dave mcbride Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=cr-d...o&type=lgns
Offside Number 76 Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 One of the interesting points is that none of the holdouts mentioned have realized the success in the NFL that was anticipated when they were drafted. McKinnie (2002, so he's had lots of time) is the most successful of the three, and quarterback "Marcus" Russell (nice professional reporting job, Yahoo--they may fix it, but it really says "Marcus" right now) isn't exactly a world-beater. But all of these guys, even Jammer, were supposed to change their teams. They didn't. And they won't. I loved Crabtree's catch last year against Texas. That was last year, in college (which I like better, but that's another discussion). He hurts himself, and whatever team ends up with him, through this silliness.
BillsWatch Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 Sounds like some GMs did not pick him because of his attitude and agent.
DarthICE Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 I wouldn't ever draft a player represented by Parker.
PromoTheRobot Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 So let me get this straight. It's the opinion of these seven respected front office people that when a player makes absurd demands your hold you ground and not cave. Yet how many people on thisi very board proclaim the Bills are the "joke of the NFL" because we don't cave when players hold out? How many people were screaming for the Bills to just pay Maybin whatever he wanted to get him into camp? Do you think the same "don't cave" strategy applies when an undrafted left tackle bags on your team with three years left on his deal? PTR
irishman Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 The article brought up some interesting points. Especially mentioning that just because the best player available is within reach doesn't mean he's the best pick for the franchise. It also mentions the agents reputation for holding players out is an extremely important fact to consider when drafting a 1st or 2nd rounder. When you add up all these factors it does shed some light on why teams select certain players @ surprising times. Great article!
Steely Dan Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 Sounds like some GMs did not pick him because of his attitude and agent. Players should realize that hiring Parker just makes it harder for them because teams avoid Parker if possible. The teams pass over the player until it just becomes to tempting to take that player and then Parker wants money for the player for where he would have been picked without a dickhead agent.
billsfan89 Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 So let me get this straight. It's the opinion of these seven respected front office people that when a player makes absurd demands you hold you ground and not cave. Yet how many people on thsi very board proclaim the Bills are the "joke of the NFL" because we don't cave when players hold out? How many people were screaming for the Bills to just pay Maybin whatever he wanted to get him into camp? Do you think the same "don't cave" strategy applies when an undrafted left tackle bags on your team with three years left on his deal? PTR Its really about a front office deciding three things smartly. 1- what is the player worth? 2- How much are you willing to pay him? 3- What leverage does the player have? (Replaceability is also an important factor). Now in Peters case he was (Based on good years in 07 and 06 but also a sub par year in 08) worth about 7 million a year with maybe a million in incentives. Now I can't say what the Bills were willing to pay him but if the rumors were correct it was around 9 million. Now in the Peters case the Bills front office had all the leverage. One Peters had three years left on his deal when he started it and two years left going into this years negotiations. So they decided why should they pay a guy when he has 3 years left on a deal. Than when he had 2 years left they decided why should we pay a guy who semi mailed in a whole season? So the Bills saved the money and maximized the asset by getting 3 draft picks out of it including a 1st round pick. To me a front office needs to see those factors and decide smartly its not about caving or holding each holdout/negotiation is different sometimes you need to cave others hold ground. In the 49ers case they had all the leverage (as no one thought he would reenter the draft costing himself millions) and decided early on what he was worth (Where he was drafted not where he thinks he should have been drafted) and what they were willing to pay him. Parker hard nose tactics may have worked in the past (Peters and Russell) but now with Crabtree he may have cost his client money big time money an embarrassing amount of money. Parkers tactics have made NFL teams not want to deal with him and future potential clients see Crabtree and might not want him either.
BillnutinHouston Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 Interesting how the GMs are subtly trying to blackball Eugene Parker. If I was a college player thinking about which agent to eventually hire, I would definitely steer clear of Parker after reading this article. Clearly to the GMs, who you select as your agent says a lot about you and the clear implication is that Crabtree slipped in the draft because of his representation. Also, this article does cast the Peters move (and the Bills front office) in a rather different light, doesn't it?
silvermike Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 One of the interesting points is that none of the holdouts mentioned have realized the success in the NFL that was anticipated when they were drafted. McKinnie (2002, so he's had lots of time) is the most successful of the three, and quarterback "Marcus" Russell (nice professional reporting job, Yahoo--they may fix it, but it really says "Marcus" right now) isn't exactly a world-beater. But all of these guys, even Jammer, were supposed to change their teams. They didn't. And they won't. I loved Crabtree's catch last year against Texas. That was last year, in college (which I like better, but that's another discussion). He hurts himself, and whatever team ends up with him, through this silliness. I wonder what the causation is here - I'm sure the holdouts cost players experience, but that should wash out after a year or so. I wonder if agents who are more skeptical of their clients' ability will hold them out more.
PromoTheRobot Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 Interesting how the GMs are subtly trying to blackball Eugene Parker. If I was a college player thinking about which agent to eventually hire, I would definitely steer clear of Parker after reading this article. Clearly to the GMs, who you select as your agent says a lot about you and the clear implication is that Crabtree slipped in the draft because of his representation. Also, this article does cast the Peters move (and the Bills front office) in a rather different light, doesn't it? Again...how good is Parker as an agent if his presence causes you to fall in the draft, hence costing you millions? Parker uses a "scorched earth" tactic in negtiations. It works once, maybe twice. Then teams wise up and just avoid players that sign with him. There is no skill in acting like a douchebag. Drew Rosenhaus is good because he makes teams believe he wants a good deal for them too. Is it "blackballing" or gaining a reputation for being unreasonable? It's not like players weren't getting rich deals before Parker. It's not like the NFL was screwing players over left and right. Parker just decides to take an "eff you" attitude toward teams. How long do you think that is going to work? PTR
MRM33064 Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 I think Parker is just an unfortunate consequence of a bizarre rookie compensation system. The opportunity for him to be so influential (at the player or team level) shouldn't exist. Instead, the draft is an entire world onto itself, and how a prospect handles his PR, advertising, etc. - how his "team" tries to spin his number up a few notches on someone's board - can easily become more financially important to him than anything he'll ever do in the NFL. Unfortunately, the NFLPA's position has historically been that it's good for veterans when teams pay outrageous prices for players who haven't played a down in the league ... and the owners, by and large, continue to pay it. As long as the tail keeps wagging the dog, the agents end up being an indirect but significant factor in a team's personnel decisions ... and arguably a team's on-field success. The owners/veterans just need to get together and retool this, because both sides should be controlling the rookies/agents as opposed to vice-versa.
Recommended Posts