11M per year for a rookie. om freakin g.
Printable View
11M per year for a rookie. om freakin g.
Its so far beyond ridiculous. Up until this contract my team had the highest paid rookie ever, it has to end at some point.Quote:
Originally Posted by r'aggro
The idea is the worst teams get first crack at the best players so they have a better chance at improving. However at this rate teams always drafting in the top 10 will not have the freaking cap room with four or five recent picks making this kind of money. They will have so much invested in unproven commodities they won't be able to go get proven ones.
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by spamjedi
new avatar :p
Nice! Just wait until I hit 5k and I'll show you my new avatar (I bet you can't guess who it'll be lol)!!Quote:
Originally Posted by spamjedi
Seriously NFL, time to implement 3 year rookie contracts like the nhl does. Although, I guess being able to waive players outright without having to pay them a percentage is their ace in situations like these.
That's why they have to know when to trade down. All part of being a general manager.Quote:
Originally Posted by spamjedi
I think its a common misconception that teams can trade down at will. None of us are GMs but trading down from a top five pick is big money, and I think safe to say a very hard thing to do. No one is going to come up to number 3 from number 10, you just can afford to do that. So you're talking about trading down with only a potential of 4 teams or so that don't have to move up too far to get your pick. Then on top of that they have to actually want your pick and be willing to pay the price for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by monroeski
I mean look at the Eli Manning Phillip Rivers thing. The picks weren't traded, but the players were, from number 1 to number 4. NY gave up a fortune to get Eli. In the end San Diego got Rivers, and what turned out to be Merriman, and more picks for Eli. I really think its pretty rare to trade out of those top picks.
If the trend continues it could become a burden draft in the top 10 as opposed to a benefit aimed at parity.
edit: found the particulars of the Manning trade
Giants received
* Rights to 2004 1st Overall Pick - Used to sign quarterback Eli Manning.
Chargers received
* Rights to 2004 4th Overall Pick - Used to sign Quarterback Philip Rivers.
* 2005 1st Round Draft Pick - Used to draft and sign Linebacker Shawne Merriman.
* 2004 3rd Round Draft Pick - Used to draft and sign Kicker Nate Kaeding.
* 2005 5th Round Draft Pick - Traded to Tampa Bay Buccaneers for Left Tackle Roman Oben.
Rivers, Merriman, and Keading are all pro bowlers btw.
Obviously that didn't work out well for NY, lol. So who is going to do this kind of thing again?
You can ship out your 1st for whatever you want to. You could trade a 1st for a 5th straight up if you want to. They CAN trade it basically at will, the problem is finding something who will pay what they think it is worth. That is where the affordability comes in. If you are trying to trade down because you don't like the players at that spot, that is one thing; if you're trying to trade down because you can't afford the spot, that's another. They have to decide what their chances are for being able to afford another high pick and compare them to what other people will actually offer; if they can't afford the spot, after all, they'll get nothing when the guy holds out.Quote:
Originally Posted by spamjedi
It's just like when teams trade or release good players because they can't afford the cap number. They may not be getting value back as far as players on the field, but they HAVE to do it to be able to afford the team. Same goes for the draft picks, if the salary crunch is hard enough on you, you will trade the pick and move down for less than what the spot is "worth," because you have no other options.
It comes down to what the general manager decides is best, and I think the vast majority would prefer to clear out the older guys to be able to afford a high draft pick's salary, as the draft is where you really build your team. That's probably a major reason why you don't ever really see any high draft picks not signed at all because of cap reasons. You do see a lot of teams try to move out of the top 10, but don't, and that's because they don't NEED to drop out of the top 10.
For example -
The Chargers were able to totally fleece the Giants because they didn't NEED to trade down, so the Giants had to convince them, and they knew the Giants had their hearts set on Eli. That jacked the price of the slot way up. By the same token, if a team is desperate to trade down because they can't afford the salary of the high slot, they will be able to find a taker for the slot, even if it is below the value of what the little draft chart says they should get.Quote:
Originally Posted by spamjedi
There are also other ways to game the system to keep from getting into full on salary cap hell even if you won't trade out of a top spot. For instance, some positions (QB in particular) command a higher salary than other positions. Teams have to be able to project out whether they'll be able to afford that #1 QB a few years down the line. If they think he'll come at too high of a price, don't take him. I think that's a problem the Raiders fell into this year, it doesn't sound like they did enough pre negotiation with Russell to know what he would command. Look at what the Texans did last year - many people think they passed on Bush because Williams was more "signable." They knew through pre negotiations, and all the hype surrounding him, that taking Bush would hit them HARD in the pocketbook. When no one else gave them an offer for the pick that they deemed good enough, they did what they had to do and just didn't sign him.
Of course it is possible to trade your number 2 pick for a number 5 pick straight up, but that's not going to happen, salary cap hell or no. If you draft in the top 5 every year you can expect to pay a top 5 salary and bonus each and every year. It is such long shot to trade out of that spot to begin with, and you flat out aren't going to trade out of a huge salary ie going from 5 to 15.
Mario Williams number 1 overall versus Reggie Bush didn't save the Texans much, though we'll never know for sure. To an extent number one is number one. Though obviously QBs command a bit more, but a number one is getting more than 30 million guaranteed next year regardless of position.
