Trading UP - Not DOWN

[Miguel]

Part of the 17 million in guaranteed money is his salary. His 2008, 2009, and 2010 salaries are guaranteed.

His 2007 salary was also guaranteed.

 

[Metaphors]

Part of the 17 million in guaranteed money is his salary. His 2008, 2009, and 2010 salaries are guaranteed.

So you are telling me AP has a $40M contract and you believe that it breaks down as follows:

• $17M guaranteed (salary + bonus)
• $8M in other salary + reasonable/reachable incentives
• $15M in unreachable (requiring an amazing year) incentives

If that is accurate and that is the going rate for the #7 pick, you are absolutely justified in suggesting the Pats shouldn't trade down. That is a little over $4M a year average and the total package can likely be reduced even more if he is cut after year 4 (in case of devastating or chronic injury).

I'm really pleasantly surprised that the #7 pick is that affordable. That puts the Pats in a great position to either take the pick or trade down (since teams should be very willing to trade up to #7 since the cost is so reasonable). Very nice.

 

[PATSNUTme]

So you are telling me AP has a $40M contract and you believe that it breaks down as follows:

• $17M guaranteed (salary + bonus)
• $8M in other salary + reasonable/reachable incentives
• $15M in unreachable (requiring an amazing year) incentives

If that is accurate and that is the going rate for the #7 pick, you are absolutely justified in suggesting the Pats shouldn't trade down. That is a little over $4M a year average and the total package can likely be reduced even more if he is cut after year 4 (in case of devastating or chronic injury).

I'm really pleasantly surprised that the #7 pick is that affordable. That puts the Pats in a great position to either take the pick or trade down (since teams should be very willing to trade up to #7 since the cost is so reasonable). Very nice.

Once again we are drafting players not cap hits. If there is a much better player available, who fits the Patriots, at #4 they should go up and get him. Why draft a lesser player between 7-15 because of cap considerations which smart teams will work around.

 

[Jimke]

Once again we are drafting players not cap hits. If there is a much better player available, who fits the Patriots, at #4 they should go up and get him. Why draft a lesser player between 7-15 because of cap considerations which smart teams will work around.

I would like to see the Patriots trade up where necessary to obtain

three or four players who can really help them this year or next year.

If they use all their current picks, I expect their last two or three

picks will have very little chance of making the team.

 

[Metaphors]

Once again we are drafting players not cap hits. If there is a much better player available, who fits the Patriots, at #4 they should go up and get him. Why draft a lesser player between 7-15 because of cap considerations which smart teams will work around.

The bold text above is the key. "Much better" is a value statement that has an associated cost (in cap space and draft picks needed to trade up). Just like anything else, if the value exceeds the cost then you make the move.

For example, I could trade a 2nd round pick and move up to grab CLong. Or I could stick at #7, take Gholston and use the 2nd round pick for Lofton/Henderson/Goff/Godfrey/Lee/etc. So you use the Pats value system and evaluate which is better:

CLong vs. Gholston + Godfrey (for example)

The cap consideration should be taken into account since that is part of the Pats value system in player acquisition. So I don't get your implication of getting lesser players to minimize the cap hit. As a goal, that is foolish. However, player evaluation DOES take into account contract costs. The goal is to get the right players at the right price...not the right players at any price or best available players at the cheapest price.

 

[Metaphors]

I would like to see the Patriots trade up where necessary to obtain

three or four players who can really help them this year or next year.

If they use all their current picks, I expect their last two or three

picks will have very little chance of making the team.

I'm with you. I've seen some mocks where the Pats trade down multiple times and end up with 10+ picks. With the current composition of the team, I would much rather see the scenario you describe above.

 

[PATSNUTme]

The bold text above is the key. "Much better" is a value statement that has an associated cost (in cap space and draft picks needed to trade up). Just like anything else, if the value exceeds the cost then you make the move.

For example, I could trade a 2nd round pick and move up to grab CLong. Or I could stick at #7, take Gholston and use the 2nd round pick for Lofton/Henderson/Goff/Godfrey/Lee/etc. So you use the Pats value system and evaluate which is better:

CLong vs. Gholston + Godfrey (for example)

The cap consideration should be taken into account since that is part of the Pats value system in player acquisition. So I don't get your implication of getting lesser players to minimize the cap hit. As a goal, that is foolish. However, player evaluation DOES take into account contract costs. The goal is to get the right players at the right price...not the right players at any price or best available players at the cheapest price.

