Trade-Down Scenerios

[upstater1]

My thoughts too. Doesn't it make the idea of a rookie salary cap also a stronger case for trading into the first round of 2011? I know it's being called the deepest draft in some time but I think if the value presents itself they won't think twice about it. There are too many teams always willing to give up tomorrow for today.

The rookie cap next year impacts the first 15 picks. So, after the first day is done (that's what we're talking about here), that point is moot. The first round with higher salaries is already done. I think salary considerations at that point become irrelevant.

The only difference is in the quality of players. This is a deep draft, next year's will not be as deep. one could easily argue that this year's first 15 second rounders would have ended up in the top 30 next year. I mean, Dezmon Briscoe should have returned to school.

 

[mgteich]

And you have an advance copy of the new Agreement?

The rookie cap next year impacts the first 15 picks.

 

[mgteich]

It makes sense to trade our 2011 first for a 2010 second.

 

[yopats]

It makes sense to trade our 2011 first for a 2010 second.

Our's or Oak's?

 

[Clonamery]

It makes sense to trade our 2011 first for a 2010 second.

In what possible scenario?

 

[Clonamery]

The rookie cap next year impacts the first 15 picks. So, after the first day is done (that's what we're talking about here), that point is moot. The first round with higher salaries is already done. I think salary considerations at that point become irrelevant.

The only difference is in the quality of players. This is a deep draft, next year's will not be as deep. one could easily argue that this year's first 15 second rounders would have ended up in the top 30 next year. I mean, Dezmon Briscoe should have returned to school.

You know a lot of definite things that no one else does. I would still keep my options open.

 

[upstater1]

And you have an advance copy of the new Agreement?

The rookie cap next year impacts the first 15 picks.

I've seen a study of the first round salaries that plotted them asymptotically. Past 15 picks, the line evens out.

In other words, after 15 picks, there's nothing to fix in the rookie salary structure.

 

[bakes781]

In what possible scenario?

Actually I agree with him. Obviously not the Raiders pick. The Pats should be able to end up in the top 6 at worst next season meaning the 1st round pick would be no better than #26.

Understanding that the #40th ranked player in this year's class would considered the #20th next season than it makes perfect sense.

 

[upstater1]

You know a lot of definite things that no one else does. I would still keep my options open.

First, the rookie cap has already been agreed to by the player's assoc. Done deal.

Secondly, the point is moot since I'm suggesting a move from 1st round next year to 2nd round this year, so the higher salaries in this year's 1st round don't figure into what I am saying.

 

[upstater1]

Actually I agree with him. Obviously not the Raiders pick. The Pats should be able to end up in the top 6 at worst next season meaning the 1st round pick would be no better than #26.

Understanding that the #40th ranked player in this year's class would considered the #20th next season than it makes perfect sense.

Plus you get that player a year early and at a lower salary.

 

[Clonamery]

Plus you get that player a year early and at a lower salary.

I am arguing for flexibility not anything definite. Secondly, you do not know what will take place next year, i.e., possible lockout, etc. If you did you could be more pragmatic. From a football sense I would rather have the extra 2nd round pick in this year's deep draft but from a business sense I am up in the air. If a perrenial loser offered a number 1 next year for one of those 2nd's it would be hard to pass up.

 

[upstater1]

I am arguing for flexibility not anything definite. Secondly, you do not know what will take place next year, i.e., possible lockout, etc. If you did you could be more pragmatic. From a football sense I would rather have the extra 2nd round pick in this year's deep draft but from a business sense I am up in the air. If a perrenial loser offered a number 1 next year for one of those 2nd's it would be hard to pass up.

Possible lockouts would not impact my decisions to draft more players this year.

 

[mgteich]

It would make sense to trade OUR pick if we can get value this year. The second rounds provides the opportunity for maybe a dozen players who will likely be of higher value than anyone we could get at where we pick next year.

On the other hand, Oakland's pick is extremely valuable next year. A high pick in a weak draft, with a possible rookie salary schedule, is just what we need next year.

Our's or Oak's?

 

[sg14]

I can pretty much tell that no one listened to the BB interview I mentioned earlier, I did not try to describe his rationale cuz I thought you all would like to hear him explain it.

It has nothing to do with next years draft picks.

