Why don't you want a top five pick?

[signbabybrady]

Can someone explain to me the logic of not wanting to accept a top five pick for Cassel?

I have heard people say this in several discussions and I understand the economics behind a top five pick but I always go back to Seymour and think that is what your getting with a top five pick (I know he was 6).

Lets say there are 2 teams very interested in Cassel KC and Detroit and those two teams are the ones that will be investing the money in Cassel and they would perfer to give up the large money top five pick instead of their high 2nd rd pick and some extra picks. Are you really saying you dont take their top five pick?

 

[reflexblue]

To me its the cost and risk that are involved. Your going to pay an unproven quantity like you would a proven upper echelon player. Its been proven that the shot gun approach works better. I.E. you draft a number of players who you think can produce and see who can and who can't, and its a lot cheaper. Plus if you use the #3 pick on a player lets say you fill one hole,if you trade down you might be able to fill several holes. If a top 5 pick is a bust (many times they are) because you put so much money into that pick it could mess your cap number for awhile. If on the other hand if a lower round pick is a bust its not nearly as big a deal.

 

[PatsChamp88]

A top five pick is generally hard to trade down
A top five pick requires you generally invest a lot of money in to player (look at last years top five contracts)

However if Curry was still on the board it would be so hard not to take him but if not trading down and getting a good OT would make it worth while

 

[billdog3484]

i think there is a misunderstanding around here.

i dont think people don't want a top 5 pick, i think it's just theyd rather not pay so much money for a player who has proven absolutely nothing in the league.

of course you want a top 5 pick. i think that financially though, it is more economical to trade that top 5 pick for a later first round pick, maybe in the mid to late teens plus get a second rounder this or the next season in addition (or more or less depending on where in the round you move to). so, you get a very good player in the first, and an extra pick and you probably spend 1/5 of the money if not less.

 

[mayoclinic]

A top five pick is generally hard to trade down
A top five pick requires you generally invest a lot of money in to player (look at last years top five contracts)

However if Curry was still on the board it would be so hard not to take him but if not trading down and getting a good OT would make it worth while

That's all true. However, a team like the Pats that is aggressive about trading down and not getting some mega deal for the pick can probably move the pick. And there are relatively sure bets in the top 5. Aaron Curry, Jason Smith, and BJ Raji would be good values no matter what. With the Pats' track record on 1st round picks (and especially on top 10 picks), I would expect them to find gold.

Pricey yes. But for all those people who wanted Suggs or Peppers, not so unmanageable, and with much greater longevity.

 

[upstater1]

I'm with you, I don't understand the aversion to a top 5 pick either, especially since chances are great that the pick will be tradeable. Why? Stafford is not going #1 to the Lions. But at #3, he'll look good to many teams.

Here's my plausible fantasy for how things go in the next two months:

1. Patriots trade Cassell and their #1 to KC for KC's 1st two picks.
2. Patriots trade the #3 pick in the draft to, say, San Fran at #10, and pick up SFs 2nd rounder (or more, who knows?)
3. Patriots take Everette Brown or Brian Orakpo at #10, and in this order in the 2nd round: Delmas, Darius Butler, Clay Matthews, Unger/Mack (an OL).

How's that?

 

[mayoclinic]

I'm with you, I don't understand the aversion to a top 5 pick either, especially since chances are great that the pick will be tradeable. Why? Stafford is not going #1 to the Lions. But at #3, he'll look good to many teams.

Here's my plausible fantasy for how things go in the next two months:

1. Patriots trade Cassell and their #1 to KC for KC's 1st two picks.
2. Patriots trade the #3 pick in the draft to, say, San Fran at #10, and pick up SFs 2nd rounder (or more, who knows?)
3. Patriots take Everette Brown or Brian Orakpo at #10, and in this order in the 2nd round: Delmas, Darius Butler, Clay Matthews, Unger/Mack (an OL).

How's that?

