04/20/24
April 27, 2004
Here's what the people defending the Manning family don't understand:
Eli Manning's refusal to play for the Chargers could cost the people of San Diego their NFL franchise.
No joke.
Uh oh, justgary, the link's not working for me...can you double check it? (Maybe we spofi'd it? :) )
posted by vito90 at 07:51 AM on April 27, 2004
Manning had every right to refuse to be bound by it. No. He did not. When I go to work, and my boss tells me to wear a collared shirt and tie, and no jeans, I am obligated to comply or seek employment elsewhere. It might make absolutely no sense, as I sit behind a desk and only contact customers with the telephone, but them's the breaks. He should feel lucky he got off as he did, on a team that just sold their future to get him. If I pulled the same kind of antics at my job, I'd be looking for a new one tomorrow.
posted by rocketman at 09:31 AM on April 27, 2004
Eli Manning is obviously not obligated to play for the team that drafts him; otherwise he'd still be a Charger. He used the threat of seeking employment elsewhere -- going to law school for a year and entering the 2005 draft -- to get what he wanted. That Yale columnist has lost his mind. The Nordiques were going to leave Quebec regardless of whether Eric Lindros played for them, and Bob Irsay could've packed John Elway in the U-Haul as he snuck out of Ballmer in the middle of the night. For all we know, Eli Manning could have saved football in San Diego. If Phillip Rivers is better -- it has happened once or twice in the NFL history that the top pick wasn't as good as someone below him -- Chargerfan will be gleefully happy about his draft-day hissy fit.
posted by rcade at 09:51 AM on April 27, 2004
Rocketman, by that logic though, Manning was perfectly within his right to decline a job offer from an employer. But that's the way the draft works. You're the #1 pick, you go to a crappy team. The crappy teams pick first. Good unselfish players accept this. The rare selfish ones (Lindros, Manning, Elway) whine and cry about it and throw a fit. I can understand the desire to avoid a playoff-free career, but a more classy individual, a leader, would have ben able to turn around a bad situation, by playing well, bringing in fans, acting like a leader, and insisting that the management bring in solid players for the line, the receivers, the D, the coaching, etc. All the pitiful teams turn it around - the Sea Chickens are strong, the Bengals are strong, hell, the Colts sucked consistently for a long time too not too long ago. The Giants are only slightly more likely to be good in the short term - they've got no line either, are losing key defensive cogs each year, and have a running back with fingers made of butter. Manning jumped as much for the endorsements and fame and money as he did for the winning. I can't read the article either but I can see how damning a franchise so publicly could be pretty damaging. Then again, it's San Diego, the weather's always nice for football, and the stadium does still fill up... if the team is hurting for money, it's for reasons other than attendance - like extremely poor marketing, etc.
posted by Bernreuther at 09:56 AM on April 27, 2004
I'm under the impression that there's a difference between being drafted (Manning) or being an employee-at-will (regular people like you or me who have a choice where they work, more or less). Not excusing Manning, because I hate him. :)
posted by jerseygirl at 10:02 AM on April 27, 2004
But that doesn't make what he did right. Becoming a professional athlete isn't like joining any other field. You can't walk away from an employer you don't like. Inherent in the privilege of joining the league is the obligation to play for the team that acquires your rights. If you are the top pick, it is your duty to try and turn around the worst team, no matter how much you may dislike it. He's accurately depicted the current state, but I'm with the others here to don't agree that this system is good. Even though I really don't like Rockets bball player Steve Francis, I can understand not wanting to move to a different country to play basketball. Just because professional sports leagues are currently set up in this manner hardly proves that they operate in the best interests of both the players and the teams.
