Jump to content
SportsWrath

Teams wanting to trade down, but no one wants to trade up


BleedinBlue
 Share

Recommended Posts

At least 5 teams have officially tried to trade down their first round pick and a dozen other teams have talked about it. Even the Giants fans have mentioned trading down might be the best option.

 

I think it's pretty easy to figure out why. It's just so damn expensive to sign a first round player who will command as much as a proven multi-pro-bowl player......and has never even touched a football at the pro level. History shows that only about half of the top 10 picks pan out to be anything other than ordinary and many of the extraordinary players were picked up in later rounds for a fraction of the cost of a first rounder. On averager, any player drafted in the first 5 picks is probably set to make 20 - 30 million right out of the gate. Players drafted from picks 6 - 10 will make 16 - 20 million before ever putting on a uniform. And to top it off....with the high priced agents calling the shots, it's sometimes nearly impossible to sign the player without it becoming a long dragged out process causing the player to miss valuable workouts with the team before the season begins.

 

Secondly, first round busts have become common place (William Joseph, Ron Dayne, etc.).

 

Thirdly, the top ten players by position are oftentimes almost identical in physical size, strength and abilities...yet only a few of them fit perfectly into the offensive and defensive schemes of the team that drafts them. But the real difference is how much they will cost the team as there will be a 15 - 20 million dollar swing between the guy picked up in round one and the guy picked up in round four.

 

Fourthly, for a team to trade up they have to combine a couple of picks to make the move and it not only costs more money (for the player to be signed), but costs losing a quality player in the subsequent round. Look what it cost the Giants to trade for Eli (2 picks higher up)....2 first rounders, a 3rd rounder, and a 5th rounder. That's a lot to give up to move up 2 spots in the draft.

 

It's no wonder everyone seems to be wanting to trade down these days and it's even less of a wonder why no one is trading up.

 

Smart team owners who have early draft picks should simply "pass" when it's their turn to draft and jump back in at a later stage in the draft. Especially if there's more than one player left on the board that the team wants. That would be a great strategy that will probably never be used.

 

Meanwhile, I think the league has to start setting up limits on rookie contracts to keep things in perspective. Unproven rookies should not be the highest paid players on any team....but currently, that's the case.

 

The Giants picking at "31" is actually beneficial in my opinion. I like where they are sitting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first pick of the draft sets the price for everyone that follows. With 4 potential number one picks for Miami, the team is in the driver seat for a change this year. The one position that has a dramatic affect on draft moves, QB is one of the weakest this year. Teams that need them so far haven't signaled a preference for any of the Qb's in the draft or willingness to move up for one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least 5 teams have officially tried to trade down their first round pick and a dozen other teams have talked about it. Even the Giants fans have mentioned trading down might be the best option.

 

I think it's pretty easy to figure out why. It's just so damn expensive to sign a first round player who will command as much as a proven multi-pro-bowl player......and has never even touched a football at the pro level. History shows that only about half of the top 10 picks pan out to be anything other than ordinary and many of the extraordinary players were picked up in later rounds for a fraction of the cost of a first rounder. On averager, any player drafted in the first 5 picks is probably set to make 20 - 30 million right out of the gate. Players drafted from picks 6 - 10 will make 16 - 20 million before ever putting on a uniform. And to top it off....with the high priced agents calling the shots, it's sometimes nearly impossible to sign the player without it becoming a long dragged out process causing the player to miss valuable workouts with the team before the season begins.

 

Secondly, first round busts have become common place (William Joseph, Ron Dayne, etc.).

 

Thirdly, the top ten players by position are oftentimes almost identical in physical size, strength and abilities...yet only a few of them fit perfectly into the offensive and defensive schemes of the team that drafts them. But the real difference is how much they will cost the team as there will be a 15 - 20 million dollar swing between the guy picked up in round one and the guy picked up in round four.

 

Fourthly, for a team to trade up they have to combine a couple of picks to make the move and it not only costs more money (for the player to be signed), but costs losing a quality player in the subsequent round. Look what it cost the Giants to trade for Eli (2 picks higher up)....2 first rounders, a 3rd rounder, and a 5th rounder. That's a lot to give up to move up 2 spots in the draft.