That's a great scenario, and one of my possible trade scenarios for Cassel (probably the most optimistic one). A couple of thoughts if we traded #23 and Cassel for #3 and #34:

- Trading to SF is one option; Jacksonville trading #8 and #40 is another. There would still be about a 300 point loss based on the draft value charts (more for the SF combo you mentioned), but the Pats have always been willing to make a move without trying to squeeze bottom dollar out of it.
- With #8 and #40 or #10 and #42 we could take BJ Raji (my prefered choice), Everett Brown, or an OT; then with #34, 40, 47 and 58 we could take some combination of Barwin/Matthews/Sintim at LB (if we didn't take Brown at #8), Sean Smith/Alphonso Smith/DJ Moore/Butler at CB, and some combination of Sean Smith/Louis Delmas at S, possibly trading around in the round. Throw in Jarron Gilbert at #58 or an OL, or trade it back into 2010, and we'd be golden.

 

[psychoPat]

All of us who want to scurry away from the top of the draft
have the same understanding about risk and cost.
I'd add one specific point.

From time to time, over the years, analyses have appeared
of what round good players in the NFL were drafted.
They are all over the lot, but beneath that remains a distinct tendency
for successful pros to have been sniffed out and drafted in the early rounds.
Not a perfect correlation by any means ... but a discernible overall pattern.

The problem arises with compensation.
Top half of the first round ... especially around the peak ...
now command contracts that are disproportionately expensive,
compared to the players' probability of really earning big pay.

In baseball this wouldn't matter ... except to Steinbrenner's checkbook.
But the NFL still operates under a strict salary cap.
Thus, it isn't so much the dollars an owner might waste on a pheenom who flunks
... as it is the percentage of the available cap
that the team burns on speculation.
Savvy personnel appraisers might get it right a lot,
but statistically, teams are bound to weaken themselves elsewhere on the roster
by OVERpaying for juicy prospects.

 

[mayoclinic]

I currently see 5 possible trade scenarios for Cassel:

1. "The big cahuna": Trade Cassel and #23 to KC for #3 and #34.
2. "The straight up": Trade Cassel to Washington for #13. Unlikely, but Washington has been mentioned as a potential partner, and they spend big if they want something.
3. "The conditional": Trade Cassel to TB or Detroit for #19 or #20 plus a 2010 conditional pick (minimal 3rd round, conditional to 2nd on performance and 1st on extremely good results such as playoffs for Detroit or SB for TB).
4. "The future": Trade Cassel to Detroit or KC for #33 or #34 plus a 2010 conditional (minimal 2nd round, 1st if certain performance measurables are met). Probably the most likely scenario, since teams are willing to mortgage their future for the present.
5. "The mega trade": Trade Cassel to Carolina for Julius Peppers, with some minor compensation on either side to make it work out.

With Chicago and Minnesota likely out of the running, these are the main options I can see at this time. Unless the Jets want to give us their 1st round pick in each of the next 10 years. Otherwise we sign Cassel and keep him.

 

[Rob0729]

That's all true. However, a team like the Pats that is aggressive about trading down and not getting some mega deal for the pick can probably move the pick. And there are relatively sure bets in the top 5. Aaron Curry, Jason Smith, and BJ Raji would be good values no matter what. With the Pats' track record on 1st round picks (and especially on top 10 picks), I would expect them to find gold.

Pricey yes. But for all those people who wanted Suggs or Peppers, not so unmanageable, and with much greater longevity.

Sorry, with the cost of a top 5 pick these days, the guy has to be a guaranteed franchise stud player to be worth the money. Say you select a player at a position that is generally lower paid like a safety, that rookie would immediately become the highest paid player at his position without playing a single down. So if you drafted a safety or another position that doesn't command top dollar, he would have to be the next Polumalu or Ed Reed to not make him a bad pick.

 

[mayoclinic]

Sorry, with the cost of a top 5 pick these days, the guy has to be a guaranteed franchise stud player to be worth the money. Say you select a player at a position that is generally lower paid like a safety, that rookie would immediately become the highest paid player at his position without playing a single down. So if you drafted a safety or another position that doesn't command top dollar, he would have to be the next Polumalu or Ed Reed to not make him a bad pick.