posted by chmurray at 10:10 AM on April 27, 2004
I'm curious as to why everyone seems to think they know more about the situation than the Manning family. Not one of us would say the Chargers run a good ship, right? And all of us would do our best to keep our sons and daughters from going to work somewhere that could have a disasterous effect on their careers, I assume? Now add in Daddy Manning's run of 14 years in the NFL without a winning record, much less sniffing the playoffs. He knows something about playing with lousy organizations, and I'm sure he wants to keep his son from having to deal with the same thing. So why, given San Diego's recent track record with quarterbacks and the organization's overall lack of competence, would we fault someone for not wanting to play there? but a more classy individual, a leader, would have ben able to turn around a bad situation, by playing well, bringing in fans, acting like a leader, and insisting that the management bring in solid players for the line, the receivers, the D, the coaching, etc. This tack has worked well for Drew Brees and LaDanian Tomlinson, huh? Two guys I never hear anything bad about, quite possibly because playing in San Diego, I never hear ANYTHING about them. One guy, unless it says J. Christ on the back of his jersey, is not going to come in and turn around an entire franchise. You have to have at least some semblance of a front office and an owner willing to allow the right moves to be made. If you can show where the Chargers have either one of those things going for them, I'll change my mind.
posted by wfrazerjr at 10:24 AM on April 27, 2004
Nobody seems to have asked one of the central points in my first comment. Does the draft actually work? Is there any evidence that a draft leads to parity?
posted by salmacis at 10:40 AM on April 27, 2004
So then the question is, if the draft is unfair, what would be fair? Allowing entering players to sign with any team they want? Imagine this in baseball, or hockey. The Yankees and Red Wings of the leagues would get all the best players, while the Devil Rays and Blue Jackets get shit on. Granted, the NFL has a salary cap to assuage this somewhat, but if you don't want to play for a crappy team, you'll take a lower salary to play for a winner, right?
posted by MeatSaber at 11:09 AM on April 27, 2004
One guy, unless it says J. Christ on the back of his jersey, is not going to come in and turn around an entire franchise. Exactly. Especially (as I said in an earlier thread), a rookie QB with no line protection and no one to throw to. Brees may not be the greatest, but he was in the running for the Heisman in college. What's so extra-special about Manning? The Chargers have been pushing to move for a couple years now. Manning's got nothing to do with it.
posted by LionIndex at 11:10 AM on April 27, 2004
Not excusing Manning, because I hate him. :) JG, is this just Eli? or all things Manning? I love Peyton because the Pats own him. If anyone else was lining up behind center, that AFC game may have turned out better. To me, Eli seems to be the most likable of the bunch.
posted by usfbull at 11:16 AM on April 27, 2004
Eli Manning has one life to live on this planet and I can hardly begrudge him the right to make such a fundamental choice. Having said that, I still don't see sports drafts in general as a bad thing--it's all about the leverage one can apply in a given situation. If he and his dad felt so strongly about this, then forcing the trade (Wilford Brimley voice) was the right thing to do. Sal, I think that to a large degree the draft does help with parity, especially in the NFL where it's combined with a serious salary cap. Looking at the draftless EPL, one does see a reasonable consistency of top finishers over long stretches of time and that doesn't happen any more in the NFL.
posted by billsaysthis at 11:23 AM on April 27, 2004
I hate all things Manning family. It's a fringe benefit that the Patriots sack P. Manning about 5 times a game. I still hate them.
posted by jerseygirl at 11:32 AM on April 27, 2004
Let me clarify what I said: My employer might have rules I don't like, but I keep my mouth shut, follow the rules, and do my job. If they bothered me enough, I'd quit. If Eli Manning doesn't like the way the NFL sets up its draft, he's free to walk away. And in regards to the Chargers front office, I think what they got in exchange for Manning shows there's some sense there. Finally: there's no relation between failing to capture a marquee player and teams relocating. For every Eric Lindros/John Elway/etc etc they come up with, there are ten examples of a team that has a marquee player signed and moves anyway.
posted by rocketman at 11:34 AM on April 27, 2004
I like Bernreuther's take. Extra kudos goes to the guy who goes to a crap franchise and is able to turn it around. Eli's brother did just that.
posted by vito90 at 12:01 PM on April 27, 2004
I hate all things Manning family. For what reason? What have the Manning's, as a whole, done before last weekend's draft? What did Peyton do to draw your rage? What did his father, a player who I wonder if you ever saw play....do? Even Eli and his father's actions are hardly a reason to hate the Mannings. Hating Ulf Samuelson....that's warranted. Hating Jim Leyritz....that's warranted. I think the Manning's are quite a likeable bunch and if Peyton played in Foxboro you'd think they were the greatest thing since sliced bread.
posted by YukonGold at 12:13 PM on April 27, 2004
Nope.