 

It's no wonder everyone seems to be wanting to trade down these days and it's even less of a wonder why no one is trading up.

 

Smart team owners who have early draft picks should simply "pass" when it's their turn to draft and jump back in at a later stage in the draft. Especially if there's more than one player left on the board that the team wants. That would be a great strategy that will probably never be used.

Meanwhile, I think the league has to start setting up limits on rookie contracts to keep things in perspective. Unproven rookies should not be the highest paid players on any team....but currently, that's the case.

 

The Giants picking at "31" is actually beneficial in my opinion. I like where they are sitting.

 

What if all the teams "pass" in the first round? They get to save money and still land the same exactly players :flex:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if all the teams "pass" in the first round? They get to save money and still land the same exactly players :flex:

 

"In other NFL news, the NFL draft was quite different this year. Every single team passed in every round allowing all players to be free agents, talent that should of been taken in the top ten are being signed to contracts not even 1/10th what they would of gotten in the first round."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if all the teams "pass" in the first round? They get to save money and still land the same exactly players :flex:

 

Whoever would pick first would be picking the 1st pick of the 1st round, it doesn't work that way. But if the Dolphins were to sit out the first and pick #32 they would be picking first and second in the second round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why when the Texans passed on Bush it wasn't such a bone head move. They signed Mario Williams on draft day avoiding a hold out and getting him into their system immediately. To be honest if I was a GM this would be a great way if you are going to be selecting top 5. No headache or bullshit waste of money like Russell not being prepared until the final weeks of the regular season because he wouldn't sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smart team owners who have early draft picks should simply "pass" when it's their turn to draft and jump back in at a later stage in the draft. Especially if there's more than one player left on the board that the team wants. That would be a great strategy that will probably never be used.

That's not smart at all. Missing out on a talent because they cost to much? Ridiculous.

 

A 'bust' isn't a function of where they get picked. That's just poor scouting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not smart at all. Missing out on a talent because they cost to much? Ridiculous.

 

A 'bust' isn't a function of where they get picked. That's just poor scouting.

 

Well if you do it smartly you aren't missing out on talent. You pick a group of players you are interested in and then bargain. It is smarter to get a player into camp and get them learning your system than to just draft a talent and have their entire first year ruined because of a holdout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not smart at all. Missing out on a talent because they cost to much? Ridiculous.

 

A 'bust' isn't a function of where they get picked. That's just poor scouting.

Sometimes a player who excelled in college and is rated as a top prospect by virtually every team....still never lives up to his potential....and in some cases, doesn't even stay in the NFL. No one knows what goes through a young kids mind when he suddenly is a multi-millionaire and has beautiful chicks hanging on his arm while parading through the streets in a quarter-million dollar Ferrari.

 

Regardless.......I can understand perfectly why a team would go ahead and pass in certain circumstances. Say for instance that the Giants have Kenny Phillips, Tracy Porter, Jerod Mayo and Mike Jenkins rated exactly the same and all four are still on the board. They also know that all four of them will be gone by the next time the Giants pick (63rd overall), so they pass and jump back in about half way through the second round and grab Tracy Porter..........who instead of paying him 10-12 million for being a first round pick, can now sign him for 6 million.

 

I think the whole point is that the league should be doing something about controlling the agents who demand ridiculous amounts of money for an unproven player who ends up making more than the guys on the team who have earned 5 pro-bowl honors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes a player who excelled in college and is rated as a top prospect by virtually every team....still never lives up to his potential....and in some cases, doesn't even stay in the NFL. No one knows what goes through a young kids mind when he suddenly is a multi-millionaire and has beautiful chicks hanging on his arm while parading through the streets in a quarter-million dollar Ferrari.

 

Regardless.......I can understand perfectly why a team would go ahead and pass in certain circumstances. Say for instance that the Giants have Kenny Phillips, Tracy Porter, Jerod Mayo and Mike Jenkins rated exactly the same and all four are still on the board. They also know that all four of them will be gone by the next time the Giants pick (63rd overall), so they pass and jump back in about half way through the second round and grab Tracy Porter..........who instead of paying him 10-12 million for being a first round pick, can now sign him for 6 million.

 

I think the whole point is that the league should be doing something about controlling the agents who demand ridiculous amounts of money for an unproven player who ends up making more than the guys on the team who have earned 5 pro-bowl honors.

