What if Detroit Let Time Expire ? (1 Viewer)

[Hit-em]

With no clear #1 pick this year & the fact that Detroit clearly wants to trade out of that position ....

What do you think would happen if they decided to let the clock expire ??

I'm not sure on the rules of the draft, but let's say they drop down to the #3 spot & take Stafford or Monroe they could save themselves 5-6 million & still get the player they had slated to pick with that #1 pick.

I think it would be great strategy on their part if it was legal to do ....

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

It's "legal" but the player's agent would laugh himself silly at the idea it could get the team a lower contract.

 

[Jackal King]

It would be interesting....but I'm sure the player and agent would make a case for #1 money. I think most teams don't want to welcome their first rounder to the team with a salary gimmick. I think the risk would clearly outweigh the benefit.

 

[BigJim®]

It's "legal" but the player's agent would laugh himself silly at the idea it could get the team a lower contract.

Minnesota had time expire before selecting Kevin Williams and I believe the posture of the agent is they essentially would have taken him in an earlier slot if they had not messed up. I can;t recall if they in fact paid higher than the slotted amount but I vaguely recall it being a hassel to sign him.

 

[PranksterJD]

Not sure how the best way to search for it would be, but we've done this thread every year for about 3 years running now. Most common response is exactly as said above. They'd pick the #3 player and pay #1 money.

 

[renesauz]

Not sure how the best way to search for it would be, but we've done this thread every year for about 3 years running now. Most common response is exactly as said above. They'd pick the #3 player and pay #1 money.

Also....if they REALLY don't want the pick, they could still trade down a few spots and get SOMETHING of value, pick chart be darned.Wouldn't someone in the 12-15 area let go a fourth/fifth round pick?Trading down is hard because the NFL has over-valued those high picks. The pick chart designed in the early 90's doesn't work in the first half of the first round of today's NFL....BUT, a team would get massacred by it's fans and local media if they didn't get something close to that chart.

 

[FUBAR]

Not sure how the best way to search for it would be, but we've done this thread every year for about 3 years running now. Most common response is exactly as said above. They'd pick the #3 player and pay #1 money.

Also....if they REALLY don't want the pick, they could still trade down a few spots and get SOMETHING of value, pick chart be darned.Wouldn't someone in the 12-15 area let go a fourth/fifth round pick?Trading down is hard because the NFL has over-valued those high picks. The pick chart designed in the early 90's doesn't work in the first half of the first round of today's NFL....BUT, a team would get massacred by it's fans and local media if they didn't get something close to that chart.

The problem with falling to 12-15 is you really don't know which players will be available at that point. They can assume/estimate/guess but they can't know. IF they trade down, it won't be further than 1.04 - they need to get one of the top LTs, Stafford or Curry. More likely, they'll stay top 3. (actually, most likely, they'll keep the pick)

 

[Novice2]

Not sure how the best way to search for it would be, but we've done this thread every year for about 3 years running now. Most common response is exactly as said above. They'd pick the #3 player and pay #1 money.

Ok guys my player was really the first player drafted but we all know the Lions player is the real #1 so my client will settle for #2 money.

 

[ScottyFargo]

It's "legal" but the player's agent would laugh himself silly at the idea it could get the team a lower contract.

Minnesota had time expire before selecting Kevin Williams and I believe the posture of the agent is they essentially would have taken him in an earlier slot if they had not messed up. I can;t recall if they in fact paid higher than the slotted amount but I vaguely recall it being a hassel to sign him.

Yeah, they ended up coming to some form of compromise of payment between where he was drafted and where he should have been drafted, I don't believe he got the full amount.

 

[TitusIII]

Kind off of topic, as the thread has been answered, but it's time the owners get the rookie contracts under control. Unless the #1 pick is John Elway's kid, the cap hit just 'aint worth it. Will the union accept this? You'd think the vets would be all for it...

 

[ditka...mike ditka]

With no clear #1 pick this year & the fact that Detroit clearly wants to trade out of that position ....What do you think would happen if they decided to let the clock expire ??I'm not sure on the rules of the draft, but let's say they drop down to the #3 spot & take Stafford or Monroe they could save themselves 5-6 million & still get the player they had slated to pick with that #1 pick.I think it would be great strategy on their part if it was legal to do ....

