Trade pick! Says who?

[DaBruinz]

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.

The Pats haven't had a top 5 pick under Belichick. The only top 10 pick they've had is Seymour. And, I think you need to be reminded that the Pats took Seymour because they had a LOT of holes.

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.

The point value means nothing. If the Pats feel they will get better value by having Dallas and Cleveland's picks. Also, its pure speculation on your part that it would be only 1500.

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.

How long have you been following the Pats? Kraft has made comments about how the top 5 is not good value. Also, did you bother to look at what the #2 pick got last year?

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).

The Pats haven't drafted in the top 10 since 2001. Why? Because they've been THAT GOOD. Not because they haven't wanted to. I don't know where you've gotten that from.

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?

I disagree. I think that the Pats will trade the pick if they what they feel is value. That value doesn't necessarily mean getting an ALL-PRO in return. In fact, that idea flies in the face of what this team as done. The Pats are known for their DEPTH. If they can get 2-3 very good players, that is better than have 1 great player.

 

[mcbee]

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.

That's a good point.

Add to that BB and Pioli's prior statements (and Kraft's too) that the best VALUE in the draft is in the mid to late 1st round. That's where you get good players cheaply.

So the assumption they will trade is based on THEIR OWN WORDS.

Also, talking about "how are they going to get value", "who would want to trade all those picks for the #2". It's a contradiction. People wouldn't want to trade for the #2 the numbers of picks they'd need to (according to the chart). Why? Because it's not worth it. So why would the Pats demand more than the pick is "worth" if THEY THEMSELVES (the Pats) think top 1st round picks are not worth it?

The "chart" is not gospel. You don't have to trade according to the chart. It's a made up system. In a year when there are true "great" players, you might get more than the chart. In a year when there isn't, you wouldn't.

If they would settle on Dallas' two picks, then they'll do so. Chart or no chart.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I think most people are too obsessed over a point value chart that was made decades ago.

Last year, I heard the Patriots made a really bad trade with SF because they didn't get full point value. How's that working out??

This year I'm hearing that the #2 pick is bad in that we can't trade it because no one else has enough point value to give us.

Both are ridiculous. Actually, saying that the #2 pick is worth 1600 points is ridiculous as many of you are admitting - because the slotted salary is too high. It's not necessarily a bad thing to trade the #2 pick for the #6 pick and a 3rd round pick. In fact, that could be a very smart move (depending on who you were trying to draft).

We need to look at the world (and the NFL draft) in a new light; not on the basis of the old outmoded (and definately somewhat outdated) draft value point system. Times have changed and the chart needs to change along with it.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

I like Mike Reiss's take on the draft situation. He says that if the draft were held today and the Pats drafted a player #2 overall, he would be getting more bonus money over Adalius Thomas. I think its ludicris that rookies are commanding this amount of money when they have never taken a snap in the NFL. With that said, Reiss is not a big fan of taking players so high. Also, Reiss mentions that teams these days are not as excited now as in the past to have the top picks because taking the wrong player and signing him to a huge deal could cripple your franchise. It's a hit or miss deal. There is higher reward/lower risk taking a rookie in the teens or twenties (Maroney, Merriweather). An example of this is the 49ers in 2005. Alex Smith got paid the most money ever as a rookie at that time. He is looking more and more like a bust and the 9ers may have start their QB search all over again. However, I will give him the benefit of the doubt because the team has surrounded him with scrubs not named Frank Gore and Vernon Davis. Depending on who the 9ers bring in, I would give him 1-2 more years. He is also faily young as well. My ideal situation would be to trade down. Will it happen? I don't know, because teams aren't willing to give up picks and eventually more money to one rookie. I can see the Pats maybe going from 2 to 5 and that's about it. What I do know is, the Pats will take the best available player regardless of what position he plays, not named QB.

 

[drew4008]

Good thread. I think it's absolutely stupid for somebody to uneqivocally say we're trading this pick. Not just because we may want to use it on a player the front office really likes, but because it is so hard to find a trading partner for that high of a pick. Another team is going to have to give up A LOT, and I don't see it happening.

 

[AzPatsFan]

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?

Who cares about fair value? What makes you think you know what fair value is? Is it some antique chart prepared by Jimmie Johnson 10 years ago and never updated?

Fair value is in the eye of the partiicpants in a deal.

There are supposedly three franchise QBs in this draft and a hell of lot more than three teams looking for a franchise QB.

In the ideal situation at #2 the Pats trade the 2 for a #3 and pick(s), to allow the third team to select its prefered QB. Tehn he trades the #3 to a team who needs one the three franchise QBs, as the train leaves the station. Hopefully its a 5-7 pick and pick(s). . Then he trades that to a team that that is in love with Mcfadden. With the harvest he positions forthe player he wants.

End result: a OT, LB, and CB. In the late second/third he takes a RB.

