Would Parcells let time expire? (1 Viewer)

[Liquid Tension]

Chase, I have nothing but respect for you, but that statement makes no sense whatsoever. In how many job fields on the planet does the unproven new guy get offered 20, 30, even 60% MORE MONEY then the established guys in his field, REGARDLESS of his college resume?

I'm not Chase, but...I'd guess that extremely-high-potential-but-unproven employees get paid similarly to or more than their experienced counterparts in all the fields where a typical employee's age 23--26 working years are likely to be more productive than their age 28--31 years.

On your dynasty cheatsheet, do you have Darren McFadden ranked higher than Jamal Lewis? If you're willing to allocate more of your resources to the unproven guy, why shouldn't NFL teams be willing to do the same?

You comparisons are not equal. 23-26 year olds with high potential but totally unknown are NOT getting paid what 28-31 proven stars are being paid in the workforce. I do not include the being in the prime because that is not really true (maybe for RB's)

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'm not sure. IMHO part of the reason is most teams aren't looking to trade their proven/happy players even if a team is offering picks.

That's why rookies are so valuable. Because that's by far the best chance to get a stud. Only one team had Marvin Harrison, Jerry Rice, Walter Payton, Peyton Manning, Joe Montana, Emmitt Smith, Barry Sanders, LaDainian Tomlinson, Marshall Faulk or Michael Irvin in their primes. There's a reason for that. Those guys aren't available to other teams.You can only get a star athlete in the draft, or by trading through the nose (say, Herschel Walker), or getting incredibly lucky through (say, Randy Moss) or free agency (say, Cris Carter). That's why rookie draft picks are so valuable, which is why rookies are worth so much. Teams will pay a lot for the chance to have Darren McFadden; they'll probably pay more than they would for the chance to get Reggie Bush, and definitely more than what they'd pay to get Thomas Jones. But odds are, McFadden's career won't even be as good as Jones. That's just how the system works.

 

[renesauz]

I assure you, if teams began letting the timer expire on purpose... the commish would come down on them very hard on them and a rule would be created. However, something does need to be done about these top picks getting a boat load of money when they haven't even stepped on the field... and if they don't get the $$, they hold out. These teams tie up so much money on these top picks, and if they don't workout... the team is set behind for yrs.I would like to see sometype of Cap be placed on the money these kids make... in thier 1st 2 season or so.

If the teams sucked less in all other aspects of football operations, presumably they wouldn't be picking in the top 5. I think these kids work their asses off for free so that their colleges can just rake in the cash. I think they risk being injured or killed in the college game for a chance at that payday. I think that if a kid rises to the top of the draft, he is worth the money. He's risked his health for the chance at that money. I don't begrudge him the money.

The kids do work hard... but they are getting an elite education from these schools in exchange for thier talents on the field. I knew only some take advantage of thier eductaion... but atleast they have the piece paper that can get them a decent paying job else where.The day is coming very soon where 1.01 is going to make 100M in 7 years... thats crazy. All I'm saying is that there should be a cap placed on these draft positions.

No there shouldn't. Teams should not be rewarded any more for incompetence, and kids shouldn't have money stolen from them by veterans or owners. I think doing away with the draft, entirely, is a much better idea than capping the rookie picks.

Really? Scratching my head over this comment. Year after year unproven rookies come into the league and get better contracts than established vets, and flame out completely. I don't understand at all what you mean by a cap rewarding teams for their incompetence. We're talking about a double whammy here, where weaker teams are basically forced to commit tens of millions of dollars to some heralded rookie in hopes he pans out.

Teams aren't forced to do anything. The team with the #5 pick can trade for the #15 or #20 pick pretty easily.

I'll agree to disagree. With the current draft chart it is practically impossible for a team to trade out. The only option is to take a public fleecing over the fact you traded out without getting value, and being stigmatized as a dumb franchise. That said, the part of your message I most disagree with is you implying that rookies are worthy of tens of millions of dollars before they step on an NFL field, while proven vets have limited options to get paid as they deserve to be paid, either because this team is capped out or that team. It's just not even debatable in my books, and I'd say it is a rare occurence when an early round pick is worth what he's been paid. So again, agree to disagree.

