_2.gif "Time.com 50 Best Websites 2008")
With the draft 15 days away, we’re hearing that plenty of teams want to trade down. The only problem? No one wants to trade up.
Whether it’s the result of a less-than-stellar group at the top of the board or the out-of-whack financial investment required to take a top-ten pick or the picks that need to be given up to make a move north, no one is interested.
It doesn’t mean a trade or two won’t happen. Indeed, this year might be the best year for someone to try to bust the existing trade chart, since the teams that would have to trade up would have leverage, given the number of teams that want to move down.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:12 am
ok cowboys give chiefs their 2nd round pick and bobby carpenter for the #5 pick….that will bust up the trade chart.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
April 11th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Until a fair formula is in place, the top 5, even top 10, draft picks in round one, will continue to be an albatross around the walletts of the teams unlucky enough to hold those picks.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 11th, 2008 at 11:31 am
I would say the real problem isn’t so much the financial investment in one player as it is the number of draft picks needed to trade up. If a team wants to trade from the bottom half of the draft into the top ten it needs to mortgage the future of the entire franchise for one player.
There’s a financial dimension to this too, however. In addition to being forced to pay big money to one, unproven player. The team is also giving up, for example, a second round pick. Well that second round pick is probably going to be a solid talent which you can sign at a reasonable price. The loss of that pick means you’re going to have to replace that talent some other way … by signing free agents. Free agents of equivalent talent/upside are going to cost a lot more money than a second round pick.
So, the team trading up loses out financially not once but twice: that team has to pay big money to one player, and then pay relatively big money to veteran players to fill the gaps on the roster that were created by trading up.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
April 11th, 2008 at 11:32 am
I love how Cowboys fans take any argument that is not team specific and come up with a ridiculous offer that doesn’t even work in Madden.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
April 11th, 2008 at 11:46 am
I wouldn’t be surprised to see a team or two in the top 6 pass when it’s their turn to draft.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 11th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Why would anyone ever want to draft in the top 5-10 anymore? There are no guarantees in the NFL draft any year. When you have an Eli Manning coming out in his rookie season and having a deal that is fairly comprehible to what Tom Brady got after he won his third Super Bowl, you know you have a problem. When a rookie safety becomes the highest paid safety in the league before he even hits the practice field in full pads for the first time, you know you have a problem.
Teams have shown that they can get better players later in the first round than some of the guys at the top of the draft and their entire deals are usually less than anyone in the top 5’s guaranteed money. To guarantee an unproven rookie between $20-$30 million is just ludicrious. About half the top 10 picks every year are either disapointments or outright busts and maybe one or two become superstars.
The league needs to change how they pay rookies.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
April 11th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
It isn’t any surprise that teams want to trade down. All anyone has to do is look at all of the teams that have had success over the last decade that have traded down.
I think a team such as the Chargers would like to trade down this year for more picks since they don’t have a second, third or fourth round pick, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the Chargers were unable to do so.
I would imagine the Patriots would like to trade down as well, but I don’t know how much luck they will have.
Suppose the top five teams pass on their picks. Does that mean if the sixth team drafts a player, that player has to be payed the overall number one pick money?
If that is the case, I could just see it now. No teams wants the number one pick and no one drafts any players because they don’t want to be the first one to pick and pay that player first overall pick money. Hours and hours go by. ESPN’s talking heads are all talked out and the only thing ESPN can do is play a tape if crickets chirping in the background.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
April 11th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Hear, hear! The league and the union should work out a pay scale for draft picks that would be palatable for the team; i.e. a signing bonus conmesurate with the position (let’s say 3 million for the overall #1 pick - $10,000 for the last pick), minimum base pay and everone would have pretty much the same incentive laden deal. This way, the total difference in pay if you’re Numero uno or Mr. Irrelevant would only be the signing bonus - from there on pretty much it’s the best player who wins the booty. If you’re a top notch player, you’ll earn the incentives in your contrct - if you’re a #1 pick bust, well, you only cost the team the signing bonus proration. This would allow all the veteran players to be able to cash in on better wages.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
April 11th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
To JayPhilly:
um….that was the joke.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 11th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
The Pats will likely trade out of the 7th pick and get someone’s #1 for next year and a later pick this year, from say Dallas to move up and get McFadden.
