The NFL's 2009 free agency season is only about two weeks old, but there's already been plenty of action. As of this writing: Fred Taylor has signed with the Patriots, Mike Vrabel got traded to Kansas City, Brian Dawkins joined the Broncos, Tony Gonzalez is asking for a trade, the Bucs cut Derrick Brooks, and Matt Birk inked with Baltimore. Marvin Harrison and Deuce McAllister are free agents.
Taylor has spent his whole 11-year career with Jacksonville. Vrabel played in four Super Bowls for the Patriots. Dawkins, Gonzalez, and Birk played a combined 36 years with the teams that drafted them. Brooks, a future Hall of Famer, was the face of the Buccaneers franchise. Harrison has been with the Colts since 1996, 13 years. McAllister may be the most popular player in Saints history. There are future Hall of Famers in that group, legends who either couldn't wait to leave town, or whose teams couldn't wait to get rid of them.
I hate free agency.
I am glad for the players that they aren't slaves to the teams any more, that they have freedom to negotiate for market-value salaries. But if you're already earning $5 million a year, is another half-million worth moving your family to another city, or leaving them behind for half the year? Is it worth parting from your teammates and coaches? Is it worth turning your back on the team that believed in you on draft day? Is it worth disappointing the fans who have cheered for you and worn your jersey for a decade? Is it worth even one of those things? How could it be worth all of them?
Don't get me wrong, the players aren't the only villains here. The agents who say the home team offering $5 million instead of $5.5 is "disrespecting" the player are villainous. The new coaches who cut a team leader so they won't have to compete for locker room respect are villains. The team executives and GMs who heartlessly cut long-time veterans are villains. I don't mean to single out any one group, because they're all part of this process. But I hate it.
As recently as a decade ago, our heroes were players like Dan Marino, Bruce Matthews, and Darrell Green, who spent their whole careers in one uniform. Even since the birth of free agency, there have been players who would take less money or less playing time to stay with a team, and organizations that would keep a respected veteran who had earned the right to be a little overpaid in the last season before he retired. It's getting harder and harder to find those players, more and more difficult to find those teams.
Who was the last truly great player to finish his career having played for only one team? Michael Strahan? Green? For really great, top-10-players-ever great, you need to go back at least to Marino, who retired nine years ago. Would it have killed the Buccaneers to let Brooks finish his career in Tampa? Would it have tainted Harrison's legacy to catch 40 passes as the Colts' third receiver next year instead of 50 or 60 as someone else's second? Players and teams do a disservice to each other, and especially to fans, by not making sacrifices to limit player movement during free agency.
Late last week, the news came that Ray Lewis, a 13-year vet with the Ravens, had re-signed and would likely finish his career with Baltimore. It's hard to forget that two weeks ago, Lewis was practically bragging about going to Dallas, but all the same, maybe there's still some hope.
March 12, 2009
Andrew:
So basically you have a problem with the salary cap. That is why teams have to cut players and make trades a lot of the time. They can’t afford the player. Not just because the don’t want them. Think about a league without one though. The teams with high market value, like the Patriots, would have an unfair advantage to levy players to their teams, unless what your saying is once a player is on a team they are on that team forever? cause that is just silly.
March 12, 2009
Andrew Jones:
Nice write up Brad and I agree with you on many of your points, especially that there are numerous villains affecting this problem.
Salary cap has very little to do with the problem at hand. We can see from MLB that no salary cap makes moves to other teams just as if not more likely.
The cutting of Derrick Brooks and a lot of other veterans was not about salary cap room, it was about the locker room and team leadership.
I think there may need to be a precedent set for players taking pay cuts after they reach the prime of their careers. Lets face it LT will not be as good this year as he was three or four years ago, why should he get paid more? Players should realize that about themselves. I really don’t understand the Dawkins and Birk moves. They were both on good teams and they left for teams of a similar caliber. It’s quite confusing why they would leave on their own. Not having Birk will really hurt in MN, he was a quality leader on and off the field, perhaps the best they’ve ever had off the field.