posted by jerseygirl at 12:20 PM on April 27, 2004
I think Free Agency leads more to parity than the draft itself. Sure LeBron made a huge impact on the Clippers...but Malone and Payton make the Lakers better. When good players move to mid-level teams with the incentive of money that brings the level of play up. The #1 pick in the draft isn't guaranteed to make your team better. As a side note on the draft, Mike Lupica wrote on Sunday: I keep saying this: Someday there's going to be a college star and he's not going to challenge the NFL's rules about draft eligibility, he's going to challenge the draft as illegal, which it probably is. Maybe they were booing him because they thought he was a kid throwing his weight around, backed by his old man. They're wrong. If you're the best guy coming out, you should have a say in this.
posted by YukonGold at 12:28 PM on April 27, 2004
What did Peyton do to draw your rage? Glad you asked. Peyton planted his bare ass and testicles on the face of a female trainer while in college, lied about the incident, then lied about it again in his book, prompting harassment at her new school. As another athlete at Tennessee told Manning, after being a witness to the incident, "you have shown no mercy or grace to this lady who was on her knees seeing if you had a stress fracture. ... You might as well maintain some dignity and admit to what happened. ... Your celebrity doesn't mean you can treat folks that way." Because intentionally lying about the incident was malicious libel, Manning's victim sued him over the book -- and he quietly settled the case. But like his little brother, Peyton hid behind his father and didn't even publicly apologize for his actions. Other than that, though, Peyton Manning is gold.
posted by rcade at 12:46 PM on April 27, 2004
And yes, you're right. That is a valid reason to hate Peyton and maybe "all things Manning".
posted by YukonGold at 12:58 PM on April 27, 2004
Can we take the Peyton Manning is the worst sexual harraser ever thing as read? I understand why it's an ugly incident and why it gets trotted out here everytime (I have no sympathy for Peyton and I think people should know about it), but it's quickly becoming a one-note symphony played whenever a SpoFite wants to hate on Manning(s). There are any number of famous NFL players who've done as much or worse (Dennis Green's history makes Peyton look like a choirboy* yet he comes in for nothing here); where's the equal time? As for the lack of a public apology, are we privy to the details of the suit and the agreement that came out of it? * Assumes the Platonic ideal of a choirboy and does not take into account any issues arising from recent developments in the Catholic Church.
posted by yerfatma at 01:05 PM on April 27, 2004
rocketman, your analogy is completely flawed. The NFL is not Eli Manning's employer. The NFL does not employ any players and does not send them checks. To be in a comparable situation, you would have to graduate college and apply for a job in your major, at which point any company in the country could hire you and pay you based on a salary structure pre-determined by your industry. salmacis, no one even thinks about that question in US sports. It feels like you can't have a pro sport without a draft, so people don't know it's another tool of the owners to keep salaries low. It doesn't create parity. It may put the league closer to parity than a free-market system by acting as a ceiling on what teams can pay for players (and where said players can go) in their first x years of eligiblity, but it does nothing to make low-revenue teams more competitive with high-revenue teams. It simply provides the worst teams a chance to get hold of a decent player for a few years.
posted by yerfatma at 01:16 PM on April 27, 2004
The NFL does not employ any players and does not send them checks. Okay. My point is, if he doesn't like the rules, he's free to walk. When I started my first post-college job (and mostly in my major, no less), I had three supervisors. Two months into the job, one of them gave me a project with an impossible deadline. I pointed this out, and he said, "Tough shit. Get to work." And that conversation was over. In retrospect, I could have gone to one of my other supervisors and pleaded my case. I could have had them make the case that I couldn't work on this particular project because they needed my for other work. But instead, I put my head down and did the best I could. Because in my book it's better to try really hard to do a good job with whatever you're given than to be seen by one boss as a whiner and another as a backstabber. In summary: I think what Eli Manning did lacks character. Maybe the draft is unfair, but tough shit. Deal with it. Get to work.
