OT- NFL Draft Trades

[albionmoonlight]

As the draft approaches, we hear people saying that Cinn. would like to trade out of the top spot, but that no one is offering them proper value for the pick b/c there is no "must have" #1 player this year.

I got to wondering--why should the value of a top-five draft pick be an unchanging constant? It seems that people are using the Mike Vick or Ryan Leaf trade-ups as a barometer of what top picks are worth (and I know that there is also a chart that assigns values to each pick that a lot of people use--same concept).

It makes more sense to me if the value of a top pick had more to do with the players on the board than an idea that the #1 overall pick is always worth [X]. Maybe Mick Vick's potential is worth three first rounders, but Carson Palmer's potential is only worth a first and a second.

I know that no GM wants to hear Kiper saying over and over again how he got "ripped off" by another team, but it seems that you might be hurting your team to overvalue your top 5 pick and not be willing to trade it for something that, in this year's market, would be a fair trade.

Thoughts?

[Noble_Platypus]

Along those same lines it also wouldnt be a "rule" that you get paid a certain percentage more than the guy drafted in the same spot the year before received. Maybe the draft was stronger the year before, and the #5 pick was considered a better prospect than this years #5.

[JPhillips]

I really think that picks 2 through five will have the real trade value. There isn't anyone close to Rogers at WR and the same is true for Newman(is that his name?) at CB. The problem for the Bengals is that there may not be a whole lot of difference between Palmer, Leftwich and Boller. After those three there are a half dozen or so after that they may turn into good pros.

The draft is just a microcosm of capitalism. What you have to sell is only worth what the other guy is willing to pay.

[cthomer5000]

Albion, Mel Kiper is actually a big proponent of "taking what you can get" rather than looking at picks as having a constant value.

I think the bigger issue is the "slotted" salaries. You basically look at the prior year's contract, add 3-5% and pay your player that, I think that really discourages trades.

Contract money aside, the deal that makes the most sense to me would be Houston moving up to #1 to take Charles Rodgers. They know they need to get in front of detroit, and cincinnati would probably be losing NOTHING by moving down. Detroit would probably settle for andre johnson in that scenario and cincinnati would ultimately still have the choice of players they really wanted. Of course this will never happen.

[scooper]

Don't be surprised to see the Bengals take Rogers.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by scooper
Don't be surprised to see the Bengals take Rogers.

I would still be surprised after you tell me this. Receiver isn't their biggest need and they've sunk a lot of pretty high draft picks into that position in recent history. (a #1 and #3 in 2000, and a #2 in 2001.) Even if they need a reciever, they'd be admitting front-office failure in prior seasons.

[scooper]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
Even if they need a reciever, they'd be admitting front-office failure in prior seasons.

1. They've pretty much already admitted this.

2. Marvin Lewis seems to be running the show now.


They are not as set at WR as you might think. Warrick has been a dissapointment. Chad Johnson is the #1 receiver and rightfully so. Problem is, he's the only one on the team with the speed to stretch the field. Warrick's shifty but not that fast. The rest of them are possesion receivers. Marvin has said the team could use somebody else to stretch the field. Rogers' name has come up quite often on the team's web site in stories about the draft and they attended his workout. There's pressure to take a player who will have an impact this year, as well.

Based on what I've read I'd say it's about 50% Palmer/Leftwich 30% Rogers 20% Newman right now. That could change.

[Tarkus]

The problem with trading for the #1 pick is that he better be a huge impact player. Unless there were some really amazing talent available I would never take anything other than a QB with the #1 overall pick. Not with the salary cap and the amount the #1 is getting these days. I've heard rumors of the Jets trading both of their #1 picks to Houston for the #3 overall. I would never do this. I don't see anyone at #3 that is worth two #1's and you'll probably end up paying the guy more than you would have payed the other two combined.

Tarkus

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by Tarkus
The problem with trading for the #1 pick is that he better be a huge impact player. Unless there were some really amazing talent available I would never take anything other than a QB with the #1 overall pick. Not with the salary cap and the amount the #1 is getting these days. I've heard rumors of the Jets trading both of their #1 picks to Houston for the #3 overall. I would never do this. I don't see anyone at #3 that is worth two #1's and you'll probably end up paying the guy more than you would have payed the other two combined.