 

[mcbee]

Good thread. I think it's absolutely stupid for somebody to uneqivocally say we're trading this pick. Not just because we may want to use it on a player the front office really likes, but because it is so hard to find a trading partner for that high of a pick. Another team is going to have to give up A LOT, and I don't see it happening.

If they really want to trade the pick, then another team won't have to give up A LOT. It depends on how bad NE wants to trade it and how bad the other team wants it.

Does it make sense that NE is dying to trade it but won't because the other team "won't give up enough"?

I think NE wants out of the pick. 8M cap hit per year for an unproven rookie.

 

[drew4008]

Who cares about fair value? What makes you think you know what fair value is? Is it some antique chart prepared by Jimmie Johnson 10 years ago and never updated?

Actually, yes. Watch the draft and pre-draft shows... NFL staffs are on about the same page as far as draft pick value goes. They know what it's worth, and very rarely do you see a completely lopsided deal. And it would still take a hell of a lot for a team to get to #2, even if they did rip the Pats off some.

 

[Fencer]

Everybody calm down, please.

1. BB and Pioli want to draft at places in the draft where they think the value of available players TO THE PATS is relatively favorable compared with the consensus overall value of the pick. Where they judge that to be is a HUGE unknown. (In particular, see #3 below.)

2. Most possible super-high picks are OBVIOUSLY not good picks for the Pats, specifically because they're QBs or undersized DL. Take them away, and the Pats probably see very few good values at the super top of the draft.

3. Maybe they'll see McFadden as a great value at 2-3. Maybe they'll see some DB as a great value at 4-7. Those are examples of player judgments that will greatly affect where they'll try to draft.

4. It's getting ever harder for rookies to make the team. But it's not impossible. There's plenty of room at DB. They'd make room for the right LB, TE, or RB, all of which are positions with age/contract depth issues cropping up soon. Backup NT can be upgraded. And so on.

Thus, if they wind up with several high first day picks, those needn't go to waste.

5. There's no reason to assume Jerry Jones wants to trade up.

6. The locker room doesn't get divided over inequities in pay. As Tedy Bruschi says "Congratulations! Now get to work."

 

[nowayback]

if the pats trade out of one of the tops spots....it would be good to get the correct value. but i wouldnt care if they didnt. it would be much worse to get stuck with a huge 2 pick contract, that would take up a lot of cap space. making things difficult for years.

the pats are not desparate for much. an ilb, which i doubt they will draft. and a cb if asante leaves. there are a lot of teams in need of qb's esp. i am sure many teams will be willing to trade up.

very good posts DAbruinz and Fencer

 

[The Shoe]

I like the idea of trading back a bit. CB and LB could use some shoring up if Samuel leaves and Seau retires. (If he ever does). Given the team's proficiency at developing linemen, some late round guards or center could be plugged in to provide a bit more youth (not that it's neccessary). Using the pick in order to provide depth via more picks make perfect logical and team sense.
I will say this too though. Getting a guy like McFadden guarantees nothing. And believe me, I like the guy a lot. But ask this question- Does having a great player make the team better or is he just a great player? I'd rather have a couple guys who make the team better.
I know the guys don't tend to draft LB's but Laurinaitis makes sense from both perspectives. Is that where his value lies then? He fits both need and will probably go in the #10 range?
Sliding back to the #10 range would probably net us an extra #1 next year and maybe a third this year. I could live with that.

 

[NEfan32]

tI am huge on McFadden. If the Pats get the #2 pick, and McFadden is there, I want the Pats to take him.

McFadden and Maroney split time, thus longating their careers. Faulk is still a 3rd down/screen back. Morris is your goalline back.

Look, what if you trade McFadden to Dallas, which makes no sense since they have Barber III and Jones, for 2 1st rounders. One which is Cleveland's so that will be in the early 20s. And then Dallas's pick which at this rate will be the 30-31st pick.

What if McFadden turns out into the best back in the league? 1700 yards year after year, 20 TD's. And your 2 first rounders are an average DB and a decent MLB. All of this because of money.

Look, this isn't a 8 overall pick, where it could be a bust. This is number 2 overall, and you have to really screw up to create a bust at number 2. Number 2 is the BEST posistion in the draft. Number 1 creates the most pressure for a player. You are telling me, you would pass up Darren McFadden, deal him to a team you might play a few more SB's against, and take some late first rounders so you can save money?

If they trade the pick, which I am not saying they aren't, but its easier said than done, I don't want Dallas's 2 first rounders... I want Dallas's two first rounders. I want that and then some all-pro talent. When was the last time you saw a team land a top 10 pick for 2 late rounders? Talk about a top 3 pick. Wow. It likely won't happen. The way people have been talking about it, the Pats could have traded their picks, which will likely be better than Dallas's two, for Detroits pick last seasons. Like there was a chance the Lions would take that? AND the Lions didnt need a receiver, they took the best player available. And teams in desperate need in WR couldn't even make a good enough deal, because...trading a top 3 pick is impossible.