posted by rocketman at 01:56 PM on April 27, 2004
You could have also told him go to hell and walked away. Just like Eric Lindros and just like Eli Manning would have done. Except you would have hit the classifieds and found a new job. Eli's classified ads just weren't gonna be printed until next April. If you want to cry for San Diego you could argue that there's a possiblity that the Chargers will be better in the future because of this situation. They could draft the next LT next year with that first round pick and watch that player lead them to a Super Bowl. While Eli Manning is being run out of New York. (As I remeber it) -The Lindros trade made the Avalanche what they are through the players and picks they received....and Eric Lindros has never won a championship.
posted by YukonGold at 02:06 PM on April 27, 2004
if he doesn't like the rules, he's free to walk To where, exactly? He's (arguably) the most sought-after quarterback of this year's draft class, yet one team controls his fate in his chosen industry. Were all teams allowed to submit bids for his services, he'd be in a much better situation and none of this "I hate SD" stuff would have come up. The NFL draft: fun to watch, not so great to be part of.
posted by yerfatma at 02:07 PM on April 27, 2004
Can we take the Peyton Manning is the worst sexual harrasser ever thing as read? Nope. Any time anyone asks why I hate Peyton Manning, I'm going to feel free to bring up his using a female trainer's face as a chair. I'm only pissed that rcade beat me to it. And thanks for the tip, yerfatma. Next time we talk about Denny's character and morals, I'll be sure to bring his track record up. As for the question of the draft, has it become obsolete since free agency? The NFL draft has been running since 1936(!), and when the Bears sucked back then and they landed someone great, they got to hang on to him pretty much in perpetuity. In the days when a pro sports franchise pretty much owned a guy until they a) used him up, b) traded him away for something else they needed or c) a combo of a and b, landing a stud would mean a 10-15 year change in the organization. With rookie contracts, now it's a case where a guy comes in, learns the game and then has the chance to scoot. On preview: My point is, if he doesn't like the rules, he's free to walk. What rules? Manning didn't break any rules by choosing to tell the Chargers he didn't want to play there. He is fully within his rights to say, "You know what? I think I'll sit out a year and hit the draft again in 2005." The down side that proves he made a wise choice? There's an excellent chance San Diego will have the No. 1 again. And rocketman, were you forced to work for that company in the first place? Did they come to your graduation and say, "Congrats! We suck and you're coming with us! Have fun, because the reason we suck is we have shitty management who drive our employees to hard, so enjoy that!" I'm guessing not, and I'm also guessing by you saying that they were your "first" post-college job, you moved on. It'd would've been a lot cooler if you'd gotten to work for your current (I assume better) company right off the bat, huh? Well, Manning will. And I'd take the windfall of three extra picks by the Chargers as evidence of stupidity on the part of the Giants as opposed to brilliance in the San Diego front office.
posted by wfrazerjr at 02:12 PM on April 27, 2004
They could draft the next LT next year with that first round pick and watch that player lead them to a Super Bowl. Or a nearby crackhouse, one or the other.
posted by wfrazerjr at 02:13 PM on April 27, 2004
really not actually that fun to watch either...
posted by Bernreuther at 02:16 PM on April 27, 2004
Ooo, ooo...Yukon gave me an opening to lay out the terms of the Lindros trade... =D Lindros to Philadelphia for: Peter Forsberg Mike Ricci Chris Simon Ron Hextall Steve Duschesne Kerry Huffman Philly's 1st round pick in 1993 (Jocelyn Thibault, who was traded later with Andrei Kovolenko and Martin Rucinsky for Patrick Roy and Mike Keane) Philly's 1st round pick in 1994 (traded off) $15 million cash ...or in other words, Philly got Lindros, Colorado got the 1996 Stanley Cup...
posted by MeatSaber at 02:19 PM on April 27, 2004
Steve Duchense can score from the blue line at will in NHL 93 for Genesis (but not in the more popular classic NHL94)
posted by YukonGold at 02:34 PM on April 27, 2004
Eli Manning doesn't have to play NFL football is what I'm saying. If he doesn't like their rules, he can go into sales. Or accounting. Or construction. Oh, but those don't pay as well? Well, that's the choices you make. One of the jobs I was offered was with a company paying pretty astronomical salaries to entry-level employees. I turned them down because I didn't think something like that could last (and behold: they've gone from more than 300 employees to 15). Instead, I took a more modest job that was stable, if difficult at times. And actually, I still work here, fraze. That's the funny thing: it really sucked at first, but I threw myself at my job with everything I had, and as a result have earned things and improved my work situation. Really, I just dislike people who complain, especially when they have no good reason.
