Trade pick! Says who?

[NEfan32]

Everyone is saying, the Pats will trade the pick, which should be a top 5 pick, likely top 3. Let's say it stays at number 2 for argument's sake.

What past history do we have to go that we will trade a top 5 pick on? Nothing. BB took Richard Seymour with a top 6 pick. When we had a number 1 pick, we took Drew Bledsoe. Top 10 picks are supposed to be franchise players, and you don't trade that away. Anyone who says they won't pick in the top is basing that on nothing.

It will be almost impossible to trade out of the top 5. The point value for the 2nd overall pick is 3200. For those who want to trade the pick to Dallas for Clevelands pick and their own, that point total is only around 1500. Not even close. Why would we trade down within the top 5 either? No sense in that unless you get 2-3 extra picks.

Pats don't want to pay the high pick money? Once again, says who? The Pats have paid their players the money. I don't think they will give a JaMarcus Russell-like deal, but they will give a fair deal.

The Pats just don't draft in the top 10. That sounds like a load of crap. They just haven't had to. They usually trade picks also because they don't see the talent or they feel they are getting a good deal (ala this pick for the 28th pick).

Everyone saying they won't draft the pick is basing that on nothing. They may trade the pick, but it will be hard unless they are getting an all-pro player back along with picks. Not every team has the chance to grab a franchise guy, and no team ever in the NFL has had the oppurtunity to grab a franchise guy in the draft after being the best team in the NFL. Why pass it up?

 

[VJCPatriot]

Actually you make a pretty good point. Let's say San Fran's pick ends up #2 overall. Should you really give up a lot of point value when trading that pick just for the sake of moving down? I don't think so. However if the Pats can trade down to say #5 or #6 where the money is a little better, and get FAIR VALUE (in the form of extra picks or players) doing it, and still get their franchise player at the lower spot, then that deal makes a lot of sense. But only if it presents FAIR VALUE, otherwise just bite the bullet and draft that stud player. You don't get the chance to do so very often.

 

[PatsSteve1]

Anyone who says they won't pick in the top is basing that on nothing.

Anyone who says what the Patriots will do either way really isn't basing it on anything but a guess. Unless BBioli told you personally - Actually saying they may trade the pick isn't based completely on nothing. Kraft has said high 1st round picks are too expensive for the chance you take on a player that hasn't proven anything yet. I doubt he thought of that on his own.

 

[Remix 6]

we took Seymour at 6 but did we have a roster like we do today? Our roster is more expensive than its ever been as it is

 

[NEfan32]

we took Seymour at 6 but did we have a roster like we do today? Our roster is more expensive than its ever been as it is

So is every team. Miami has a 100 million payroll. Who are they paying?

 

[spacecrime]

If the Patriots draft a top five player, he will immediately become the highest paid player on the team, making more than Brady and Seymour. This will disrupt the salary distribution.

It is fine to say we won't give out a deal like other teams, but the fact is that salaries and bonuses are slotted. If you try to pay the #2 pick less that what the #3 is receiving, the guy will simply hold out. Then you either collapse, or the guy goes back into the draft next year and the Pats get zilch for their pick.

The only way I see the Pats picking in the top five is if a true rare player is available, say a WMG type that can play elephant OLB for the Pats. That pick would be great in six-eight years looking for Brady's replacement. It will be an albatross next year. I'm now rooting for the 49ers to win a few games and get that pick down to the 7-12 range.

Everyone is saying, the Pats will trade the pick, which should be a top 5 pick, likely top 3. Let's say it stays at number 2 for argument's sake.

What past history do we have to go that we will trade a top 5 pick on? Nothing. BB took Richard Seymour with a top 6 pick. When we had a number 1 pick, we took Drew Bledsoe. Top 10 picks are supposed to be franchise players, and you don't trade that away. Anyone who says they won't pick in the top is basing that on nothing.

It will be almost impossible to trade out of the top 5. The point value for the 2nd overall pick is 3200. For those who want to trade the pick to Dallas for Clevelands pick and their own, that point total is only around 1500. Not even close. Why would we trade down within the top 5 either? No sense in that unless you get 2-3 extra picks.

Pats don't want to pay the high pick money? Once again, says who? The Pats have paid their players the money. I don't think they will give a JaMarcus Russell-like deal, but they will give a fair deal.

The Pats just don't draft in the top 10. That sounds like a load of crap. They just haven't had to. They usually trade picks also because they don't see the talent or they feel they are getting a good deal (ala this pick for the 28th pick).

Everyone saying they won't draft the pick is basing that on nothing. They may trade the pick, but it will be hard unless they are getting an all-pro player back along with picks. Not every team has the chance to grab a franchise guy, and no team ever in the NFL has had the oppurtunity to grab a franchise guy in the draft after being the best team in the NFL. Why pass it up?

 

[NEfan32]

Actually you make a pretty good point. Let's say San Fran's pick ends up #2 overall. Should you really give up a lot of point value when trading that pick just for the sake of moving down? I don't think so. However if the Pats can trade down to say #5 or #6 where the money is a little better, and get FAIR VALUE (in the form of extra picks or players) doing it, and still get their franchise player at the lower spot, then that deal makes a lot of sense. But only if it presents FAIR VALUE, otherwise just bite the bullet and draft that stud player. You don't get the chance to do so very often.