 

[VJCPatriot]

tI am huge on McFadden. If the Pats get the #2 pick, and McFadden is there, I want the Pats to take him.

McFadden and Maroney split time, thus longating their careers. Faulk is still a 3rd down/screen back. Morris is your goalline back.

Look, what if you trade McFadden to Dallas, which makes no sense since they have Barber III and Jones, for 2 1st rounders. One which is Cleveland's so that will be in the early 20s. And then Dallas's pick which at this rate will be the 30-31st pick.

What if McFadden turns out into the best back in the league? 1700 yards year after year, 20 TD's. And your 2 first rounders are an average DB and a decent MLB. All of this because of money.

Look, this isn't a 8 overall pick, where it could be a bust. This is number 2 overall, and you have to really screw up to create a bust at number 2. Number 2 is the BEST posistion in the draft. Number 1 creates the most pressure for a player. You are telling me, you would pass up Darren McFadden, deal him to a team you might play a few more SB's against, and take some late first rounders so you can save money?

If they trade the pick, which I am not saying they aren't, but its easier said than done, I don't want Dallas's 2 first rounders... I want Dallas's two first rounders. I want that and then some all-pro talent. When was the last time you saw a team land a top 10 pick for 2 late rounders? Talk about a top 3 pick. Wow. It likely won't happen. The way people have been talking about it, the Pats could have traded their picks, which will likely be better than Dallas's two, for Detroits pick last seasons. Like there was a chance the Lions would take that? AND the Lions didnt need a receiver, they took the best player available. And teams in desperate need in WR couldn't even make a good enough deal, because...trading a top 3 pick is impossible.

Sounds good to me. IF we can't get fair value, just draft the stud McFadden, making this offense even SICKER, and keep trucking to 5 more superbowl championships!

 

[mcbee]

tI am huge on McFadden. If the Pats get the #2 pick, and McFadden is there, I want the Pats to take him.

McFadden and Maroney split time, thus longating their careers. Faulk is still a 3rd down/screen back. Morris is your goalline back.

Look, what if you trade McFadden to Dallas, which makes no sense since they have Barber III and Jones, for 2 1st rounders. One which is Cleveland's so that will be in the early 20s. And then Dallas's pick which at this rate will be the 30-31st pick.

What if McFadden turns out into the best back in the league? 1700 yards year after year, 20 TD's. And your 2 first rounders are an average DB and a decent MLB. All of this because of money.

Look, this isn't a 8 overall pick, where it could be a bust. This is number 2 overall, and you have to really screw up to create a bust at number 2. Number 2 is the BEST posistion in the draft. Number 1 creates the most pressure for a player. You are telling me, you would pass up Darren McFadden, deal him to a team you might play a few more SB's against, and take some late first rounders so you can save money?

If they trade the pick, which I am not saying they aren't, but its easier said than done, I don't want Dallas's 2 first rounders... I want Dallas's two first rounders. I want that and then some all-pro talent. When was the last time you saw a team land a top 10 pick for 2 late rounders? Talk about a top 3 pick. Wow. It likely won't happen. The way people have been talking about it, the Pats could have traded their picks, which will likely be better than Dallas's two, for Detroits pick last seasons. Like there was a chance the Lions would take that? AND the Lions didnt need a receiver, they took the best player available. And teams in desperate need in WR couldn't even make a good enough deal, because...trading a top 3 pick is impossible.

#2 picks bust all the time. And 8M per year isn't a little bit of money. It's the price of Randy Moss for example. So 2 late #1s and Randy Moss or McFadden.

Honestly most of the McFadden ball-washers have never seen college football or a draft before. Can't miss players bust ALL THE TIME. Of the past 20 years of #2 picks, about 1/3 were outright busts. About 1/3 were decent players only. "But McFadden is different!". Sure. They all are. And next year there will be another "this guy is a special guy" who is worth 8M per year.

The front office has already said the best VALUE (defined as what you get minus what you pay) is NOT at the top of the first round.

All NE needs is a running back to keep the defense honest. That's it. Those guys are a dime a dozen. "Prolong Maroney's career"? Why? He's replaceable and probably at cheaper cost. McFadden breaks long runs when he isn't touched...but in the NFL there aren't holes like that, sorry. Maroney broke long runs like that in college too...how's he doing?

I'd rather have a guy who ALWAYS gets 3-4 yards when needed than a guy who breaks a long run but gets stoned half the time at the LOS.

 

[VJCPatriot]

I'd rather have a guy who ALWAYS gets 3-4 yards when needed than a guy who breaks a long run but gets stoned half the time at the LOS.

Ok and who is this guy? What's his name? Can you guarantee that he won't be a bust, or any more so than McFadden who looks like a superstar in waiting?

