Can you place conditions on a traded pick?

[40yrpatsfan]

For example, could we trade the 3rd pick to AZ at 4, but with the stipulation that they can't trade the pick and that they can't pick a QB. Has anyone ever heard of something like that happening in the past? And in exchange for limiting their options, we give them a cheap price for moving up.

If we could do that with AZ, I'd be happy with just a pick swap as compensation: their 27 for our 34. AZ gets the guy they want at a low price, and we get something of value while still having the same QB choices available to us. If AZ is hot on Harrison for example, this protects them against the Chargers jumping them to #3.

 

[BUSTAMOVE]

I don't think it can be a binding stipulation
But you can say give me a fourth round pick instead of a third and we have a handshake that you cant do this or that

 

[BTTA]

In the old days, teams with neighboring picks would agree to make a pick for each other and then do the trade afterwards. So in your situation, the Pats pick the player AZ wants, and vice versa, then they trade the players and AZ throws in a draft pick to compensate for essentially swapping places.

 

[Brotherblues]

For example, could we trade the 3rd pick to AZ at 4, but with the stipulation that they can't trade the pick and that they can't pick a QB. Has anyone ever heard of something like that happening in the past? And in exchange for limiting their options, we give them a cheap price for moving up.

If we could do that with AZ, I'd be happy with just a pick swap as compensation: their 27 for our 34. AZ gets the guy they want at a low price, and we get something of value while still having the same QB choices available to us. If AZ is hot on Harrison for example, this protects them against the Chargers jumping them to #3.

Basically we'd be asking them to pick the same player at 3 that they'd have picked at 4.

 

[The Gr8est]

Seems like if the Pats really want a QB at #3, then it is AZ of SD who benefit since the last of the top 4 QBs could trigger a trade war to get him.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

In the old days, teams with neighboring picks would agree to make a pick for each other and then do the trade afterwards. So in your situation, the Pats pick the player AZ wants, and vice versa, then they trade the players and AZ throws in a draft pick to compensate for essentially swapping places.

To the best of my knowledge, the last time that happened was the "I'm too much of a wuss to go to SD" trade.

In any case, the CBA makes that very difficult today: the rookie cap allotment is based on the draft slots a team uses, not the players they end up with.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

For example, could we trade the 3rd pick to AZ at 4, but with the stipulation that they can't trade the pick and that they can't pick a QB. Has anyone ever heard of something like that happening in the past? And in exchange for limiting their options, we give them a cheap price for moving up.

If we could do that with AZ, I'd be happy with just a pick swap as compensation: their 27 for our 34. AZ gets the guy they want at a low price, and we get something of value while still having the same QB choices available to us. If AZ is hot on Harrison for example, this protects them against the Chargers jumping them to #3.

Can it be done? Yes. But the "penalty" would have to be future picks.

Edit: to clarify, the penalty for breaking the stipulations would have to be future picks.

 

[EMpats]

It would have to be handshake unofficial. In this particular case I don’t think Arizona would do it because it’s pretty certain a QB is going at 3, plus they don’t seem tied to Harrison, they’re open to trading down

 

[RxJock1120]

What would be the benefit for AZ to give up any compensation to move from 4 to 3 and have to pay a higher slotted salary just to end up with the same player they would have gotten if they did nothing???

 

[PapaTrips]

Based on the recent past Yes they can. BB has done this numerous times and it's not uncommon.I'm 75 yrs young and I will not chase this down. Text Mike Lombardi he will know. It's something thst needs to be agreed on and then it becomes binding. There is no penalty and it does not have to be future picks. Stop with the idea that the CBA stops this from happening it's been going on for years. Yes u can request this and agree on it. Stop making crap up.
..

 

[Pape]

For example, could we trade the 3rd pick to AZ at 4, but with the stipulation that they can't trade the pick and that they can't pick a QB. Has anyone ever heard of something like that happening in the past? And in exchange for limiting their options, we give them a cheap price for moving up.

If we could do that with AZ, I'd be happy with just a pick swap as compensation: their 27 for our 34. AZ gets the guy they want at a low price, and we get something of value while still having the same QB choices available to us. If AZ is hot on Harrison for example, this protects them against the Chargers jumping them to #3.

this issue is not addressed in the NFL Operations manual... but it really does not sound like it would be allowed by the league... and all trades have to be approved by the league...

It potentially opens the NFL up to charges of collusion and tortious interference... a highly touted player drops in the draft (where the draft rank equals money) because of some caveats on a draft pick trade? Yeah that's gonna go over well...

and really, why would arizona make a deal like that? why pay for the privilege of moving up in the draft, only to be told what you can/can't do by another team? not happening

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Based on the recent past Yes they can. BB has done this numerous times and it's not uncommon.I'm 75 yrs young and I will not chase this down. Text Mike Lombardi he will know. It's something thst needs to be agreed on and then it becomes binding. There is no penalty and it does not have to be future picks. Stop with the idea that the CBA stops this from happening it's been going on for years. Yes u can request this and agree on it. Stop making crap up.

What I said the CBA does is make it hard to trade drafted rookies after they've been selected, which is true. That is something Belichick never did in NE. I think there's been maybe one trade involving a drafted rookie in his rookie season in the last decade.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

What would be the benefit for AZ to give up any compensation to move from 4 to 3 and have to pay a higher slotted salary just to end up with the same player they would have gotten if they did nothing???

The benefit to AZ is it protects them from losing Harrison to the Chargers, who could make a deal with us and jump AZ - a very real possibility if Harrison is rated that high. They get this insurance at a low cost.

AZ is loaded with draft capital, with two 1sts, a 2nd, and three 3rd's. They're less susceptible to listening to a trade down with say Minnesota, given all those existing choices.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

Basically we'd be asking them to pick the same player at 3 that they'd have picked at 4.

AZ moving to 3 guarantees them Harrison, blocking any other team like LAC or the Giants from jumping them.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

this issue is not addressed in the NFL Operations manual... but it really does not sound like it would be allowed by the league... and all trades have to be approved by the league...

It potentially opens the NFL up to charges of collusion and tortious interference... a highly touted player drops in the draft (where the draft rank equals money) because of some caveats on a draft pick trade? Yeah that's gonna go over well...

and really, why would arizona make a deal like that? why pay for the privilege of moving up in the draft, only to be told what you can/can't do by another team? not happening

I wonder when we traded down last year from 14 to 17 if we asked Pitt who they were going to pick at 14, or said we'll only make this trade IF you're not taking a CB? Do the GM's trust each other enough to do this kind of thing?

 

[Pape]

I wonder when we traded down last year from 14 to 17 if we asked Pitt who they were going to pick at 14, or said we'll only make this trade IF you're not taking a CB? Do the GM's trust each other enough to do this kind of thing?

asking what a team is going to do versus telling a team what they can/can't do are two wildly different things

there is zero equivalency between the two

 

[40yrpatsfan]

If these kind of agreements exist at all, they're gentlemen's agreements, not written. If Pitt called BB last year about moving up from 17 to 14, and BB said OK as long as you're not gonna take a CB, and the Pitt GM said OK to that, then he's not gonna turn around 5 minutes later and take a CB. I'm just wondering if anyone's heard of these types of conversations occurring.

Same thing here - we give AZ insurance on Harrison by letting them move up to 3. "Monti, we'll charge you way less than the going rate to move up to 3, but you can't trade it or take a QB". Monti says "Fine". It's not ordering him but it's part of what they both agree to.