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

[BelichickFan]

BB wouldn't want to get ripped off according to the value chart

Bull. He traded a #1 for a #4 and #1 when the "going value" is a #1 and #2. He traded a #3 for a future #3. That's a round below value. He'll make a deal that he thinks helps the Patiots; he won't care what others think.

 

[Mangold74]

I know it's a crazy idea, but it would save the pats or any other team from having to pay out a huge contract to an unproven player. Say the Browns tender Anderson and you'd have to give up a first round pick for him. Say the Cowboys tender Canty a first and third. Pats sign Canty (not that need him) and the cowboys are stuck with a pick with a $20 million bonus. Or if they got Anderson they could then trade him for multiple picks to a team needing a qb. I think the key thing here is that the Pats want to get value for the pick but they have no interest in giving a rookie $20 million. So I'm sure Pioli and BB will explore all avenues to get the best value. I would imagine they would prefer to spend money on Canty then an unproven player.

 

[mcbee]

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."]

That's an interesting point.

But if BB trades for less than chart value, people are going to say he's not savvy. He can't have that, can he?

I think he'd rather go down with the ship, so to speak, if it means he wouldn't lose face according to the value chart.

If it were me, I'd just take the best deal I saw (either trading OR keeping the pick and its salary implications) , to hell with the value chart. He may feel the same way or not.

 

[Jimke]

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.

I would be very disappointed if cap savings are starting to be factored

into draft decisions. The Pats can't afford to brush away the 2008 draft

like they did the 2007 draft. We need too many replacements on defense

to play the trade away game this year. I think the salary cap will

make us place more importance this year on the draft since rookie salaries

are less expensive than young veteran player salaries.

 

[patchick]

I would be very disappointed if cap savings are starting to be factored into draft decisions. The Pats can't afford to brush away the 2008 draft like they did the 2007 draft. We need too many replacements on defense to play the trade away game this year. I think the salary cap will make us place more importance this year on the draft since rookie salaries are less expensive than young veteran player salaries.

The whole point of factoring cap savings into draft decisions is that a rookie taken #2 is not less expensive than young veteran player salaries. You're looking at something around 6 years/$60M, half of it guaranteed.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The whole point of factoring cap savings into draft decisions is that a rookie taken #2 is not less expensive than young veteran player salaries. You're looking at something around 6 years/$60M, half of it guaranteed.

Actually, you could say they're basically the same: in other words, it would cost the Pats as much to sign a #2 overall pick as it would to re-sign Asante (assuming the rumors of him wanting top dollar are true).

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Bull. He traded a #1 for a #4 and #1 when the "going value" is a #1 and #2. He traded a #3 for a future #3. That's a round below value. He'll make a deal that he thinks helps the Patiots; he won't care what others think.

Eh, end of 3rd 2007 versus top of 3rd 2008 seems like a wash to me.

 

[Taxed in Maine]

Absolutely, Cap ramifications are figured into draft decisions. Last years #2 pick - Calvin johnson signed for 6yrs - $55Mil, thats over 9mil a season. I'm quite sure that would make him the 2nd highest player on the team behind Brady. (Meriweather at #24 got 5yr / 8.75 for 1.75 a season)

If your primary goal is to get out of the pick, there will be offers, especially if Mcfadden is on the board. Take the best offer you can get, and get out of the pick.
It is not that hard to understand.

 

[mesoslo]

Trade down and grab more oline men and protect Brady.

 

[Real World]

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.

Atlanta would be ideal, so let's all root for them to win tonight. They have the extra picks that the Patriots would be looking to aquire, and certainly have the need, should they drop down a few slots, with a few wins in their last couple of games.

 

[Patsmaniac]

Please remember that there is intense pressure on losing teams to win, which will force some team to want the number two pick, but the Pats may not get as much value as desired in a trade. Teams that lose consistently may be facing the need to create some buzz for the team and sell tickets, etc. There WILL be a team wanting that.

If the cap savings from trading out of the position is greater than the value recieved from trading the pick, then so be it. We will never be left HAVING to pick at that spot. It will be a combination of factors that determine what we do......Period.

 

[Fencer]

If we wind up ahead of Atlanta, the obvious trade is their pick and a second for ours. I'd hold out for their own high second, even if it meant throwing in lower picks of my own. The Pats need quality of picks, not quantity.

Then, ideally, trade down a second time with a team that wants a DL, and still get the best DB or LB in the draft.

Then, still ideally, trade the two highish 2nd-rounders back up into the first round, by using most of the inventory of low-round picks.

Then laugh at Goodell.