So why aren't teams dying to trade draft picks for proven veterans?

Because the problem does NOT exist throughout the draft, but only in the top half of the first round. The truth is that rookies drafted later who then outperform expectations get screwed over just as badly. Proven veterans who are starter quality can usually garner a half way decent draft pick. The mega stars are very rarely dealt, and when they are there is almost always extenuating circumstances (unhappy with team, contract dispute, salary cap reasons.) The lack of trades has less to do with picks and more with the fact that most franchises don't WANT TO TRADE proven vets for unproven draft picks. IE: You don't gamble with good players.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Because the problem does NOT exist throughout the draft, but only in the top half of the first round. The truth is that rookies drafted later who then outperform expectations get screwed over just as badly. Proven veterans who are starter quality can usually garner a half way decent draft pick. The mega stars are very rarely dealt, and when they are there is almost always extenuating circumstances (unhappy with team, contract dispute, salary cap reasons.) The lack of trades has less to do with picks and more with the fact that most franchises don't WANT TO TRADE proven vets for unproven draft picks. IE: You don't gamble with good players.

Pretend you're a GM with the 4th pick. You think the 4th pick is going to be paid way more than he's worth, so you don't want to do that. What would you do?

 

[Liquid Tension]

I look at the concept being floated more than actually letting time expire. The very fact that teams would even consider this (even if only for a moment) shows that something needs to be done about the money going to rookie players. There needs to be a lower and possibly set cap for rookies so that draft order means a lot to the league rather than burdening an already weak team with the possibility of another Ryan Leaf.

This "saved" money should not go into the owners pockets, but should go to the players in terms of veterans getting more and the rest going towards pensions and medical costs (H&W) for retired/injured players.

This makes too much sense not to happen and the good part about this somewhat silly hypothesis is that maybe this will shine some light on the possibility I believe makes sense.

'Chase Stuart'

No there shouldn't. Teams should not be rewarded any more for incompetence, and kids shouldn't have money stolen from them by veterans or owners. I think doing away with the draft, entirely, is a much better idea than capping the rookie picks.

Could you elaborate?

It sounds like you did, already, LT.Let me ask you this: Would you be happy if your work decided to take away 15% of your salary, and then take that "saved" money and give it to the retired workers of your company?

Most companies don't pay their employees for their perceived production. The typical employee's worth curve might be low in the beginning, rises sharply for the first 5 years, stays high for another ten, then begins to drop-off as they age. That's what your average employee is worth. No one wants to be paid that way, though. We, as employees, desire steady income. And social science has shown that the masses are happy (think bread and circus here) if you increase their pay slightly each year. So that's what we get -- a pay structure that keeps us happy, keeps us with steady income, and reduces our risk. But it doesn't match our production. We accept low pay in our early years because we know we'll be overpaid in our later years. And that's fine with us -- we think that's a good deal. And if companies tried to fire all their old, overpaid workers, then all their young, underpaid workers would see that in leave. So that's our system.

In the NFL, though, players are paid based on their perceived potential. That's why it seems so backwards to us. They're not paid steadily rising incomes, because they'll be with different employers every other year. Instead, they've got to be paid what their worth (which means expected worth, since you can't pay someone based on their future production, because you can't predict the future). NFL teams are willing to pay rookie QBs drafted #1 a ton of money, because the marginal value they add -- especially in years 3, 4, 5 and 6 of their rookie contract -- is off the charts, if they do well. And NFL teams wouldn't draft the player if they didn't think they would do well.

We have a salary cap in the NFL. What this means is that you can spend money however you want. You could spend $100M on free agents and $0 on draft picks, or $60M on free agents and $40M on draft picks, or somewhere in between. If NFL draft picks at the top were so overvalued, then teams would just give up draft picks and sign free agents. But we just saw how "overvalued" free agents are. So they're not going to do that.