posted by rocketman at 02:36 PM on April 27, 2004
Eli Manning - will be drafted by a team, doesn't want to play, forces issue, a villain in the eyes of the NFL Maurice Clarrett - can't be drafted by a team, does want to play, forces issue, a villain in the eyes of the NFL As a great mind once said: "Dude, this is f***** up right here."
posted by grum@work at 02:56 PM on April 27, 2004
rocketman, your analogy is completely flawed. no, it's not completely flawed, yerfatma. in fact, it's not even partially flawed...damn straight the players work for the nfl. who writes the checks is irrelevant. the teams are franchises of the nfl. i work for a tiny group of the north american division of a large multi-national corporation. my checks come from the tiny group, but i am most certainly bound by the rules of the larger organization. The NFL draft: fun to watch, not so great to be part of. i can't believe i just read that.
posted by danostuporstar at 03:11 PM on April 27, 2004
a villain in the eyes of the NFL It's not even the NFL it's the public. The NFL should be loving this, they just got the #1 pick in their most important market. For some reason there's this overarching opinion in the public that "if it was me, I wouldn't do that" and it's crap. This gets piled on every player whoever tries to maximize their "happiness" whether it be financially, geographically or personally.
posted by YukonGold at 03:17 PM on April 27, 2004
he can go into sales. Or accounting. Or construction Good Lord, I thought you were just working out one of those "Unhappy with my job, I'll take it out on this baby millionaire" things sports fans like to do. But you really don't get it. He should be able to play football for whomever he chooses. He's better than 99.9% of people on the planet. He's devoted much of his life to it. He got to decide where he could go to college (and got porked in the process while the NCAA and his school made millions off of him for a few years). And now this. Why the fuck should he have to go into sales? i work for a tiny group of the north american division of a large multi-national corporation. All I'm getting here is your own situation is making it hard for you to perceive the difference between rocketman's life and Eli Manning's. Or were you planning on providing relevant info in a later comment?
posted by yerfatma at 03:18 PM on April 27, 2004
He should be able to play football for whomever he chooses. That's fine that you think so. But according to the rules in the NFL, he can't, really, unless he pulls stunts like threatening to sit out seasons, etc. Why the fuck should he have to go into sales? He doesn't have to. He doesn't have to play football either. He can join the Army Rangers like Pat Tillman, or he can go drown himself in the East River. He can do these things, or choose not to. But if he chooses to enter the NFL and remain in the NFL, he will have to abide by their rules.
posted by rocketman at 03:25 PM on April 27, 2004
Sweet...a Pat Tillman example That'll prove that Eli Manning is a whiny millionaire brat and end all this nonsense.
posted by YukonGold at 03:31 PM on April 27, 2004
the relevance is that i work for the large corporation despite the fact that my paycheck comes from the tiny group....which seems a pretty easy comparison to "The NFL does not employ any players and does not send them checks." a player on an nfl franchise works for the nfl. but maybe i totally missed your point, both in that statement and in general. are you seriously taking some proletariat tack that the draft is a basic injustice to the working rights of potential rookies? i am just in stunned of that viewpoint as it is completely alien to me (which is why i love sportsfilter). these men are paid a league minimum of $750,000 to play a game that they love to play. a player drafted in the first half of the first round will get many times that figure no matter who signs him. but, of course, the money isn't the issue. the issue is Archie/Eli's right to be ass about having to play for a team for whom he would rather not play. his right is obvious, but our right to "hate" him for it is just as obvious. so you would do away with the draft and replace it with a complete free agent system for rookies? because Eli should get to choose who he plays for? he can choose...the Canadian Football League or the Arena League or the NFL. but he has to work under the system of whichever league he chooses. and if he wants to bitch about it, and you want to say "it's no fun" for him ... i dunno, like i say, i'm stunned.
posted by danostuporstar at 04:04 PM on April 27, 2004
oops...my league minimum number is way off: rookie min is $230,000 in 2004. still.
