In the last few years alone, off the top of my head, not tagged players.
RGIII was traded for 3 first rounders as well as a second.
Julio Jones was traded for 2 first rounders, a second and two fourths.
Jay Cutler was traded for 2 first rounders, a third and Kyle Orton.
As CT mentioned, those deals don't have the true double-whammy of a big contract in addition to the draft pick compensation.
But those are also bad examples for several other reasons. First, it's worth noting those 3 teams went a combined 15-33 last season, definitely a model I want to follow.
The RGIII trade is still giving, as the 3-13 Redskins send the #2 overall pick to the Rams. In addition, the Rams acquired Michael Brockers, Janoris Jenkins, Alec Ogletree, and Zac Stacey, 4 starters, a few other kids with potential, and the #2 pick this year. They also won 4 more games than the Redskins last year despite playing in the toughest division in football.
The Jones deal worked out to be a bit more neutral because Cleveland wasted a chunk of it on Brandon Weeden (hey, it's Cleveland), but there is still Phil Taylor, Greg Little, Owen Maricic, and part of the trade that sent Trent Richardson to Indy for a 1st-rounder this year.
The Cutler deal arguably was the catalyst to Denver making the Super Bowl this season, as the Broncos received Demaryius Thomas, Eric Decker, and Robert Ayers. They also spent a 1st on Tim Tebow, who would eventually be traded for Danny Trevathan, a core defensive player.
Again, this is just on the draft pick side. None of these teams would face the second half of the equation, which is throwing in a large contract to chew up cap space.
And while sample sizes are small, what did the teams really get out of these deals?
Washington got their play-off game, and maybe this year would have gone better if Shanahan didn't let Griffin destroy himself out there. Meanwhile, the Rams went from a 2-win team to 7 wins the past two seasons in the toughest division in football.
Atlanta went 13-3 and scored 419 points with Julio Jones, but was that really because of the trade? The previous two seasons without Jones, they went 10-6 and scored 402 points, and 13-3 and scored 426 points. The main difference is they finally won a play-off game, though they blew a 20-point lead and had a miracle last-minute drive from Ryan. Cleveland is...well...what can you say about Cleveland?
The Bears have gone to the play-offs once with Cutler, but in his 5 seasons, they're 3 games over .500. The 5 seasons before Cutler, the Bears were 5 games over .500 with 2 Super Bowl trips. Denver went through a lot of changes but has emerged the past 3 seasons as one of the dominant teams in the league, a consistent play-off presence and Super Bowl threat.
So even without the big contract at the end, it's hard to say any of those deals really made the difference the teams were hoping for. If you discount the Browns from the equation (as they're not really an NFL team anyways), the team receiving the surplus of picks often translates them into cheap, talented players, who are not just contributors on the field, but also allow for more talent to be added around them.
If Denver instead followed that model and traded for high-priced receivers who are as talented as Thomas and Decker, they will need to compensate in other areas where they also drafted cheap players, and they can't afford Manning when he becomes a free agent.
That's why people hoard those picks. They aren't just cheap labour, they are also financial flexibility to make moves later. The Graham scenario denies you both of those things.
