Can't Trade SF Pick?

[BrianPat]

Question, can we trade that pick for later pick and a PLAYER ???

I would think so, that's how we got Moss. I think that puts a nice wrinkle on things !!

 

[JDSal45]

What he meant was they may not be able to find anyone to trade with, not that they couldn't trade it legally.

J D Sal

 

[dryheat44]

I agree with your assessment that DB help is needed as I do not feel comfortable with only having three truely competent corners on the team right now, and I would guess most people would like some type of linebacker youth infusion. However if the Patriots were to get the #2 and use it on Jake Long or Darren McFadden, that presents a problem. Yes both players are most likely an upgrade over the current holders of the position [Long moves Light to the right tackle position, upgrading LT and RT by at least a marginal amount, and McFadden v Maroney probably is an upgrade]; however the problem is that the advantage of good drafting is that you should be able to get above average talent for below market rates for four to six years.

See the deal that we effectively got for our D-line, or Samuels compared to their second contracts. That divergence between cash and cap outlays v. true market value has allowed the Pats to allocate their cap to address other needs. Picking at #2 removes this projected divergence unless you believe that anyone the Pats pick there will have multiple All-Pro years in their rookie contract AND be a Pro-Bowler in their rookie year.

So if the Pats were able to move back to #8 and pick up say #40 and at least one first day pick in 2009, the Pats most likely will still improve their overall talent level for the 2008 season while providing for cheap depth [#40 has similiar cap charges as a vested vetern brought in on a league min. deal in 2008; see the Chad Jackson contract on patscap.com for the details]. Note that I have the Patriots significantly underselling the #2 pick to avoid salary cap charges in future years --- the DVC has the @2 at 2600 points, and a trade of #8, #40 and 2009 1st Rounder is only about 2400 points.

In my mind if the Pats have a choice of picking Long @#2 and then nothing until #64 and 66/67 [Raiders], or picking the #2 OT at #8, and the #4 or #5 CB at #40 and then filling other needs in the 60s, I'll choise the second scenario, for although there is a drop-off between Long and the #2 OT, I think the team is improved more and at a lesser cost by getting the #2 OT to effectively replace Kaczur, and getting a legit potential starting CB who should be able to displace Gay as the nickelback allowing Gay to move to the #2 position if Samuels leaves.

I like where your head is. And you're right on my wavelength - draft Long, move Light to RT (at least by 2009), and demote Kaczur to swing tackle. As you said, I think that upgrades both positions....RT by a fair amount, IMO. The other reason, which you don't address, is that if we draft in the top 5, an offensive lineman is by far the safest pick. I mean, there's been documented busts like Mandarich and Gallery, but compared to QBs, RBs, etc, they usually pan out, and you have a solid starter for 6 years. Even if Long turns out to be unable to handle LT, he's still a solid starter at RT. The worst case scenario is that he's a highly paid guard, which while less than an ideal use of cap resources, is still improving the team (over Neal). There's also a much less likely chance that an OT will get seriously injured, as is always a chance with a RB or QB. And you don't have to worry about performance in a gimmicky system. If you can play a great LT in the Big 10, you'll be a good pro.

I'm OK with trading back to 8-12. But trading from 2 to 5, then 5 to 8, than 8 to 15 in order to collect more picks in this draft is silly. There's just nowhere to put all these picks. Either push them into next year, or keep your pick and draft the 1 guy you really want.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

Wouldn't really matter would it?? The Patriots would simply make an agreement with the team they want to trade with, they would each make the picks for the players the other team wants and then TRADE THE PLAYERS after the draft. You know it's true!! :rocker:
But I don't think the original premise is true. Seems to me the pick is able to be traded.

 

[fester]

Dryheat wrote:

I like where your head is. And you're right on my wavelength - draft Long, move Light to RT (at least by 2009), and demote Kaczur to swing tackle. As you said, I think that upgrades both positions....RT by a fair amount, IMO. The other reason, which you don't address, is that if we draft in the top 5, an offensive lineman is by far the safest pick..... There's also a much less likely chance that an OT will get seriously injured, as is always a chance with a RB or QB. And you don't have to worry about performance in a gimmicky system. If you can play a great LT in the Big 10, you'll be a good pro.

I'm OK with trading back to 8-12. But trading from 2 to 5, then 5 to 8, than 8 to 15 in order to collect more picks in this draft is silly. There's just nowhere to put all these picks. Either push them into next year, or keep your pick and draft the 1 guy you really want.

I think you are making an error of not making a comprehensive draft analysis here. I agree with your thinking if the Patriots judge that the market dries up but I disagree with the limited scope of your analysis. If I remember reading Patriots Reign correctly, when the Patriots went into the 2003 draft with 13 picks there never was any intention to take 13 players. To paraphrase the quote from memory, the intent was to use those picks to move up and down and forward in time to get exactly whom the Patriots wanted.

If the Patriots believed that hopping back to #5 and picking up #38 and then hopping back to #12 and picking up #44 is a plausible scenario, or at least the Patriots would be satisfied taking a player that they liked at #5 if the second trade down fell through, then I think the Pats would do this. Going #12, 38, 44 and 64 allows the Pats to take an hour to assess their situation and see if it makes sense to jump from #38 to say #26 throwing in #64 as the sweetner, or moving #44 for a 2009 1st rounder, or pairing up #64 and the Raiders 3rd to go to #51 etc.

If the Patriots are indifferent to #5 or [#12 and 44] due to the combination of cap costs, player projections, projections of player availability, I think the added flexibility and expanded option space would be a nice feature for the Pats' to have, and that they would attempt a multi-trade strategy.

 

[fester]

Wouldn't really matter would it?? The Patriots would simply make an agreement with the team they want to trade with, they would each make the picks for the players the other team wants and then TRADE THE PLAYERS after the draft. You know it's true!! :rocker:
But I don't think the original premise is true. Seems to me the pick is able to be traded.

Problem with this is the Manning/Rivers problem. Manning was selected by San Diego #1 but then traded for Rivers to the Giants. The Giants had to sign the #1 pick with a rookie pool slot of the #4 pick. The NFL penalizes named draftee for named draftee picks by giving the rookie pool allotment to the original draft team and making that non-transferrable. It could still be done, but it is a pain in the butt and would require some sacrifices by some actors at some point compared to a straight up pick for pick(s) trade.

 

[14thDragon]

I'm OK with trading back to 8-12. But trading from 2 to 5, then 5 to 8, than 8 to 15 in order to collect more picks in this draft is silly. There's just nowhere to put all these picks. Either push them into next year, or keep your pick and draft the 1 guy you really want.

Well, I certainly would not mind picking up draft picks in the future. If we can find those willing to make the deals. It just seems to be an easier proposition to find someone willing to give up a second rounder (this year or next) to move 2-3 spots up instead of finding someone willing to part with a first this year and first next to move up 10-12 spots. If you can do the former deal a couple of times then you get some good value.

As for taking a Tackle or a RB or any other offensive position, I worry a bit about the value the player can bring. The offensive already looks pretty darn good and eventually you hit the wall of diminishing returns. The same on the defensive line. If the pick is in the top 5, then you pretty much could keep the guy who is proven for about the same money.

But I doubt this going to be the year I get the call asking my opinion on who should be drafted.