I was just wondering about a scenario. Lets say for arguments sake that the player Parcells really likes is Ryan Clady? Could he make him an offer of 40 million or whatever the number 8 is expected to get and say take it or leave it, otherwise we draft someone else and maybe you go to the Ravens and maybe you last past the top ten and make even less. Or are we tied to offering at least as much as Jamracus Russell got last year due to the CBA agreement no matter who we pick with number one
Well, we can offer anything we want. There's nothing that says the player has to accept. Realistically though, it'll be at least the %increase of the cap over last year. So, if the cap raised 15% from last year, add that amount to Russel's contract from last year and that'll be the offer, minimum.
So theoritically we could go to someone like Ryan Clady and say "look, we like you but you're slated to be picked earliest at number 8. We'll offer you number 7 money if you sign with us and take you with our number 1 pick
Why not? You tell him you're considering Jake Long, Clady and Albert. If he demands overall first money we'll just go Jake Long but if he's willing to take 7 money we'll sign him since we think its better value. My concern is the players union would go bananas. Because that might throw the whole pay scale into whack
Because he's going to be picked #1 overall, and that means something like 32-36 mil guaranteed. Without a solid rookie salary cap, the player holds all of the advantage in negotiations.
The whole pay scale is already out of whack and/or ridiculous!!! They really need to implement some sort of rookie cap or pay scale. That said, what's to stop the player from initially agreeing, then backing out and holding out until he gets the money he wants?
And why would he, or anyone else on this planet pass up 10 million + dollars? Any player goes #1 overall, they're going to get paid #1 overall money or they won't play. I'm sure you can find a guy scheduled to go in the 3rd round to do it, but no first rounder would ever give up that shot to be financially set.
Right, but then he goes undrafted by us and risks being passed by the Ravens. He could stand to lose more than 10 million. I'm not sure what the pay scale is for #8 but assume its 40 mill. We offer 45. Now he can say no but then he risks the Ravens passing on him at 8 and ending up 11th or so. Now he only makes 33 mill
Ah, but he's still the #1 in the draft. #2 in the draft isn't going to settle for less because someone tried to buck the system. So in addition to our pick holding out, contract or no, you'll have other teams and agents enforcing the system. It's neither plausible or possible, despite the wrangling you're doing with the scenario where an inferior player gets picked #1 overall just because he'll sign a contract less than market value. Not going to happen, never will, until an actual cap agreement is worked out.
Never said its likely. I would imagine a firestorm from the players union and the agents anybody tried to pull that
The action went the other way a couple of times: Brady Quinn tried to claim he was top 10 last year and held out - he didn't get paid. And Philip Rivers tried to say he was #1 instead of #4, but he ended up getting slightly above average 4 money. Neither side will move on this until they prove a rookie salary cap is good for both sides and out it in the next or whenevr CBA.
I am sure the Phins have some good lawyers who could draw up a contract with several guys pre-draft, contingent on where they might be picked, and maybe offer them less than the $60 million gauranteed. There doesn't seem to be "collusion" issues when signing a draft pick like there is with trying to tamper with other team's players. There also is no rule preventing us from letting the whole fifteen minutes run without us drafting anyone.
I really think if they are going to have a cap space rule for the teams, then they should have a cap rule for each draft pick, say for number 1 at this position, this is the most you can get and so on...kind of one sided to me, limit the teams to what they can spend, but not the unproven rookies to what they can ask for. It's going to get to the point where a 1st pick in the 1st 5 picks will max a teams cap space eventutally..just ridiculous. And as has been discussed here before..it is ludicrous to pay ANY unproven rookie as much as they do...look at that idiot Heath Shuler(who by the way we are unlucky enough to have as a congressman for our district here), what a washout and remember Brian Bosworth? and others? Give them all league minimum starting out and let them PROVE/EARN the high dollars. I know I would never ever pay high money for an unproven commodity..no way...no way... hmm can't think of anymore words to type...I am trying to be a Post Whore too...hahahahaha
I'm sure that they could offer this type of incentive to a player, but the agent would never get another top end player in his career. I see what you are trying to say, I just don't think that the agents would let that happen...
The best model for what you are saying is what Houston did a couple of years ago. Get 2 , or 3 players singled out and offer them the same money and whoever will agree to it is the pick. You then get to sign them before the draft, so no holdout. This would be the perfect year to do that since there are 4 or 5 different players that could go #1.
I hope we let the time elapse. I cannot imagine being stuck in the same boat as someone like the 49ers, with a FORTUNE invested in the next Alex Smith. I don't want the number one pick with the destructive slotted rookie (I.e. Unproven) contracts nowadays unless there's a Peyton Manning on the board. This year no one deserves number one money. Bpk
What you should do is check the history on the contracts of the one team that did this. I am pretty sure the Vikes ended up paying exactly the money they would have paid had they done their pick at the spot they had originally. This is not going to happen. It comes up every draft time as a rumour and it just never happens.
emo's got it right. Plus, why would Clady, and more specifically his agent, since that's who we're using (but we could be using anyone who might be slated # 8 on our board), accept # 7 money, when there's nothing written in stone that he won't be drafted # 2 or # 3 or # 4 or # 5 or # 6? Also, under the time elapsed theory, if we do pick someone on down the line with our first round pick, and we're slated with the # 1 pick, the agent of the player we pick is going to demand # 1 money. It doesn't matter where we take the player. Sure, you can play hardball, but that agent, if he's worth his salt, isn't settling for less. And everybody's going to lose in that scenario. The reality of all this, though, is none of it's going to happen. We're taking a Long with our first round pick.
Finrunner, you've made a great point and to add, it just doesn't seem like something that Tunaland would do...it's almost circumventing the system and that certainly isn't the way they do things... Tuna's always been an in-your-face coach and it just doesn't seem to be his style...
