anderson and his new contract isn't going to bust and not be worth it anymore than Matt Ryan and his new contract?

2) Why do we see teams tank it, or see fans want teams to tank it, if high draft picks are overpaid?

You can't have it both ways. Either tanking is something teams should do or rookies are paid correctly.

Rookies are not overpaid. Repeat this 100 times.

1) We don't, but at least he has put on a uniform and proven himself a little bit. 2) Teams want the best players so they can get better. The fact that they have to overpay them is an inconvenience that they have learned to deal with. In general, lousy teams have less expensive players on the current roster so they can afford it. Most fans(the people on this board are not the average fan) don't give a crap about the salary cap because A) they have no idea how it works and B) It isn't their money.

The NBA gets this right. The guys still make plenty of dough, but they have to prove themselves for a few years before they really cash in. Your second contract should be where you make your money. Seems fair to me

And before you come in with the "but they would get that much $$ on the open market"argument, i agree with you in some cases. But it wouldn't make the league better, which is what we all want. When you get to a point where the worst teams can't catch up because they can't afford to sign and later retain the top prospects, you foster inequity. See baseball, MLB. Rick Porcello, who was unquestionably one of the top 5 prospects in last year's draft, fell into the mid 20's to Detroit because of absurdity of the "Free Market system" for MLB draft picks. The crappy teams knew they couldn't afford to throw 8 figures at an 18 year old, so they had to draft inferior players. If we get to that point in football (where top players often make an impact much sooner than in baseball) you can kiss any semblance of parody good bye.

There's a salary cap in the NFL. No comparison.If the "bad teams" think they're overpaying for the top draft picks, GET RID OF THE TOP DRAFT PICKS. We don't see teams trading the #1 pick for the #20 pick because the #20 pick is more valuable.

There's essentially a salary cap for 80% of the teams in MLB too. It may not be official, but it's in effect for the royals, pirates, D-rays, ect.Nobody is arguing that the 20th pick holds more "value" than the 1st pick. Come on man. Even if a team did think so, and made a straight up trade, they would be crucified. Any front office that takes a stand against this would be labeled as cheap and not trying to win. The fact that the crappy teams are essentially extorted into paying these massive rookie contracts doesn't mean they don't oppose it.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Once again, this topic rears its ugly head.

Two somewhat new thoughts:

1) How do we know that Derek Anderson and his new contract isn't going to bust and not be worth it anymore than Matt Ryan and his new contract?

2) Why do we see teams tank it, or see fans want teams to tank it, if high draft picks are overpaid?

You can't have it both ways. Either tanking is something teams should do or rookies are paid correctly.

Rookies are not overpaid. Repeat this 100 times.

Derek Anderson has PLAYED professional football and at least Cleveland has some idea of what he can do at this level. Could he regress and not be worth the money? Of course.Rookies ARE overpaid. Repeat this 1000 times. They have proven NOTHING at this level.

Baseball has it somewhat right in that the teams have some control early and pay goes up in the early years loosely based on performance. Then when arbitration hits the players get commensurate pay (see Ryan Howard's $10mil this year) and then eventually become free agents. The fully guaranteed part causes problems though.

Derek Anderson hasn't proven what he can do in 2009. Neither has Matt Ryan. No one has a crystal ball and will tell me how the players will do. Do you know if Bernard Berrian will be better than Robert Meachem this year? Of course not. We all have guesses, and that's it.Why not let the people who pay the bills -- you know, the GMs -- make those guesses as they see fit? If a GM wants to pay $30M for Chris Long instead of paying $30M to veterans, why should we stop a GM from doing that?

And if you institute a rookie cap -- which is incredibly unfair, arbitrary and unnecessary -- expect to see tanking problems go up in the league.

Thats the thing... They don't WANT to pay 30 million for Chris Long. They have fallen into a situation where they have to. And i don't think tanking problems would go up much (if at all). If a crappy team wants to take to tank for player X (who they believe is a franchise changing player) they will do so whether he costs 10 million dollars or 30 million dollars.

