Adam Schefter: Patriots want minimum of 1st and 4th round picks for QB Jimmy Garoppolo

[supafly]

If they do that, his trade value is lower than it will be this offseason. His value will never be higher than it is now.

I've thought about that a lot and I think you're probably right, but there are many variables that may go into the decision, and many reasons why keeping him through the 2017 season could be beneficial.

There are a lot of assumptions being made, but Belichick may be fine with taking another year to assess his options. Again, the odds may be much lower than moving him in March, but it shouldn't be dismissed either. There are certainly some pluses and minuses in just about every (reasonable) scenario.

 

[deroc5050]

Having a player for 1 year on the cheap is nice, but not as nice as having a player locked in for 2/3/4 more years on the cheap.

There is no planet where 1 year of low-cost certainty is better than 4/5 years of low-cost certainty.

You have 1 season before you have to start paying him huge dollars, either via the franchise tag (which tends to make players unhappy) or a large deal. That hurts his present-day trade value. I'm not saying it destroys his trade value, just that it hurts it.

Well yeah but if he ends up being a top 10 QB then the low cost rookie deal is meaningless. The goal is to get a good starting QB via free agency or out of the draft. If this was any other position I would agree with your assessment about getting low cost team friendly contracts. But when it comes to QB's that goes out the window.

Brock got a 72 million dollar deal being an average QB.. Sam average Bradford it took a 1 and a 4 to get him to Minnesota.. its all about the QB's.

 

[XLIX]

We just saw Sam Bradford get traded for a 1st and a 4th despite having 0 years on his rookie contract.

Yes, and he arrived in Minnesota with 2 years on a very low-cost contract (low cost from the Vikings standpoint because the Eagles paid the signing bonus).

I'm not suggesting these are good deals. But there are precedents for trading for a QB despite not having cheap years on their contract, so people need to stop pointing that out like it's an automatic deal breaker when clearly it isn't.

Where did I say it was an "automatic deal breaker"?

Someone asked why Garoppolo isn't going to get a high first round pick. I answered the question.

 

[XLIX]

Well yeah but if he ends up being a top 10 QB then the low cost rookie deal is meaningless. The goal is to get a good starting QB via free agency or out of the draft. If this was any other position I would agree with your assessment about getting low cost team friendly contracts. But when it comes to QB's that goes out the window.

The guy has 1 1/2 games experience. Yes, he looked very good, but I think a lot of people in this forum have him going straight to Canton when the GM's around the league may not be quite so certain.

If he's the world-beater QB that people in here think he is, he is going to be very expensive after 1 year. That hurts his trade value. I am not saying it destroys his trade value, it means we don't get a low 1st rounder or that no one will want him. I'm just saying that having only 1 year left lowers his value.

 

[MrNathanDrake]

Teams that need a QB next year:

Cleveland Browns
San Francisco 49ers
Chicago Bears
Houston Texans (but they're locked to Osweiler)
Arizona Cardinals? (Palmer is 37 and has never won sh**)


NY Jets and Buffalo Bills also need QBs but we won't trade in division.

 

[supafly]

4 relatively cheap years only matter if you don't draft Christian Ponder or EJ Manuel or Johnny Manziel. You could get a dozen cheap years out of those guys but who cares?

There's no guarantee Jimmy will be any better or worse, and he doesn't have a ton of tape, but he's far more proven than any draft pick. Not only does he have film against real live NFL competition, but he's also learned a pro style offense, which is more than you can say about most of these spread QBs.

If you're drafting one of those kids, you're hoping he can learn to take a snap from under center and throw on 3-5-7 step drops or that he can learn a complicated offense with a real playbook, or you can get a guy like Jimmy who has already gone through all of that and proven he can do it against real NFL players. You can dismiss his NFL track record all you want, but it's far more than all of the draftable QBs will have combined before teams take them.

