Law of unintended consequences about the lost 1st rounder

[ctpatsfan77]

It took a while for somebody to point out that there actually is a compensation for losing the first-rounder: the money that would go to that first-rounder can be used to help re-sign/extend some of the Pats' current players. Like, I don't know, maybe a WR who caught 9 passes for 183 yards last Sunday. . . .

I'm sure Ratgini would just love to have to game-plan for Moss twice a year for the next four or five years.

 

[He Ban Me]

It took a while for somebody to point out that there actually is a compensation for losing the first-rounder: the money that would go to that first-rounder can be used to help re-sign/extend some of the Pats' current players. Like, I don't know, maybe a WR who caught 9 passes for 183 yards last Sunday. . . .

I'm sure Ratgini would just love to have to game-plan for Moss twice a year for the next four or five years.

Yes, but perhaps you would like to replace that aging, higher priced vet with a cost effective upper mid to late first rounder??

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Yes, but perhaps you would like to replace that aging, higher priced vet with a cost effective upper mid to late first rounder??

Yeah, because there are just loads of 6'5" blazin'-fast-f'in-awesome receivers waiting to be picked in the draft.

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

Yeah, I mentioned that somewhere. Actually, I picked it up from someone who said something about it around draft time. I think it's common knowledge though

Having two 1's is nice and all, but they are pretty expensive and they are unproven. Ties up a lot of cash on unproven players (we do seem to do well with em though).

 

[He Ban Me]

It's PAR FOR THE COURSE. Somebody look up Patriot reaction to the Colts trading our '08 first rounder so we could pick up Ugoh in '07. Seems at that time, the first rounder was gold, and we really screwed up. Now that you lost one, the rationalizing begins. And you wonder why fans and media everywhere are reveling this week.

 

[FirstAndGoal]

A 6'5'' receiver with a 1 year contract is not worth a first rounder

 

[IcyPatriot]

Like I have been saying since Lawyer Milloy was canned ... Belichick will spend the $$$ with precision. A door closed has always opened another.

What we have lost for now is the ability to draft higher in the 1st round than our record will allow. Belichick was never going to use 2 picks in the 1st round anyways.

I fully expect Belichick to now trade out of the 1st (SF pick). Then he will use the 2nd he recieves in that package to exchange for a 2009 1st and he will have the rotation going again.

We may lose the 1st but the extra player he receives in the above deal will turn out to be a stud ... and we'll all be laughing our butts off.

 

[1976pats]

It took a while for somebody to point out that there actually is a compensation for losing the first-rounder: the money that would go to that first-rounder can be used to help re-sign/extend some of the Pats' current players.

I commend you for trying to look on the bright side but this one's a stretch...

If we wanted to save the $ to re-sign Moss we could have always traded it away for a future pick, like we seem to always do..

 

[patsox23]

Well, I suppose there is that slightest silver-lining, but those of you - not you, ct - who are going so far as to say it's just as well are just being silly. It's like the people saying we wouldn't want SF's #1 pick to be top 5 or top 10 because that's too expensive and there's no value there. It's ridiculous. What, we can't USE that value and TRADE from, say, #8 overall back to where there IS the level of value we like? (While picking up something extra in the bargain.)

CT's right, this situation does save the team some $$$, maybe major $$$ that we can then invest elsewhere. I think Moss was going to re-up anyway, but yes, this will make that, or other transactions, more feasible.

But let's not kid ourselves. This is a huge punishment and a big loss. This is 10 years of a Mankins, a Maroney, a Watson, whatever. That's another thing people in the media, and fans, seem to miss: that #1 was, for the Patriots, a GUARANTEED impact player for at least 5 years, based on their track record. They don't miss. Some are less productive and spectacular than others, but they're always a good, solid starter - at LEAST.

 

[Truck]

It took a while for somebody to point out that there actually is a compensation for losing the first-rounder: the money that would go to that first-rounder can be used to help re-sign/extend some of the Pats' current players.

Except that teams believe the first round draft pick provides better value than using that money to sign a veteran. If they didnt, they could just release the draft pick without ever signing him. And since no one does that, that implies the draft pick provides more value.

 

[mgteich]

The patriots are one of the two best teams in the league at managing the cap. But make no mistake, losing a pick that is likely to be worth the rest of our draft (expect the two picks from other teams) is not a positive development. It is a COST that we are good enough to overcome. Ignoring the trades from other teams, we've lost half our 2008 draft.

 

[The Gr8est]

It took a while for somebody to point out that there actually is a compensation for losing the first-rounder: the money that would go to that first-rounder can be used to help re-sign/extend some of the Pats' current players. Like, I don't know, maybe a WR who caught 9 passes for 183 yards last Sunday. . . .

I'm sure Ratgini would just love to have to game-plan for Moss twice a year for the next four or five years.

It's ironic that the money that will be available to use on a FA signing from not having this pick is better value than the Jets got from the #4 overall pick last year. They got a guy who is expensive and can't play in Ferguson.