posted by danostuporstar at 04:10 PM on April 27, 2004
It's not about the money. Eli Manning is going to make less money as the fourth pick in the draft. Phillip Rivers, a player charted for the 10-15 range, is now going to get a huge payday because he now has the rights to negotiate as the first selection. This whole issue is about quality of life. Seems like a pretty easy thing to identify with, but a lot people seemingly let their own personal envy of making an unbelievable salary get in the way.
posted by YukonGold at 04:18 PM on April 27, 2004
It's not about the money. Eli Manning is going to make less money as the fourth pick in the draft. Phillip Rivers, a player charted for the 10-15 range, is now going to get a huge payday because he now has the rights to negotiate as the first selection. Umm..what? My understanding is that Eli Manning was the first pick overall. He was traded AFTER the pick. He doesn't lose his status as the first pick just because he was traded to another team, does he?
posted by grum@work at 04:22 PM on April 27, 2004
are you seriously taking some proletariat tack that the draft is a basic injustice to the working rights of potential rookies? As George Will said in Ken Burns' Baseball, "When it comes to baseball, I'm a Marxist." Sport is the one place where Marxism works. The value of the product is derived 100% from the labor put into it. The draft clearly taxes players to the benefit of the owners. To be more accurate and more boring, if the supply/ demand curve for players in a free market is a typical X . . . well, that's not going to work. This is the #1 Google result for "Consumer Surplus". As I see it, the draft caps player salaries (for whatever period they're compelled to sign for as a rookie) at an unnaturally low rate (for players in the first few rounds anyway), providing the teams (in aggregate) with more consumer surplus than they would get in an open market because San Diego can take whomever they want at #1 and only pay them the top rookie salary, whereas in an open market the best player(s) would go to . . . let's say New York (argue amongst yourselves whether this is a coincidence) at a much higher price. I don't know what the ideal situation is, but I will say this: a simple auction for players' rights would not be close to as awful as you think. Years of brainwashing on the part of team owners (through their lackeys in the media) have left us with the impression the current systems maintain the dignity and tradition of their respective sports. This conveniently blinds paying customers to the fact the best players wind up on the biggest teams anyway. City size has a direct correlation to team winning percentage over time. Small-market teams lose more than they win. No reasonable system (defined here as one that does not force every team in the league to spend exactly $x on all costs in a season) can fix that. The only thing draft-based systems really do is lower the operating costs of teams, which is good because (don't tell anyone) ticket prices are independent of player salaries.
posted by yerfatma at 04:25 PM on April 27, 2004
But according to the rules in the NFL . . . This all assumes the NFL is legally allowed to restrict players as they do. Remember they don't have baseball's license to price fix. Can your industry fix employee wages?
posted by yerfatma at 04:26 PM on April 27, 2004
This all assumes the NFL is legally allowed to restrict players as they do. Remember they don't have baseball's license to price fix. Can your industry fix employee wages? Actually, they do have a licence to price fix. It's the collective bargaining agreement they have with the players union.
posted by grum@work at 04:42 PM on April 27, 2004
Everyone is neglecting the most important point of all: There is no such thing as a "sure thing" in any draft. Exhibit A: Ryan Leaf. Coincidentally, I believe he's the reason the Chargers are in such a tailspin. If the Draft were devoid of salary restrictions and players (and their agents, and families) could select where they wanted to go the Ryan Leafs of the world would be signing Glen Robinson-size contracts only to be out of the league after 2 seasons. Capping rookie contracts allows teams to see what they've got, literally. If you were a star DB in college, but proved incapable of any type of coverage on the pro level: hey, you know what, you played with the best players in the world and made more money than most americans will see in their lifetime. Enjoy it. If you were a mediocre RB in college but a team takes a flier on you, and you kick ass and take names; guess what? You've played yourself into a lucrative contract where you can either stay loyal to the team that drafted you, or go for the big bucks elsewhere. And in the case of rookie QB's, unless you're hyped as the next "Fill-In-The-Blank" you're going to be watching from the sidelines anyway. You've got the right to whether or not to cry about it, but all parties got what they wanted. It just didn't come off well for anyone involved; cooler heads did not prevail. Of course thats just my opinion. I was always partial to territorial selections...