Any owner that cheap doesn't deserve a team. Any what are you basing this on? Where does it say you can pass and then jump back in at any stage you like? You'd be risking your entire draft over a few million which will NOT effect their work ethic to any degree if they're the type to slack off once there's money in the bank.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any owner that cheap doesn't deserve a team. Any what are you basing this on? Where does it say you can pass and then jump back in at any stage you like? You'd be risking your entire draft over a few million which will NOT effect their work ethic to any degree if they're the type to slack off once there's money in the bank.

 

So you think a team can let their time pass and not jump back in?

 

I know of at least one time in recent history it has happened when the Vikings did a few years back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think a team can let their time pass and not jump back in?

 

I know of at least one time in recent history it has happened when the Vikings did a few years back.

The Vikings did it by mistake didn't they? They fucked up the clock? I've never seen a draft. I would think that if a team passed they lose their pick but I don't know. Surely it wouldn't be up to them as to when they'd get to take the pick again?

 

Regardless, unless they think every other team has vastly overrated the entire round of draft choices then they're missing out on higher ranked talent to save money, which is crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Giants are selecting 31st this year because the Patriots had their selection taken away for the Spy Gate scandal but I wouldn't mind seeing the G-Men select last in the first round more often, meaning that they would win more Super Bowls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you pass.....then the next team drafts and then it's your turn again....in which you can pass again if you wish.

 

When Minnesota fucked up...they simply lost their turn and were back on the clock with the next pick.

 

Teams that are in "cap hell" have problems because they'll have to cut several veterans after Spring training to keep the rookie and stay under the cap. If you've got lots of cap space, then that would be a factor and no reason to pass....unless there was no player that you "had to have" still sitting on the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you pass.....then the next team drafts and then it's your turn again....in which you can pass again if you wish.

 

When Minnesota fucked up...they simply lost their turn and were back on the clock with the next pick.

 

Teams that are in "cap hell" have problems because they'll have to cut several veterans after Spring training to keep the rookie and stay under the cap. If you've got lots of cap space, then that would be a factor and no reason to pass....unless there was no player that you "had to have" still sitting on the board.

 

I think this is one of the major reasons bad teams have such a hard time turning around. When you are picking top 10 constantly it's a crap shoot that costs a lot of money. There are very few draft day surprises, like Eli, because few teams actually want the #1 headache. Unless they are considered once in lifetime, like EA thought Manning was, then who wants that cap nightmare. Not many top 5 players turn a franchise around but they sure do cost as much as a franchise player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who did the Vikes miss out on in that fiasco anyway? Who did they end up with?

The Vikes were picking like number 6 or something. They were himmin and hawin and the clock ran out on them so the next team got their pick. The Vikes ended up pickin number 7. I can't remember who they got now, but it very well could have been the same guy they were considering. If they couldn't pull the trigger in 15 minutes, they obviously didn't have a lock on any particular player or they would've grabbed him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Garuntee salaries and set a limit to how much a player cam make by draft position for his first 2 years in the league,. Problem solved.

 

You don't even have to guarantee shit. Just set a cap for 1-2 year players.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but the players union would more readily accept that kind of thing if you garuntee salaries, at least to veterans of 3 + years.

 

Sooner or later they'll have to see that they're bankrupting their own source of income.

The greed is too much. Yeah the owners make so much, but they've always made so much.

And they're always gonna get theirs before the best player on the team does.

That's just how it goes.

 

One day we'll get to the point where we're sick of paying for a weekend in Mexico for a ticket to a game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sooner or later they'll have to see that they're bankrupting their own source of income.

The greed is too much. Yeah the owners make so much, but they've always made so much.

And they're always gonna get theirs before the best player on the team does.

That's just how it goes.

 

One day we'll get to the point where we're sick of paying for a weekend in Mexico for a ticket to a game.

I agree with you, but imo I still think veteran contracts should be garunteed. I think garunteed contracts will also keep the price of contracts down because owners won't want to pay 50 million bucks to a guy on the IR or who retires early due to injury or someone who under performs to expectations.

 

The owners save some money lower contracts, and the players are happy because they can't be released after they break their spine without getting paid or lifetime insurance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...