It has to do with the new format, day 1 one round, day 2, 2 rounds, day 3, the later rounds. (Hope I ahve that right)

After each day all the teams will reshuffle their boards, so on the nite of the first round all 32 teams will decide which player is number one on their list for the second round. That team will want to move up and find a trading partner,

Who holds alot of draft picks in the second round?

End of second day, similar reshuffle.

It is very similar to past drafts where there was alot of reshuffling after the 3rd round, where people wanted to move up in the 4th round,,,

Twice as many nites, twice as many trades.

PS> The interview is worth listening to,,,

 

[captain stone]

23 GREEN BAY PACKERS + 56 + 86
24 PHILADELPHIA EAGLES + 55 + 87
25 BALTIMORE RAVENS +57
26 ARIZONA CARDINALS + 58 + 88 + 89
27 DALLAS COWBOYS + 59 + 90
28 SAN DIEGO CHARGERS + 60 + 91
29 NEW YORK JETS + 61
30 MINNESOTA VIKINGS + 62 + 93
31 INDIANAPOLIS COLTS + 63 + 94
32 NEW ORLEANS SAINTS + 64 + 95

33 ST. LOUIS RAMS + 65
34 DETROIT LIONS + 66
35 TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS + 42 + 67
36 KANSAS CITY CHIEFS + 50 + 68
37 WASHINGTON REDSKINS
38 CLEVELAND BROWNS + 71 + 85 + 92
39 OAKLAND RAIDERS + 69
40 SEATTLE SEAHAWKS
41 BUFFALO BILLS + 72
42 TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS
43 MIAMI DOLPHINS + 73

I doubt that GB or Philly gives up their 3rd-rounder.
Baltimore has no 3rd-rounder, so they're out.
I would absolutely love to get 88 or 89 from Arizona, and I'd do the same w/ SD & Dallas, too. Because Arizona has back-to-back 3rds, this seems more realistic.
I doubt that we'll be trading w/ the Jesters, Vikings or Dolts any time soon.
NO would have to give up its 2nd-rounder, not its 3rd. Even then, I'm not sure I'd do it.
Tampa & KC would have to give up their other 2nd-rounders.

To recap:
I would swap 1sts w/ Arizona, SD & Dallas, for their 3rds, in a heartbeat.
NO, Tampa & KC would have to offer their 2nds.

 

[captain stone]

Great post, trades have to work both ways. FWIW, here's the trade I have in my personal Pats mock of the moment:

22 TRADE: New England trades #22 + #190 to Minnesota for #30, #93 and #161. Minnesota drafts safety Taylor Mays.

Do you think enough water has passed under the bridge for Bill to trade with Brad Children?

 

[captain stone]

Perhaps we can workout a draft day deal with our old pal Scott and nab the 36th and 68th overall picks for the 22nd. My thinking for the Chiefs would be they desperately want to improve the pass protection for Matt Cassel, so maybe they want to make a play for Anthony Davis or Trent Williams. By getting to #22 they sneak just ahead of the Packers and Eagles who could also be looking OL.

If KC doesn't give us 50 - not 68 - in order to move up 14 spots, then they can fuhgeddaboudit.

 

[FredFromDartmouth]

First off the Patriots highly covet a third so some of these trade downs would be attractive to the Patriots. Interesting post.

The problem of course is the EVERYONE is going to want to move out of the first because it very deep draft and the first round contracts will be huge.

As far as Thomas the Patriots must surely want to trade him not cut him. They would take anything for him including a 7'th. If they cut him he goes to the Jets.

 

[bucky]

I agree, I want us to go up and get Suh.

Hopwever short of that, I would think that if QB Claussen was on the board at #22, BB could bleed one of teams with an early second round pick to the tune of the 2010 second rounder and a 2011 first rounder. (Washington for instance?)

I just posted this in another thread. It's the exact scenario I was thinking about. There will be plenty of trade-down possibilities, but if Clausen is on the board it will make things really interesting. And I think it's entirely possible. If he gets by Buffalo at 9, there's nobody between 9 and 22 to take him. Historically, falling QBs have been taken in the early 20s - Quinn, Rogers, Boller. Of course Quinn's lack of success could have an impact on Clausen falling out of the top 10. And ironically, Quinn was picked at slot 22 in exchange for 36 and the following year's #1. Personally I'd be happy to take Patchick's idea of 30, 93, and 161. But if the bidding is for Clausen, the price could go much higher.