You summed it up for me. Why would you trade for the sake of trading? I am high on McFadden, so if McFadden is there at 2, you take him. But if you want Long or that LB with the long last name, and you feel you can get him at 4-6, then trade down,

 

[RussFrancis]

Ill tell you why you trade the pick. NE is undefeated, unstoppable, and possibly the greatest team in the history of football. They dont need a single pick, let alone a top 2 pick. But you mean to tell me, with this team full of studs and all-time players, you take a college player, completely unproven at the pro level, and give him probably the BIGGEST contract on the team??? Im just telling you, rationally, that's not going to happen.

 

[Brady to Brown]

Anyone who pretends that they know what Belichick would do with a top 3 pick.......Is pretending they know what Belichick would do with a top 3 pick.

 

[PatsSteve1]

You summed it up for me. Why would you trade for the sake of trading? I am high on McFadden, so if McFadden is there at 2, you take him. But if you want Long or that LB with the long last name, and you feel you can get him at 4-6, then trade down,

So you want to make this unproven player the highest or 1 of the top 3 highest paid players on the team? What do you think Wilfork other proven players on the team will want then?

 

[NEfan32]

That's what you get when you are a top 5 pick, 20 million guaranteed. It is the fact of the draft. For everyone saying they'll trade out. Explain to me how they do that with fair value?

 

[SVN]

also take into account there will be some GM/team who will want a particular player like mcfadden and might offer the pats something outrageous. not saying it will happen but we have observed stupidity from teams before something which has helped the pats survive well in this league.lets not understimate the idiotic factor of some teams.

 

[NEfan32]

Like I said, if their is a fair deal, I'd trade out. But people are saying trade out for some picks. That's not fair value. If some idiot gives the Pats say LT, Gates, Cromartie and Chambers for the 2nd pick. I'd do it. Norv...

 

[bevster]

All of this discussion is nice. But face it, by the time the end of the regular season roles around, the SF pick will be 6-10 overall.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

That's what you get when you are a top 5 pick, 20 million guaranteed. It is the fact of the draft. For everyone saying they'll trade out. Explain to me how they do that with fair value?

The "missing value" is offset by the $$$$$$ that the Pats wouldn't be paying. I wonder, though, if somehow the Pats might get a Dutch auction going between potential top draft picks (as someone else pointed out--in theory at least, the large contracts are designed to offset the fact you're playing for a lousy team, so do you really need all that dough if you're going to a team that had HFA the year before?).

Basically, we're in uncharted waters here; I can't recall the last time a team with HFA had a top-5 pick the next year. At this point, I honestly think anything could happen with this pick.

 

[bigdgp]

I'm now rooting for the 49ers to win a few games and get that pick down to the 7-12 range.

This rationale is ridiculous. Why would you want the team to lose leverage that it could possibly have? If we have a top 5 draft pick we at least have the chance to get full value for that pick. If we can't completely maximize it so be it but at least have the opportunity to work it.

Why would you want the team to only have a pick in the 7-12 range? So we have that much less value to trade? Having more options is always better, not worse...If we get the 3rd pick more people are going to come to us with deals than if we get the 7th-12th pick. Too many teams need to get significantly better and a lot of indicators are pointing to a strong draft. Would you also like to bet on whether Michael Vick or Pac Man Jones play football again? There is always a team out there willing to take chances to get better.

This doesn't even factor in the team's proclivity toward stocking future draft picks. Can you imagine if Goodell hadn't kowtowed to the media and taken our 1st round draft pick?

Based on Kraft's previous comments about the draft I'd expect us to trade down and stock up on add'l picks for this year and next year.

 

[RussFrancis]

All of this discussion is nice. But face it, by the time the end of the regular season roles around, the SF pick will be 6-10 overall.

San Fran has easily the worst offense in the league. And I see only Miami as a worse overall team. No way are they winning 2 more games. Not a chance. Theyll be extremely lucky to win another game.

 

[ALP]

i disagree....

i believe we can easily get that value, say a team from the 8-13 range really wants to drop down to 2,

they will give us this yrs 1st round pick, next years first round pick, and this years second round pick....

those values seem about right

 

[bevster]

San Fran has easily the worst offense in the league. And I see only Miami as a worse overall team. No way are they winning 2 more games. Not a chance. Theyll be extremely lucky to win another game.

I hope that you are right

 

[letekro]

Everyone saying they won't draft the pick is basing that on nothing. They may trade the pick, but it will be hard unless they are getting an all-pro player back along with picks. Not every team has the chance to grab a franchise guy, and no team ever in the NFL has had the oppurtunity to grab a franchise guy in the draft after being the best team in the NFL. Why pass it up?

Here's what I'm basing it on: BB and Pioli are rational thinkers. They will look at the number 2 pick in the draft and ask: Why would we pay more to an unproven player that hasn't played a single down in a man's league, than we would to an established veteran star, such as AD or Rosey Colvin?

The problem in your logic is that it assumes a top 5 player is "a franchise guy" - well look at the top 5 picks over the last few years and you will see that you can't make that assumption.