Please tell me why the Dolphins paid $30M for Chris Long when they didn't want to.Maybe they didn't want to pay him in some sense, but the Vikings didn't want to pay Bernard Berrian $42M, either.

Put it this way -- please tell me how Miami could have better used the cap space they're spending on Jake Long.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Once again, this topic rears its ugly head.

Two somewhat new thoughts:

1) How do we know that Derek Anderson and his new contract isn't going to bust and not be worth it anymore than Matt Ryan and his new contract?

2) Why do we see teams tank it, or see fans want teams to tank it, if high draft picks are overpaid?

You can't have it both ways. Either tanking is something teams should do or rookies are paid correctly.

Rookies are not overpaid. Repeat this 100 times.

1) We don't, but at least he has put on a uniform and proven himself a little bit. 2) Teams want the best players so they can get better. The fact that they have to overpay them is an inconvenience that they have learned to deal with. In general, lousy teams have less expensive players on the current roster so they can afford it. Most fans(the people on this board are not the average fan) don't give a crap about the salary cap because A) they have no idea how it works and B) It isn't their money.

The NBA gets this right. The guys still make plenty of dough, but they have to prove themselves for a few years before they really cash in. Your second contract should be where you make your money. Seems fair to me

And before you come in with the "but they would get that much $$ on the open market"argument, i agree with you in some cases. But it wouldn't make the league better, which is what we all want. When you get to a point where the worst teams can't catch up because they can't afford to sign and later retain the top prospects, you foster inequity. See baseball, MLB. Rick Porcello, who was unquestionably one of the top 5 prospects in last year's draft, fell into the mid 20's to Detroit because of absurdity of the "Free Market system" for MLB draft picks. The crappy teams knew they couldn't afford to throw 8 figures at an 18 year old, so they had to draft inferior players. If we get to that point in football (where top players often make an impact much sooner than in baseball) you can kiss any semblance of parody good bye.

There's a salary cap in the NFL. No comparison.If the "bad teams" think they're overpaying for the top draft picks, GET RID OF THE TOP DRAFT PICKS. We don't see teams trading the #1 pick for the #20 pick because the #20 pick is more valuable.

There's essentially a salary cap for 80% of the teams in MLB too. It may not be official, but it's in effect for the royals, pirates, D-rays, ect.Nobody is arguing that the 20th pick holds more "value" than the 1st pick. Come on man. Even if a team did think so, and made a straight up trade, they would be crucified. Any front office that takes a stand against this would be labeled as cheap and not trying to win. The fact that the crappy teams are essentially extorted into paying these massive rookie contracts doesn't mean they don't oppose it.

Crappy teams aren't extorted at all.If you were the GM of the Dolphins, what would you have done this off-season? Would it involve trading the 1st pick?

 

[Chase Stuart]

3. It would let the money be paid...to those that are playing, not to those that never made it.

Would you pay more money for Isaac Bruce or Jake Long right now? Bruce certainly "deserves" more, and has shown it on the field, no?

 

[King of the Wolfies]

The top rookie salaries are ridiculous. Just look at all the trade rumors. Everyone is talking to the Rams and Falcons, because no one wants to pay for the #1 pick. If they get rookie salaries under control, then they could raise the veteren minimum to something like $100k per yr of service.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

The pay scale for rookies is fine.

"The" option you have, which many dont want, is to do away with the draft and let 'em all be free agents upon leaving college.

 

[nxmehta]

Derek Anderson hasn't proven what he can do in 2009. Neither has Matt Ryan. No one has a crystal ball and will tell me how the players will do. Do you know if Bernard Berrian will be better than Robert Meachem this year? Of course not. We all have guesses, and that's it.

Why not let the people who pay the bills -- you know, the GMs -- make those guesses as they see fit? If a GM wants to pay $30M for Chris Long instead of paying $30M to veterans, why should we stop a GM from doing that?

