We agree to a deal with Dominique Rodgers Cromartie for less money in excahnge for the prestige of being #1.....send shockwaves through the draft, fill a need, save money. I know, I know the players association would throw a fit and I'm not sure if it's against league rules as far as the mandatory guarenteed money to the #1 overall (if there is such a thing) but it really is a burden on a franchise in rebuilding to put up the kind of money that has become customary for the # 1 pick. Any bust at #1 overall sets a franchise back years. Once again don't start criticizing immediately with rules when i clearly stated I dont know if they exist. Informative or opinionative responses only please.
In protest to the rediculous guarenteed money at #1
- Thread starter DubVman
- Start date
Ideal approach, but the problem with this is 1) you'd have to be able to sign him in advance to such a contract, and I doubt his agent would want to sign a substantial amount lower just because we tried to game the existing system. They'd want #1 or very close to #1 money, so we wouldn't be saving that much money and we'd be the laughing stock of the NFL for drafting a guy #1, who's a late round first or possible early 2nd rounder at #1. It's a novel idea, I'll give you that, but it will never work with the way things are currently set up. It's going to take all the owners and the player's association in agreement to end this rookie "over-pay" and go to something similar to the way the NBA does it. Until then, it's going to keep going up every year until it breaks the system (which it's close to doing now).
So "A" for effort, but "C -" for practicality of it ever happening.
So "A" for effort, but "C -" for practicality of it ever happening.
In response.......we are the team that took Ted Ginn #9 overall. I agree it won't happen but in a perfect world I thought it'd be a good idea. And as far as the agent demanding #1 money if that'd be the case we don't take him simple as that. We project the highest he'd land and increase last years same pick a little. If he didn't bite so be it if we have to spend #1 overall money we draft a true #1 overall then but it wouldnt hurt the fins to explore the idea.
Green Phin
Starter
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2007
- Messages
- 434
- Reaction score
- 1
I totally agree with you regarding the money issue. I think the NBA has the right approach about it.
My strategy about the pick will be slightly different though. It seems that the Phins like more than one player for the #1 pick. IF this is correct (BP smokescreens are working overtime here), then I would pick whoever agrees to a pre-draft contract first. Remember that this year there is no clear 1-2-3 picks. Thus, any of the top player could be picked 1st or 6th (just look at all the different mock drafts), and there's a big gap in money terms between those. That should be incentive enough to get a player to agree to a pre-draft contract.
My strategy about the pick will be slightly different though. It seems that the Phins like more than one player for the #1 pick. IF this is correct (BP smokescreens are working overtime here), then I would pick whoever agrees to a pre-draft contract first. Remember that this year there is no clear 1-2-3 picks. Thus, any of the top player could be picked 1st or 6th (just look at all the different mock drafts), and there's a big gap in money terms between those. That should be incentive enough to get a player to agree to a pre-draft contract.
I don't think that's the place to stage the protest. The only way it works is if you take a substantially lower rated player. First we really need the talent infusion and second you're still over paying for that player.
I think the better place to fight will be in the CBA between the owners and the union.
I think the better place to fight will be in the CBA between the owners and the union.
Lab3003
Trust me, I'm almost a doctor
But Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie isn't the best player in the draft. Better to take the highest rated player, whomever that is, and pay the money. If it doesn't work out it doesn't work out. Like anything, you get what you pay for. If you don't want to pay the big dollars, don't expect big value.
So let's assume you want to take Chris Long for arguments sake and ask him to take a paycut. Why would he want to do that? He worked his whole life for this payday and more power to him for getting it.
Ted Ginn was chosen by the previous administration. So to assume that this current FO would make an overvaluation of that magnitude doesn't seem accurate.
So let's assume you want to take Chris Long for arguments sake and ask him to take a paycut. Why would he want to do that? He worked his whole life for this payday and more power to him for getting it.
Ted Ginn was chosen by the previous administration. So to assume that this current FO would make an overvaluation of that magnitude doesn't seem accurate.
NorthFLPhin
Starter
There's no way to lower the overall value of the contract that dramatically but what I would like to see happen is offer both Longs a very incentive laden contract and slowly start increasing the guaranteed money until one accepts it. The biggest issue is the ridiculous guaranteed money that is being dished out for a lot of players that end up being busts.