4th round pick and Deflategate Penalty

[XLIX]

In the interest of clarity, I need to correct my previous post:

Patriots start with #32 in the 4th round, but that was taken away so they don't have it.
Suppose NE trades for #10 and #20 in the 4th round.
#32 is returned to NE and #10 is taken away, so they own #20 and #32.
Please note that since #10 is taken away, those 2 picks become #19 and #31.
Also, the #31 pick jumps over the NY Giants due to their penalty from Walkie-Talkie gate.
So, to conclude the hypothetical, NE would own #19 and #30 within the 4th round.

The most pathetic thing is if you look at it from a certain point of view, the Patriots lost their draft pick in the 4th round, and the one they traded the Saints for gets dropped about 20 spots. That 20-spot drop ALONE is still twice the severity of the punishment the Giants received for blatantly violating league rules on live national TV.

In conclusion, that's how much of an ******* Goodell is.

 

[The Boston Patriot]

And yet the Patriots traded the higher (at that time) 4th round pick in the Allen trade.

The other 4th (New Orleans) came in a trade announced later.

Perhaps the Patriots circumvented that rule by not officially submitting the trade paperwork to the NFL, at least until the Cooks trade was agreed upon?

I wouldn't put it past Goodell to reject the Allen trade by saying the Pats could not trade that pick - even though they could simply resubmit it now that New England has the earlier 4th round pick from New Orleans.

Would Goodell and his minions be so petty to do that?

This has to be a rhetorical question.

 

[BelichickFan]

And yet the Patriots traded the higher (at that time) 4th round pick in the Allen trade.

The problem is it hints that we can't trade the highest pick but doesn't actually say it :

"For the violation of the playing rules and the failure to cooperate in the subsequent investigation, the New England Patriots are fined $1 million and will forfeit the club's first-round selection in the 2016 NFL Draft and the club's fourth-round selection in the 2017 NFL Draft. If the Patriots have more than one selection in either of these rounds, the earlier selection shall be forfeited. The club may not trade or otherwise encumber these selections."

Obviously it says we lose the higher pick. But it doesn't actually say that we can't trade the higher one (the way I read it). We clearly have to have a #4 at all times. Other than that the wording is tough to parse for exactness.

 

[BelichickFan]

I know it's Volin but he says we can trade the highest #4 :

 

[maineman209]

At the time of the Dwayne Allen trade, the Pats "technically" possessed their own #137 AND the #131 from Seattle. The #131 was "frozen" for the forfeit, so the Pats traded the #137.

In the Cooks trade, the Pats acquired the #118, giving them "technically" the #118 and #131 in the 4th. The #118 is now frozen and the #131 is now free for the Pats to use.

If the Pats make another trade that brings them a 4th rounder that's higher than the #118, then that NEW pick becomes the frozen one and the Pats are then free to use the #118. For example, the Pats could trade the #96 (116dvp) to Cinci for their #116 and their two 5th-rounders (113dvp). The #116 would then become frozen, but the Pats would regain the use of the #118 from NOL.

Hypothetically, BB could play those games with the league office all weekend long.

 

[Froob]

Does anyone really know? They have been making it up as they go past few years.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I know it's Volin but he says we can trade the highest #4 :

In conclusion there is close a 100% chance that 4-118 will be traded, since its trade value exceeds its pick value to the team. It is a better draft pick for any team except the Patriots. They could probably flip it for an early fifth round pick plus a late rounder, which essentially restores their penalty.

 

[BelichickFan]

At the time of the Dwayne Allen trade, the Pats "technically" possessed their own #137 AND the #131 from Seattle. The #131 was "frozen" for the forfeit, so the Pats traded the #137.

You're making an assumption on why 131 was traded as opposed to 137. That's not evidence that the highest #4 is untradeable.

 

[BelichickFan]

In conclusion there is close a 100% chance that 4-118 will be traded, since its trade value exceeds its pick value to the team. It is a better draft pick for any team except the Patriots. They could probably flip it for an early fifth round pick plus a late rounder, which essentially restores their penalty.