 

[jct]

I like the rationalization in this thread.
Personally if we are honest we will admit that only a % of BB/SP 1st round
picks exceed the money invested in them.
Lets say 80%.
But that still means that 20% of the time putting that cash into a veteran is better. Maybe even sweeter if they give a hometown discount...
It has only been 1 game...however Moss clearly at the level of performance he has shown exceeds a value of D Branch or a 1st and 4th.

 

[patsox23]

I agree with mgteich, believe it or not, that this is a BIG LOSS. I think we'll be okay, but to act as though it's not that big a deal and the money saved can go elsewhere (which is true) and somehow balance it out (which is not tru, IMO), is a huge rationalization to me.

This sucks. I say we own it.

 

[patsox23]

Finally. Your one of the few. It does suck. Whether your a Pat, Colt, or any other fan.

Oh absolutely, it's a terrible penalty to incur and it hurts. I DO think the Patriots are better positioned to weather that loss - not just that we have an extra #1 this year, but also an F.O. who always finds a way to get things done and roll with the punches - but it's still silly to act like this is no big loss, and that we can just transfer the money saved to a FA (or extension) that would totally make up for that loss.

As for the "Now we can use it to extend Randy Moss!" crowd, I'd argue that we would be able to do so, and will be likely to do so, even WITH two #1's. So while I agree there's a silver lining here, I think we should be careful to walk the line of "silver lining" and not veer off into wild rationalization. This is most definitley a "hit."

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

I agree with mgteich, believe it or not, that this is a BIG LOSS. I think we'll be okay, but to act as though it's not that big a deal and the money saved can go elsewhere (which is true) and somehow balance it out (which is not tru, IMO), is a huge rationalization to me.

This sucks. I say we own it.

Oh, no doubt it sucks. We can live through it though (which was my point)....... Here is how I'm justifiying it in my mind (rightly or wrongly). We lost Branch for the year in the preseason last year and this year, we let him walk as a free agent.

I view that first pick in the 1st to be Branch. It sucks he gone and we did not have his serivices last year. However, we parlay the one remaining pick into something special and move on. Does it suck, yeah it sucks hard.

If we did not have another 1st to play with, I'd be devastated.

We will survive.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

There's no way to sugarcoat this; it's a big penalty.

If you go to the Draft Trade Chart that assigns a numerical value to each pick (and, yes, I know that TB was picked in the sixth round and so these numbers don't tell the whole story, etc.), and if you assume that our first round pick is somewhere between 29 and 32 (i.e., between AFC championship game loser and SB winner), this is what you find:

In the first round, the averge "value" of slots 29--32 is 612.5
In the second round, the average value of the last four slots is 275.5.
In the third round, the average value of those slots is 122.
In the fourth round, 45.5
In the fifth round, 28.
In the sixth round, 15.2.
In the seventh round, 2.475.

So, losing the first round pick is the equivalent of losing more than the value of all the other pics combined (488.7).

Who knows, we might pick the next Brady or Jerry Rice or whoever in round two or three, but this is a major penalty (excessive in my mind) and it could hurt the franchise for years to come.

Let's not kid ourselves.

 

[aluminum seats]

I think there's some talking at cross-purposes here. Everyone, obviously, would prefer we had the pick. I think what some are trying to say, correctly, is that a) the Pats are likely wiley enough to overcome it, and b) there may be some greater short-term flexibility not having another first-rounder to pay. Again, of course, we'd rather have the pick.

What's more, the penalty clearly shows a bias against the Pats. There is absolutely NO WAY that, say, Tampa Bay would lose their first round pick over this. This is driven by the thought that the Pats can "take it" because they've done so well. Which is a crock, but there you go.

 

[mgteich]

I agree. We lost half an NFL draft, and we are good enough to overcome it. We are also well-placed enough with existing player contracts and cap money.

There's no way to sugarcoat this; it's a big penalty.

If you go to the Draft Trade Chart that assigns a numerical value to each pick (and, yes, I know that TB was picked in the sixth round and so these numbers don't tell the whole story, etc.), and if you assume that our first round pick is somewhere between 29 and 32 (i.e., between AFC championship game loser and SB winner), this is what you find:

In the first round, the averge "value" of slots 29--32 is 612.5
In the second round, the average value of the last four slots is 275.5.
In the third round, the average value of those slots is 122.
In the fourth round, 45.5
In the fifth round, 28.
In the sixth round, 15.2.
In the seventh round, 2.475.

So, losing the first round pick is the equivalent of losing more than the value of all the other pics combined (488.7).

Who knows, we might pick the next Brady or Jerry Rice or whoever in round two or three, but this is a major penalty (excessive in my mind) and it could hurt the franchise for years to come.

Let's not kid ourselves.

 

[Ice Cold Bruschi]

It's PAR FOR THE COURSE. Somebody look up Patriot reaction to the Colts trading our '08 first rounder so we could pick up Ugoh in '07. Seems at that time, the first rounder was gold, and we really screwed up. Now that you lost one, the rationalizing begins. And you wonder why fans and media everywhere are reveling this week.

Well we could either rationalize or sit and sulk about it. Rationalization puts a silver lining on it even if it has a touch of grey.