Date: Wed Apr 16 05:58:48 2008
Sender: Just Oz
I think there will be three QBs taken in the first round.
Baltimore -- Ryan
Seattle -- Henne
Atlanta (trade back into end of round) -- Brohm
Date: Wed Apr 16 08:15:48 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
Some interesting news out of Miami on the #1.
Big article about how the 10 million dollar contract you have to give your #1
pick just isn't worth it.- and having the #1 pick no longer does what the draft
was meant to do
- especially this year.
Apparently Miami is negotiating with the expected 3 or 4 guys and if they can't
get one cheap enough, their was even rumour they may let their time elapse and
take 2 or 3, just to save a few million per year.
Date: Wed Apr 16 08:21:48 2008
Sender: Jamie Davies
Honestly, something needs to change. And I'm glad Miami is atleast thinking
this way, regardless of whether or not they actually do it.
I'm all for the market dictating the price, and if Miami doesn't feel that any
of these guys are worth what they're asking, then that's what they should do.
Just because franchise QB's taken #1 overall got monster contracts in the past
doesn't mean that every #1 pick is entitled to it.
I hope the NFL franchises stick to their guns and start to bring these rookie
contracts under control. They're only hurting themselves if they don't.
A top #5 pick should not have the potential crippling effect on a franchise
that they currently do.
Date: Wed Apr 16 09:14:17 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
I love the draft, I think it is incredibly fun to watch and great for the
sport.
But when the cost of the #1 pick hurts, instead of helps the future of the
team- then something lost it's way.
Date: Wed Apr 16 09:22:34 2008
Sender: Kevin Caery
I agree about the cost of high draft picks -- it would be nice if in the next
bargaining agreement they implemented a contract-slotting system like the NBA,
with shorter guaranteed contracts and the big payday coming after a few years
in the league.
Date: Wed Apr 16 10:09:49 2008
Sender: Mike Boofer
You really think ANYONE would fall for that tactic? (Letting time elapse)
They won't. They will still ask for number 1 money and will likely be a LONG
holdout.
Date: Wed Apr 16 10:23:40 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
how could they?
If your selected #2, or #3 you are not going to get #1 money.
The 1st pick would be made by the Rams, and they would have to shell out the 10
million per year contract.
Date: Wed Apr 16 11:34:37 2008
Sender: Joshua MacOscar
There was a study done within the past few years about the value of picks. It
was pretty conclusive that the best value comes from 2nd and 3rd round picks.
Date: Wed Apr 16 12:43:54 2008
Sender: Mike Boofer
No AJ. There is NOT a guarentee that number 1 gets this money and number 2
gets this money. Whoever Miami selects will simply say "I need to get paid
equal to what the top guy gets (or more) or I won't sign. You picked me and
you would have picked me number 1." Holdouts happen all the time with people
selected with true picks- let alone a lame duck attempt to shuffle money.
This happened a number of years ago when the Redskins held both the 2cnd and
3rd picks in the draft. Everyone said they should select Samuels with 2 and
Arrington with 3 so Lavar wouldn't be paid as much. Arrington said that IF
they had chosen to do that (which they didn't) he wouldn't have signed for
anything less than Samuels. Upshaw even said the Union would have gotten
involved.
I agree the rookies need brought under control, but trying to play with the
semantics of the draft isn't how to go about it. No agent will even remotely
allow that to happen. I guess maybe Master P would.
Date: Wed Apr 16 13:07:01 2008
Sender: Jamie Davies
For those of you familiar with the draft pick value chart that Jimmy Johnson
pioneered in the early 90's (where they sign a numerical value to every pick in
the draft), I read an interesting note on this earlier this week.
Compared to last season's chart, the top five picks in the first round have
been severely discounted by most teams due to the potential financial ruin they
can bring a franchise--and basically, the picks from #6 in the first round to
the end of the first round are worth more compared to the same picks last
season.
Atleast NFL management is being smart in letting the complete market dictate
these values.
This tells me that something is going to change, if this trend continues.
Date: Wed Apr 16 14:19:44 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
your right Mike nothing is garuanteed...
you could pay the 1st rd pick the league minimum, if he agreed.
or use common sense, and the interview with Lee Stienberg
"The agent for the No. 1-overall pick faces ridicule and criticism if the
contract isn't an increase of 15 percent or more in guaranteed money and total
value when compared with last year's deal"
You can pull the last 5 years picks and see how it drops around #3, #4...