But the Pats wouldn't do that. The higher the pick, the closer to the line of scrimmage he would generally play: OL or DL would be the most likely picks. And at that salary range, it wouldn't be excessively exorbitant.

 

[supafly]

With the market driving the prices up every year for these top 5 picks, it's getting to be rediculous taking a chance on these guys. I'm sure we all realize that alot of these 'so called' sure things don't always pan out. Like the other guys said, picks 11-15, or even 11-20 just save so much money--and could be just as good. Just think of all the money (and value of course) that we saved by taking Mayo at 10 instead of pushing for say, Gholston at 6. Also, I believe that back in 01 Big Sey was a little bit more cap proportionate than he would be today. And that's because you have a lot of bad teams picking early, and they're willing to pay these guys anything anymore. Just look at the driving costs of the last 5 or 6 years for top 5 picks.

And like the other posters said too, if we wanted a Malcolm Jenkins type player, we wouldn't gamble with him probably--we just would've kept ASSante, who was already proven in our system and our league.

 

[VJCPatriot]

This year there are some very solid guys in the top 5: Jason Smith, Curry, Monroe, Raji, etc. I'd stay away from Stafford though, he is NOT in my top 5. A guy who won't even throw at the combine for fear of losing stock, is that the guy I'd want to risk top 5 money on? Hell no. But the Lions might do it anyways because... well they're the Lions!

So with a top 5 pick this year you're likely getting a quality player, and it's a better year than most to have one. The financial costs are substantial though, so I'd trade down to 10 or later and then pick the best player left.

A top 5 pick IS desirable if you need an impact player this year. Which is why I think Cassel is easily worth a 1st round pick. He's going to cost about the same to pay as a top 5 pick and he is ready to make an impact NOW.

Compare to all the other top QBs available this combine: Stafford, Jr. didn't throw at combine, Sanchez, Jr. didn't look very accurate at the combine, Freeman, Jr. wasn't even at combine. None of these guys is ready to step in and contribute right away. Even if they don't bust you've got a 2 year development time minimum. Who can afford to wait 2 years for the QB in a WIN NOW league?

 

[upstater1]

That's a great scenario, and one of my possible trade scenarios for Cassel (probably the most optimistic one). A couple of thoughts if we traded #23 and Cassel for #3 and #34:

- Trading to SF is one option; Jacksonville trading #8 and #40 is another. There would still be about a 300 point loss based on the draft value charts (more for the SF combo you mentioned), but the Pats have always been willing to make a move without trying to squeeze bottom dollar out of it.
- With #8 and #40 or #10 and #42 we could take BJ Raji (my prefered choice), Everett Brown, or an OT; then with #34, 40, 47 and 58 we could take some combination of Barwin/Matthews/Sintim at LB (if we didn't take Brown at #8), Sean Smith/Alphonso Smith/DJ Moore/Butler at CB, and some combination of Sean Smith/Louis Delmas at S, possibly trading around in the round. Throw in Jarron Gilbert at #58 or an OL, or trade it back into 2010, and we'd be golden.

All that sounds good to me. 5 players in the first 60? With one of them a premium top 10?

Yes, thank you very much.

 

[Nestapats]

I've got a question. You can also let time pass when your on the clock, right? So if we don't get a trade partner at 3 we could also just let time expire and pick later on, so the financial commitments are less??? If they could do that they wouldn't risk paying too much, but i guess this probably isn't possible... Still, no matter what, i love the position were in right now, with possibly alot of first day picks

 

[zero]

I currently see 5 possible trade scenarios for Cassel:

1. "The big cahuna": Trade Cassel and #23 to KC for #3 and #34.
2. "The straight up": Trade Cassel to Washington for #13. Unlikely, but Washington has been mentioned as a potential partner, and they spend big if they want something.
3. "The conditional": Trade Cassel to TB or Detroit for #19 or #20 plus a 2010 conditional pick (minimal 3rd round, conditional to 2nd on performance and 1st on extremely good results such as playoffs for Detroit or SB for TB).
4. "The future": Trade Cassel to Detroit or KC for #33 or #34 plus a 2010 conditional (minimal 2nd round, 1st if certain performance measurables are met). Probably the most likely scenario, since teams are willing to mortgage their future for the present.
5. "The mega trade": Trade Cassel to Carolina for Julius Peppers, with some minor compensation on either side to make it work out.

Oh men what great names (and trades) I hope you have a voice of prophet.
What about "the pants down trade": Trade Cassel to SF for #10, next year's "2 and Josh Morgan/Manny Lawson

 

[Rob0729]

But the Pats wouldn't do that. The higher the pick, the closer to the line of scrimmage he would generally play: OL or DL would be the most likely picks. And at that salary range, it wouldn't be excessively exorbitant.

So you really think that if the Pats had a top 5 pick and they didn't have an o-lineman or d-lineman rated that high and they couldn't trade out that they would take one anyway? Really?!?

You just made an incredibly strong case why the Pats would want to trade into the top 5. By trading to the top 5, you limit the types of players you can draft. If they wanted a safety, RB, or LB in the first round, it would almost be stupid to take them there because they would immediately be either at the top or in the top 2-3 at their position. The Pats don't need a QB. They really don't have either line as priority. I guess they could take a CB and not have him be in the top 5 of pay, but is there a CB in this draft worthy of a top 5 pick?

 

[Rob0729]

This year there are some very solid guys in the top 5: Jason Smith, Curry, Monroe, Raji, etc. I'd stay away from Stafford though, he is NOT in my top 5. A guy who won't even throw at the combine for fear of losing stock, is that the guy I'd want to risk top 5 money on? Hell no. But the Lions might do it anyways because... well they're the Lions!

So with a top 5 pick this year you're likely getting a quality player, and it's a better year than most to have one. The financial costs are substantial though, so I'd trade down to 10 or later and then pick the best player left.

A top 5 pick IS desirable if you need an impact player this year. Which is why I think Cassel is easily worth a 1st round pick. He's going to cost about the same to pay as a top 5 pick and he is ready to make an impact NOW.

Compare to all the other top QBs available this combine: Stafford, Jr. didn't throw at combine, Sanchez, Jr. didn't look very accurate at the combine, Freeman, Jr. wasn't even at combine. None of these guys is ready to step in and contribute right away. Even if they don't bust you've got a 2 year development time minimum. Who can afford to wait 2 years for the QB in a WIN NOW league?

There are no guarantees in the top 5. Never is. Robert Gallery was supposed to be the safest bet of the 2004 draft. He has been a huge bust taken at #2. Charles Rogers, also a second pick, was supposed to be a sure thing too. Mike Williams the OT was selected 4th and was supposed to be the next Orlando Pace.

This draft as a whole is supposed to be deep. I heard somewhere that there are 37 players rated with first round grades. Normally that number is in the teens. I could have heard wrong, but if correct this is not the year you want a top 5 pick. You want picks in the late teens in the 20s because you can get an impact player who might be a franchise player for lower risk.

 

[signbabybrady]

Again my point was so much the economics I get that and I agree to some extent....My point is that we are the ones trading away what is going to be an expensive chip to someone and than we are also going to demand the value picks too.

Teams are going to come to us with their offers and sure we can perfer 10-20 all we want but if the best offer is #1 or #3 why wouldn't you want that.


And since everyone has discussed the economics I am going to paraphrase Mike Mayock here who said that if you bust on a top five player it can set your franchise back. That may be true but I think it is less true of an established team who is usually not there and also I think the Pats drafting track record dictates they dont make many mistakes in the first round and arguably their best pick came at 6 so I am fully confident they would not make a mistake. Impact players come in top ten quality starters who sometimes can be impact come after that.

 

[Irish Hooligan]

I've got a question. You can also let time pass when your on the clock, right? So if we don't get a trade partner at 3 we could also just let time expire and pick later on, so the financial commitments are less??? If they could do that they wouldn't risk paying too much, but i guess this probably isn't possible... Still, no matter what, i love the position were in right now, with possibly alot of first day picks

an interesting question....I see what your saying that cannot be possible, but it would be funny to watch a team slide from 3 to 10 and take the player they want.