My point is that this is out of hand and in theory if a team drafts top 10 or top 5 more years than not it will have an affect on their cap. No team is going to give up the value of a top pick for salary cap reasons. They will make veteran cuts. So you have teams taking huge cap hits for unknown players at the expense of known players.
So its conceivable that getting top draft picks on a consistent basis is not the advantage we all think of it to be. I don't see this as being good for the teams who the draft system favors.
The best examples of top drafters are probably Detroit ($1.68 million) and Arizona ($1.74 million), who as you can see have less cap room than almost every other team. I'm not saying its all due to drafting high, but I know for a fact the Lions are hurting from it.
I understand what you're saying, but are the lions hurting more from high draft picks, or poor draft choices? If rogers and mike williams were like roy, it would be a different story. Rogers isn't even in the league anymore I don't think. The first round isn't the only place to get good players either. Look at your front office and coaches, if they can't draft well then drafting first probably will be a disadvantage because the player is not worth the salary.Quote:
Originally Posted by spamjedi
Lofa Tatupu says hi.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by PriMaTe
Looks like the hawks just traded Bryce Fisher to the titans for...? And the rumour is that it was for a low pick, which was then used to trade for Charlie Fry from the browns. :x
Sucks if true, Fisher was no longer a starter but a class guy and a fan favorite. But Charlie Fry?? I thought that guy was god awful. He'll be the thrid QB, but damn....
yea I hear ya, for sure! Here are their 1st round picks going back to 2002 all top 10.Quote:
Originally Posted by PriMaTe
Calvin Johnson
Ernie Sims
Mike Williams
Roy Williams
Kevin Jones
Charles Rogers
Joey Harrington
I don't doubt for a second that Detroit is not the example on how to draft, build a team, or anything football related. However all of these players were rated very high on everyone's boards, Mike Williams even, though a risky pick for sure. So in hindsight yea there are 3 huge busts there. But 2 of those 3 (Rogers and Harrington) for sure were going top 10 or top 5 either way.
It kind of goes back to my point of paying for unproven players. Detroit's poor play puts them in the top 10 picks. By my previous argument (which is conceivably my own special brand of bs) they must pay this top money every year, and the way all of this guaranteed money is going you can make a point that it hurts teams who always draft high.
That's why D needs to put a .500 season together. Then they'll be forced to draft a safe pick!
heh, I list my sanity above that on the list!Quote:
Originally Posted by r'aggro
I actually think that their drafting has been solid.Quote:
Originally Posted by spamjedi
There are some good players in there.
And I don't even see Harrington counting... QBs have what... like a 90% fail rate?!?
Mike Williams and Rogers are the only ones that I'd count... and as you said... everyone had them rated highly.
Russell just signed and already he could be #2 on the depth chart since McCown was just diagnosed w/ a broken index finger on his throwing hand. LMAO!
woa, I remember him holding his hand at the end of the game too. That sucks. Culpepper starts eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Boneycat
Are they going to try to trade culpeper or walters? Or just release Walters :(
New Englanded cheated..its no wonder they always seemed to have the ability to pull out all those 3 point games, and seemed to make just the right "adjustments" in the second half.
You know... it makes you wonder...Quote:
Originally Posted by md1198p
Just how big of a factor HAS this made in NE's success?!?
I remember... many moons ago... where Miami lost a game at the end because a linebacker stepped in front of a Marino throw... as if by divine intervention... and that sealed the game for NE.
In the end... Miami cried fowl... said that NE was reading the plays before the snap. And the body language of the NE players seemed to have supported that claim.
In a tight game... how many times could have something like this been the slight difference that made the game?
How extensive is the problem? Do other teams do it?
If it turns out that NE has won many games for doing this... I hope that the league comes down hard on them. Not just penalizing them a few draft picks. There has to be a deterence.
I also remember in the late 90's in one of Denver's Super Bowl years... that it was discovered that they had violated the salary cap. They were fined a measley amount.
I couldn't help but think that even this could have had major implications on their SB run that year. Who knws who they may have not been able to sign had they followed the cap like everyone else?
What really sucks is there is no way to know. You cannot just replay those games. If it was a widespread thing they where doing, it would have a huge effect on the way the game played out. It could help every phase of the game, from there O-lineman knowing where the blitz was coming from, QB knowing who had single coverage, backs knowing who to pick up in blitzes, and receivers knowing who had what zone and being able to set up in the soft spots. And thats just assuming it was the defensive calls they where spying on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spank_Me_Hard
They beat the Rams in the superbowl by a last second field goal, and only won by 3 against Philly. It would have only taked a little help to have made a difference in both those games.
They always did look better after halftime in their tough games. The homer in me seems to remember that in the 2004 game against Philly, they had a tough time in the first half moving the ball, but scored like 3-4 times in a row after halftime...hhhmmmm...
So is this really a big deal, or are the news outlets just propping it up?
Its interesting, like you guys are saying, how big of a deal is it? Small time, like maybe a team goes 3 and out because NE knows the plays, or like NE wins a playoff game they shouldn't have...
Quote:
Originally Posted by spamjedi
New England won a LOT of close playoff games....i'm just saying...
yea I'm with you. I mean what a tarnish on what was/is an incredible run of success. I wish there was a way to know how much this sort of thing affected it. Belichick is supposed to be one of the best coaches of all time basically, right? What about now? In my mind it already is throwing in doubts.Quote:
Originally Posted by md1198p