Trading for picks in 2012

[Mogamedogz]

The last thing I'll say about making a play for Luck is this...

In 4 years when this kid is lighting up the league, and Brady is either a mere shell of what he used to be, OR we have some other slub back there trying to keep us at or above .500, you all will remember me saying this stuff.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Overstatement? In 2008, Favre had the Jets at 8-3 before getting hurt. In 2009, he was an MVP candidate, and one of only 4 players to get a vote for the award. He was nowhere near "completely washed up".

He wasn't washed up; the Packers were just sick of the Favre Annual Retirement Tango, and the resultant inability to plan for the future.

 

[DonBlackmon55]

How much do you think it would take to get into the top 3? You dont think we have enough ammo between this year and next? We have 175 freaking draft picks stockpiled... may as well cash them in for a player that is actually worth it.

....and tie up 40% of your cap space with 2 QB's, and the #1 pick holding the clipboard won't even sniff starting for 4 yrs.

I thought the Jet's clowns took the idiots idea of the year award with plans to pay Revis and add Asomugha to tie up 30% of their cap, but this idea really is a runaway winner.

So, trade all your picks this yr to load up for 2012, thereby weakening your 2011 team, then draft Luck in 2012, thereby again adding a piece to a team that will not contribute for 3-4 yrs.

Fantasy leaguers need to layoff the crack pipe. We aren't living 20yrs ago where 49'ers could keep Montana and afford the luxury of Young holding the clipboard for 5 yrs. There's a reason why nutjob GM's for Vikes(H. Walker) and Saints(Ricky williams) mortgaged the team future and they and the teams paid a price for the next decade. Or for that matter this is not even 2005 when Packers drafted the successor to Lord Favre.

Stupidity at its best...:bricks:

 

[Off The Grid]

I know this board hates it, but I'd love to see him gather enough Ammo to move up to #1 land Andrew Luck next year if a Rookie Wage scale is in place (which most believe will).

And seven years from now he can start.

Right...

Because Brady has 7 good years left in him.

Only in this forum will you read such out of touch with reality nonsense.

Brett Favre was a completely washed up 38yr old when the team FINALLY decided to give him the boot for Rodgers.

1 ~ Brady + 7 years = Brady @ 40

2 ~ Favre @ 40: 33 TD's + 7 Picks.

Not bad for 2 years PAST "completely washed up"...EH???

Would you like to reconsider your previous statement??

 

[meggett]

The last thing I'll say about making a play for Luck is this...

In 4 years when this kid is lighting up the league, and Brady is either a mere shell of what he used to be, OR we have some other slub back there trying to keep us at or above .500, you all will remember me saying this stuff.

not to mention. even if that ridiculous scenario occurred, we would be paying bradys salary AND lucks no. 1 pick salary. for the next 3 years. sounds like fun.

 

[DonBlackmon55]

not to mention. even if that ridiculous scenario occurred, we would be paying bradys salary AND lucks no. 1 pick salary. for the next 3 years. sounds like fun.

and add to that this....

Let's see how many #1 FRANCHISE COLLEGE QB's have turned their COLLEGE talent at PRO level

ummm..i'll go as far back as Elway to '83 for "modern era" football.

Of the 15 drafted QB's @ #1, I count only 3 FRANCHISE QB's...Elway, Peyton Manning and Aikman. That's a whopping 20% success ratio of winding up with a franchise QB @ #1 pick who actually delivered at PRO level...80% of QB's taken #1 overall were average or well below average.

Andrew Luck is what he is..an UNPROVEN college level PROSPECT.


- JeMarcus Russell
- Matt Stafford
- Sam Bradford (rookie yr sample size only so more time needed)
- Alex Smith
- Eli Manning
- Carson Palmer
- David Carr
- Michael Vick
- Tim Couch
- Peyton Manning
- Drew Bledsoe
- Jeff George
- Troy Aikman
- Vinny Testaverde
- John Elway

 

[townes]

The last thing I'll say about making a play for Luck is this...

In 4 years when this kid is lighting up the league, and Brady is either a mere shell of what he used to be, OR we have some other slub back there trying to keep us at or above .500, you all will remember me saying this stuff.

What i'll remember first is your contention that a team can trade for the following year's number one overall pick before the season even starts. First graders know better. Brady was the best player in football this year, and you want to use their first 2 picks for a chance to draft a successor when he's got another 4-5 years of high level play ahead of him. I think you live in fantasy football world.

 

[fester]

I know this board hates it, but I'd love to see him gather enough Ammo to move up to #1 land Andrew Luck next year if a Rookie Wage scale is in place (which most believe will).

I think this idea is asinine for the same reasons as most other posters (draft and pay Luck with the intent of sitting him for three to five years while eating up 7% to 12% of the available cap space holding the clipboard while also making several other positions go from significantly above replacement level players to UDFA/vet min positions)

What is the minimal amount of ammo needed to move to #1 in 2012?