You are correct, assuming Volin is correct

 

[QuantumMechanic]

The problem is it hints that we can't trade the highest pick but doesn't actually say it :

"For the violation of the playing rules and the failure to cooperate in the subsequent investigation, the New England Patriots are fined $1 million and will forfeit the club's first-round selection in the 2016 NFL Draft and the club's fourth-round selection in the 2017 NFL Draft. If the Patriots have more than one selection in either of these rounds, the earlier selection shall be forfeited. The club may not trade or otherwise encumber these selections."

Obviously it says we lose the higher pick. But it doesn't actually say that we can't trade the higher one (the way I read it). We clearly have to have a #4 at all times. Other than that the wording is tough to parse for exactness.

Disagree that it doesn't say that. The "these selections" in the final sentence pretty clearly (IMHO) refers to whatever picks are being forfeited. It doesn't make any sense otherwise. If you could trade the higher one it would completely negate the intent of the 2nd sentence. The only way to deny NE the full value of highest pick in the round is to prevent it from being traded.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I know it's Volin but he says we can trade the highest #4 :

Why on earth would you trust Volin on anything? He thought Kraft was the Kraft of Kraft dinners.

 

[BelichickFan]

Disagree that it doesn't say that. The "these selections" in the final sentence pretty clearly (IMHO) refers to whatever picks are being forfeited. It doesn't make any sense otherwise. If you could trade the higher one it would completely negate the intent of the 2nd sentence. The only way to deny NE the full value of highest pick in the round is to prevent it from being traded.

Right but as the forfeiting doesn't occur until the draft starts (or thereabouts), it could be read that way. It says the earlier pick will be forfeited but not which can't be traded.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

So, if Volin is correct (and I know that's a big if), the Pat's should try and package the Saints picks to move up to the third round, or get additional picks in the later rounds.

Either say, I can't see BB just let the league take an earlier 4th red pick without trying to get something for them.

 

[Wheelman]

@ivanvamp How about fixing that title? It's misleading.

 

[maineman209]

You're making an assumption on why 131 was traded as opposed to 137. That's not evidence that the highest #4 is untradeable.

I'm basing that on my interpretation of the "may not encumber" phrase in the penalty language - if the Pats have two 4th round picks, they "may not encumber (trade away or otherwise pledge) the higher of the two".

It's possible, though it seems unlikely,that the Colts could have made the Allen deal with a stipulation that they (the Colts) accept the #137, UNLESS the #131 becomes available via the Pats acquiring a higher pick. In that case, the Pats would now "technically" possess the #118 and the #137, with the #118 "frozen" (prohibited from being "encumbered".

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Right but as the forfeiting doesn't occur until the draft starts (or thereabouts), it could be read that way. It says the earlier pick will be forfeited but not which can't be traded.

But if the earlier pick can be traded then that negates the NFL being able to make NE forfeit the earlier pick.
The forfeit the earlier pick clause makes no sense without a companion clause freezing the earlier pick.

And of course the pick doesn't actually disappear before the 4th round of the draft because what pick actually disappears depends on what pick(s) NE has at that exact moment, since NE can get back a pick by acquiring an earlier pick in the round.

 

[BelichickFan]

I'm basing that on my interpretation of the "may not encumber" phrase in the penalty language - if the Pats have two 4th round picks, they "may not encumber (trade away or otherwise pledge) the higher of the two".

Right but it doesn't say that.

 

[BelichickFan]

But if the earlier pick can be traded then that negates the NFL being able to make NE forfeit the earlier pick.
The forfeit the earlier pick clause makes no sense without a companion clause freezing the earlier pick.

It does, it prevents the 2008 scenario of losing a lower pick while picking higher and making the penalty look less significant. I think we're all guessing, the wording SUGGESTS to me that you are right but it's not clear.

 

[maineman209]

So, if Volin is correct (and I know that's a big if), the Pat's should try and package the Saints picks to move up to the third round, or get additional picks in the later rounds.

Either say, I can't see BB just let the league take an earlier 4th red pick without trying to get something for them.

Assuming that the Pats "possess" the #118 and the #131, packaging the #72 + #131 gets them back to #64. Packaging the #72 + #118 returns maybe the #61, if Green Bay is feeling generous. So, not really that much difference.

 

[maineman209]

It does, it prevents the 2008 scenario of losing a lower pick while picking higher and making the penalty look less significant. I think we're all guessing, the wording SUGGESTS to me that you are right but it's not clear.

Right. But how do you think GOODELL will be interpreting the language?