And if you institute a rookie cap -- which is incredibly unfair, arbitrary and unnecessary -- expect to see tanking problems go up in the league.

Your first point I would take some exception with. I don't have the data available, but I would hypothesize that by any reasonable metric (DPAR perhaps?), P_success(Current NFL Player) > P_success(Rookie). Historically, the probability that a current NFL player will be better than a rookie in the next year has got to be greater than 50%. Now, multiply P_success by annual salary including guarantees and you get the actual value in $$$ of a player for the next year. I would venture that if you did this you would find that rookies are probably overpaid compared to current NFL players.Your second point is exactly correct and the real issue here. The perceived value of rookies and their compensation is totally fine, exactly because you don't see teams trying to avoid getting top draft picks. If teams thought that they were wasting money with high rookie salaries, they would trade away all their draft picks for veterans. In reality, they like to gamble, because that's the only way you can win in this league. Therefore it's obvious that there's no problem with rookies being overpaid according to the market. What the OP fails to understand is that salaries are dictated by perceived market value, NOT production.

It's just like the stock market. Is Google really worth $550 right now? The OP would say of course not! They don't make anywhere near as much income as they are valued at. Is there a problem with people paying market value for them (and should we forcibly change the price of their stock)? Obviously not.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

The perceived value of rookies and their compensation is totally fine, exactly because you don't see teams trying to avoid getting top draft picks. If teams thought that they were wasting money with high rookie salaries, they would trade away all their draft picks for veterans. ... Therefore it's obvious that there's no problem with rookies being overpaid according to the market. What the OP fails to understand is that salaries are dictated by perceived market value, NOT production.

Thats some

 

[TLEF316]

Once again, this topic rears its ugly head.

Two somewhat new thoughts:

1) How do we know that Derek Anderson and his new contract isn't going to bust and not be worth it anymore than Matt Ryan and his new contract?

2) Why do we see teams tank it, or see fans want teams to tank it, if high draft picks are overpaid?

You can't have it both ways. Either tanking is something teams should do or rookies are paid correctly.

Rookies are not overpaid. Repeat this 100 times.

Derek Anderson has PLAYED professional football and at least Cleveland has some idea of what he can do at this level. Could he regress and not be worth the money? Of course.Rookies ARE overpaid. Repeat this 1000 times. They have proven NOTHING at this level.

Baseball has it somewhat right in that the teams have some control early and pay goes up in the early years loosely based on performance. Then when arbitration hits the players get commensurate pay (see Ryan Howard's $10mil this year) and then eventually become free agents. The fully guaranteed part causes problems though.

Derek Anderson hasn't proven what he can do in 2009. Neither has Matt Ryan. No one has a crystal ball and will tell me how the players will do. Do you know if Bernard Berrian will be better than Robert Meachem this year? Of course not. We all have guesses, and that's it.Why not let the people who pay the bills -- you know, the GMs -- make those guesses as they see fit? If a GM wants to pay $30M for Chris Long instead of paying $30M to veterans, why should we stop a GM from doing that?

And if you institute a rookie cap -- which is incredibly unfair, arbitrary and unnecessary -- expect to see tanking problems go up in the league.

Thats the thing... They don't WANT to pay 30 million for Chris Long. They have fallen into a situation where they have to. And i don't think tanking problems would go up much (if at all). If a crappy team wants to take to tank for player X (who they believe is a franchise changing player) they will do so whether he costs 10 million dollars or 30 million dollars.

Please tell me why the Dolphins paid $30M for Chris Long when they didn't want to.

what are their other options?1) Offer him less and stand pat?---His agent holds him out until he gets more money than last year's # 1.