 

[sebman2112]

#2 picks bust all the time. And 8M per year isn't a little bit of money. It's the price of Randy Moss for example. So 2 late #1s and Randy Moss or McFadden.

Honestly most of the McFadden ball-washers have never seen college football or a draft before. Can't miss players bust ALL THE TIME. Of the past 20 years of #2 picks, about 1/3 were outright busts. About 1/3 were decent players only. "But McFadden is different!". Sure. They all are. And next year there will be another "this guy is a special guy" who is worth 8M per year.

The front office has already said the best VALUE (defined as what you get minus what you pay) is NOT at the top of the first round.

All NE needs is a running back to keep the defense honest. That's it. Those guys are a dime a dozen. "Prolong Maroney's career"? Why? He's replaceable and probably at cheaper cost. McFadden breaks long runs when he isn't touched...but in the NFL there aren't holes like that, sorry. Maroney broke long runs like that in college too...how's he doing?

I'd rather have a guy who ALWAYS gets 3-4 yards when needed than a guy who breaks a long run but gets stoned half the time at the LOS.

Man, you seem to get it on this issue, good post. Look at Maroney's production in college, then look at McFadden's...then tell me you're going to pay McFadden $50-60M over six with $25-30M of it guaranteed, when Maroney's only costing you $8.73M over five with $6.13M guaranteed.

Also, you're correct, Maroney did break plenty of long runs in college. I clearly remember him making some pretty good defenses look stupid, and how fast he looked on that 93 yard TD run.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Maroney is a different runner than McFadden. He lacks power and the ability to run inside. McFadden can run the ball inside.

Check out Maroney's scouting report:

While he will not lose much yardage running inside, he lacks the ideal bulk and leg drive to move the pile effectively. He takes some punishment when he runs up the gut, as his power base is not enough to break tackles consistently. He runs hard and is aptly nicknamed "Lo-Mo" for his low center of gravity, but he is still a bit of an undersized back who is not going to run through defenders.
http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/5527592

That kind of explains why Maroney has not been able to run all that effectively in the middle doesn't it?

McFadden on the other hand has proven he can run it everywhere, including between the tackles, and against the stiffest competition, 32 carries for 205 yards against #1 LSU. Not to mention that he had 34 carries for 321 yards against South Carolina. Has Maroney ever had a 300 yard game? Ok how about a 200 yard game?

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/player/profile?playerId=170928

The comparisons to Maroney are silly. Maroney, if he doesn't succumb to the injury bug, might become a GOOD back. McFadden could be GREAT.

 

[The Shoe]

All great arguements or course. But here's the rub. RB is one of the easiest positions to fill on a football team. I'd rather spend FA dollars on a RB than draft dollars. That way you're investing in a proven commodity. Of course I feel the same way about LB's too.
You have to hit on players early in the draft and then be able to lock them up long term for reasonable cap dollars. Someone brought up Alex Smith earlier. Is he worth what he's getting paid? No, and he's probably tying up cap space and a roster spot for someone who can make more of an impact. Or maybe a roster spot and two or three salaries. Fair enough arguement?
What the Pats HAVE done well is draft great linemen. Offensive and defensive. Defensively they have probably the best (young) defensive line in pro football. Offensively, (and I'm sure Dante Scarnecchia has a lot to do with it) they have been brilliant in later rounds and with FA signings. Yes I know Mankins was considered a reach a couple years ago but how about now? Light- second rounder, Koppen- fifth round, etc.
How about cb's? Anyone worthy of big money coming out? What about SS? Harrison can't play forever. FS? Trading back makes sense for a lot of reasons. This team has a few years before they need to start looking for homeruns via the draft. Making sound financial and personnel decisions now insures a solid future tomorrow. Too many teams look for the quick fix (the Redskins come to mind) and end up with cap problems and dead weight later on. Look at the roster. Would you consider any one Patriot player indispensible aside form Tom Brady? And he was the 199th player picked. They won without Harrison, without Seymour, without Maroney, without whoever. This team's strength is its depth and the minimal dropoff from first string to second string. The ability to plug someone in and still maintain dominant. If the pick turns out to be a top five one, it will probably present the biggest luxury pick in the history of the NFl draft. Or series of picks. Not only that, but their strategy flies in the face of the commish, who even though he docked them their draft pick, will probably have minimal impact on who wins and who loses the Super Bowl in the near future. Lets face it, there's something in the Kool-Aid being served in Foxboro, and we're all enjoying the side-effects.

 

[patsfan209]

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.

True here. Even I'm guessing that the Pats will try to trade down and stockpile more picks for this draft and for next year's draft.

I would say its naive to think the Patriots will refuse to listen to trade offers from teams interested in their pick.

If they do end up with a Top 5 pick, its a great position to be in regardless of what they decide to do.