Walt Huzienga about the #1 pick.
”It is tough when you take a talented player who has never been in the NFL and
give him a bunch of signing bonuses and a guaranteed contract and huge
dollars,” Huizenga said. “If you pay $35 million to a person who does not work
out, you are stuck with that for five or six years, which means you can’t get
rid of them — which means someone else could be there taking the money. We
always pay to the cap. We’re not trying to save money. It’s a matter of being
prudent in putting money in the right place.”
--------------------------
Point is Dolphins aren't "really" picking #1 even now. They are drafting 1st,
but taking a guy who will sign for #3 or #4 money. The guy who goes #1 in the
draft this year might only be there because he already agreed to a less crazy
contract.
Date: Wed Apr 16 14:36:14 2008
Sender: Mike Boofer
that's fine if they choose to do that. The Pirates have stayed away from the
best players in the draft for similiar reasons (they passed on the super sure
fire Mark Prior- for someone like Brian Bullington or something). Drafting for
finances can a viable strategy if you NEED to do it. NFL rules dictate it
might become a neccesity.
I still don't believe, using common sense, that any player will ever fall for
the tactic of letting a pick slip to pay less. Using common sense, if some
offers you a job, but you know they are offering you less than they are
supposed to, you don't take it. Well, Mr. Boofer, we can't offer you the same
money as Mr. Dolphin simply because we offered him the job first. Yes, we gave
him the job first simply because we wanted to give you less money, so you want
the job?
Not too many people would play that game.
Date: Wed Apr 16 15:11:16 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
well they apparently are-
The Dolphins are negotiating with both Long's right now, and there is rumour if
they don't here what they like they will work their way down to Dorsey or
Ellis.
I don't think anyone is "falling for" anything.
It comes down to- take the 45 million (instead of the 60) or screw off,
eventually someone will figure thats fair and sign.
or you could end up being getting drafted 6th or lower and getting even less.
I don't care if you are the best player in the country, you get drafted 6th
your not getting #1 money.
The NFL has a cap, and it's not a 1 man game- you got 40+ other guys that need
a salary if your gonna win.
Date: Wed Apr 16 15:31:38 2008
Sender: Mike Boofer
Well trying to figure out which of 4 people will sign for less money is a much
more viable option than "We will NOT pick now just so we can pay you less
later". The first is good business, the second is slimy ownership and any
agent (including Leigh) would simply NOT accept less because the dolphins
played leapfrog with a pick. Not when it is done in such an obvious way to
simply keep money away from the player.
Date: Wed Apr 16 15:34:16 2008
Sender: Morris Cohen
At some point, you figure veteran players (who obviously outnumber rookies)
will start to realize that rookies making so much money means that they AREN'T
making as much, salary cap being what it is., though they'll presumably want
more reward for making it enough to stay in the league. That's certainly
enough reason for the players union to agree to a rookie salary cap in a future
CBA.
Date: Wed Apr 16 15:41:55 2008
Sender: Mike Boofer
The problem I've heard them mention in the past though is that the Rookies are
NOT part of the union until after they sign the contract. Therefore the Union
cannot enforce such an agreement.
I'm not saying it is the case, only that I've heard that said by people a lot
closer to the situation than I am. I know as a Union member of some years
however that we had control over starting rate being negotiated. So the claim
struck me as hollow.
Date: Wed Apr 16 16:27:16 2008
Sender: Morris Cohen
That's an interesting point, but then how does the NBA do it? Isn't there a
rookie salary cap in the NBA? Or do the rookies somehow become part of the
player's association right when they're drafted?
Date: Wed Apr 16 17:23:09 2008
Sender: Just Oz
Each slot in the NBA draft has a maximum salary and that is what the NFL needs.
It would free up money for veterans so I'm very surprised it hasn't been
negotiated a long time ago.
The agents don't like it, but who cares.
Date: Wed Apr 16 18:33:39 2008
Sender: Jamie Davies
Mike, I really hope your point about the rookies not being in the union is
true.
If it is, it's kind of ironic that the union is supposedly looking out for the
best interest of the players--but those not in the union are the ones getting
compensated the best relative to their performance.
Date: Tue Apr 22 22:49:35 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
57.5 million- I guess the Dolphins beat the expected 15% increase off Russels
61 million.
Still this statement is so retarded
"Long becomes the highest-paid lineman in the NFL"
that is a broken system that needs fixed.
