If you were Scott Pioli, what's the minimum you'd take?

[ctpatsfan77]

To trade out of the #2 spot with . . .

A team around #5 or #6?

Houston (who looks to be around #10-#15)?

Dallas (who has two late firsts)?

 

[ayjackson]

To trade out of the #2 spot with . . .

A team around #5 or #6?

Houston (who looks to be around #10-#15)?

Dallas (who has two late firsts)?

If I was trading down, but staying in the top 15, I'd take anything - I'd even give up a fourth. It won't have to happen, but in the end Player @ #2 < Player @ #12 plus $7.5m in cap space.

 

[Mikman]

It will be hard to find a team willing to trade up and take the big cap hit of a top-5 pick, even if the Pats offer their pick at a bargain price.



I wonder if Houston is willing to trade up and sending multiple picks to the Pats, they already traded away this year's second rounder in the Schaub deal. So IF they trade up, they almost certainly will offer a 2009 pick and this year's first rounder. Off course, McFadden to the Texans makes of lot of sense because it would give them a chance to be a true competitor in the AFC South.

Maybe the Cardinals are a suitable trading partner. I know, they already have invested a lot of money in James to improve their running game, but he hasn't done much for their running game and he will be in the last year of his contract next season. So they can have a James/McFadden combo in 2008, then letting James walk in free agency and clear up a lot of cap space. Arizona will build through the draft with Whisenhunt, and they want to upgrade their running game. That would give them a great offense for many years. Imagine Leinart/McFadden/Boldin/Fitgerald. Plenty of talent and youth.
They might offer a package including a franchise-tagged Dansby. Dansby is a perfect fit for BB's defense, because he already has some seasons under his belt and Arizona sometimes lines up in a 3-4 defense, so it won't take too much time and effort for him to adapt to the Pat's defense.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

Depending on how high the pick is, what you are going to want to look for is teams that need a QB.

Atlanta needs a QB, and logic would say that they will take Pitrino's old QB Brohm. and they have Houston's 2nd round pick, so they could be a trading partner if the Pats pick falls @5.


The following teams need a starting QB:

Atlanta
Baltimore
Carolina
Kansas City
Chicago
Detroit

And their are three top ten QB picks out there with

Matt Ryan
Brain Brohm
Andre Woodson

I personally have little to no faith in Woodson ability to be a quality NFL QB, but all the "experts" have him as a top ten pick. I think Ryan is going to be a helluva NFL QB. What the Pats can hope for is a bidding war between two or three of these clubs. It looks like Atlanta is going to have a top five pick and can most likely stay put and take Brohm.

That would leave
Baltimore
Carolina
Kansas City
Chicago
Detroit

all fighting to get ahead of each other for Ryan/Woodson.

 

[patchick]

If they don't think anybody at #2 is worth the giant contract, there is no minimum -- the #6 pick would simply be better.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

Atlanta might be willing to deal with us if it means getting Brohm. They have picks and CB Hall, who needs to relocate after losing his cool earlier this year.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Atlanta might be willing to deal with us if it means getting Brohm. They have picks and CB Hall, who needs to relocate after losing his cool earlier this year.

This is probably the first reasonable speculation I've seen on this thread.

The Pats are NOT going to go in firesale mode if they land the #2 overall pick in the draft.
They will look to maximize the value of that pick to improve their team.
If nobody gives a good enough offer, they can simply select whoever they feel is the #2 overall player in the draft, whether that by McFadden, Long, or whoever else.

Trading the #2 pick to Atlanta for a package of their #1 (likely in the 5-6 range) and Hall would fill the need of replacing Asante with another CB, while still allowing the Pats to select an excellent player at the 5 or 6 spot.

If they don't think anybody at #2 is worth the giant contract, there is no minimum -- the #6 pick would simply be better.

I disagree with that statement for the reasons mentioned above. Trading down from #2 to the #6 pick for a 7th round pick would NOT be getting fair value out of the pick.
The Patriots are a savvy organization, they will not allow themselves to be ripped off in trades, as much as that may surprise some posters here.

 

[everlong]

To trade out of the #2 spot with . . .

A team around #5 or #6?

Houston (who looks to be around #10-#15)?

Dallas (who has two late firsts)?

5 or 6 this year's first and second.

10-15 this year's first and second and next year's first.

Dallas is looking at 20-25 for Cleveland and 30 or 31 for their pick. Those two picks plus a second, those two picks plus next year's first, those two picks plus Marion Barber.

I cannot see Dallas doing any of those deals nor can I see a team in the 10-15 doing them either. And these are just the minimums.

 

[dryheat44]

5 or 6 this year's first and second.

10-15 this year's first and second and next year's first.