Assume the Pats make it to the play-offs next year, give them pick # 28 (660 points), they need to find another 2,400 points of value.

That could be through acquiring the #2 or # 3 pick in the 2012 draft with a throw-in pick to balance things out, or trading the remainder of the Patriots 2012 (620 more points) draft plus ALL of the 2013 (650 points) PLUS a Pro-Bowler on rookie contract.

Let's go the draft pick routine. If the Patriots can find a sucker like Carolina then trading # 60 for a 2012 1st rounder could suffice, but there is only a 10% chance that a trading partner will collapse to the bottom three teams in the league. There is high variance in outcomes. More likely, the Patriots would have to assume that any 2011 trade partners will be average teams, so call it trading #33 and #60 for a pair of 2012 firsts which will be #16 and #17. The Pats would then have 2,600 points. To get to 3,000, the trade would be #16, #17, #28, #60 and #92 for # 1 and perhaps a 4th or 5th rounder to balance things out.

Now what happens if the Pats' trade partners are surprisingly good next year (like Oakland was this year as most Pats fans were hoping/counting on a top 10 pick) and they each make the playoffs? The trade is then 3 2012 firsts, 2012 2nd, 2012 3rd, and probably a 2013 1st plus some change for #1.

Oh yeah, the reason why the Patriots would be doing this is that they evaluate Luck as an Elway/Manning type of prospect. If the Pats are evaluating and valuing Luck as such a prospect, I am assuming Top 5 and Top 10 pick teams are also evaluating Luck as such a prospect. If that is the case, then the asking price for the right to choose Luck is most likely signficantly above 3,000 draft value points (esp. if he is reasonably cheap due to a rookie wage scale), so everything I have calculated as a trade is lowballing the actual offer neccessary.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The last thing I'll say about making a play for Luck is this...

In 4 years when this kid is lighting up the league, and Brady is either a mere shell of what he used to be, OR we have some other slub back there trying to keep us at or above .500, you all will remember me saying this stuff.

No, I'd be wondering if Luck would be able to do any better than that slub, given that the Patriots would have sacrificed the chance to strengthen other parts of the team to get Luck in the first place.

 

[Off The Grid]

Worst...Idea...EVER!!

 

[Snake Eyes]

The last thing I'll say about making a play for Luck is this...

In 4 years when this kid is lighting up the league, and Brady is either a mere shell of what he used to be, OR we have some other slub back there trying to keep us at or above .500, you all will remember me saying this stuff.

How do you know he'll be lighting up the league? How do you know our QB will stink?

That's nothing more than speculation, what is not speculation is that we'll have to spend a LOT of money and draft capital on a guy who won't be playing, how does that help maximize your chances of winning when you have a HoF QB on the roster?

Our current system works fine, we draft no-name QBs, develop them, and either trade them or keep them, what's wrong with that?

Hoyer looks very solid maybe we grab Stanzi, Dalton, or McElroy, or maybe Johnny McEntee next year, the point is there's no reason to fix what isn't broken, and there's less reason to BREAK WHAT ISN"T BROKEN.

Grabbing Luck would set this team back.

 

[dryheat44]

I know this board hates it....

Well, looks like you nailed that part.

 

[townes]

The last thing I'll say about making a play for Luck is this...

In 4 years when this kid is lighting up the league, and Brady is either a mere shell of what he used to be, OR we have some other slub back there trying to keep us at or above .500, you all will remember me saying this stuff.

Just for you...........................


5th/6th Grade Pembroke and Prospects! | Purnell Swett High School Middle School Football Photos | iHigh.com

 

[dryheat44]

Like every year, BB will trade picks for next yr. That's why I love to see all these "Mock" pundits having us keep all the picks and take their binky's.

I would not be shocked if we traded down from 17, traded #28 or #33 for 2012 picks. Anything is possible. One thing you won't see pats do is package picks to move up.

Out of 6 picks in 3rds, I expect 2 to be traded into 2012 draft. That's how you keep reloading every year.

Frankly, I'd be shocked if #33 isn't traded. If Belichick actually makes picks at 17 and 28, there's no doubt about it. There are several teams drafting before #40 that need a QB, and one of them could want to get to the front of the line. One of them might be desperate enough to offer their 2012 1st round pick in a package.

 

[townes]

Frankly, I'd be shocked if #33 isn't traded. If Belichick actually makes picks at 17 and 28, there's no doubt about it. There are several teams drafting before #40 that need a QB, and one of them could want to get to the front of the line. One of them might be desperate enough to offer their 2012 1st round pick in a package.