posted by lilnemo at 05:13 PM on April 27, 2004
Grum: One of the experts (can't remember his name, but I'm pretty sure he was a former exec) said as much. I found this as well. The happiest man might be Rivers. With the trade, Jimmy Sexton, his agent, said Rivers will likely be paid as the first pick overall. "Let's put it this way," Sexton said. "Philip is in a very enviable contract position." quote found here
posted by YukonGold at 05:22 PM on April 27, 2004
i work for a tiny group of the north american division of a large multi-national corporation. And your company is the only one in your industry, or can you quit and go to work for a competitor or even do more or less the same work for a somewhat different industry? Manning's skills are only useful in the NFL (hence the need for whatever antitrust protection the CBA affords) and don't even try to tell me the CFL or AFL are comparable. NFL Europe presumably presents issues since it is directly owned by the NFL. Compare this to the (non-American) football situation where, AFAIK, the teams do not participate in any kind of draft and are able to sign players as young as 10 or 11 (Milan made Freddie Adu a $1M offer at that age). Increasingly, from my perspective, this is a rich get richer situation but better for the players. I see no reason not to do away with the draft and allow teams to sign players post-high school as best the players can negotiate.
posted by billsaysthis at 05:37 PM on April 27, 2004
It's not a "rich get richer" scenario. Crewe Alexandra have one of the best youth setups in England, yet they are hardly rich. A top team wouldn't be able to sign all the top talent anyway because of the salary cap. That's why any comparison between the NFL and the English Premiership is invalid; the difference in income between the top and bottom in the Premiership is huge.
posted by salmacis at 05:48 PM on April 27, 2004
There is no such thing as a "sure thing" in any draft. No one's forgetting that; it's not relevant. No one's providing risk-free stock picks. You do the research, then you invest. And when you lay out funds, you lay them out according to an expected value equation (either explicitly or implicitly), where one of the variables is the chance of the pick being a bust. You're correct the draft eases the blow to teams. Why this should be you didn't say. Territorial drafts are a fun idea, but they would kill leagues in any place where you can't play the sport year-round.
posted by yerfatma at 06:17 PM on April 27, 2004
...it's not relevant... gee thanks. your special too. I was just referring to the fact that all of this "to do " could be for not. regardless, like I said, it was just my opinion on the matter. but thanks for being so quick to invalidate it. ass.
posted by lilnemo at 09:45 PM on April 27, 2004
The NFL is not the business world. Name one industry in which there are a fixed number of companies allowed to work in it and a collective agreement that dictates what each of those companies is allowed to pay. I think Eli Manning's a whiner, but he had enough juice to pull off that power play, so I can't blame him for doing it. The NFL is a game. He played it well last weekend. As for Peyton Manning, yerfatma, we found someone in the discussion who still bought the whole good-guy act. How could we not describe the trainer incident?
posted by rcade at 09:58 PM on April 27, 2004
it was just my opinion on the matter. And saying it's not relevant is just my opinion. That's what the site's about. Sorry you took it that harshly. The NFL is not the business world. Tickets still cost dollar dollar bills, right? How could we not describe the trainer incident? I know. And I wouldn't want to play Devil's Advocate on that. Guess I'm slightly sensitive since I exposed myself to an entire township in CT after Yukon's wedding.
posted by yerfatma at 10:09 PM on April 27, 2004
As for Peyton Manning, yerfatma, we found someone in the discussion who still bought the whole good-guy act. How could we not describe the trainer incident? That's a pretty heavy assumption that I didn't know about that story (I mean this isn't my first day here). I asked a direct question as to why someone hated the Mannings as a group. rcade brought up the trainer incident and in doing so I found out why he doesn't like him. Besides this conversation is about Eli and if you transfer ill-will to him because of his brother's actions that pretty weak. Eli's just trying to get a better job. Then again I wrote What did Peyton do to draw your rage? so I guess I should have seen it coming.
posted by YukonGold at 07:18 AM on April 28, 2004
I'm still at a loss for what Archie did wrong: he has a young kid who's getting started in an industry Archie knows as well as anyone and doesn't want to see his son suffer the fate of being a talented player on an awful team, like Archie was forced to be for all/ most of his career (given the draft and lack of free agency). Apparently two generations of Mannings should get porked by the NFL simply because fandom doesn't care for athletes doing the same thing we would do in our workplaces.