I don’t think any of the top 6 will get offers to trade out the pick.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 11th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I can think of 2 words that say it all: Ryan Leaf
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 11th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
I simply don’t understand why teams continue to pay these salaries. They do have a choice here. Decide to make an offer more in line with the market, even if it’s half of what the players “slot” dictates he gets paid.
No player is going to sign that kind of offer, and even the one who might capitulate would be stopped by his agent, right? Right. But what are the player’s other options? Play in the arena league for a year? The CFL? Sit out for a year? That worked wonders for Maurice Clarett.
The argument against this kind of tactic for the teams is that you risk losing a superstar level player for nothing. I understand and appreciate that, and so, this kind of tactic involves a high level of risk. But isn’t that what we’re hearing right now? Drafting a player that high and paying him what he’s “slotted” to make can handicap and debilitate a team for years. Sounds like at least the same level of risk (I think less). Take a team like the Patriots: They have built a very successful team without a superstar draft pick. Guys have become superstars for the Patriots, but none have been paid like they are top of the league talents on their first contract. Now let’s say this year they draft somebody at #7 and give him something in the range of $15M guaranteed. Let’s also say that Laurence Maroney, Chad Jackson and somebody like Pierre Woods have breakout seasons this year. The deal given to #7 draft pick will now make it hard to retain these other young stud players because the argument will be that if #7 draft pick makes that kind of money, I should make that plus more. Couple that with the fact that there is less money to around because of #7 draft pick’s contract.
And what about a top draft pick’s risk? The theory that a team may miss out on a superstar talent has to at least counterbalanced by the player’s risk. If they sit out a year will they get drafted as high next year? See Brian Brohm about that one, and he didn’t even sit out. He played better. Will his skills diminish? (see Clarrett, Maurice and Williams, Mike).
All to say that the teams are taking on all of the risk by creating an albatross to their team’s economics, while the player bears no risk, and the risk of letting the player sit out a year may actually be less of a risk for the team. Now I don’t think that this will happen, but all it would take would be one team this year, another two or three next, and the economics of the top of the draft would be fixed, and isn’t that worth the risk taken of never having Charles Rogers elevate the status of your team from cellar dwellers to… uh…
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 11th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
jfiling:
I agree. I think the Fins should just choose two (or 3 or however many they have interest in) and just refuse to hand in their pick until 1 of those 2 (or whatever) guys have been taken. If their guy falls to the #7 pick, then they pay him #7 money and nothing more.
Teams should have leverage in signing their rookies. Let them hold out as long as they want, if they say they’ll re-enter the draft the next year then simply call their bluff and remind them of how well being out of football for a year worked out for Mike Williams or Maurice Clarett.
I also think AlexanderIsland has a good idea…
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 11th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
How about something like a fixed pay scale for rookies with no cap impact to the drafting team, over essentially a one or two year period? Meaning, short contracts that guarantee rookies money without crushing the crappy teams (who generally have cap problems to begin with) and yet you allow the rookie to renegotiate after a year if he’s really good. The people who get screwed under this are the top 10 picks. Everybody else - like especially the 3rd rounders and on who end up being diamonds in the rough - get a chance to secure more money earlier. No agent involvement early because there’s nothing to negotiate, so every rookie makes camp on time. NFL picks up insurance based on slot position so there’s coverage in case of injury (I’m looking at you, Kellen).
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 11th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Alexander, your NBA-style pay scale thought makes perfect sense. Even the union should be in favor of more money shifted to its veteran members, away from dudes who haven’t paid their dues. It’s great for fans, too, because teams will be able to better retain the veteran contributors we’ve invested our loyalty in.
The biggest obstacle appears to be Gene Upshaw, who not only has done a poor job helping more veteran players in favor of rookies, but he’s done nothing to help with retired players pensions and benefits.