Date: Tue Apr 22 23:05:30 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Morris, I'm wondering if the players might not refuse to renegotiate the
current CBA after 2009, do the uncapped year in 2010, and then if the sky
doesn't fall in use that as justification to get rid of the cap completely or
raise it significantly.
Date: Wed Apr 23 05:35:23 2008
Sender: Kevin Caery
"57.5 million- I guess the Dolphins beat the expected 15% increase off Russels
61 million."
Plus... Long signed for 5 years, Russell signed for 6.
:yowza:
Date: Wed Apr 23 06:09:05 2008
Sender: William Johnson
The NFL gets what they ask for. Thanks to unions, the price of a rookie will
NEVER come down. The only thing to do is attempt to control it (as mentioned
about the NBA). But, who really cares? When these draftees start asking for so
much money, all that will happen is they will get it and the cost will be
passed down to us as in cable rates and higher memorbilia costs. You won't mind
paying $100 for a hat, will you? Of course not, and THAT is why they do what
they do. Things will never change as long as the fan continues to cater to the
players/owners/unions every need.
All of this is caused by the union. It happens in every aspect of the labor
force. Unions get involved and salaries are suddenly artificially raised to
meet unreasonable expectations with the actual cost being passed on to the
buying public. And, as long as the buying public continues to submit to the
union then they will continue to act accordingly.
Date: Wed Apr 23 08:22:00 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
Why are you complaining about Unions, all the jobs went to Mexico because
Americans won't work for 50 cents an hour....
Now if you can just get rid of that damn minimum wage right?
Date: Wed Apr 23 08:55:05 2008
Sender: Mike Boofer
And Long isn't a QB, who get a little more normally as well. And Long got
'more' in guarenteed money, depending which figure you use in Russell's
contract.
No, the jobs went to Mexico because of the high level of tax that they have to
pay in the USA. 2cnd highest in the world. Unions are to blame so far as the
job of the union is "to make sure nothing changes except you get more money",
unfortunatly that just isn't realistic and in the long term most unions fail
because those are the promises they tend to make.
Date: Wed Apr 23 08:58:53 2008
Sender: Chris Oaks
Wow ... the Chiefs are trying to build their squad like a DEL team. After the
Jared Allen trade to Minnesota last night, they now have THIRTEEN picks in this
draft.
Two first rounders (#5 and 17)
One second rounder (#35)
Three third rounders (#66, #73 and #82)
One fourth rounder (#105)
Two fifth rounders (#136 and #140)
Two sixth rounders (#170 and #187)
Two seventh rounders (#210 and #239)
Edwards wanted to rebuild with youth ... well, be careful what you wish for,
cuz you just might get it. In three years, he'll either be the genius that
built the dynasty of the next decade, or an unemployed moron. Plus, since we
have the Giants' seventh rounder, we may get to be the team that drafts Mr.
Irrelevant 2008.
Date: Wed Apr 23 09:48:51 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
"No, the jobs went to Mexico because of the high level of tax that they have to
pay in the USA. 2cnd highest in the world"
Mike I'm not going to hijack a football thread anymore than this.
But that is a dumb statement...
tax isn't even really an issue when you look at the bottom line, and what % is
actually taxable. 32% TAX ON 60% of cost (after write-offs), isn't that bad-
The average salary is about 6.00 per day and they have no enviromental, safety
or human rights restrictions- that is simply why they move. It's that simple.
Date: Wed Apr 23 13:51:47 2008
Sender: Joshua MacOscar
Rookies get that much money while veterans are pushed out of the league because
of the minimum salary per age rule.
The union seems very top-heavy.
Date: Wed Apr 23 15:45:24 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
That disparity and the fact that people who are not yet rookies don't have a
vote in the system (and most of the team union reps are veterans) all play into
why I think it's more likely than many think that the players will push the
envelope and go for the uncapped year unless they get a sweetheart deal.
Date: Wed Apr 23 16:04:51 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
I don't understand Gene Upshaw's view-
He claims the NFL Union doesn't want to cap rookie contracts because it hurts
the negotiation value of veterans...
I can't see it working that way,- I would think a 10 mill a year contract to a
rookie who hasn't played a down takes away from veterans salaries in a cap
situation.
Date: Wed Apr 23 16:21:02 2008
Sender: Just Oz
If they cap rookie salaries and leave the current cap in place, that money WILL
go to the vets.
Anytime the cap raises, you see teams willing to spend it.