The fact that he's Tom Brady's understudy makes him more desirable than another backup in the same situation. The fact that he's shown intelligence, poise under pressure, and a strong work ethic make him a candidate to start somewhere.

Of course, the fact that there isn't much tape on him and he became injured during his 2nd real start hurt his stock a bit, and the draft/free agent market will cross some prospective buyers off the list, as usual.

 

[deroc5050]

The guy has 1 1/2 games experience. Yes, he looked very good, but I think a lot of people in this forum have him going straight to Canton when the GM's around the league may not be quite so certain.

If he's the world-beater QB that people in here think he is, he is going to be very expensive after 1 year. That hurts his trade value. I am not saying it destroys his trade value, it means we don't get a low 1st rounder or that no one will want him. I'm just saying that having only 1 year left lowers his value.

I suppose, for the Pats though because Brady's gonna be 40 if they don't get a high first round pick or something equal to that, I can see the Pats holding on to him for insurance purposes.

We used a 2nd round pick on Jimmy, its not like we drafted him in the 5th round.

 

[MrNathanDrake]

Unfortunately not many teams can take on a new QB.

Don't forget Tony Romo may also be on the market, making it that much harder to trade Jimmy G.

Cutler is coming back for the Bears. He's a total loser, but Bears ownership might be content with being mediocre. If they are smart they would get rid of Cutler, but who knows.


Unless there is a surprise retirement (Drew Brees? Carson Palmer?) or some freak off-season injury, most teams are invested at QB already. Our trade options will be very limited.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Yes, and he arrived in Minnesota with 2 years on a very low-cost contract (low cost from the Vikings standpoint because the Eagles paid the signing bonus).

Where did I say it was an "automatic deal breaker"?

Someone asked why Garoppolo isn't going to get a high first round pick. I answered the question.

But the answer is incorrect. You're saying he can't get a first round pick because he only has one cheap year on his contract, even though several QBs have been traded for 1st round picks who had similar, or worse contracts. You're assuming it can't happen after it's already happened multiple times.

It's a fair point on Bradford, he had one lower cost year this year (next year is $17M, so I don't think that counts as 2 years on low cost). It's basically Bradford for 2 years, $24M. Jimmy is at $1.1M this year, with the ability to franchise ($20M-$22M depending on the tag), so they're pretty much identical in terms of overall 2-year costs.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

The fact that he's Tom Brady's understudy makes him more desirable than another backup in the same situation. The fact that he's shown intelligence, poise under pressure, and a strong work ethic make him a candidate to start somewhere.

Of course, the fact that there isn't much tape on him and he became injured during his 2nd real start hurt his stock a bit, and the draft/free agent market will cross some prospective buyers off the list, as usual.

I agree, although I think the average fan wouldn't. They'd point to Matt Cassel or Brian Hoyer as examples of backups who failed, but we're talking about a 7th-rounder who never started a game in college and an UDFA carving out solid NFL careers. They may not be HOFers, but they've far exceeded anyone's expectations, and you damn well better believe part of that is from being with Brady day after day.

 

[XLIX]

But the answer is incorrect. You're saying he can't get a first round pick because he only has one cheap year on his contract,

Oh really? Where did I say that?

Only in this forum can a ridiculously obvious statement like "3 years of low cost certainty is better than 1 year of low cost certainty" be argued with.

even though several QBs have been traded for 1st round picks who had similar, or worse contracts.

And how many of those QBs had 1 1/2 games experience under their belt?

It's a fair point on Bradford, he had one lower cost year this year (next year is $17M, so I don't think that counts as 2 years on low cost). It's basically Bradford for 2 years, $24M. Jimmy is at $1.1M this year, with the ability to franchise ($20M-$22M depending on the tag), so they're pretty much identical in terms of overall 2-year costs.

I actually thought Bradford was making less than that, but there's still a huge difference between $17 million due on a deal, which can easily be restructured, versus a $20 million franchise number.