I love when people read an article on another website (think this one was on SI about a week ago) and then come claim the idea as their own...haha

 

[Sinrman]

With no clear #1 pick this year & the fact that Detroit clearly wants to trade out of that position ....What do you think would happen if they decided to let the clock expire ??I'm not sure on the rules of the draft, but let's say they drop down to the #3 spot & take Stafford or Monroe they could save themselves 5-6 million & still get the player they had slated to pick with that #1 pick.I think it would be great strategy on their part if it was legal to do ....

Is that you, Mike Tice?

 

[Dr. Evil]

I think we would start calling them the Vikings if they did that. Although, it did speed up the pace of the picks for a short while.

 

[bcr8f]

I heard this last year too.

The agent for both picks would claim their player was the top pick complicating signing until one of them signs.

 

[eric rymer]

I think we would start calling them the Vikings if they did that. Although, it did speed up the pace of the picks for a short while.

It sure did. Teams were running to the podium to get their picks in.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Seems to me it would be a lot easier to use the existing tool of prenegotiation with the top pick. Get the agents of the half a dozen guys together (or maybe not "together", but work with them all) and say:

"OK boys, who wants to be the #1 pick? Here are some offers". I believe that's been done to some degree in the past. Seems to me Rodgers was in some kind of contention for the #1 overall the year he (and Alex Smith) came out, didn't play ball, and then slipped all they way down to the bottom of the first. If he had it to do over again, bet his agent would have been very happy with #2 or #3 money.

Heck, you could take a guy who is likely to slide to #6 or #7 if you really like him, and say the same thing to him and offer him #4 money. If I'm the agent, I go for that in a heart beat. Play the odds. Nobody really seems to want to do it though - maybe they are worried about the appearance factor of "He got the #1 overall pick WHAT kind of deal???", even though the reality would be he just got a guy who was likely to get #6 or #7 money #4 money.

Might make the #2 negotiations interesting as well. "You want HOW much more than the #1 guy got?"

It's just stupid that at this point, having the #1 pick is a negative.

 

[Righetti]

it would be great if the bottom teams all let time expire and all did the same thing and refused to draft anybody as the #1 pick is just too expensive

 

[Couch Potato]

Goodell at podium: "I have a note here from the Lions GM. It says 'Due to the current state of the economy and the auto industry, the Ford family is dedicating itself to cutting costs wherever possible, both to avoid layoffs and plant closures, and to hold Lions ticket prices in check. Therefore, we have decided to select nobody in the first round. Thank you.'"

 

[-baller]

on a related note, since jerry angelo is infamously bad at drafting in the first round, what if he was to skip making that pick until the second?

in a couple years, when he has another #1, that is.

 

[cstu]

I think we would start calling them the Vikings if they did that. Although, it did speed up the pace of the picks for a short while.

You mean compliment them?

 

[Skanker]

Detroit

 

[Da Guru]

Nobody wants the #1 pick anymore.

I did hear somewhere that the NFL owners are pushing for a rookie cap in the next contract and that is a great idea. Half of the first rd picks are busts are far as earning the money the have already been paid, then you have guys who really produce pickes later in the draft and they never really make up that lost cash.

 

[Tom Cody]

Tom Kowalski just wrote an article on MLive.com on this subject. In brief it says that the NFL has no rules against a team 'passing' on a pick and re-entering the draft when they are ready to make it. It also states that the league official said if the Lions didn't pick a guy until 5th overall that the player is then considered the 5th pick overall not the first(just because the Lions selected him and were supposed to be the the #1).

 

[MDSkinner]

on a related note, since jerry angelo is infamously bad at drafting in the first round, what if he was to skip making that pick until the second?in a couple years, when he has another #1, that is.

Really not a bad idea. Especially if he is considering drafting offense.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

Tom Kowalski just wrote an article on MLive.com on this subject. In brief it says that the NFL has no rules against a team 'passing' on a pick and re-entering the draft when they are ready to make it. It also states that the league official said if the Lions didn't pick a guy until 5th overall that the player is then considered the 5th pick overall not the first(just because the Lions selected him and were supposed to be the the #1).