It’s not coincidence his agent is Tom Condon. The same man who has helped Upshaw hold onto his bloated salary has also a vested interest in keeping the current structure alive, since he targets top-ten picks.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 11th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
they need a slotted system where you’re paid a pre-determined amount for the slot you’re drafted in. that way the players don’t need an agent, and it keeps the agents out of the colleges.
for the agents who would complain, the big money is still there, it’s just for guys at the end of their first contract instead of the beginning of their first contract. the money is still there. so they don’t lose anything; they just scramble over 3rd and 4th year players rather than pre-1st year soon-to-be players.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 11th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Here’s my radical thought.
Pay all the draft choices in the same round the same. First round pick? Your contact is 5 years/15 million with a 2million signing bonus, the 15 million paid out like this: 1/2/3/4/5. Now if you have a first round bust, you are out 2million only. Beauty of this, is now the teams that are bad and pick higher aren’t poked with huge contracts for unknowns, and the picks have trade value again. Trading down if you need depth is viable, and trading up if you need one or two players to make the playoffs is doable too.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 11th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
For a league that promotes “parity” this just seems completely wrong. The worst team gets punished by having to dole out a substantial portion of their cap room to an unproven player. This prohibits big free agent signings (until after the draft when there are none), long term extensions for key players (if the team has any), and other options to build a future player base. It is also a ridiculous amount of risk forced onto that team.
What gives? We have heard about playoff seeding, the CBA, and owner’s meetings. But no one has talked about this big, pink elephant in the room? I am shocked that the Owners/GMs/Front Office are not in an outrage by this. This should be a major issue if/WHEN they have to redo the CBA.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 11th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
is it even possible to pass on a draft pick? would a team actually do that? doubtful.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 11th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Besides the financial investment risk, the trade value chart is way out of whack. I can understand holding ransom with the N0. 1 or No. 2 overall pick when (if) there is a universally agreed upon once in a decade special player (the last one was probably Reggie Bush, who has not turned out to be so special).
But given that percentage of 1st round picks who don’t pan out (go back 4 to 7 years and look at the guys taken in the 1st round), the cost in draft picks to gamble on a high 1st round pick is way too high. A smart team can use a late 1st round, a 2nd round and 4th round pick to get three quality players that can be future starters and cornerstones of the organization. Why give that up to move high into the 1st round for a player that could be a bust and a financial drain?
I think most GMs know that multiple later picks is better than gambling on one early pick for both the organization AND their career longevity.
Hey, if Matt Millen doesn’t move from the middle to the top of the 1st round this year, then don’t expect someone else to do it either.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 11th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
It is possible to pass on a draft pick. The Vikings did that a couple years ago. They ran out of time and another team stepped in front of them. You just select after the team that steps in front.
I do think there should be a sliding scale of pay based on the pick (not the round). But these rookie salaries need to be pared back. Better veteran players get cut because teams can’t afford to pay those players and still overpay some of these draft choices.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 11th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
JayPhilly, a Cheerleader, says:
April 11th, 2008 at 11:32 am
I love how Cowboys fans take any argument that is not team specific and come up with a ridiculous offer that doesn’t even work in Madden.
Dear JayPhilly,
Two words: Five Rings. Maybe relying on a video game to base the Eagles draft strategy on is why Philly has zero.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 11th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Teams should nut up and simply pass their picks…once college players realize the owners will not tolerate agents holding them hostage any longer…things will loosen up…
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 11th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
It would be interesting to see every team pass on their picks for the whole first round. The first guy drafted would be a second round pick. They already do this in the supplemental draft.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 12th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Rob0769,
Rob0769 is absolutely correct: “To guarantee an unproven rookie between $20-$30 million is just ludicrous.”
With the current NFL NFLPA rules, top 10 picks in the draft are liabilities, not assets. It really is sad because bad teams should have a benefit from an early pick, but the current system doesn’t give early 1st round draft teams an advantage.
Why is the current system so screwed up? AND why would current players agree to an NFLPA system that allowed rookies to earn more than the highest payed veteran at any position?
The NFL is just about perfect, but…
1st round rookie contracts are the #1 biggest problem in the nfl.
Further problems should be discussed in other posts… 1) rookie contracts, 2) regular season overseas games, 3) any league talk about expansion (32 teams of 8, 4 team divisions is the _absolute_ perfect season).
thanks
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated