Comments on: FINS LOCKED ONTO JAKE, VERNON (FOR NOW) http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/22/fins-locked-onto-jake-vernon-for-now/ The Best Pro Football Scoop on the Internet Tue, 02 Dec 2008 04:13:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: Toonces51 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/22/fins-locked-onto-jake-vernon-for-now/#comment-18385 Toonces51 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:57:54 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/22/fins-locked-onto-jake-vernon-for-now/#comment-18385 How about a real slotting system to eliminate the agents conflict of interest all together? It's the one thing that the NBA does right, and the NFL does horribly, horribly wrong. How about a real slotting system to eliminate the agents conflict of interest all together? It’s the one thing that the NBA does right, and the NFL does horribly, horribly wrong.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: dolfan565 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/22/fins-locked-onto-jake-vernon-for-now/#comment-18257 dolfan565 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:34:46 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/22/fins-locked-onto-jake-vernon-for-now/#comment-18257 Why not agree to terms before the draft, then you can focus your attention to your next client. It's a win-win for the team & agent. If you can negotiate 2 of the top 3 or 4 picks and get them signed early, that's more impressive than a month-long holdout for an extra $500,000 signing bonus. Why not agree to terms before the draft, then you can focus your attention to your next client.

It’s a win-win for the team & agent.

If you can negotiate 2 of the top 3 or 4 picks and get them signed early, that’s more impressive than a month-long holdout for an extra $500,000 signing bonus.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: unga http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/22/fins-locked-onto-jake-vernon-for-now/#comment-18250 unga Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:32:03 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/22/fins-locked-onto-jake-vernon-for-now/#comment-18250 Pure greed on CAA's part. Pure greed on CAA’s part.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: Dennis http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/22/fins-locked-onto-jake-vernon-for-now/#comment-18230 Dennis Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:56:31 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/22/fins-locked-onto-jake-vernon-for-now/#comment-18230 It seems like the agents would be smart to get a deal done. They can explain that they got a good deal to future clients pretty easily. "Look, we got our guy to be the #1 pick when they were willing to take someone else. We got him the best money available." Besides, they'd be smart to take their huge paycheck now rather than delay it. Hell, I'll represent him and get the deal done. It seems like the agents would be smart to get a deal done. They can explain that they got a good deal to future clients pretty easily. “Look, we got our guy to be the #1 pick when they were willing to take someone else. We got him the best money available.”

Besides, they’d be smart to take their huge paycheck now rather than delay it.

Hell, I’ll represent him and get the deal done.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: promichael http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/22/fins-locked-onto-jake-vernon-for-now/#comment-18226 promichael Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:51:26 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/22/fins-locked-onto-jake-vernon-for-now/#comment-18226 Changing Agents does not seem like a logical possibility. Why would a well known established firm like CAA, who is in line to get a percentage of both top five candidates (Gholston & J.Long), choose to give up the revenue to be obtained? I think PFT is correct a conflict of interest may exist but CAA will certainly choose to represent both parties unless directed by the commissioner of the NFL to do otherwise. I do believe however PFT's insistance that Parcells' actions are all about a smokescreen are overstated. He has the first pick in the draft and a smokescreen strategy would seem to not be that important. The agents control the market with their adamant stance of a 15% increase every year for the # 1 pick in the draft. The NFL may have to change the agent's control over rookies in the future. I'm sure the agents will have a response, "don't mess with free enterprise". Changing Agents does not seem like a logical possibility.
Why would a well known established firm like CAA, who is
in line to get a percentage of both top five candidates
(Gholston & J.Long), choose to give up the revenue to be
obtained? I think PFT is correct a conflict of interest
may exist but CAA will certainly choose to represent both
parties unless directed by the commissioner of the NFL to
do otherwise.

I do believe however PFT’s insistance that Parcells’ actions
are all about a smokescreen are overstated. He has the first
pick in the draft and a smokescreen strategy would seem to
not be that important. The agents control the market with
their adamant stance of a 15% increase every year for the
# 1 pick in the draft. The NFL may have to change the agent’s
control over rookies in the future. I’m sure the agents will
have a response, “don’t mess with free enterprise”.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: The G Man http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/22/fins-locked-onto-jake-vernon-for-now/#comment-18220 The G Man Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:38:18 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/22/fins-locked-onto-jake-vernon-for-now/#comment-18220 They need to write into the CBA (or whatever the heck would govern an agents involvement with the NFL) that if a firm represents 2 clients in a situation like we have here, that 2 separate agents need to represent them with a firewall between them. They need to write into the CBA (or whatever the heck would govern an agents involvement with the NFL) that if a firm represents 2 clients in a situation like we have here, that 2 separate agents need to represent them with a firewall between them.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: SeanMartin http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/22/fins-locked-onto-jake-vernon-for-now/#comment-18212 SeanMartin Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:21:00 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/22/fins-locked-onto-jake-vernon-for-now/#comment-18212 I still think the Fins take Chris Long. They know he is the safest pick, and after seeing what a fellow ACC DE did for Houston, they feel as if they can get the same production. Jake Long would also be a really nice pick, but with the first pick, and with so much money, I feel as if they'll play it safe without question. But it is Parcells, so who knows really? I still think the Fins take Chris Long. They know he is the safest pick, and after seeing what a fellow ACC DE did for Houston, they feel as if they can get the same production. Jake Long would also be a really nice pick, but with the first pick, and with so much money, I feel as if they’ll play it safe without question. But it is Parcells, so who knows really?

(report as inappropriate)

]]>