Another issue is that there's usually a deal in place with the #1 pick before the draft begins.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Nobody wants the #1 pick anymore.

?

 

[DrJ]

They'd probably be better off arguing that since they are the Lions, the player will more likely than not bust so they shouldn't have to pay full value.

 

[DrJ]

on a related note, since jerry angelo is infamously bad at drafting in the first round, what if he was to skip making that pick until the second?in a couple years, when he has another #1, that is.

I'd rather he just trade it away for someone's best player and the face of their franchise. The only trick is finding someone as stupid as McDaniels. Maybe he'll still have a job then.

 

[BrutalPenguin]

Kind off of topic, as the thread has been answered, but it's time the owners get the rookie contracts under control. Unless the #1 pick is John Elway's kid, the cap hit just 'aint worth it. Will the union accept this? You'd think the vets would be all for it...

That's funny because John Elway's kid just quit playing football at AZ State. I'd pick another #1.

 

[millertyme1]

Goodell at podium: "I have a note here from the Lions GM. It says 'Due to the current state of the economy and the auto industry, the Ford family is dedicating itself to cutting costs wherever possible, both to avoid layoffs and plant closures, and to hold Lions ticket prices in check. Therefore, we have decided to select nobody in the first round. Thank you.'"

 

[bcr8f]

Tom Kowalski just wrote an article on MLive.com on this subject. In brief it says that the NFL has no rules against a team 'passing' on a pick and re-entering the draft when they are ready to make it. It also states that the league official said if the Lions didn't pick a guy until 5th overall that the player is then considered the 5th pick overall not the first(just because the Lions selected him and were supposed to be the the #1).

But both players agents would hold out demanding both players were the top pick. It wouldn't work and would stall the top players getting signed. That would probably stall the other picks getting signed too. They would be better off playing the players against each other and signing the cheapest before the draft. They could then trade that signed player for picks. Or just keep him.

 

[Hit-em]

Isn't it typical Lions luck that the year they have the #1 pick that it's in a draft where there's no clear #1 pick

You're got a QB in Stafford who if he was in the draft last year probably would of slipped out of the top 20.

J.Smith by some accounts is not a top 10 pick

The last number of drafts there's been at least a couple of guys vying for the top pick , the Lions come along & everyone pretty much agrees that no one stands out enough in this class to be the clear #1 pick......typical Lions luck !!!

 

[FUBAR]

Seems to me it would be a lot easier to use the existing tool of prenegotiation with the top pick. Get the agents of the half a dozen guys together (or maybe not "together", but work with them all) and say:

"OK boys, who wants to be the #1 pick? Here are some offers". I believe that's been done to some degree in the past. Seems to me Rodgers was in some kind of contention for the #1 overall the year he (and Alex Smith) came out, didn't play ball, and then slipped all they way down to the bottom of the first. If he had it to do over again, bet his agent would have been very happy with #2 or #3 money.

Heck, you could take a guy who is likely to slide to #6 or #7 if you really like him, and say the same thing to him and offer him #4 money. If I'm the agent, I go for that in a heart beat. Play the odds. Nobody really seems to want to do it though - maybe they are worried about the appearance factor of "He got the #1 overall pick WHAT kind of deal???", even though the reality would be he just got a guy who was likely to get #6 or #7 money #4 money.

Might make the #2 negotiations interesting as well. "You want HOW much more than the #1 guy got?"

It's just stupid that at this point, having the #1 pick is a negative.

Your logic is sound, but I'm sure Rodgers is happy where he's at as opposed to playing for the 49ers.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Nobody wants the #1 pick anymore.

?

So you want a link that quotes all 32 GMs saying they don't want the first pick? Kind of hard to "link" to something like that.But here's one by Vic Carucci that says EXACTLY what the origical poster said:

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story?id=09000d5d...mp;confirm=true

This concept has been discussed at length by LOADS of sports writers over the last couple of years. It may not be 100% true, but there is a lot of evidence to support that the #1 pick is NOT what it used to be.

It depends on the year of course, but generally, it seems like the top 5 guys seem to be just as likely to be franchise players as the #1 overall is, so why would a team rather pay all that extra money (and eat up the extra cap space, more to the point)? Any of them can bust, and lots of them do, and the #1 is certainly not immune.

Jake Long

JaMarcus Russell

Mario Williams

Alex D. Smith

Eli Manning

Carson Palmer

David Carr

Michael Vick

Courtney Brown

Tim Couch

Out of last 10 #1s, how many were worth what they were paid? Couple of very good players in there, but the at least half of the time, that pick hurt the team more than it helped.

Compare that to say middle or late 1sts. Lots of busts in there too, but THOSE contracts don't crush teams the way #1 overall contracts can, and they can end up with guys like Flacco, Cutler, Arron Rodgers etc (QBs are easiest to pick out, but lots of other gems as well).

Don't get me wrong, 1st round picks are still extremely valuable in general - but #1 overall (and the top couple in general) have gotten so outrageous it's become a bit of a liability compared to the rest of the picks.

Throw "the chart" away, things have changed.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Seems to me it would be a lot easier to use the existing tool of prenegotiation with the top pick. Get the agents of the half a dozen guys together (or maybe not "together", but work with them all) and say:

"OK boys, who wants to be the #1 pick? Here are some offers". I believe that's been done to some degree in the past. Seems to me Rodgers was in some kind of contention for the #1 overall the year he (and Alex Smith) came out, didn't play ball, and then slipped all they way down to the bottom of the first. If he had it to do over again, bet his agent would have been very happy with #2 or #3 money.

Heck, you could take a guy who is likely to slide to #6 or #7 if you really like him, and say the same thing to him and offer him #4 money. If I'm the agent, I go for that in a heart beat. Play the odds. Nobody really seems to want to do it though - maybe they are worried about the appearance factor of "He got the #1 overall pick WHAT kind of deal???", even though the reality would be he just got a guy who was likely to get #6 or #7 money #4 money.

Might make the #2 negotiations interesting as well. "You want HOW much more than the #1 guy got?"

It's just stupid that at this point, having the #1 pick is a negative.

Your logic is sound, but I'm sure Rodgers is happy where he's at as opposed to playing for the 49ers.

That's why I said "his agent" (who gets paid in percentage, not but the happiness of his client). Besides, who's to say what would have happened with Rodgers in San Fran? Really, they might be a good QB away from having a good team, and Rodgers could have skipped all of the Favre drama. He might have LOVED it in sunny SF, especially with all of those extra millions of dollars. It was really only last year that was any "fun" for Rodgers to date.

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

Rookie. Salary. Cap.

Force all teams to sign rookies to 1 year contracts with a set pay schedule. All rookies become restricted free agents after their rookie year.

I don't understand what's so hard about this!

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Rookie. Salary. Cap.Force all teams to sign rookies to 1 year contracts with a set pay schedule. All rookies become restricted free agents after their rookie year.I don't understand what's so hard about this!

I agree that a rookie scale might work, but the one year deal would not fly AT ALL. What would be the point? You sign a QB at #1, he doesn't start (as is usually the case for rookies) and then he's a FA? What have you gained as a team? MOST rookies are fairly useless to their teams, it's only in the outyears that they provide any real value.That would make the whole draft totally pointless.

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

Rookie. Salary. Cap.Force all teams to sign rookies to 1 year contracts with a set pay schedule. All rookies become restricted free agents after their rookie year.I don't understand what's so hard about this!

I agree that a rookie scale might work, but the one year deal would not fly AT ALL. What would be the point? You sign a QB at #1, he doesn't start (as is usually the case for rookies) and then he's a FA? What have you gained as a team? MOST rookies are fairly useless to their teams, it's only in the outyears that they provide any real value.That would make the whole draft totally pointless.

then why pay rookies guaranteed money that's even often MORE than your star player gets paid? re-negotiate the contract after the first year, incentivize contract structure so that its in the players interest to re-sign on the same team.

