dave mcbride Posted April 4, 2010 Share Posted April 4, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/books/01...eral&src=me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrobot Posted April 4, 2010 Share Posted April 4, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/books/01...eral&src=me check link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted April 4, 2010 Share Posted April 4, 2010 Richard Thaler on why the top of the draft is a ripoff OR A stimulating conversation about Jane Austen’s novels... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanInUticaTampa Posted April 4, 2010 Share Posted April 4, 2010 It might be similar to this article: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...wage-structure/ Warning: It is an economic discussion about how there should be a rookie cap and that newly drafted players get paid too much. Basically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted April 4, 2010 Share Posted April 4, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/business/04view.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 4, 2010 Share Posted April 4, 2010 This is why no one reads the NYT Sports section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted April 4, 2010 Share Posted April 4, 2010 It might be similar to this article: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...wage-structure/ Warning: It is an economic discussion about how there should be a rookie cap and that newly drafted players get paid too much. Basically. what other profession do you know that unproven workers get paid more than their veteran counterparts? It makes no sense. It would be like hiring an entry level employee and paying them like the CEO because you think they will be a good fit for the position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanInUticaTampa Posted April 4, 2010 Share Posted April 4, 2010 I never said that i knew of a profession where unproven workers get top mony. I don't think rookies should get those big contracts and I agree with the article. I was just expecting a football article. Not an economic suggestion. If the thread title said "Rookie salary cap is a good idea" i would think it was about rookie contracts, obliviously. But I was just expecting something else like rookies in the top half of the draft have just a good of chance as the bottom half, or something to that nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted April 4, 2010 Share Posted April 4, 2010 Was anyone under the impression it wasn't? Anyone? Besides Demaurice Smith? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted April 4, 2010 Share Posted April 4, 2010 This is why no one reads the NYT Sports section. Care to elaborate ? Thaler is a professor who is very well respected in the economics and behavioral field. The points he makes in this article are very good. What is yours ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted April 4, 2010 Share Posted April 4, 2010 I wonder what kind of money rookies would make if there was no draft. Say every year by March 1st, all interested college players could declare pro eligibility, and would become UFAs along with all the veterans with expiring contracts. What do you pay Sam Bradford in a free market? Well, a market as free as any where there's a salary cap and only 32 buyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 Care to elaborate ? Thaler is a professor who is very well respected in the economics and behavioral field. The points he makes in this article are very good. What is yours ? Clearly Mr. Weo hasn't a clue..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 Here's the link for the Thaler article; http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/business/04view.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 This nothing new. If the team picking #1 makes a bad choice they are in cap hell for years (unless they use C2C). If the SB team makes a bad pick then they are out a first round draft pick and not a contract that will hamstring them forever. This is why so few trades up to the top ten are made. JJ said a couple of years ago that he wouldn't trade into the top 10. A rookie sal. cap has to be instituted in order for the league to continue to prosper. JMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 I wonder what kind of money rookies would make if there was no draft. Say every year by March 1st, all interested college players could declare pro eligibility, and would become UFAs along with all the veterans with expiring contracts. What do you pay Sam Bradford in a free market? Well, a market as free as any where there's a salary cap and only 32 buyers. Prolly more than he would if a rookie cap is imposed, but a lot less than he would now as the #1 pick, where he will make Peyton Manning money without ever proving he is Peyton Manning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 5, 2010 Author Share Posted April 5, 2010 Apologies for the original link! I think the insight in this piece is that the chances of the #5 overall pick performing better than, say, the #11 pick is about 50 percent (52 percent, to be precise). That makes it essentially a coin flip (ie., there's no advantage), yet drafting at #5 will cost you millions and millions more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 This is why no one reads the NYT Sports section. Which is aside the point that the article appeared in the Business section? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slyng1 Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 The great part about the article I think is this quote: Our analysis pivots around the idea that while there is an active trading market for N.F.L. draft picks, the market places too high a value on picking early. A team that wants to select a player before its turn can offer another team a deal in order to “trade up.” Over time, teams have come to agree on the price of such trades by resorting to a table now universally known as the Chart, which assigns a value to each pick in the draft. Alas, the Chart has the “wrong” prices. How many times has someone posted on TBD, "We should trade up to X pick by giving up Y & Z picks so that we can pick Such-and-Such Left Tackle," to which some condescending a ss clown inevitably replies, "You Idiot, we need to give up more than that because the chart says this...Didn't you consult 'the chart'?...we need to add on next year's 6th because then the trade is fair" I love it when those guys are wrong... Good article by the Times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 The great part about the article I think is this quote: How many times has someone posted on TBD, "We should trade up to X pick by giving up Y & Z picks so that we can pick Such-and-Such Left Tackle," to which some condescending a ss clown inevitably replies, "You Idiot, we need to give up more than that because the chart says this...Didn't you consult 'the chart'?...we need to add on next year's 6th because then the trade is fair" I love it when those guys are wrong... Good article by the Times. I'm not saying I agree with the ass clowns but the ass clowns would, in your example, be correct; SINCE ALL THE FRANCHISES USE "THE CHART." The ass clowns would only be wrong if everyone agreed with the New York Times and all the teams changed their policies. Otherwise all these slaw jacked yokels that opine about trading up and or down, or the best are when they propose to trade down then parlay the extra picks into trading back up should use "the chart." Until such time that NFL franchises have decided to lower the value of their top picks. Or even better stop posting silly fantasies about trading picks. Maybe we can trade picks to obtain world peace and nuclear disarmament. I think it would take atleast 2 first round picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agardin Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 I'm not saying I agree with the ass clowns but the ass clowns would, in your example, be correct; SINCE ALL THE FRANCHISES USE "THE CHART." The ass clowns would only be wrong if everyone agreed with the New York Times and all the teams changed their policies. Otherwise all these slaw jacked yokels that opine about trading up and or down, or the best are when they propose to trade down then parlay the extra picks into trading back up should use "the chart." Until such time that NFL franchises have decided to lower the value of their top picks. Or even better stop posting silly fantasies about trading picks. Maybe we can trade picks to obtain world peace and nuclear disarmament. I think it would take atleast 2 first round picks. Too much, this is a very deep draft, maybe a first and a second Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts