Trade a 2011 2nd back into this year

[mgteich]

This seems the best way to get a 3rd or a 3rd and a 5th.

 

[patriotscpfc]

Not really.

Trading down in either first or second round could get us a third.

Trading a player could get us a third.

 

[Nonentity]

It'll be situational - it's not the sort of trade you can agree in advance. If the right player is falling and they're a solid prospect (rather than a boom-bust pick) then I'd be ok with it. But a future 2nd round pick is not the kind I'd be too happy with busting on, unlike a normal 3rd - hopefully that distinction makes sense!

 

[Fencer]

There are only so many rookies we can keep before things get pretty wasteful.

Vets it would be wasteful to cut

DBs: 9-10
LBs: 4+ Mayo, Guyton, TBC, McKenzie (we hope), Crable (we hope with less optimism)
DL: 5 Warren, Wilfork, Wright, Brace, Pryor

plus there's Burgess

That's around 20 returning guys, assuming I'm not missing anybody

K/LS: 2 returning guys

TE: 1 under contract
RBs: 4+ keepers (Faulk, Maroney, Morris, Taylor)
WRs: 5+ keepers (Moss, Tate, Edelman, maybe Stanbach, maybe Aiken, maybe Slater, maybe a new vet -- Welker doesn't count against the initial 53)
QBs: 2
OL: 6+ keepers (last year's starters, Vollmer, the best backups)

Yes, we could keep 5+ rookies each on offense and defense, plus a punter. But that only makes sense if the rest of FA is really as sparse as the pessimists fear.

 

[WaterfallJumper]

Oh, heck no!

 

[Taxed in Maine]

Honestly, IF they can get two solid players at 22 & 44, I would rather trade 47 or 53 back for a pair of 3rd with CLE or PHI.

That would still give us a 1st - two 2nds - and two 3rds.

It would be enough to get a DE, OLB, WR, and two of OL-TE-RB in the top 100 picks.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

What would be better as if we never traded a 5th for a guy who never even made the club!!

The Pats have wasted a few draft picks lately on players who never even say the field.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

We have enough picks in round 1 and 2 to make up for the loss of a 3rd

 

[Ring 6]

This seems the best way to get a 3rd or a 3rd and a 5th.

For what purpose? Just to have a 3rd? Then what do you do next year when you dont have a second?
It only makes sense to do that if there is a player on the board that you value more than next years 2nd, not just because we dont have a 3rd round pick.

 

[signbabybrady]

What would be better as if we never traded a 5th for a guy who never even made the club!!

The Pats have wasted a few draft picks lately on players who never even say the field.

We have 12 picks in this years draft 4 in the first 2 RDs!!! are you really complaining about the way they trade picks? Giving up a 5 for anything you think can help your team IMO is very much worth it especially when your draft is as stocked as it is now. Sure with hindsight I wish they hadn't done it but I can't criticize the value of the trade (you could criticize the pro scouts or BB who signed off on it for their evaluation of the player but not the giving up a pick)

News flash every team wastes picks on guys who never see the field they are called draft busts. So who cares if we wasted a 5 on vet player instead of a dud rookie?



As to the OP: I think this all depends on what is there that you are trying to get. Due to the depth of this draft I wouldn't rule it out but it hasn't exactly been this teams MO to reduce its draft flexability in one year for another years draft.

 

[mgteich]

Well, if we have 4+ keepers at RB and 5+ keepers at WR, then we are all set.

Have you decided how much of that Brooklyn Bridge stock you want to buy?
===============
I generally with your numbers. I count 11 open roster spots, plus possible upgrades. I too have included Burgess as signed. As you, I expect free agents to compete for many of the 11 open rosters spots.

DEFENSIVE KEEPERS (22) with 3 openings (DB, OLB, DE)
DB 8 (Bodden, Butler, Wilhite, Springs/Wheatley, Sanders, Meriweather, Chung, McGowan)
LB 7 (Mayo, Guyton, McKenzie, Banta-Cain, Woods, Burgess, Nickovich/Crable)
DL 5 (Warren, Wilfork, Wright, Brace, Pryor)
ST 2 (Slater, Lockett/Arrington/Alexander)
-------------------------------------
OFFENSIVE KEEPERS (18) with 7 openings (OL, OL, TE, QB, WR, WR, RB)
OL 7 Light, Mankins, Koppen, Neal, Vollmer, Kaczur, Connolly/Ohrnberger
TE 1 Crumpler
QB 2 Brady, Hoyer
RB 4 Maroney, Taylor, Faulk, Morris/BJGE
WR 4 Moss, Edelman, Tate, Aiken

SPECIALISTS AND SPECIAL TEAMERS (2) with 1 open (punter)
K 1 Gostkowski
LS 1 Ingram

There are only so many rookies we can keep before things get pretty wasteful.

Vets it would be wasteful to cut

DBs: 9-10
LBs: 4+ Mayo, Guyton, TBC, McKenzie (we hope), Crable (we hope with less optimism)
DL: 5 Warren, Wilfork, Wright, Brace, Pryor

plus there's Burgess

That's around 20 returning guys, assuming I'm not missing anybody

K/LS: 2 returning guys

TE: 1 under contract
RBs: 4+ keepers (Faulk, Maroney, Morris, Taylor)
WRs: 5+ keepers (Moss, Tate, Edelman, maybe Stanbach, maybe Aiken, maybe Slater, maybe a new vet -- Welker doesn't count against the initial 53)
QBs: 2
OL: 6+ keepers (last year's starters, Vollmer, the best backups)

Yes, we could keep 5+ rookies each on offense and defense, plus a punter. But that only makes sense if the rest of FA is really as sparse as the pessimists fear.