 

[puckalicious]

Rookie. Salary. Cap.Force all teams to sign rookies to 1 year contracts with a set pay schedule. All rookies become restricted free agents after their rookie year.I don't understand what's so hard about this!

I agree that a rookie scale might work, but the one year deal would not fly AT ALL. What would be the point? You sign a QB at #1, he doesn't start (as is usually the case for rookies) and then he's a FA? What have you gained as a team? MOST rookies are fairly useless to their teams, it's only in the outyears that they provide any real value.That would make the whole draft totally pointless.

then why pay rookies guaranteed money that's even often MORE than your star player gets paid? re-negotiate the contract after the first year, incentivize contract structure so that its in the players interest to re-sign on the same team.

Or we could just have rookie salary cap over a 4 year contract...Performance incentives are a good idea. In fact, why don't ALL contracts in the NFL have a base salary limit that depends only on number of years in the league and maybe related to playing position, and is guaranteed money. Then add performance payouts so the top players at each position get big fat bonuses that are not guaranteed money.

 

[roadkill1292]

Let's play "What If There Was No NFL Draft?"

All college players are free agents. How much is Stafford's top offer? And from whom?

 

[comfortably numb]

Nobody wants the #1 pick anymore.

?

This always seem to be the sentiment.As well as the "it's not that easy to simply trade down" thought.I just wonder if GM's flat out say, if you want to move up 5-10 spots to #12 it will only cost you a 4th in 2011.I mean NO ONE would do this?I know FF is a different world, but it just seems if I was a GM wanting to trade down, I would find away, even if it was getting a 6th RD pick to drop down 5-6 slots.Perhaps, no one wants to get low value for trading down as it may tip the scale for future trades??

 

[GregR_2]

Rookie. Salary. Cap.

Force all teams to sign rookies to 1 year contracts with a set pay schedule. All rookies become restricted free agents after their rookie year.

I don't understand what's so hard about this!

I agree that a rookie scale might work, but the one year deal would not fly AT ALL. What would be the point? You sign a QB at #1, he doesn't start (as is usually the case for rookies) and then he's a FA? What have you gained as a team? MOST rookies are fairly useless to their teams, it's only in the outyears that they provide any real value.That would make the whole draft totally pointless.

then why pay rookies guaranteed money that's even often MORE than your star player gets paid?

re-negotiate the contract after the first year, incentivize contract structure so that its in the players interest to re-sign on the same team.

Or we could just have rookie salary cap over a 4 year contract...Performance incentives are a good idea. In fact, why don't ALL contracts in the NFL have a base salary limit that depends only on number of years in the league and maybe related to playing position, and is guaranteed money. Then add performance payouts so the top players at each position get big fat bonuses that are not guaranteed money.

Because guaranteed contracts aren't necessarily a good thing. Because NFL players had things like earlier free agency and a bigger chunk of the total revenue stream as bigger priorities than they did guaranteeing all years of a contract, and so negotiated the CBA accordingly.I agree that more structure and more payment for performance would be good things. But making contracts guaranteed isn't. Other leagues may have it, but IMHO they are worse off for having their contracts guaranteed.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Nobody wants the #1 pick anymore.

?

This always seem to be the sentiment.As well as the "it's not that easy to simply trade down" thought.I just wonder if GM's flat out say, if you want to move up 5-10 spots to #12 it will only cost you a 4th in 2011.I mean NO ONE would do this?I know FF is a different world, but it just seems if I was a GM wanting to trade down, I would find away, even if it was getting a 6th RD pick to drop down 5-6 slots.Perhaps, no one wants to get low value for trading down as it may tip the scale for future trades??

I think most GMs wouldn't trade out of the top five if they had one of those picks unless they got pretty much what the pick value chart stated.

 

[cstu]

Nobody wants the #1 pick anymore.

?

This always seem to be the sentiment.As well as the "it's not that easy to simply trade down" thought.I just wonder if GM's flat out say, if you want to move up 5-10 spots to #12 it will only cost you a 4th in 2011.I mean NO ONE would do this?I know FF is a different world, but it just seems if I was a GM wanting to trade down, I would find away, even if it was getting a 6th RD pick to drop down 5-6 slots.Perhaps, no one wants to get low value for trading down as it may tip the scale for future trades??