posted by yerfatma at 07:29 AM on April 28, 2004
or even NFL stars
posted by YukonGold at 07:46 AM on April 28, 2004
I'm going to pick on you, YukonGold, because these days I'm all about interpersonal conflict. If you knew about Peyton feeding a woman a buttflap sandwich, how could you suggest that "the Manning's are quite a likeable bunch"? The last likeable thing I heard about Peyton was that he bought pizzas for students at Tennessee waiting in line to get football tickets. But that was probably Archie in disguise. I do like, however, miniature Gatorade-sweating foosball Peyton Manning.
posted by rcade at 09:11 AM on April 28, 2004
I missed your last question: What Archie did wrong was fighting his son's battle for him (as he also did in Peyton's lawsuit settlement). It makes them look childish.
posted by rcade at 09:12 AM on April 28, 2004
What Archie did wrong was fighting his son's battle for him (as he also did in Peyton's lawsuit settlement). I'm not a parent, so I can't say, but I would imagine it's hard to let go of raising your kids. What's the alternative in each case: not show up for the draft/ trial? If simply fighting his childrens' battles makes him a target for derision here, that's pretty weak.
posted by yerfatma at 09:45 AM on April 28, 2004
The alternative is, uh, letting your children fight their own battles. Eli Manning has just been introduced to the world's most ferocious sports media as someone whose dad vetoed his selection by San Diego. Doesn't that have disaster in the making written all over it?
posted by rcade at 10:30 AM on April 28, 2004
I do like, however, miniature Gatorade-sweating foosball Peyton Manning. So only clever product marketing will change your opinion of him? I guess Nike or Gatorade should have been defending him from the beginning.
posted by YukonGold at 10:43 AM on April 28, 2004
The alternative is, uh, letting your children fight their own battles That's ridiculous. Have you ever asked your parents for job advice? Or asked them for help in making a difficult decision? Eli Manning is taking one of the biggest steps in his life and if he's apprehensive about getting his career off on the wrong foot in San Diego why should his father provide guidance....so he can watch him fail or be unhappy? Remember AJ Smith leaked the "Eli doesn't want to play here" story. I was all party of the poker game. It started as a private conversation where Eli's agent said they did not want to negotiate and that Eli would rather not play there. San Diego used this to hold him for ransom to a team that did want him. Had they just taken Philip Rivers with the first pick they wouldn't have gotten all of those picks that could improve their team even further.
posted by YukonGold at 10:49 AM on April 28, 2004
edit: why shouldn't his father...
posted by YukonGold at 10:51 AM on April 28, 2004
I was all party of the poker game. Is this part of a different story? It's like AM radio and I'm getting conservative talk mixed with Tejano and Fundamenatlist preaching.
posted by yerfatma at 10:52 AM on April 28, 2004
Yerfatma, can you burn me a copy of that for my car? I've just about worn out my Lewis Black and Dave Attell discs.
posted by wfrazerjr at 11:54 AM on April 28, 2004
There's a difference between "dad, what do you think?" and "dad, go put the screws to the Chargers for me." It was clearly a calculated move on Family Manning's part for Archie to tell the team that Eli didn't want to be in San Diego. They put dad out front on stuff that the kiddies don't want to face themselves. As for how the Chargers did, I think they played the situation pretty well considering. A local columnist was predicting they wouldn't be able to get squat for Manning's rights, since everybody knew he wouldn't play there. They played a game of chicken with the Giants on draft day and won.
posted by rcade at 11:55 AM on April 28, 2004
I just about wore out my Skanks for the Memories disc myself. What's Lewis Black's best album? I love watching him get het up.
posted by yerfatma at 12:12 PM on April 28, 2004
Bollocks is it Manning's fault. The team is in the state it's in because of the way it's been run over the last few years. The draft is an utterly ridiculous concept. It is morally wrong, as it treats athletes as nothing more than commodities to be traded. It also doesn't achieve it's stated aim. Baseball had it in the 50s, and yet there wasn't much parity there. The NFL has parity today because of the way revinue is shared and because of the salary cap. The draft is outdated, and Manning had every right to refuse to be bound by it.