2) Pick someone else?-- Obviously, whoever they pick will still demand to be paid like a pro-bowler

3) Trade down?--Good plan, except nobody wants to trade up (at least not for anything resembling fair value)

4) Let the clock run out?--Yeah, that will work

So what exactly do you want them to do? Saying that they have the option to do anything else but draft who they want and pay them whatever they want is like saying that the average Joe (middle class guy living in the suburbs with a decent commute) has another option other than paying $4.00 a gallon for gas. Yeah, he could ride his bike, try to take public transportation, buy a hybrid car, move closer, ect, but none of those are viable options for most.

 

[Doug Drinen]

I posted this in one of the many other threads on this topic, but never got an answer.

Where is Darren McFadden in your dynasty RB rankings? Is he ahead of Jamal Lewis?

If you're willing to use more of your limited resources on McFadden than on Lewis, why doesn't it make sense that NFL teams would be willing to do the same?

 

[Chase Stuart]

3) Trade down?--Good plan, except nobody wants to trade up (at least not for anything resembling fair value)

What's "fair value"? Why not sign a bunch of free agents with the money saved, and trade the 1st pick for the 10th pick. Then the 10th pick will bring you right up to the cap, whereas the 1st pick would put you over (and prevent you from signing those free agents).

 

[TLEF316]

3) Trade down?--Good plan, except nobody wants to trade up (at least not for anything resembling fair value)

What's "fair value"? Why not sign a bunch of free agents with the money saved, and trade the 1st pick for the 10th pick. Then the 10th pick will bring you right up to the cap, whereas the 1st pick would put you over (and prevent you from signing those free agents).

So if the jets' FA spending spree had put us right up against the cap, and they traded 1.06 for 1.16 because they couldn't afford to pay the perceived value of the player they would have chosen at 1.06 , you would be ok with it? You think Frank in section 205 would be ok with it?

 

[Chase Stuart]

3) Trade down?--Good plan, except nobody wants to trade up (at least not for anything resembling fair value)

What's "fair value"? Why not sign a bunch of free agents with the money saved, and trade the 1st pick for the 10th pick. Then the 10th pick will bring you right up to the cap, whereas the 1st pick would put you over (and prevent you from signing those free agents).

So if the jets' FA spending spree had put us right up against the cap, and they traded 1.06 for 1.16 because they couldn't afford to pay the perceived value of the player they would have chosen at 1.06 , you would be ok with it? You think Frank in section 205 would be ok with it?

I would prefer to have Asante Samuel and the 16th pick than just the 6th pick. So if the Jets signed Samuel and then traded down in the draft, I'd be pretty happy.

 

[TLEF316]

3) Trade down?--Good plan, except nobody wants to trade up (at least not for anything resembling fair value)

What's "fair value"? Why not sign a bunch of free agents with the money saved, and trade the 1st pick for the 10th pick. Then the 10th pick will bring you right up to the cap, whereas the 1st pick would put you over (and prevent you from signing those free agents).

So if the jets' FA spending spree had put us right up against the cap, and they traded 1.06 for 1.16 because they couldn't afford to pay the perceived value of the player they would have chosen at 1.06 , you would be ok with it? You think Frank in section 205 would be ok with it?

I would prefer to have Asante Samuel and the 16th pick than just the 6th pick. So if the Jets signed Samuel and then traded down in the draft, I'd be pretty happy.

Would the average fan be? They'd see other teams signing Free Agents AND making their draft picks and wonder why you had to be the "creative" GM that refused to do so. You sure as hell better win big time if you're gonna pull that. And, of course, most really lousy teams devoid of talent (which i don't think the Jets are) are far more than 1 player away from contending. The Dolphins pull this, and the Miami Fan base would burn down the stadium.

 

[Chase Stuart]

3) Trade down?--Good plan, except nobody wants to trade up (at least not for anything resembling fair value)

What's "fair value"? Why not sign a bunch of free agents with the money saved, and trade the 1st pick for the 10th pick. Then the 10th pick will bring you right up to the cap, whereas the 1st pick would put you over (and prevent you from signing those free agents).

So if the jets' FA spending spree had put us right up against the cap, and they traded 1.06 for 1.16 because they couldn't afford to pay the perceived value of the player they would have chosen at 1.06 , you would be ok with it? You think Frank in section 205 would be ok with it?

I would prefer to have Asante Samuel and the 16th pick than just the 6th pick. So if the Jets signed Samuel and then traded down in the draft, I'd be pretty happy.

Would the average fan be? They'd see other teams signing Free Agents AND making their draft picks and wonder why you had to be the "creative" GM that refused to do so. You sure as hell better win big time if you're gonna pull that. And, of course, most really lousy teams devoid of talent (which i don't think the Jets are) are far more than 1 player away from contending. The Dolphins pull this, and the Miami Fan base would burn down the stadium.

The Vikings just traded their first pick, and their third round pick, and got a DE back. I don't see Vikings fans burning down the city because the Vikes didn't keep the 17th pick and sign Justin Smith, or Antwan Odom or Tommy Kelly.

 

[TLEF316]

3) Trade down?--Good plan, except nobody wants to trade up (at least not for anything resembling fair value)

What's "fair value"? Why not sign a bunch of free agents with the money saved, and trade the 1st pick for the 10th pick. Then the 10th pick will bring you right up to the cap, whereas the 1st pick would put you over (and prevent you from signing those free agents).

So if the jets' FA spending spree had put us right up against the cap, and they traded 1.06 for 1.16 because they couldn't afford to pay the perceived value of the player they would have chosen at 1.06 , you would be ok with it? You think Frank in section 205 would be ok with it?

I would prefer to have Asante Samuel and the 16th pick than just the 6th pick. So if the Jets signed Samuel and then traded down in the draft, I'd be pretty happy.

Would the average fan be? They'd see other teams signing Free Agents AND making their draft picks and wonder why you had to be the "creative" GM that refused to do so. You sure as hell better win big time if you're gonna pull that. And, of course, most really lousy teams devoid of talent (which i don't think the Jets are) are far more than 1 player away from contending. The Dolphins pull this, and the Miami Fan base would burn down the stadium.

The Vikings just traded their first pick, and their third round pick, and got a DE back. I don't see Vikings fans burning down the city because the Vikes didn't keep the 17th pick and sign Justin Smith, or Antwan Odom or Tommy Kelly.

thats pick # 17, not pick # 1. The vikings are a borderline contender in the NFC. The dolphins barely won a game last year. No one player is getting them anywhere near the playoffs. The vikings may have just acquired the missing piece to a super bowl run. Two totally different scenarios.

 

[Chase Stuart]

thats pick # 17, not pick # 1. The vikings are a borderline contender in the NFC. The dolphins barely won a game last year. No one player is getting them anywhere near the playoffs. The vikings may have just acquired the missing piece to a super bowl run. Two totally different scenarios.

Well they should have traded down and grabbed a ton of picks then, right? Why not trade the 1st for the 5th and a 2nd rounder? And then the 5th for the 10th and a 2nd rounder? Then you'd get the 10th pick, and two additional second rounders. And that would probably cost less than the 1st pick overall.

 

[TLEF316]

thats pick # 17, not pick # 1. The vikings are a borderline contender in the NFC. The dolphins barely won a game last year. No one player is getting them anywhere near the playoffs. The vikings may have just acquired the missing piece to a super bowl run. Two totally different scenarios.

Well they should have traded down and grabbed a ton of picks then, right? Why not trade the 1st for the 5th and a 2nd rounder? And then the 5th for the 10th and a 2nd rounder? Then you'd get the 10th pick, and two additional second rounders. And that would probably cost less than the 1st pick overall.

If they consider that fair value for the pick, and some other team is willing to do that, thats fine. I'd be in favor of that. Thats not the same thing as trading down for nothing and then spending the $$ saved on free agents that aren't going to put your 1-15 team into the playoffs.