I think most GMs wouldn't trade out of the top five if they had one of those picks unless they got pretty much what the pick value chart stated.

I agree, but most GM's are pretty stupid then. The job as GM is to put the best possible team on the field, not worry about the value listed on some chart. Frankly, I consider the chart to be completely out of whack with reality when the financial aspect is taken into account.

 

[-baller]

I don't really believe they use that chart -- it's like taking an online iq test.

I believe they probably have their own charts and ballpark values off it, then figure in the money.

different teams will have different considerations when it comes to money.

 

[Donnybrook]

Nobody wants the #1 pick anymore.

?

http://www.freep.com/article/20090404/SPORTS01/904040371/

And if Casserly's experience has taught him anything else, it's that the Lions probably won't be able to trade the pick.

"Every team that I know that's had the first pick recently has tried to trade it, including us when I was in Houston," said Casserly, who wielded the top pick twice -- as general manager of the Texans in 2000-06 and as GM of the Redskins in 1989-99.

And the outcome of those negotiations?

"No takers," Casserly said. "Not even a discussion worthwhile having."

 

[Chase Stuart]

Nobody wants the #1 pick anymore.

?

This always seem to be the sentiment.As well as the "it's not that easy to simply trade down" thought.I just wonder if GM's flat out say, if you want to move up 5-10 spots to #12 it will only cost you a 4th in 2011.I mean NO ONE would do this?I know FF is a different world, but it just seems if I was a GM wanting to trade down, I would find away, even if it was getting a 6th RD pick to drop down 5-6 slots.Perhaps, no one wants to get low value for trading down as it may tip the scale for future trades??

I think most GMs wouldn't trade out of the top five if they had one of those picks unless they got pretty much what the pick value chart stated.

I agree, but most GM's are pretty stupid then. The job as GM is to put the best possible team on the field, not worry about the value listed on some chart. Frankly, I consider the chart to be completely out of whack with reality when the financial aspect is taken into account.

I think the draft chart is very much in whack with reality, even with the financial aspect taken into account.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Nobody wants the #1 pick anymore.

?

http://www.freep.com/article/20090404/SPORTS01/904040371/

And if Casserly's experience has taught him anything else, it's that the Lions probably won't be able to trade the pick.

"Every team that I know that's had the first pick recently has tried to trade it, including us when I was in Houston," said Casserly, who wielded the top pick twice -- as general manager of the Texans in 2000-06 and as GM of the Redskins in 1989-99.

And the outcome of those negotiations?

"No takers," Casserly said. "Not even a discussion worthwhile having."

Thanks for the quote. I don't doubt that Casserly tried to trade the pick, but we have no idea how realistic his demands were. If he was trying to seek another Eli Manning deal, that was unlikely to happen, IMO.

 

[Sinn Fein]

It's "legal" but the player's agent would laugh himself silly at the idea it could get the team a lower contract.

I am not sure how the thread lasted longer than this post.

 

[Nugget]

Nobody wants the #1 pick anymore.

?

http://www.freep.com/article/20090404/SPORTS01/904040371/

And if Casserly's experience has taught him anything else, it's that the Lions probably won't be able to trade the pick.

"Every team that I know that's had the first pick recently has tried to trade it, including us when I was in Houston," said Casserly, who wielded the top pick twice -- as general manager of the Texans in 2000-06 and as GM of the Redskins in 1989-99.

And the outcome of those negotiations?

"No takers," Casserly said. "Not even a discussion worthwhile having."

Thanks for the quote. I don't doubt that Casserly tried to trade the pick, but we have no idea how realistic his demands were. If he was trying to seek another Eli Manning deal, that was unlikely to happen, IMO.

I think the issue would be with the fan base. If the Lions could trade down to 1.04 and pick up a 4th rounder and save 8 mil guaranteed $, I think they would look at it. But the fans would say this was a horrible deal, they didn't get what the pick value was, WC Ford is an idiot, and I'm not renewing my season tickets.