The only reason I can see that Upshaw would say that is if he things the big
rookie contracts which seem to automatically escalate give the vets something
to point to and say, "I'm better than that."
Date: Wed Apr 23 20:49:54 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
that was essentially what he said..
I just don't buy it, and I can't beleive the players union (ie, the players
support it)
then again according to Michael Irvin...the NFL players union doesn't do a
damn thing for the players (veterans)
Date: Thu Apr 24 06:39:48 2008
Sender: William Johnson
" I just don't buy it, and I can't beleive the players union (ie, the players
support it) then again according to Michael Irvin...the NFL players union
doesn't do a damn thing for the players (veterans)"
Why would you not believe it? I would tend to agree with Irvin. What has the
union done for the players? Ok, they have produced "gauranteed contracts for
unproven abilities". But, isn't that what most don't like about this union?
Date: Thu Apr 24 06:47:37 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
so your saying all the current players are stupid?
Date: Thu Apr 24 06:53:54 2008
Sender: William Johnson
No. How do you get that out of what I said?
Date: Thu Apr 24 07:21:23 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
because they are in the union...
unions have elected representation, the union does what the players want it
too, or they change the officials.
Date: Thu Apr 24 09:02:17 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
The NFL has the weakest union in pro sports I think. I'm not sure why.
NFL players put themselves at the greatest physical risk, veterans are
virtually assured some form of lifelong chronic injury after retirement, and
have the shortest careers. Yet, they have the worst package. It's the only of
the 3 major sports plus world soccer that has a hard salary cap, yet there's no
rookie salary cap.
Date: Fri Apr 25 06:20:10 2008
Sender: William Johnson
" because they are in the union... "
Simple clarification; unions are stupid. Being a member of a union does not
make you stupid. Sometimes unions make it so your job isn't available unless
you join a union (isn't that illegal?). So, simply being a member does not make
you stupid.
Let's put it in terms you can better relate to: the sin is evil, not the
sinner. lol
Date: Fri Apr 25 08:19:48 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
I know you guys think unions should have dissapeared in the 1940's..
but I have worked for a union, and it's really the only way employees can keep
management in check.
Bellsouth's sales center used to train relatively unethical sales practices and
force the employees to employ them. Yet when things went wrong, they would act
like it wasn't anything they did- even though the instructions were often
scripted.
For a regular guy to file a lawsuit to keep his job is an incredible
undertaking- the union would always be there in cases like that.
Same with sexual harrassment. I was once sitting in a training class and an
openly gay guy came into the meeting late and got yelled at. The guy beside me
used to have to take a ferry to work, I said to him "You better leave early,
you can't count on those ferries"- the gay guy thought I called him a fairy!
They were going to fire me on the spot instead of look into a sexaul
harassment case- the union saved me there too.
I can give you example after example. Sure they keep some losers employed and
give fat people benefits- but in the end they do good too
Date: Fri Apr 25 10:17:21 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
AJ, I don't want to get into the value of unions discussion here.
But, don't you feel like relative to the NBA and MLB that the NFL's union
hasn't done as well by its members?
Global soccer is not unionized and has similarly depressed player salaries
relative to NBA and MLB, but has almost total freedom of player movement (so
long as a team wants to pay the transfer fee to acquire them, contracts are
very easy to negotiate out of).
So it seems to me that of the 4, the NFL players are getting the worst of it.
Date: Fri Apr 25 11:49:38 2008
Sender: Just Oz
What the NFL players are getting is the most popular game in the country and a
pretty high per week salary.
I'm not sure, but what do NFL players play for, about 5 months and there are
only 16 games a year, not much compared to the possible revenue that MLB can
generate in 162 games.
I'd be interested to know what the average % of gate receipts is for each
league.
Date: Fri Apr 25 12:40:29 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
NFL plays from August to February, counting playoffs and preseason. Plus they
have to condition more aggressively in the offseason than any other sport
because of the nature of the sport and their training camp is in the hottest
part of the year.
Gate receipts are only a piece of the pie for the NFL. TV contracts and
merchandising revenue should be taken into account as well.
Date: Fri Apr 25 13:11:06 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
I definately think NFL is a lifestyle. I know contract stipulations prohibit
certain activities, and it's not like a linebacker can juststop working out in
January and not do anything until August.
I imagine baseball makes more, but there are a fair amount of baseball players
that aren't exactly big,strong or fast.
Dolphin Simulation Games is not responsible for the content of posts.
Please report any offensive messages to help@dolphinsim.com.
