PromisedLand

One thing I haven't seen discussed is how the new CBA will affect draft strategy. In particular, a seemingly minor change to the CBA is the fact that teams will no longer be able to sign draftees to contracts over 4 years in length, except for the top 16 picks in the first round. Given the fact that draftees tend to play for short money compared to veterans in their 2nd or 3rd contract, and given the salary cap, it is a huge advantage to be able to stock your roster with productive draftees. But most draftees don't contribute much in their first or even second seasons. So with the CBA changes teams will be limited in most cases to getting only two productive years (years 3 and 4) from a draft pick with a low cap number.

As we all know, the Patriots have preferred to sign their first round picks to 7 year contracts, even letting Ben Watson go to hold out rather than letting him sign for 6 years. Perhaps they will therefore attempt to move up from #21 to #16 or better in the first round?

The contract length limit should rightfully alter the widely used fair value chart. After all, the #17 pick is now worth considerably less than #16, since the player you pick at #16 can be signed for 6 years (I believe that is now the maximum for the first 16 picks?) vs. only 4 for the #17 pick. That's like getting 4 or 5 productive years vs. only 2 or 3 for the price of the rookie contract. Some of the slower GM's might not even have realized it yet! So maybe the Pats can "steal" a top 16 pick for a #21 and whatever lower picks would represent the fair value difference under the traditional chart?

__________________
It's so simple, even a Jets fan could do it.ä
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

BelichickFan

There was a brief mention here :

Speculative question re: new contract length limit rule...

It would seem like this would add a little value to trading up for teams, like the Patriots, who like to sign first round picks to 6 year deals.

BTW, the fight for Watson was over 5 vs. 6 years, not 6 vs. 7. Also, Mankins signed a 5 year deal so maybe we're softening a little on that stance.

jct

Also the bottom half of first round can be 5 years.
Good strategic post though.

PromisedLand

Thanks for the corrections and the pointer to the previous thread - I hadn't seen it before. So to summarize:

Picks 1-16 contracts can be up to 6 years
Picks 17-32 can be up to 5 years
Picks 33 and later can be up to 4 years

If that's the case, there is less strategic advantage to moving up from, say, 17 to 16 than I thought. However, even one extra year at a low rookie contract salary cap number can be valuable when you consider that most rookies are not ready to contribute for 1-2 years. That is especially the case for rookies taken in later rounds, so if you draft someone in rounds 2-7 now you are really drafting a guy who will probably only contribute to your team for 2 years (4 minus 2) before he is a free agent.

Maybe the most important effect of this change will be to cause teams to draft guys more on what they can do right now as opposed to potential.

__________________
It's so simple, even a Jets fan could do it.ä
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

AzPatsFan

Y'all have overlooked a likely consequence however. With the reduced length of rook contracts, fewer developmental "projects" will be taken or kept. The 3 or 4 year projects are now screwed by their Union, who is supposed to be protecting them. If you can't develop in two years, forget it. Why should a club waste the time, only to lose him after four ???

spacecrime

Like Stephen Neal. Took three years for him to play. Got one year at $1.4 mil, then he hit FA. If he had gotten a better offer, he'd be gone and some team would benefit from Scar taking three years to train a wrestler to be an OG.

PromisedLand

I didn't overlook that - I said it right here:

So I agree!

__________________
It's so simple, even a Jets fan could do it.ä
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

PromisedLand

Except he wasn't a draft pick.

http://www.patriots.com/team/index.c...rbio&bio=12370

But I'm sure we can come up with lots of examples of guys who didn't contribute much until their 3rd or 4th year. Troy Brown was cut his first year and didn't really step out of the shadows until 2001. Bruschi was a special teams player and not much more for his first 5 years in the league. Dan Graham was a hit or miss type guy for his first two years. David Givens did absolutely zilch his first year. I'm sure there are better examples...

__________________
It's so simple, even a Jets fan could do it.ä
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

PatsFanInVa

Seems that after 4 years (in the case of the first 16 picked,) you have to develop fast - even if picking a "late bloomer" you have to be patient with, at the top of the first round, is a bit of a stretch as a strategy.

But then again, if he doesn't pan out after four years, and he hits FA, what kind of offer can he get? It would seem that if you're dead certain about your developmental strategy, you could extend him after three in the off-season. In other words, that gate's not closed, it just works differently.

It seems like the ones you want to develop slowly are your later round picks. You might not expect instant production out of first rounders, but four years is on the outside of most teams' patience as it is. Even so, when you get into the five-six year realm, you have a pretty good idea of what you've got, and so has the rest of the league. If you like where it's going, you can still extend him. If not, someone else may see treasure in your trash, but that's always been the case.

PFnV

spacecrime

So what? Go back and read post #5, the one to which I responded and quoted.

The post was about taking on projects and developing them.