 

[supafly]

Unfortunately not many teams can take on a new QB.

Don't forget Tony Romo may also be on the market, making it that much harder to trade Jimmy G.

Cutler is coming back for the Bears. He's a total loser, but Bears ownership might be content with being mediocre. If they are smart they would get rid of Cutler, but who knows.


Unless there is a surprise retirement (Drew Brees? Carson Palmer?) or some freak off-season injury, most teams are invested at QB already. Our trade options will be very limited.

Kirk Cousins is a free agent who isn't giving WAS a hometown discount, so it's possible that another team comes along with a nice offer and snags him away.

Sam Bradford is another QB that could be traded, based on the recovery of Teddy Bridgewater's injury at the end of last summer. (Edit: at the moment, this seems unlikely)

As you mentioned, both Romo and Cutler will be candidates as well. Then there's the usual guys such as Nick Foles, Mike Glennon, etc. Hell, one can even argue that Matt Moore may have caught the attention of a GM hoping to part with a lower round pick and a reasonable deal.

There are also the draft picks, as you can cross a team or two off the list there, too.

 

[Big Bucks]

If anyone wants to refresher on Jimmy G and don't mind using torrents and don't want to pay the Pass.. I have direct links to all the games this year and can in a PM request send said links.. they are fast still, and each is about 2.3GB to 2.9GB each. So Ariz0na and Miami.

Just PM if your interested.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Don't forget Tony Romo may also be on the market, making it that much harder to trade Jimmy G..

Two different and basically non-intersecting markets.

 

[deroc5050]

SF, Chicago, The Browns, Or maybe some package deal with Mcdaniels and Jimmy to Jacksonville or San Fran. All you need is 2 interested teams to get good on the return.

I have no issue keeping JG for insurance but we most likely we will only end up with comp picks if we do. I doubt the Pats will franchise a back up QB unless there are questions with Brady.

If teams are desperate enough to mortage there whole future for an unproven college QB rookies, I think the Pats are going to make out very well with this.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

SF, Chicago, The Browns, Or maybe some package deal with Mcdaniels and Jimmy to Jacksonville or San Fran. All you need is 2 interested teams to get good on the return.

I have no issue keeping JG for insurance but we most likely we will only end up with comp picks if we do. I doubt the Pats will franchise a back up QB unless there are questions with Brady.

If teams are desperate enough to mortage there whole future for an unproven college QB rookies, I think the Pats are going to make out very well with this.

The worst case scenario is trading Garoppolo for a dogs—t offer. A comp pick + having arguably the best backup QB in the NFL for 2017 isn't a total loss.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Oh really? Where did I say that?

Did your account get hacked or something?

According to Andy Heart on CSNE the Pats at best would get a late round 1st pick for Jimmy G. And more likely a high 2nd round pick... Sorry doesnt make sense to me.. Jimmy G was a 2nd round pick and is developed.. I don't understand why you can't get a high 1st round pick for him. Or a late round first and a third / 4th round pick..

Because he only has 1 year left on his rookie contract.

The answer to deroc5050's question is incorrect. His contract status does not prevent us from getting a 1st for him.

Only in this forum can a ridiculously obvious statement like "3 years of low cost certainty is better than 1 year of low cost certainty" be argued with.
And how many of those QBs had 1 1/2 games experience under their belt?

It's not ridiculously obvious if your base assumptions are way off base.

3 years of low cost certainty is only better than 1 year of low cost certainty if we're talking about similar assets. I'd rather have 3 years of market value of Tom Brady than 10 years of low cost certainty of Christian Ponder.

You're assuming any 1st-round draft pick will be just as good as Jimmy, who has spent 3 years working with and learning from Brady and Belichick and Josh. But for every Jameis Winston and Marcus Mariota, there's a Blake Bortles and Johnny Manziel. Or EJ Manuel. Or Brandon Weeden. Or Jake Locker. You get the point.

