Jets1Fan Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Q: Why did the Steelers receive only a fifth-round compensatory pick when Alan Faneca was slotted for a third-rounder with that $7.8 million a year contract? Plus, he made the Pro Bowl. Tony in Los Angeles A: Great question, and the Steelers asked the same question at the owners' meeting. What they found out is that a departing free agent older than 30 can't net anything better than a fifth-round choice. They were banking on a third, too. They received the max value. They simply didn't know the rule that has been there for a few years in the compensatory formula. Life is an education. From ESPN's John Clayton - Mailbag Tannenbaum either has a great team working for him or he's a pretty smart guy. Don't be suprised if he pulls off another miracle come draft day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 LOL Steelers got pwned **** em! too bad we didn't get that championship that have lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JiF Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 What Faneca trade? We signed him as a FA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachTsurfing Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 maybe they mean compensation pick. Speaking of which. Do we get any this year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slowmoe57 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 maybe they mean compensation pick. Speaking of which. Do we get any this year no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 If they thought they were getting a 3rd round pick that would be an extra incentive to let him go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 If they thought they were getting a 3rd round pick that would be an extra incentive to let him go. Live and learn I guess Dom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Q: Why did the Steelers receive only a fifth-round compensatory pick when Alan Faneca was slotted for a third-rounder with that $7.8 million a year contract? Plus, he made the Pro Bowl. Tony in Los Angeles A: Great question, and the Steelers asked the same question at the owners' meeting. What they found out is that a departing free agent older than 30 can't net anything better than a fifth-round choice. They were banking on a third, too. They received the max value. They simply didn't know the rule that has been there for a few years in the compensatory formula. Life is an education. . I had never heard of this rule but it makes sense. Let's face it, most athletes over 30 are past their prime . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 The whole idea of compensatory picks should be scrapped anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doggin94it Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Q: Why did the Steelers receive only a fifth-round compensatory pick when Alan Faneca was slotted for a third-rounder with that $7.8 million a year contract? Plus, he made the Pro Bowl. Tony in Los Angeles A: Great question, and the Steelers asked the same question at the owners' meeting. What they found out is that a departing free agent older than 30 can't net anything better than a fifth-round choice. They were banking on a third, too. They received the max value. They simply didn't know the rule that has been there for a few years in the compensatory formula. Life is an education. From ESPN's John Clayton - Mailbag Tannenbaum either has a great team working for him or he's a pretty smart guy. Don't be suprised if he pulls off another miracle come draft day. This has nothing to do with Tannenbaum. There was no Faneca "trade" - he was signed as a FA, which means that the Steelers were expecting a compensatory pick for him (teams that have net losses of FAs get extra draft picks, depending on the value of the players they lost) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JiF Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 If they thought they were getting a 3rd round pick that would be an extra incentive to let him go. Getting a 3rd round pick for losing a guy in FA, is absolutely ridiculous. What a stupid concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMaynard Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Q: Why did the Steelers receive only a fifth-round compensatory pick when Alan Faneca was slotted for a third-rounder with that $7.8 million a year contract? Plus, he made the Pro Bowl. Tony in Los Angeles A: Great question, and the Steelers asked the same question at the owners' meeting. What they found out is that a departing free agent older than 30 can't net anything better than a fifth-round choice. They were banking on a third, too. They received the max value. They simply didn't know the rule that has been there for a few years in the compensatory formula. Life is an education. From ESPN's John Clayton - Mailbag Tannenbaum either has a great team working for him or he's a pretty smart guy. Don't be suprised if he pulls off another miracle come draft day. Yes it is. Just ask Donovan McNabb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Monzino Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 This has no impact on the Jets whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 The whole idea of compensatory picks should be scrapped anyway. Why do you say that, Sperm? I'm on the fence about it, I'd like to hear what you have against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Why do you say that, Sperm? I'm on the fence about it, I'd like to hear what you have against it. The idea is that if an organization chooses not to re-sign their own player that the rest of the league should give them charity (in the form of a player or players off the board). Teams choose to retain certain players over others. So if that team chooses to sink their cap room elsewhere, then they are compensated for it? Take the Patriots. They have had a great team for the majority of the decade. But when those drafted players' contracts came up (like Richard Seymour) they chose to give them big money instead of letting them go. Understandable enough. Same with Tom Brady and plenty of others. As a result of that, and other contracts coming up in the next couple of years, they chose not to re-sign Samuel and he went into FA (eventually signing with Philly). I'm not trying to single out NE as a Jets fan, but why should they get special treatment because they decided their cap dollars are better spent on other players? To be fair, the same thing happened with the Jets when they didn't re-sign Jordan & McKenzie. One of them actually got canceled out by a bust FA pickup of our own (who was signed for far less money as well), but the principle is the same. The Jets didn't want to spend money on those players & another team did. So the Jets should receive charity from the other 31 teams because they chose to eat up their cap space by making Curtis Martin the highest-paid RB in NFL history (twice), Mawae the highest-paid center in NFL history, pay Fabini like a superstar HOF left tackle, make Ellis the 2nd-highest paid DE in NFL history, and make Pennington the 2nd-highest paid player in NFL history at any position? What a load of crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillerPaul Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 This has nothing to do with Tannenbaum. There was no Faneca "trade" - he was signed as a FA, which means that the Steelers were expecting a compensatory pick for him (teams that have net losses of FAs get extra draft picks, depending on the value of the players they lost) Yeah, what he said... What i don't get is how do ppl figure the Steelers miss Faneca? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 The idea is that if an organization chooses not to re-sign their own player that the rest of the league should give them charity (in the form of a player or players off the board). Teams choose to retain certain players over others. So if that team chooses to sink their cap room elsewhere, then they are compensated for it? Take the Patriots. They have had a great team for the majority of the decade. But when those drafted players' contracts came up (like Richard Seymour) they chose to give them big money instead of letting them go. Understandable enough. Same with Tom Brady and plenty of others. As a result of that, and other contracts coming up in the next couple of years, they chose not to re-sign Samuel and he went into FA (eventually signing with Philly). I'm not trying to single out NE as a Jets fan, but why should they get special treatment because they decided their cap dollars are better spent on other players? To be fair, the same thing happened with the Jets when they didn't re-sign Jordan & McKenzie. One of them actually got canceled out by a bust FA pickup of our own (who was signed for far less money as well), but the principle is the same. The Jets didn't want to spend money on those players & another team did. So the Jets should receive charity from the other 31 teams because they chose to eat up their cap space by making Curtis Martin the highest-paid RB in NFL history (twice), Mawae the highest-paid center in NFL history, pay Fabini like a superstar HOF left tackle, make Ellis the 2nd-highest paid DE in NFL history, and make Pennington the 2nd-highest paid player in NFL history at any position? What a load of crap. I hear you. I guess the league threw that in to appease the teams that didn't intend to be players in FA... ? But you're right, teams with too much talent to keep or lacking talent in their front offices probably shouldn't be rewarded with draft picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bachelors3 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 maybe they mean compensation pick. Speaking of which. Do we get any this year They meant a compensatory pick and this doesn't affect us excpet for the fact we choose a few picks later starting in Round 4. We did not get any this year. The Pats got 5 or 6. Hey! Do we get a five next year for losing Coles? He's over 30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.