 

[TriplecHamp]

Quality over quantity

 

[jmt57]

If the Pats are going to trade a 2011 pick for an extra pick this year, then why not trade their own 2011 #1 for another 2010 #2? This draft is supposed to have over fifty first-round grade players, so a 2nd round pick, where you can draft one of those players, is far more valuable than a third. It also stands to reason that if this draft class is that good, then 2011's probably won't be. Regardless the team will still have a 1st in 2011.

As far as that becoming 'too many' picks, the team still has no 3rd or 5th. Right now the team has five picks in the first five rounds - the same number as if no trades had been made; one more makes it six picks in five rounds. Think of it as the only difference being you're making your 3rd and 5th round picks earlier. Then all those 7th's are guys you had targeted as undrafted free agents. You can still add free agents later in the off-season, but with all the draft picks it is no longer as much of a pressing need.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

If the Pats are going to trade a 2011 pick for an extra pick this year, then why not trade their own 2011 #1 for another 2010 #2? This draft is supposed to have over fifty first-round grade players, so a 2nd round pick, where you can draft one of those players, is far more valuable than a third. It also stands to reason that if this draft class is that good, then 2011's probably won't be. Regardless the team will still have a 1st in 2011.

As far as that becoming 'too many' picks, the team still has no 3rd or 5th. Right now the team has five picks in the first five rounds - the same number as if no trades had been made; one more makes it six picks in five rounds. Think of it as the only difference being you're making your 3rd and 5th round picks earlier. Then all those 7th's are guys you had targeted as undrafted free agents. You can still add free agents later in the off-season, but with all the draft picks it is no longer as much of a pressing need.

Of all the scenarios yours is most congruent with my thinking. If there's a feast of talent in 2010, why not participate? The plethora of 2nds would let us move up and pick precisely the talents we need. Let our many late picks simply ensure that the UFAs we want are ours. Fodder for the PS as developmentals.

 

[Nonentity]

I'm not really opposed to trading our 2011 1st, given the weak class prediction. But there will still be plenty of blue-chip juniors coming out in 2011, along with those players who returned for their senior year - so I like Oakland's high (hopefully) 2011 1st rounder. A couple of strong QBs, numerous WRs, Patrick Peterson, plus the usual plethora of linemen.

 

[CheeseMonkeys]

For what purpose? Just to have a 3rd? Then what do you do next year when you dont have a second?
It only makes sense to do that if there is a player on the board that you value more than next years 2nd, not just because we dont have a 3rd round pick.

Agreed. It seems so many people are worried that we don't have a 3rd or 5th round pick. We have 3 2nd round picks... 3! Why waste next years 2nd?? Also, we have a total of 12 picks, how many more do we need? Maybe trade a couple of the 7ths to move up.

 

[patsinthesnow]

Quality over quantity

Colts vs. Patriots

 

[mgteich]

A) This is a great draft, the best in years.
B) Next year is not such a good draft.
C) We SHOULD want to participate more in this year's draft.
D) We now exactly ZERO extra picks in the first five rounds. We have five picks, the same as in any other year.
E) Some may have great hopes for the seven picks in the sixth and seventh rounds. That's as it should be. Personally, I just think of the five late sevenths a UDFA's. Certainly, there is no reason that they have much better a chance at the roster. I am NOT dissing late picks and UDFA's. Belichick does very well with these opportunities.

F) CONCLUSION
So, in the best draft in years, folks want to know why we would waste a 2011 pick to have one more pick in 2010 than we would have in a more normal draft year. What can I say? I would rather have more picks than normal in a great draft year. Perhaps you could explain why you disagree.

G) A FINAL NOTE
We may have trouble finding partners to trade into this draft. We have three picks in the first two rounds of the 2011 draft. I am fine with trading wither our own 1st or our 2nd for a 2010 pick. We need the extra pick this year, not next year. And this does NOT depend on who is there. We all have very long lists of players who we would like to draft from pick 22 to 100 of this draft.

Agreed. It seems so many people are worried that we don't have a 3rd or 5th round pick. We have 3 2nd round picks... 3! Why waste next years 2nd?? Also, we have a total of 12 picks, how many more do we need? Maybe trade a couple of the 7ths to move up.

 

[bakes781]

To boil this down for some...

The 40th player taken in next month's draft would be equivalent to that of the 20th taken a year from now. So it would be highly advantageous to stockpile now. We have no selections in the 3rd or 5th currently and with many of our day 3 picks being compensatory we have very little flexibility there.

Trading what is likely to be the 26th(at best) pick in 2011 for say the 35th this year would be a huge win for us.

 

[jmt57]

G) A FINAL NOTE
We may have trouble finding partners to trade into this draft. We have three picks in the first two rounds of the 2011 draft. I am fine with trading wither our own 1st or our 2nd for a 2010 pick. We need the extra pick this year, not next year. And this does NOT depend on who is there. We all have very long lists of players who we would like to draft from pick 22 to 100 of this draft.

I'm thinking what may be the biggest selling point for a potential trading partner that will make the 2011 draft more appealing is the next CBA. If another team is confident a new CBA will be reached and that will include strict rookie wage scale, as well as more limiting salary cap, they may want to make that type of move. A team with limited finances could be drawn to the concept of getting a 2011 first rounder for the same cost as a 2010 second round pick. Also a team that is concerned about its cash flow or a 2011 lockout may want to avoid paying a big signing bonus and salary to a 2010 draft pick.

Perhaps those ideas may be a bit of a reach, but all it would take is one team to buy in to one of those ideas.