10/23/09 - Anarchy on Draft Day?

Scott Wright · 10-23-2009, 03:19 AM

***

Anarchy on Draft Day?
http://www.draftcountdown.com/blog/a...2009.php#oct23

***

Brent · 10-23-2009, 03:43 AM

It's pretty crazy to think that such a large number of juniors could make for a draft more loaded than we've seen in a long time, or even one diluted by too many players at certain positions.

BeerBaron · 10-23-2009, 10:44 AM

From everything I've read, things look really bad for the NFL the next few years regarding the CBA discussions and potential lack of a salary cap.

However, I've got this feeling that neither the league nor the players union want to do anything that could damage the #1 sport in America. I think they'll come to their senses, realize they have an amazing thing going here that is wildly profitable for both sides and get a deal done to keep things as they are well before the threat of a lockout ever occurs.

drowe · 10-23-2009, 12:10 PM

Makes the 49ers hard-line stance with Crabtree even bigger.

Seems to me, any given player stands to earn more as a first round pick in '10 than they would if they re-entered the draft in '11. ESPECIALLY if the owners get an inch of ground on the slotting system and rookie cap.

So, while, on the surface, it seems like an uncapped year might give players leverage to ask for a lot of money, is it possible that the prospect of having to re-enter a draft a year later with stricter limitations on what can be paid to rookies could have the opposite effect.

Part of me also wonders if 2009 was the big year for rookies using this to their advantage, thinking they could hold out for what they wanted in 2009, knowing they maybe be able to 'write their own ticket' in 2010.

D-Unit · 10-23-2009, 02:52 PM

"Eric Berry to Dallas in the 20s."

Jerry Jones approves of this message.

D-Unit · 10-23-2009, 08:56 PM

What would happen if a team drafts a player and isn't able to sign him?

Does he wait till next year like baseball too? I don't think too many football players would be that extreme.

Scott Wright · 10-23-2009, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D-Unit

What would happen if a team drafts a player and isn't able to sign him?

Does he wait till next year like baseball too? I don't think too many football players would be that extreme.

I don't think it would come to that. What will happen if there isn't a salary cap or rookie pool is players will make their demands known prior to Draft Day. That way if a team isn't willing to pay them what they want they just won't select them. That is essentially how it works in baseball.

Now if a team says screw it and wants to play hardball technically the players won't have a ton of leverage. Sure they could sit out and re-enter the draft the following year but by that time the new rookie wage scale will likely be in place. However, would teams really be willing to risk losing a player, especially a top pick, for nothing?

Scotty D · 10-23-2009, 10:41 PM

I have faith in Roger Goodell. He's been a hardass, but he also picks and chooses his battles. I really don't see him allowing the league to fall into anarchy like this. I think he'd squish any major problem rather quickly.

aNYtitan · 10-25-2009, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D-Unit

"Eric Berry to Dallas in the 20s."

End of the world as we know it. We could see players that are guaranteed 1st rounders drop into the later stages. Someone with more potential then production (I'm looking at you Carlos Dunlap)

ElectricEye · 10-25-2009, 01:44 AM

Dear football gods, please don't let this happen.

As someone who follows minor league baseball faithfully and closely, I can tell you it's a mess that football wouldn't want. I think football would absorb it better considering the rules the NFL has about not signing are much stronger than the ones MLB imposes, but it could still be rough. The entire concept of the uncapped year doesn't exactly sit well with me, especially given these scenarios.

Iamcanadian · 10-26-2009, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeerBaron

From everything I've read, things look really bad for the NFL the next few years regarding the CBA discussions and potential lack of a salary cap.

However, I've got this feeling that neither the league nor the players union want to do anything that could damage the #1 sport in America. I think they'll come to their senses, realize they have an amazing thing going here that is wildly profitable for both sides and get a deal done to keep things as they are well before the threat of a lockout ever occurs.

I think the owners have rolled the dice gambling they can force the Player's Union into submission. If it works, they come out a lot richer and the players will face a substantial pay loss. In these circumstance, this could backfire in a big way and the owners may well find themselves facing a bitter and stubborn work force. Should this occur, you can write off the season as the lockout or strike could turn quite bitter.
The owners have won every strike or lockout so far and are counting on blackmailing the players using their short careers as leverage in any dispute, however workers have been know to get quite stubborn if pushed too far into a corner and have turned a strike or lockout into a long confrontation even though it hurt them financially.
IMO, a rookie cap or salary structure isn't likely to occur, the owners love the current system where salaries are only guaranteed for a few years and only stars ever get to receive the bulk of their back loaded contracts while the players who fail to become stars are cut and never get a penny of their non guaranteed money. Face it, football players are paid far below what a baseball or basketball players receive and the NFL wants even lower salaries.
IMO, the NFL has a clear purpose in this gamble, they are looking at the extension to an 18 game schedule but they don't want to pay the players for the 2 added games, they want to keep as much of the increased revenue for themselves and this is why they walked away from the current CBA. All the talk about a rookie salary cap is nothing but a red herring in case they fail in their goal. It is simply an attempt to blame the union for any lockout or strike with the public pressuring the union to settle quickly. The owners really don't gain 1 cent by a rookie salary cap, either way, they pay the players a certain percentage of revenues and a rookie salary cap doesn't change that one iota. The owners really don't care how the players divide that % of revenue, it certainly isn't a point worth risking a strike or lockout over. You can bet that if the owners don't benefit financially from an issue, then it really isn't that meaningful too them. The owners are taking a huge risk and if it backfires, the NFL will end up a completely different entity with a lot of low revenue franchises in deep financial trouble and they aren't doing it for a rookie salary cap.
Goodall will have little say in this dispute, if the owners want to take the risk, he won't be in a position to do anything. He hasn't that kind of authority.

niel89 · 10-27-2009, 04:59 AM

If the UFL stays around, I could see players sitting out the year for the NFL but still play some games in the UFL. The UFL would kill to have some of those 1st round talent guys come over, even if it is just a one year contract. The players get to have some real game action and still get paid a little money to tide them over for the year.