If you want to compare a draft pick to a star QB in the second to last year of his contract to show an inequity, that's fine, but silly. Of course that won't look "fair". But if you compare a star rookie QB to the top FA available, they seem a lot more fair. And since the studliest of the stud QBs don't come on the market -- you literally can't acquire Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, Tony Romo, or Brett Favre -- you need to draft them. So teams will (wisely) pay a premium just for the chance to get them.

There's a reason no team voluntarily gives up its first round pick, and no team trades the #3 pick for the #11 pick, and it's not because GMs are stupid or because the high draft picks are overvalued. It's because they're good deals.

Let me ask you this: Would you be happy if your work decided to take away 15% of your salary, and then take that "saved" money and give it to the retired workers of your company?

If I knew the deal going in then I would have no issue with it. If I don't think 15% less for these contracts is good I could play something else or go somewhere else...and here is the catch...NOBODY would go any place else.I am not so sure that getting star free agents isn't the way to go, but you can't pay a lot for mediocrity as that kills you. I have said for many years that I would rather have 2 2nd round and 1 3rd round picks than 1 1st round pick and I still believe that.

Thanks for responding

 

[renesauz]

Because the problem does NOT exist throughout the draft, but only in the top half of the first round. The truth is that rookies drafted later who then outperform expectations get screwed over just as badly. Proven veterans who are starter quality can usually garner a half way decent draft pick. The mega stars are very rarely dealt, and when they are there is almost always extenuating circumstances (unhappy with team, contract dispute, salary cap reasons.) The lack of trades has less to do with picks and more with the fact that most franchises don't WANT TO TRADE proven vets for unproven draft picks. IE: You don't gamble with good players.

Pretend you're a GM with the 4th pick. You think the 4th pick is going to be paid way more than he's worth, so you don't want to do that. What would you do?

At the moment, it's a darned if you do, darned if you don't scenario. You can try to trade down, but teams aren't biting because they know they'll overpay the player, meaning that you can only trade down if you're taking less then the players true value (I'm talking playing value, not money value). If you have the cap space to sign the player, then you have no choice but to draft him, and cross your fingers that he ends up worth it.As a GM, I would try my hardest to make those high round rookie deals VERY performance dependant, even if it meant that I had to dangle a slightly bigger (potential) carrot to do so.Right now, the GM's drafting in the top 8-10 are in a no win situation, and have no choice but to gamble their franchise' future, and their own careers, on unproven 22 y.o. rookies knowing that 20-30% will be complete failures, and another 50%, while not failures, will still fail to live up to the incredible hype and positional top 5 contracts. There is no safe out for the individual GM. The problem can only be resolved as a league.Part of the problem in resolving the problem is the extraordinary high number of votes needed to pass a new rule. There's only a handful of teams really stuck in any given year, and there is no reason why the average to good teams would want to change it, because it gives them the competitive advantage from a finance end of things.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Because the problem does NOT exist throughout the draft, but only in the top half of the first round. The truth is that rookies drafted later who then outperform expectations get screwed over just as badly. Proven veterans who are starter quality can usually garner a half way decent draft pick. The mega stars are very rarely dealt, and when they are there is almost always extenuating circumstances (unhappy with team, contract dispute, salary cap reasons.) The lack of trades has less to do with picks and more with the fact that most franchises don't WANT TO TRADE proven vets for unproven draft picks. IE: You don't gamble with good players.

Pretend you're a GM with the 4th pick. You think the 4th pick is going to be paid way more than he's worth, so you don't want to do that. What would you do?

At the moment, it's a darned if you do, darned if you don't scenario. You can try to trade down, but teams aren't biting because they know they'll overpay the player, meaning that you can only trade down if you're taking less then the players true value (I'm talking playing value, not money value). If you have the cap space to sign the player, then you have no choice but to draft him, and cross your fingers that he ends up worth it.As a GM, I would try my hardest to make those high round rookie deals VERY performance dependant, even if it meant that I had to dangle a slightly bigger (potential) carrot to do so.Right now, the GM's drafting in the top 8-10 are in a no win situation, and have no choice but to gamble their franchise' future, and their own careers, on unproven 22 y.o. rookies knowing that 20-30% will be complete failures, and another 50%, while not failures, will still fail to live up to the incredible hype and positional top 5 contracts. There is no safe out for the individual GM. The problem can only be resolved as a league.Part of the problem in resolving the problem is the extraordinary high number of votes needed to pass a new rule. There's only a handful of teams really stuck in any given year, and there is no reason why the average to good teams would want to change it, because it gives them the competitive advantage from a finance end of things.