That seems to be the concern of several posters here who seem to be more concerned with cap hits than finding the best players.

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

Maybe I'm too convential, but I'd rather see the Pats trade down if the move nets at least a 3rd round pick. That would give the Pats three 3rd's and they could surely turn two of them into an upper tier 2nd getting them 3 players in the first 62 picks and they'd stil have another 3rd. That would be very, very good as long as none of the picks were friends with Chad Jackson!

The only guy that seems to be worthy of moving up for is Dorsey. I'm not a doom and gloomer but Seymour has not been his old Pro-Bowl self in some time and it may be that his injuries never allow him back to that level. Dorsey's dominant athletic presence on the line would give the Pats an outstanding 5 man rotation, add in Mike Wright and maybe LeKevin and that some real bad, game-changing beef up front.

If moving up two or three spots to get Dorsey would only cost us our second 3rd and maybe a 5th (or even our second 3rd and a 4th since the 4th rounder would be a long shot to make the team anyway), then I'd be very much in favor of the move since we'd still have the Raiders 3rd at 69.

Though would we really be better off making this trade or standing pat and taking McKelvin and 3 more players in the 2nd and 3rd? They'd all figure on playing at some point and it would give us more chances in the higher talent levels to strike gold.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The goal is to get the right players at the right price...not the right players at any price or best available players at the cheapest price.

Interestingly enough, Scott Pioli had a slightly different take on the situation in the NFL Top 10 segment on Brady being the biggest steal in NFL Draft history. He basically said that the Pats did have Brady higher on their draft board than a sixth-round pick. But, because of the Pats' residence in cap hell (<40 players signed, $10M over the cap), they just couldn't justify taking him in, say, the third or fourth round. By pick 199, though, he was so far above the rest of the players remaining on the Pats' draft board that, thank God, they couldn't justify not taking him.

In other words, the cap hits are a concern, too, but they're by no means the only one.

 

[Miguel]

So you are telling me AP has a $40M contract and you believe that it breaks down as follows:

• $17M guaranteed (salary + bonus)

The 17 million consisted of
3 million signing bonus
7.775 million option bonus
1.255 million 2007 roster bonus
2.45 million NTLBE incentive which was very easy to reach
2.55 million in salaries (2007 through 2010).

Right now his 5 year APY is 4.46 million. But I think Peterson will do enough to raise it to $5million.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Interestingly enough, Scott Pioli had a slightly different take on the situation in the NFL Top 10 segment on Brady being the biggest steal in NFL Draft history. He basically said that the Pats did have Brady higher on their draft board than a sixth-round pick. But, because of the Pats' residence in cap hell (<40 players signed, $10M over the cap), they just couldn't justify taking him in, say, the third or fourth round. By pick 199, though, he was so far above the rest of the players remaining on the Pats' draft board that, thank God, they couldn't justify not taking him.

In other words, the cap hits are a concern, too, but they're by no means the only one.

That's the differece between then and now. They had poor cap management then and they have excellent cap management now.

 

[Metaphors]

[/LIST]The 17 million consisted of
3 million signing bonus
7.775 million option bonus
1.255 million 2007 roster bonus
2.45 million NTLBE incentive which was very easy to reach
2.55 million in salaries (2007 through 2010).

Right now his 5 year APY is 4.46 million. But I think Peterson will do enough to raise it to $5million.

I've heard the 2000 yd / 20 TD incentives that he will likely not reach due to splitting carries. Do you know any of the other NLTBE incentives/escalators included in his contract? He must have quite a few to equal $15M in money he will probably never see...

 

[Metaphors]

That's the differece between then and now. They had poor cap management then and they have excellent cap management now.

Can you sum up your thoughts in this area since I don't think getting the point? You seem to be saying that the Pats should just get the best player for them in the draft and not worry about cap implications. That may be too simplistic and don't want to put words in your mouth.

The "trade down" crowd (myself included) seems to believe that there isn't a player in the top 7 that is worth (for the Pats) the contract they would get. Are you just evaluating the players differently (higher value) or just thinking that people are over-inflating the cap costs of a top 7 contract?

 

[PATSNUTme]

Can you sum up your thoughts in this area since I don't think getting the point? You seem to be saying that the Pats should just get the best player for them in the draft and not worry about cap implications. That may be too simplistic and don't want to put words in your mouth.

The "trade down" crowd (myself included) seems to believe that there isn't a player in the top 7 that is worth (for the Pats) the contract they would get. Are you just evaluating the players differently (higher value) or just thinking that people are over-inflating the cap costs of a top 7 contract?

Both. I think that both C. Long and Gholston can become special players for a long time. They also fit a position of need for the Patriots. It may be a long time (we hope) before the Patriots will be back in this postion in the draft.

I also think that trading up to #4 or #5 to get them will not be a cap buster or even a cap strain for the future.

 

[Metaphors]

Both. I think that both C. Long and Gholston can become special players for a long time. They also fit a position of need for the Patriots. It may be a long time (we hope) before the Patriots will be back in this postion in the draft.

I also think that trading up to #4 or #5 to get them will not be a cap buster or even a cap strain for the future.

Maybe you're right. I trust the Pats to do the right thing. I'll be the first to admit my sense of the cap cost of top 10 draft picks may be overly inflated by media hype and GM/owner complaints. The numbers in the sticky thread on 1st year contracts seem staggering, but it may be a lot of funny money. Miguel in this thread says that Peterson likely won't see 38% of his contract (not earned incentives/escalators) which can really change how you look at the economics of the situation...especially if the other contracts are equally inflated.

 

[patchick]

Both. I think that both C. Long and Gholston can become special players for a long time. They also fit a position of need for the Patriots. It may be a long time (we hope) before the Patriots will be back in this postion in the draft.

I also think that trading up to #4 or #5 to get them will not be a cap buster or even a cap strain for the future.

I agree with every word of this post. BUT, I still wouldn't give up a ton to move up, simply because I like this draft class a lot. How's that for straddling the fence?

I'd also like to toss out that the Raiders are a strong dark-horse candidate for a trading partner. They had just barely dug themselves out of their long-term cap hell when they went on a spending binge in FA. They also have a strong trade history with the Pats, and of course they have no 3rd-round pick. I believe Al would take Son of Howie regardless to rev up his faithful, but if it comes down to Gholston a trade might appeal.

 

[Miguel]

You seem to be saying that the Pats should just get the best player for them in the draft and not worry about cap implications.

That's what I am saying.

The "trade down" crowd (myself included) seems to believe that there isn't a player in the top 7 that is worth (for the Pats) the contract they would get. Are you just evaluating the players differently (higher value) or just thinking that people are over-inflating the cap costs of a top 7 contract?

I think that the latter is true.

 

[SunnyDenmark]

Another possible reason to trade up (IF and only IF) the cap ramnifications of a top 10 pick are overblown as Miguel has posted:

All of the teams picking 1-6 in front of us seem willing (in some cases even desperate) to trade down and stockpile picks as they are crappy teams with many holes to fill (or to phrase it better - positions to upgrade). Therefore, they might be willing to grant the Pats a 'discount' in trading up as it seems according to the media - there is little interest to jump into the top 5 due to lack of 'blue chip prospects'.

If it would only cost us one of our 3rd rounders (and a latter 2nd day pick say 6 or 7th which will only be training camp fodder) , and IF we can manage the cap - then I would be open to the idea to trade up and grab one of the Longs or Gholston.

Only problem is - it goes against the Patriots way of having a deep middle class and pay mega bucks to only a few elite veteran players. Doesn't send the best message to the locker room to pay this kind of $$$ to a rookie.

 

[14thDragon]

If it would only cost us one of our 3rd rounders (and a latter 2nd day pick say 6 or 7th which will only be training camp fodder) , and IF we can manage the cap - then I would be open to the idea to trade up and grab one of the Longs or Gholston.

Only problem is - it goes against the Patriots way of having a deep middle class and pay mega bucks to only a few elite veteran players. Doesn't send the best message to the locker room to pay this kind of $$$ to a rookie.

Moving up from 7 to 4 or 5 is not going to create a cap busting contract. It is not horribly prohibitive, and very good if you make the good selection. It will not really have a big impact on the locker room. They know how the draft prices work.

I would have no problems if the organization jumps up for C. Long or Gholston. They are impact guys. But if you don't get those guys, then I think dropping down is right move.

I like dropping down because I think there are several weak points on the D. I would like a corner and 2 LB in the first 3 rounds. But that is just me.

 

[Metaphors]

Moving up from 7 to 4 or 5 is not going to create a cap busting contract. It is not horribly prohibitive

What are the numbers you are using to make this determination?