http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-10-37/The-merits-and-perils-of-passing-in-the-draft.html It's back. Every spring for the past six years, some wise guy has wondered when the mistake will transform into strategy. It was an accident when Minnesota missed its turn in the 2003 NFL draft, slipping from No. 7 to No. 9 before grabbing defensive tackle Kevin Williams. But at what point will a team intentionally pass in order to lower its costs while still acquiring a talented player? And has there ever been better timing for it than at the top of the 2009 draft, which doesn't offer a clear-cut No. 1 pick? Ross Tucker of SportsIllustrated.com penned a thoughtful argument last week suggesting that Detroit should pass on drafting No. 1 overall. Tucker noted the Lions' multiple options -- from Georgia quarterback Matthew Stafford to Baylor offensive tackle Jason Smith to Wake Forest linebacker Aaron Curry -- and concluded: "... The Lions could save a cool $4 million at least by letting the Rams and Chiefs pick first, while still landing a very good player who they were considering taking with the top pick anyway." Tucker's piece instigated some Internet buzz, and recently Andrew of Traverse City, Mich., asked if the NFL would allow the maneuver. The answer, Andrew, is that it's an entirely legal move under league rules. If it happened, that team's rookie pool would be adjusted to correspond with the new position of its pick. It seems to make perfect sense. If you look at the chart below, you can see how rookie contract values decreased in 2008 with the exception of Atlanta quarterback Matt Ryan. (Quarterback contracts generally don't adhere strictly to the slotting system.) The difference between the No. 1 and No. 4 picks last season was $4 million in guarantees and $1.55 million on an annual basis. (continues)
I cannot support the idea of passing on a pick, but your post highlights a strategic aspect that needs to be considered when putting together a team.
They talked about this on NFL Network last night. The first problem is the agent for the player is still going to want the money associated with the pick you decided to skip. Also, it makes your front office look like a joke if you try to get cute and skip your pick to save a few million bucks. It's like Marshall Faulk said last night about the Lions, "You earned this spot by going 0-16. Step up and pick your player."
I don't believe in that. For years, the Patriots have been the most loophole-exploiting team in the league, exploiting them to the point of obnoxiousness. I don't see why all teams don't do that. If there is a flaw in the system, catch the commish with his pants down and use it to your advantage. They don't change rules until they absolutely have to. As far as players trying to get the money for an earlier pick, why didn't the team that jumped ahead of them take that player? They don't deserve earlier money.
Casserly was saying that teams also have a guy at their table who is in charge of running up with their pick if the previous team's clock hits 0. If several teams do this, the team that skips could lose their player. Also, I'm not saying I agree with the agent thinking their player deserves the money for the skipped pick, but it could create a standoff that leads to a holdout and rookies that holdout always seem to have a problem that first year. The real change that needs to be made is to change the rookie pay scale so teams that get a top ten pick aren't gambling millions on unproven players.
I was thinking about that first part you posted, tams will now go out and get track athletes to deliver their DPs, the team with the fastest runner gets their man. Maybe like the beginning of an XFL game where they had the guys fighting over the ball instead of a coin lip. Full contact drafting. I am personally in favor of a rookie pay scale.
I think Jenkins should be our designated pick turn-in guy. He may not be fast, but I think he could work his way to the front of the line.
Problem solved. Less money to unproven rookies leaves more cap space for proven vets. I would find it sily if this did not work its way into the next CBA. Its really a win/win for the teams and established players.
Here's the problem with a rookie pay scale, though... the quality of drafts will probably drop, and competing 'leagues' (like the USFL in the 80s) can sign away players for more money that might be leaning toward the NFL... I don't know how they would do it.
I ahve a hard time seeing any competing league lasting long at this point. The NFL has the clout and money to make thing just go away. the XFL was a huge blunder. Anyother league in the USA that is not wroking with the NFL will go down quickly. The Rookie pay scale could be designed around keeping toher leagues from poaching players. Agents will also be in the mix. Think of the endorsement losses if your not in the big leagues but a 4 to 6 team start up league. There are a lot of things working in the nfl's favor on that.
