Trading UP - Not DOWN

[JoeSixPat]

I get it. The first year or two of every contract is generally a low cap impact, at least relative to the total contract value.

The bills eventually come due.

Nope - in the worst case scenario and a player is a bust, chances are that player would be cut or asked to take a paycut. Sure there's be a cap hit of the dead money from their signing bonus - but at #7 or #5 that wouldn't stop them from cutting them.

Miguel's right of course that the contracts will be backloaded in salary - I was simply talking about the full value of a contract assuming a player fulfills expectations.

I see it as VERY possible that a Top 7 pick plays well enough to earn every cent of a contract averaging $7 million a year. You don't agrees with that and that's fine - I know you HOPE you're wrong about that of course.

Everyone's in agreement that salaries for the top draft picks have gotten a bit out of control - that's exponentially more true at #1 than it is at #7 however.

So I'm not lamenting that we have to pick at #7. I have every confidence that player, like Seymour at #6, will be worth every penny and maybe more so.

Years from now, depending on how the draft shakes out, I might be lamenting that we didn't pick at #5!

 

[Keegs]

I only see two rookies that could start for the Pats next season, J Long at ROT and MCFadden at RB.
.

Based on what i've heard about McFadden from Mike Mayock and others, about his weak legs, and going down after contact....

I have a really really hard time believing that Darren McFadden is the top running back on the pats board.

 

[Metaphors]

I see it as VERY possible that a Top 7 pick plays well enough to earn every cent of a contract averaging $7 million a year. You don't agrees with that and that's fine - I know you HOPE you're wrong about that of course.

I agree in the abstract. AP just last year is a fine example if he stays healthy. Seymour at #6 was also well worth the money. I am not fundamentally opposed to picking in the top 10. I just think that with this Pats team (30 seconds from undefeated but losses on defense) and this draft class (considered deep but not top-heavy), it makes more sense for the Pats to trade out of the top 10.

If Belichick/Pioli choose to stick at #7, I have enough faith in their talent evaluation to believe that the selection will be solid value. I'm not bummed at all about the Pats having the #7 pick. The thread is about trading up vs. trading down, but the real intent is getting the best talent at the most reasonable cost. Sometimes that means picking near the top and paying the large contract. Sometimes not.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I agree in the abstract. AP just last year is a fine example if he stays healthy. Seymour at #6 was also well worth the money. I am not fundamentally opposed to picking in the top 10. I just think that with this Pats team (30 seconds from undefeated but losses on defense) and this draft class (considered deep but not top-heavy), it makes more sense for the Pats to trade out of the top 10.

If Belichick/Pioli choose to stick at #7, I have enough faith in their talent evaluation to believe that the selection will be solid value. I'm not bummed at all about the Pats having the #7 pick. The thread is about trading up vs. trading down, but the real intent is getting the best talent at the most reasonable cost. Sometimes that means picking near the top and paying the large contract. Sometimes not.

Wll, I'm actually of the opinion that BOTH moves make sense. The reason we've not ever drafted an LB high in the draft is that guys in the mid to late 1st round (or 2nd for that matter) don't have the skills and smarts we need. This year might be the rare year we have a high pick and there's someone BB likes for that position.

Depending on how the draft shakes out you could also make the case for moving back to address another position and pick up another relatively high pick as well.

 

[State]

Nope. The best value represents the second to fourth rounds. Only half of first-rounders pan out. Stick at #7 or trade down. Unless J. Long is available at 5 or 6.

We need our second round pick, fellas.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Nope. The best value represents the second to fourth rounds. Only half of first-rounders pan out. Stick at #7 or trade down. Unless J. Long is available at 5 or 6.

We need our second round pick, fellas.

Yup - and Bellichick has never missed with a 2nd round pick before - so that makes it that much more important.

Let's not confuse "value" with "stupidity".

Value is a risk reward formula - it means that there's much less risk given the dollars but it doesn't mean there's better players collectively in the 4th round as compared to the 1st round.

There have been some great late round finds no doubt. And they don't cost much at all - true.

But do you know the reason why the top draft picks are the top draft picks?

Because the vast majority of scouts and GMs and team presidents feel that they have the best chance to be the best players.

It's pretty rare that the Patriots are going to find themselves in a high pick situation - and as in the case with Seymour, the Patriots aren't going to let the notion that - yes, 4th round picks DO represent more "value" - prevent them from taking a particularly talented player, potentially someone who has a decent chance of being the best at their position.

And if that means giving up a 3rd round pick to move from #7 to #5 to get the guy they want, I don't think Belichick would hesitate for a second.

 

[Miguel]

So what is his contract worth if he reaches the incentives/escalators he is likely to reach? $39.5 mill? $20 mill? $1.95?

My guesstimate is around $25 million.

 

[Miguel]

Would having a lower draft pick in the first round this year make the future cap situation better? Yep.

And that's only important if one believes that in the future the Patriots will become cap-strapped. IMO, the Patriots front office would not have traded the 2007 first round pick for a 2008 first round pick if they felt that potentially having a Top 10 pick in 2008 would adversely hurt the Patriots in the future.

 

[Miguel]

The economics of drafting in the top 10 is generally considered to be an issue (many want to trade down, few want to trade up). Are you saying that this perception is incorrect? I don't study contracts in detail so maybe GMs are making a big deal when in reality top 10 picks are bargains for the money they get (Ryan Leaf excluded).

IMO, if the 2008 draft class consisted of players that were graded among the highest ever at their position the talk would be of trading up. As much as cap space teams have these days, teams can better afford mistakes. This year alone we have seen DeAngelo Hall (the 8th overall pick in 2004) and Troy Williams (the 7th overall pick in 2005) traded. The 6th overall pick in 2005 (Pacman Jones) is on the trading block.

 

[JoeSixPat]

And that's only important if one believes that in the future the Patriots will become cap-strapped. IMO, the Patriots front office would not have traded the 2007 first round pick for a 2008 first round pick if they felt that potentially having a Top 10 pick in 2008 would adversely hurt the Patriots in the future.

Right - the scenario we're in at #7 is what the Patriots front office was HOPING for. They're not upset we have a high first round pick.

This is a game about putting the best players on the field. Not saving having as much excess cap space as possible.

I'd have a tough time believing that there's not plenty of room on this team for a top ten pick every 5 years or so, and a front office that's happy to have a top ten pick every 5 years or so (especially when obtained in this way.)

 

[Metaphors]

My guesstimate is around $25 million.

That seems way low. $17M is guaranteed and you think that he only has another $8M over 6 years in salary and reachable incentives?

 

[DW Toys]

I think it's time for O'Callaghan to get his 330 lb ass entrenched at RT. He's got the right temperament and is a better athlete than Kazcur. Now with two years apprenticeship, I wouldn't mind moving Kazcur to guard and seeing what O'C can do.

Excellent post sir! I agree. Ryan O did a great job against Strahan in game 17. No SB? Who knows.
Kaczur any trade value?
DW Toys

 

[Metaphors]

IMO, if the 2008 draft class consisted of players that were graded among the highest ever at their position the talk would be of trading up.

That statement is pretty much impossible to argue with...and has absolutely nothing to do with the actual 2008 draft class. I see this draft class as deep but not top-heavy. If you evaluate the players differently then you may see much better value sticking at #7 or trading up.

This year alone we have seen DeAngelo Hall (the 8th overall pick in 2004) and Troy Williams (the 7th overall pick in 2005) traded. The 6th overall pick in 2005 (Pacman Jones) is on the trading block.

I get your point that teams have the cap space to get rid of high draft picks that don't work out...but these teams all suck (my opinion). Good teams generally don't pick high so it is hard to show the effect on a good team that whiffs in the top 10. Not that I think BB and Pioli will choke on pick #7...just that if they did I believe it would be more painful than your post seems to indicate.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Right - the scenario we're in at #7 is what the Patriots front office was HOPING for. They're not upset we have a high first round pick.

Here's the question, though--certainly the Pats didn't know they'd end up with the #7 pick; what I'm wondering is, do you think it was more of a hope or an expectation that they'd end up this high?

I see it as VERY possible that a Top 7 pick plays well enough to earn every cent of a contract averaging $7 million a year. You don't agrees with that and that's fine - I know you HOPE you're wrong about that of course.

It depends on how the contract is written (IIRC, some of the incentives in Peterson's contract were, for all practical purposes, unreachable). Of course, the harder you make it for the players to reach those incentives, the more they're likely to expect more the second time around, especially if they've performed well.

 

[PATSNUTme]

What is the cap difference between drafting at #7 or #4? If we do give up the second, rounder #62, to move up to #4 how does that offset the additional cap $ to move up to #4 from #7? In looking at the chart that patchick provided, it doesn't seem to be a big difference in cap hit $, then considering not paying a second rounder it gets even smaller. If you get a stud, Pro Bowl type player who fits the system, it will make very little difference over the 6 years.

I have no idea what the Patriots plan to do. But if we send out feelers about moving down from #7 and their are no takers, and a player at #5 or #4 is considered much better than the players at #7, I think the Patriots make that move.

 

[b72s]

The real question

Do the pats see another seymour (in terms potential impact athlete and team fit) out there and stay .........

That is the question I cannot answer even after reviewing all draft boards and here.

I do know that this year draft does have plenty of corners so no need to take one high and pats usually do not.

But is there the "one" out there Long (s) Gholston, Dorsey????? For cap reasons I cannot see pats taking another D line as mentioned before we are locked up so that leaves LB or OL.

So do one of the top project to fit in pats LB system? If not we could be looking at O Line by default.

 

[Metaphors]

I have no idea what the Patriots plan to do. But if we send out feelers about moving down from #7 and their are no takers, and a player at #5 or #4 is considered much better than the players at #7, I think the Patriots make that move.

The one aspect of this draft class that works to the Pats advantage is the lack of quality DTs. After Dorsey and Ellis, there is a significant dropoff to Balmer/Laws and then a cliff to the next level. Since Dorsey's injury situation has checked out, he will likely go in the top 4. Ellis should be there at #7 unless someone trades to #5/#6 to get him.

If the consensus top 6 is JLong, CLong, Dorsey, McFadden, Ryan and Gholston...I think that puts the Pats in a prime spot. If things go as predicted, they trade back and let someone get ahead of Cincy for Ellis. If Ellis goes in the top 6, they either:
1) Take JLong, CLong or Gholston
2) Trade back to let someone get ahead of Baltimore for Ryan, Cincy for Dorsey or any number of teams for McFadden

 

[Miguel]

That seems way low. $17M is guaranteed and you think that he only has another $8M over 6 years in salary and reachable incentives?

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

 

[Miguel]

This is a game about putting the best players on the field. Not saving having as much excess cap space as possible.

Bingo - Players win games. Cap space does not.

 

[Miguel]

Good teams generally don't pick high so it is hard to show the effect on a good team that whiffs in the top 10. Not that I think BB and Pioli will choke on pick #7...just that if they did I believe it would be more painful than your post seems to indicate.

Let's say that you are right and I doubt that you are (Good teams know how to manage the cap). So what. The Giants had over $18 million in dead money last year and still won the Super Bowl. That is, close to one of every 6 cap dollars was devoted to players no longer on the Giants roster.