Pretty much how I see it. That pick is gold because teams now have all night to redo their draft boards and will likely have a player or more they want badly and will move to get them. It's hard to see how anything less than a 2012 first would get it unless they have already used their 2nd and 3rd round picks to move up for players and need to replenish them.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Pretty much how I see it. That pick is gold because teams now have all night to redo their draft boards and will likely have a player or more they want badly and will move to get them. It's hard to see how anything less than a 2012 first would get it unless they have already used their 2nd and 3rd round picks to move up for players and need to replenish them.

The key, I think, is going to be what happens with Buffalo. If (A) they don't take a QB at 3, and (B) teams think they plan to take a QB at 34, then welcome to Wild Bill's Trade-for-that-Quarterback Emporium. :rocker:

 

[dryheat44]

The key, I think, is going to be what happens with Buffalo. If (A) they don't take a QB at 3, and (B) teams think they plan to take a QB at 34, then welcome to Wild Bill's Trade-for-that-Quarterback Emporium. :rocker:

Well, drafting from 34-43 are the Bills, Bengals, Cardinals, Titans, Redskins, and Vikings - all of whom probably want to get a QB in the draft as it stands now. Kolb will probably get traded to one, and possibly Orton, and maybe 1 or 2 QBs go in the first round....but there should be a real possibility of a team wanting to get to the front of the line.

My dream scenario includes a trade to the Cardinals as part of a Larry Fitzgerald deal. I just might mock that when I get around to mocking the draft.

 

[RIP#40]

Like every year, BB will trade picks for next yr. That's why I love to see all these "Mock" pundits having us keep all the picks and take their binky's.

I would not be shocked if we traded down from 17, traded #28 or #33 for 2012 picks. Anything is possible. One thing you won't see pats do is package picks to move up.

Out of 6 picks in 3rds, I expect 2 to be traded into 2012 draft. That's how you keep reloading every year.

IMO, it's also how you fail to win a playoff game in 3 years. I'm getting tired of the value over talent philosophy. It has been written on this board that Pats were loading up for this year and the rookie salary cap. If the CBA is worked out and there is a rookie cap, I say trade what it takes to get a third first rounder this year. I'd be happy with 3 "McCourtys" this year.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

IMO, it's also how you fail to win a playoff game in 3 years. I'm getting tired of the value over talent philosophy. It has been written on this board that Pats were loading up for this year and the rookie salary cap. If the CBA is worked out and there is a rookie cap, I say trade what it takes to get a third first rounder this year. I'd be happy with 3 "McCourtys" this year.

Just to be clear: the Patriots do not trade down simply for the sake of trading down.

If they can get the player they want and pick up extra ammo in the draft, they will. If it's one or the other, they'll take the one they feel helps them more. [With McCourty, that was clearly the player; in 2008, they took a 2009 2 from San Diego over Shawn Crable.]

 

[the wrothbroughterer]

Ahhhh...Trade FORWARD, out of an anticipated weak class. VERY interesting...

As stated above, I USUALLY find that to be a fundamentally unsound policy. Indeed, it is only because Coach Bill has acquired such a wealth of Picks that I floated my radical idea, this past Spring, to roll the Raider Pick forward, in pursuit of San Fran's 2nd 1st Rounder, as the likes of Marquis de Pouncey don't come along very often.

So while I'm not on board with your approach, I salute the creativity and forward thinking whence it came.

If the 2012 Draft Class DOES turn out weak ~ as opposed to every last 2014 Red Shirt Sophomore stampeding to fill the void ~ my approach would simply be to Trade Back, as we did in 2007.

Still...I LOVE your sense of GREED.

I very much agree and when I'm arguing with friends over the merits of trading down this always comes up, but to me these are special circumstances. The team is entering what is in all probability the end of their run. I'm not saying that in 2 years they'll be a shell of their former self at all, but the window in which to realistically win the Super Bowl(s) is probably going to be closed within the next 6 years. That number might even be a little optimistic with Brady's deal up in 2014.

With the exception of the really special players (the McCourty's and Mayo's of the world) it takes a season, maybe even 2 or 3 in some cases, for most players to reach their full potential. If the 2012 draft is weak, and it probably will be, you're likely looking at 1) a smaller ratio of the players you draft becoming starters, and 2) probably waiting until the 2013-2014 seasons for them to become reliable players. At that point we have 1-2 years of a Brady led team and for all we know his performance may be slipping. I don't think it will but you can't deny the possibility.

Now if you move say a 2012 2nd rounder back into the 2011 draft as part of a package for a higher pick you are simultaneously improving the odds that the player you selected will both develop into a reliable starter and lengthen the window for the team to contend in. In the mock I'm constructing I have them making trades that net them 3 first rounders(21, 24, and 28), 2nd rounders(57 and 60), and 92. The only sacrifice is a 2nd round pick in a weak draft class.