Tarkus


I pretty much agree with you down the line. I think #1 should definitely be an impact player for the ridiculous money they'll get (they are basically instantly in the top 20 in pay at their position), but I don't think I'd ever take a QB #1. No one expects a QB to start day 1, so you're wasting a year or two of salary in my opinion. Better to take a QB in the 2nd or 3rd round, or even take a QB really late every year or two, eventually one of them will pan out. In this draft of all drafts it seems like a good QB prospect can be had early in round 2. Ragone, Simms, or maybe Grossman should be there.

I'm a big jets fan, and I would be really pissed off if they trade the two #1 picks. By letting Coles go, they conceded the fact that they don't think they can make a super bowl run this season. To me that means they need more than 1 player (DT and LB are major priorities). Not to mention safety, reciever, offensive line....

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
I'm a big jets fan, and I would be really pissed off if they trade the two #1 picks. By letting Coles go, they conceded the fact that they don't think they can make a super bowl run this season. To me that means they need more than 1 player (DT and LB are major priorities). Not to mention safety, reciever, offensive line....
cornerback, kicker, punter... :)

Tarkus

[WSUCougar]

Another theory might be for the Bengals to draft Rogers simply to screw with the Lions and then try to work a three-team deal for more picks. Detroit is slobbering so hard over Rogers they need rain gear.

Draft Rogers, then tell Detroit to trade their 1.2 pick for some other team's 1st round goodies, then trade Rogers to Detroit for what they get + some extra goodies from them.

[Abe Sargent]

I think it's sad when a football post on this board has to be preceeded with "OT"

-Abe

[detroit_fan]

Man, I hope the Bungels don't take Rogers!!!!!

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by WSUCougar
Another theory might be for the Bengals to draft Rogers simply to screw with the Lions and then try to work a three-team deal for more picks. Detroit is slobbering so hard over Rogers they need rain gear.

Draft Rogers, then tell Detroit to trade their 1.2 pick for some other team's 1st round goodies, then trade Rogers to Detroit for what they get + some extra goodies from them.

I don't think Detroit would be willing to go crazy to get Rodgers. All they would need to do is take Andre Johnson and Cincy's bargaining leverage would evaporate. Then Ciny would be "stuck" with Rodgers.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Barring the "Millen Factor," I don't think the Lions would make a deal with the Begnals for Rogers. They have waaaaay too many holes to fill and really can't afford giving up multiple draft picks for anyone. Most likely if Rogers is gone the Lions will go for either Newman (CB) or Johnson (WR). There was some talk of Suggs, but after the so-so workout and the latest post-game basketball altercation, I don't think the Lions will draft him.

After what has been a rather horrendous and somewhat embarassing free agency period (over-paying for Bly, losing out an almost all free agent linebackers, and blowing the Diggs offer sheet) the Lions will apparently have to address many a need via the draft.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by Honolulu_Blue
After what has been a rather horrendous and somewhat embarassing free agency period (over-paying for Bly, losing out an almost all free agent linebackers, and blowing the Diggs offer sheet) the Lions will apparently have to address many a need via the draft.

They really need to take a GM with the #3 overall pick.

[WSUCougar]

Just to clarify, in my scenario the Lions would not be trading the Bengals all that much of their own. Whatever team would trade up to the 1.2 slot would be, so that they can draft Suggs, or Kennedy, or Newman, or the QB of their choice.

I know Andre Johnson's stock has risen, but is he worthy of the #2 pick in the draft?

Edit: spelling

[oykib]

The only thing I could see the Jets trading up for is Suggs. But they'd have to be certain that he's the real deal. Honestly, I think that pass-rushing prospects are almost as volatile as QBs. The top ones are usually double digit sack guys. But the #2-10 guys are a crapshoot. At least one of them is going to be better than #1, but five of them will be middling players, at best.