So there's no guarantee your rookie 1st round pick with much lower cost certainty will be a better investment than Jimmy, and if they don't develop, who gives a **** about their low contract cost certainty?

Also overlooked is the fact that if you're not the Browns, you may need to pay to trade up to get your QB. It isn't just your 1st round pick, but your 1st, 2 2nds, a 3rd, and next year's 1st and 3rd to move up from middle of the pack like the Rams did, or your 1st, 3rd, 4th, next year's 1st, and 2 years down the road 2nd to move up 6 spots in the top 10 like the Eagles.

So if you're a team like the Bills at 10 or the Redskins at 17, you're looking at giving up 9 to 17 years of cheap players in exchange for an extra 3 years of cost controlled rookie QB. That's why this argument about rookie cost controlled contract makes little sense.

Also, not all spread QBs learn the playbooks, develop the skills to work from under center, and Jimmy was one of those question marks coming out of Eastern Illinois. He definitely lost sleep trying to catch up. Some make the transition. Many don't.

As for QBs with little/no experience, the biggest name would be Brett Favre. Rob Johnson had 1 start before being traded for a 1st to the Bills (LOL). Matt Schaub wasn't traded for a first, but a pick swap plus additional picks put the value of the deal at a 1st round pick. So again, there are precedents.

None of this means Jimmy will or won't net a 1st round pick. It just means the equation is far more complex than Jimmy has one year left on his contract vs. 4 for a rookie so nobody will trade a 1st for him.

 

[rookBoston]

Seems obvious to me, Jimmy is easily one of the top 32 QBs in the NFL. I don't understand how there's much room for debate on the matter. There just aren't that many qualified pro caliber QBs in the NFL, prepared to lead a team.

In fact, depending on what you think of Tannehill, Jimmy is probably the 2nd or 3rd best QB in the AFC East.

If you were GM for some team, would you rather place a bet on Tyrod Taylor or Geno Smith or Jimmy G? How about Blake Bortles? Kapernick?

For a team that needs a QB, there is no safe choice. Gonna have to roll the dice. With Jimmy, I think it's fair to say no one has glimpsed his ceiling yet, and his floor is pretty decent. Some team is going to step up with a compelling offer.

 

[MrNathanDrake]

Seems obvious to me, Jimmy is easily one of the top 32 QBs in the NFL. I don't understand how there's much room for debate on the matter. There just aren't that many qualified pro caliber QBs in the NFL, prepared to lead a team.

In fact, depending on what you think of Tannehill, Jimmy is probably the 2nd or 3rd best QB in the AFC East.

If you were GM for some team, would you rather place a bet on Tyrod Taylor or Geno Smith or Jimmy G? How about Blake Bortles? Kapernick?

Jacksonville is heavily invested in Bortles and will have to give him a couple more years before they write him off.

Buffalo, NYJ, Denver, all need QBs but they won't trade with us. If we really believe Garopollo is a superstar, we would be smart to avoid trading him to one of our rivals.

Kaepernick. Yeah, SF is a possibility. They have the 2nd pick in the draft though so they might decide to pick their next QB. Seems like a trendy thing to do for new HC and GM's, even though it rarely works out.


I think our best bet is trading with Cleveland. They have the 1st pick overall, as well as the 12th pick overall that they got from Philly. They take best player available at #1 which is likely a DE. Then they send us #12 overall for Garopollo.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

Really insightful article on Garoppolo-type trade acquisitions and how they are likelier to outperform QBs drafted in thr 1st round. Basically, the author concludes:

When people talk about the high cost of a first round pick, I think it’s important to look at how those picks turn out. There’s a legitimate case that Garoppolo is a better prospect, and still young enough, to outperform anyone drafted in 2017. Cleveland has that extra pick from the Philadelphia trade, and one option is to go best available at #1, and trade the 12th pick for Garoppolo. His chance of success is probably higher than what they could draft in that position.