Why don't teams with the 5th pick trade for the 15th pick, and used those cost savings to sign two more FAs? Surely the true football value of the two FAs and the 15th pick >> the true football value of the 5th pick, right?

 

[renesauz]

Because the problem does NOT exist throughout the draft, but only in the top half of the first round. The truth is that rookies drafted later who then outperform expectations get screwed over just as badly. Proven veterans who are starter quality can usually garner a half way decent draft pick. The mega stars are very rarely dealt, and when they are there is almost always extenuating circumstances (unhappy with team, contract dispute, salary cap reasons.) The lack of trades has less to do with picks and more with the fact that most franchises don't WANT TO TRADE proven vets for unproven draft picks. IE: You don't gamble with good players.

Pretend you're a GM with the 4th pick. You think the 4th pick is going to be paid way more than he's worth, so you don't want to do that. What would you do?

At the moment, it's a darned if you do, darned if you don't scenario. You can try to trade down, but teams aren't biting because they know they'll overpay the player, meaning that you can only trade down if you're taking less then the players true value (I'm talking playing value, not money value). If you have the cap space to sign the player, then you have no choice but to draft him, and cross your fingers that he ends up worth it.As a GM, I would try my hardest to make those high round rookie deals VERY performance dependant, even if it meant that I had to dangle a slightly bigger (potential) carrot to do so.Right now, the GM's drafting in the top 8-10 are in a no win situation, and have no choice but to gamble their franchise' future, and their own careers, on unproven 22 y.o. rookies knowing that 20-30% will be complete failures, and another 50%, while not failures, will still fail to live up to the incredible hype and positional top 5 contracts. There is no safe out for the individual GM. The problem can only be resolved as a league.Part of the problem in resolving the problem is the extraordinary high number of votes needed to pass a new rule. There's only a handful of teams really stuck in any given year, and there is no reason why the average to good teams would want to change it, because it gives them the competitive advantage from a finance end of things.

Why don't teams with the 5th pick trade for the 15th pick, and used those cost savings to sign two more FAs? Surely the true football value of the two FAs and the 15th pick >> the true football value of the 5th pick, right?

I'm starting to feel like you are purposefully ignoring my real points. Nobody is saying that the fifteenth is worth almost the same as the fifth, or even that it's close. What we are saying is that the current structure demands so much financial commitment for those top ten or so picks that GMs lack general flexibility. I guess part of the problem here is that when they pick right, it is a sound financial commitment....but statisticly they only pick "right" %20-%30 of the time. Worse, a truly bad pick becomes a severe penalty to the franchise. To say simply "they should have picked better" is both short-sighted and unfair. You're one of the experts yourself....how many do YOU MISS?

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'm starting to feel like you are purposefully ignoring my real points. Nobody is saying that the fifteenth is worth almost the same as the fifth, or even that it's close. What we are saying is that the current structure demands so much financial commitment for those top ten or so picks that GMs lack general flexibility. I guess part of the problem here is that when they pick right, it is a sound financial commitment....but statisticly they only pick "right" %20-%30 of the time. Worse, a truly bad pick becomes a severe penalty to the franchise. To say simply "they should have picked better" is both short-sighted and unfair. You're one of the experts yourself....how many do YOU MISS?

I'm not saying they should simply pick better. That wasn't my point at all.GMs have flexibility. Let me ask my question, in a slightly different way:Would you rather have the 5th best player in the draft for $8 mil/year, and two UDFA for $300K a year, or the 15th best player in the draft for $3mil/year, and then sign two free agents for $2.8 mil/year each?