Dallas is looking at 20-25 for Cleveland and 30 or 31 for their pick. Those two picks plus a second, those two picks plus next year's first, those two picks plus Marion Barber.

I cannot see Dallas doing any of those deals nor can I see a team in the 10-15 doing them either. And these are just the minimums.

Nope. Any trade is (I think) going to be for this year's second and next years first with a team that expects to rebound/improve big next year. For example, Detroit might decide that K Jones is too unreliable, or Baltimore might decide that it's ready for another shot at a franchise QB (although I don't think Brohm or Ryan are going to go top 5). Such a team would be gambling that their #1 in 2008 is going to be towards the end of the round. So the Pats might end up with something like the #14 pick and a first rounder next year, and maybe a Day two pick or two.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I disagree with that statement for the reasons mentioned above. Trading down from #2 to the #6 pick for a 7th round pick would NOT be getting fair value out of the pick.
The Patriots are a savvy organization, they will not allow themselves to be ripped off in trades, as much as that may surprise some posters here.

I agree with you on that point, but let me ask this: does the cap savings factor in at all, in your opinion? I think it does, but not as the paramount concern.

 

[cstjohn17]

To trade out of the #2 spot with . . .

A team around #5 or #6?

Houston (who looks to be around #10-#15)?

Dallas (who has two late firsts)?

I think this is a case where you can throw out the value charts. Our best hope is one of two scenarios:
1) We stay at #2 and McFadden is available, he is the hottest draft prospect and could warrant trade up potential.
2) We end up around #4-#6 and either Brohm, Ryan or some other QB really shoot up the board as the workout start.

A worst case is we are sitting at 3 or 4 with no hot QBs in the draft and McFadden already gone. In that scenario is is worth trading back or even passing on picks until the cap value gets reasonable.

In the end I think we see a trade down for a pick 10-20, a 2009 1st rounder and maybe a round 3 or 4 thrown in. if this happens they took a #28 pick and turned into two 1st rounders and a 3rd or 4th.

 

[sebman2112]

People seem to be forgetting NE can trade down multiple times.

Just an example:

Let's say they trade out of 2nd overall, and into the 4th-5th overall range, that team gives up their 2nd rounder, and maybe their fourth round pick as well, which going by the value chart would actually be a very good deal for the team moving up. The Patriots could then trade down into the 10-12 range and pick up another 2nd rounder, while still giving that team (according to the charts) a very good deal.

Going by the value chart NE would be getting the bad end of the overall deal with these two trades, but I think BB & Pioli would factor smaller contract totals into the overall value of the trades.

I'd personally much rather have a top 10-12 pick, two high second rounders, and one late second, than the second overall pick, and a late second. I simply don't like the contract demands, and I actually think your choices are limited with a pick this high. Also, knowing BB & Pioli they'd turn one of those second rounder's into someone's 2009 1st rounder.

Yea, the Patriots are savvy when it comes to trades, and the value of contracts, but it also seems they are savvy enough not to put top five picks at the type of premium some FO's have.

Let's also not forget with the Patriots you can't really use the value chart. Look at their trade with the 49ers. getting the 49ers 2008 first rounder and their 2007 fourth rounder in return for the 28th overall pick (at the time) didn't seem at all like a fair trade to NE. It looks like a really fair trade to NE now since the 49ers have one of the worst records in the league, but at the time of the trade the 49ers were believed to be a team on the rise, that pick was expected by most to be anywhere from 16th-21st overall, and future picks are usually devalued by at least 45-50%.

 

[patchick]

The Pats are NOT going to go in firesale mode if they land the #2 overall pick in the draft.
They will look to maximize the value of that pick to improve their team.
If nobody gives a good enough offer, they can simply select whoever they feel is the #2 overall player in the draft, whether that by McFadden, Long, or whoever else.

...

I disagree with that statement for the reasons mentioned above. Trading down from #2 to the #6 pick for a 7th round pick would NOT be getting fair value out of the pick.
The Patriots are a savvy organization, they will not allow themselves to be ripped off in trades, as much as that may surprise some posters here.

First off, I should clarify: I do not think that the Pats are going to end up getting "ripped off." I expect they'll parlay the windfall pick into a nice rich draft. I was just responding to the original post, which presumed that the Pats would want to trade down and asked for speculation on the minimum return they'd accept. And my answer is the same as I posted in another thread on a similar topic:

"A deal is good if it leaves your team better off and if no better offer is available." Ergo, there is no minimum.

VJCP, I bolded a section of your post above because I agree completely with the premise (sentence #1) but it leads me to an opposite conclusion (sentence #2). I'd recast it this way:

They will look to maximize the value of that pick to improve their team.
If spending $10M/year on a rookie is bad value for their talented, vet-laden team, they can simply take whatever offer puts them in a more palatable position, whether that be "fair trade value" or not.

 

[patsfaninpa]

People seem to be forgetting NE can trade down multiple times.

Just an example:

Let's say they trade out of 2nd overall, and into the 4th-5th overall range, that team gives up their 2nd rounder, and maybe their fourth round pick as well, which going by the value chart would actually be a very good deal for the team moving up. The Patriots could then trade down into the 10-12 range and pick up another 2nd rounder, while still giving that team (according to the charts) a very good deal.

Going by the value chart NE would be getting the bad end of the overall deal with these two trades, but I think BB & Pioli would factor smaller contract totals into the overall value of the trades.

I'd personally much rather have a top 10-12 pick, two high second rounders, and one late second, than the second overall pick, and a late second. I simply don't like the contract demands, and I actually think your choices are limited with a pick this high. Also, knowing BB & Pioli they'd turn one of those second rounder's into someone's 2009 1st rounder.

Yea, the Patriots are savvy when it comes to trades, and the value of contracts, but it also seems they are savvy enough not to put top five picks at the type of premium some FO's have.

Let's also not forget with the Patriots you can't really use the value chart. Look at their trade with the 49ers. getting the 49ers 2008 first rounder and their 2007 fourth rounder in return for the 28th overall pick (at the time) didn't seem at all like a fair trade to NE. It looks like a really fair trade to NE now since the 49ers have one of the worst records in the league, but at the time of the trade the 49ers were believed to be a team on the rise, that pick was expected by most to be anywhere from 16th-21st overall, and future picks are usually devalued by at least 45-50%.

I think your's is the scenario we are going to see played out on draft day. Especially, if we end up with the 2nd pick. Down a few for that 2 so that someone can get McFadden. Then further down for someone who wants a qb.
We get a db. Then maybe a couple of lb's in the 2nd round. Should get a good back at the top of round 3 and maybe another db too.


Though, I think Houston is might be a match. They need some help on OL but McFadden might make their offense click. We trade down for their 1 and 2. Plus, a 2 next year with escalators. Like the Ricky Williams trade.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

People seem to be forgetting NE can trade down multiple times.

I was going to suggest that (no, really, I was ).

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the Pats' prime targets include the teams picking directly after the JEST. Just for spite, you know.

 

[Mangold74]

It's becoming incredibly difficult to trade out of the top 5. Very rarely does another team want to give up multiple picks for one player. And then they have to pay that one player a ridicilous amount of money compared to a player picked 10 spots later who may be just as good if not better. At this point very teams even want top 5 picks. The Patriots have proven over and over again that you can get players 20-32 who are better then top 5 picks and paid much much less. I would say it's slim to none to get equal value based on the trading chart. And trading down twice in the first round is laughable.

 

[Return of the Nizz]

Says the Jets fan.

 

[Mangold74]

Do you disagree?

 

[mcbee]

It's a nice thought that NE could trade down multiple times. Maybe they can. But worst case scenario, they are at #3, McFadden is gone, and they don't see a player they want to pay 8M a year for. So they want to trade. Other teams don't see a sure fire QB or anyone else and no one wants to trade the pick.

You need a marquee player that people want to trade up for and won't mind paying the salary. If the QBs are all good but equal, ie Brennan, Brohm, Woodley, then they'll just gamble that one of the four will be available when they pick. After all not that many teams want 1st round QBs.

So what do the Pats do? Is Long or Long or someone else worth 8M or whatever the #3 pick gets?

If the pick is #2 they could take McFadden, hopefully, or if they don't think he's worth 8M per year, HOPEFULLY someone else does. In which case you'd take the best offer available, again, given that it's a better offer than drafting AND paying McFadden.

For some reason people leave out the salary part (some people). When you get rid of a #2 pick, you are not only losing out on the player you'd draft there...you are also SAVING the money you'd have to pay him. That makes trading out of it a lot more desireable from teh part of the pats.

If it were me, I'd take the #20 and late #20s pick for the #2 in a heartbeat. 2 good players and save about 4M per year. But I don't know, BB wouldn't want to get ripped off according to the value chart, so he may just end up stuck with the #2 pick, even if he'd rather trade it straight up for the #10 pick.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

If it were me, I'd take the #20 and late #20s pick for the #2 in a heartbeat. 2 good players and save about 4M per year. But I don't know, BB wouldn't want to get ripped off according to the value chart, so he may just end up stuck with the #2 pick, even if he'd rather trade it straight up for the #10 pick.

So BB doesn't care about public perception in anything else, but he'd care about public perception of getting "ripped off" here?

[BB could basically argue "The value is the extra $20M we can use to resign our other players."]