Actually, my real ideal is to trade down once from #2 to #3, then still take McFadden. And find the money to re-sign Asante.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Bull. He traded a #1 for a #4 and #1 when the "going value" is a #1 and #2. He traded a #3 for a future #3. That's a round below value. He'll make a deal that he thinks helps the Patiots; he won't care what others think.

Except that BB used that high 4th round pick to trade for Randy Moss. Which has turned out to be the BEST deal of the entire 2007 NFL draft.
AND I think BB and Pioli realized that SF's first round pick in 2008 was a likely top 10 pick. I think BB weighed the potential for FUTURE reward and found that they were more attractive than drafting Joe Staley in the present. After weighing the benefits and the risks, BB made a savvy deal, and you are giving him less credit than he deserves.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Except that BB used that high 4th round pick to trade for Randy Moss. Which has turned out to be the BEST deal of the entire 2007 NFL draft.
AND I think BB and Pioli realized that SF's first round pick in 2008 was a likely top 10 pick. I think BB weighed the potential for FUTURE reward and found that they were more attractive than drafting Joe Staley in the present. After weighing the benefits and the risks, BB made a savvy deal, and you are giving him less credit than he deserves.

Did anyone ever say the Pats were looking specifically at Staley? [Just asking, not criticizing.]

I'm still not convinced the Pats expected SF to finish top 10; I think they were expecting 11-16ish.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Did anyone ever say the Pats were looking specifically at Staley? [Just asking, not criticizing.]

I'm still not convinced the Pats expected SF to finish top 10; I think they were expecting 11-16ish.

That's who the 49ers ended up taking with the pick so he is the most relevant name.

Think about it trading the rights to pick Joe Staley nets you Randy Moss + #2 overall pick of the 2008 draft. You can't ask for any better returns than that! That's what I call a sweetheart of a deal. Deals like these are how you build dynasties that last.

 

[Jimke]

If we wind up ahead of Atlanta, the obvious trade is their pick and a second for ours. I'd hold out for their own high second, even if it meant throwing in lower picks of my own. The Pats need quality of picks, not quantity.

Then, ideally, trade down a second time with a team that wants a DL, and still get the best DB or LB in the draft.

Then, still ideally, trade the two highish 2nd-rounders back up into the first round, by using most of the inventory of low-round picks.

Then laugh at Goodell.

Actually, my real ideal is to trade down once from #2 to #3, then still take McFadden. And find the money to re-sign Asante.

Your last sentence makes the most sense. It's been a long time since the Pats had a shot at a blue chip player (Seymour). It may be a long time
until they have another chance. I agree they also have to re-sign Asante.
He's the Pats only good cover cornerback.

 

[BelichickFan]

Except that BB used that high 4th round pick to trade for Randy Moss. Which has turned out to be the BEST deal of the entire 2007 NFL draft.

That's true but we had another #4 too, the chance of the Moss deal hinging on the acquired #4 is small - we could have worked it out without it plus the Moss deal wasn't even guaranteed back when that trade was made.

AND I think BB and Pioli realized that SF's first round pick in 2008 was a likely top 10 pick.

That could be. All I'm saying is that we could easily make a trade that on paper looks like bad value - because we did it last year; the fact that it may turn out to be a top five trade in the history of the league is irrelevant :rocker:

 

[Crazyeechrispats1]

Although it just wasn't Reggie Bush to change the culture in New Orleans, I can think of a good coach in Payton a stud receiver in Colston a Franchise QB in Brees still laughing at San Diego for that one.
Most of the credit goes to Reggie Bush sure he's on IR and is looking more like the wrong pick every week.
He sells Jersey's get's fans excited I think has increased the Saints fan base and has given them a little bit more swagger.
More importantly it shows the world they are attempting to be a contending team.
What team who is losing revenue lost their fan base was totally disrespected by their head coach and is having problems with their franchise QB.

Ding Ding Ding the Atlanta Vicks oh it's Falcons?
Whatever.
Anyhow think about this we are two or 3 picks ahead of them what do we want from them?
I'd start out with that old timer Keith Brooking, might as well get rid of that guy who is tired of losing Deangelo Hall and their first plus a 3rd and a second next year.
That my friends would be one hell of a trade and if anyone is desperate enough to make it.
It's hard to argue the Falcons wouldn't make a deal with BB the Wizard.
Only trade that BB had done that hasn't worked to perfection YET.
Is the Chad Jackson for Greg Jennings and a O lineman who I believe start for them.
I am still a huge Chad Jackson fan but I don't know why they haven't let this guy get on the field much yet.
Last time CJ had a big game was against the Jet's so let's hope Lightening strikes twice.
Although I think it be nice to have Bingo Brown for this game.
Just in case it get's close he's still the guy I want catching that game saving pass.