Nothing wrong with it, except that the Bucs are fucking idiots. Teams like Chicago and Tampa always doing stupid things in free agency is what helps keep powerhouses like Seattle, Green Bay, New England, and Baltimore in their position. It's a double-edged sword.
Originally Posted by smuggler
Well, that's why it matters who runs your organization. The NFL tries to get perfect parity by such things as rewarding shitty teams with the first picks in each round of the draft - give them an advantage so they can get better. In theory, that was in part what free agency was going to do - to give shitty teams a leg up by letting better teams develop good players who could be then legally poached.
As it turns out, though, if your organization is run badly, you're going to screw up the advantages you're given.
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
HOFer
yeah but its a compensation pick for losing a player. they have not lost the player. the lost him for a year, like an injury.
that IMO, should have brought the comp pick way down or cancelled it out all together
What if they signed a different, but similar player this year? Should they still lose the compensation pick for the FA loss last year? I doubt anyone would even raise the question. Why should it matter who the player is that they sign this year?
To put it in Packer terms, the Packers lost Erik Walden in 2013 and received a compensatory pick in the 2014 draft. They also signed Peppers in 2014 as a street free agent. Should they have lost their compensation for Walden in the 2014 draft because they signed Peppers? Now, what if the Colts had released Walden after 2013, and instead of signing Peppers, the Packers re-signed Walden in 2014. Should they have lost the 2014 compensatory pick if they had signed Walden instead of Peppers?
Last edited by Patler; 03-25-2015 at 12:47 PM.
HOFer
yes, IMO, they should have lost the pick if they had re signed walden before the next draft
its compensation for a team to help rebuild after losing a guy, if the guy returns to the team before the team uses the comp pick, then they haven't lost anything have they?
so, whats stopping a team and player from getting together and deciding it might be in the players best interest to take a massive one year deal elsewhere. the team will get a high comp pick for him, and the team will resign the player the following year and let him chase a ring?
i don't know, to me this is common sense, if you haven't lost anything, you shouldn't get compensation. guess i'm in the minority on that
He played in Tampa last year. The Bungles lost a year of service.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Normally, the player signs a multi-year contract with the new team, so he isn't available again for many years. There is no way for a team and player to plan what you suggest. Why will other teams want to invest big money in a player for just one season?
Michael Johnson signed a five year $44 million contract with the Bucs. It is unusual for a team to sign a big money free agent, and release him just a year later. The Bucs did it with two players this year. They also cut Anthony Collins, who they had signed just last year to a five year $30 million contract
They did actually sign Peppers instead of Walden. Why should the lose the pick if the re-signed Walden, but not when the signed Peppers, an even better player?. Either way they have already replaced the player they lost before the comp pick is awarded. Some teams some years sign the replacement the same year. In that situation they are never short a good experienced player, they just replace one with another.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote