I understand draft picks are like gold, teams seem to want as many as they can get. Even foirgoing salary cap to gain more.
But my question is, would you trade a #1 for a sure starter?
Would you trade a #2 for a starter?
MY thought process was after I read that article about Belichick and the Pats trading away their #1 for a great WR, and then their #2 for another starter.
So is it better to get a sure starter instead of wondering if your draft pick will amount to anything?
Myself, I would take the sure NFL ready player, basically knowing what you have and being able to plan for next year instead of worrying if your pick will sort of 'fit in' or be NFL ready.
I understand people say you build thru the draft, but in certain cases, when you can get a sure fire starter and a decent one at that, why not trade that draft pick away for it. It sure seems to work for Belichick and the Pats.
I agree but it depends on the player, his age and his existing contract.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I would say yes if my team was anything close to what the Patriots have been and apparently still are which is a top tier contender. But it could be risky to draw broad conclusions based on what the Pats have done in that regard as there are many more reasons why they are a dynasty if not the GOAT.
I agree with Ed that the player's age and costs would be factors while the perhaps greater certainty with a proven starter would be an incentive for a team which see itself with a "win-now" opportunity. For most teams, the question is are you rebuilding, reloading, or relying?
Cheers!
There is no way to copy Bill Belichick. The man is a genius and his moves have no set pattern. Bill simply knows how to keep his team top notch and his moves are based on what will work at the time.
Sure trading a 1 for a guaranteed starter sounds like a good idea, but to be established enough in the league, they've likely been through their contract and are now looking for $$$. So now, it's a matter of losing a potential young prospect AND losing that rookie contract they're locked into. So while yes, if you've got cap space and can toss out your first or second rounder to grab 'certified' talent, it may be worth it, but it might not be.
The draft is a crapshoot, but sometimes you roll 7's... I'd want more rolls of the dice and a chance of jackpot more than I'd want small pots that still carry risk.
I mentioned BB because that's where the idea came from.
But, let's say some one approached Reese, asking if we would trade our #1 for a good OL, a good LB etc. Would you make that trade, knowing you get a good starter and knowing exactly what you ARE getting beforehand.
Linebacker? No. Offensive Lineman with the right criteria I mentioned? Yes. Positions of high collision are the concern. Never a RB. A QB possibly but the chances of finding one worth a first rounder are slim.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It may be ancient history but in 1971 the Giants traded their #1 to the Bears for C Bob Hyland and CB Bennie MaCrae. The Giants were 4-10, and the Bears with the #3 took OT Lionel Antoine who played 6 seasons. They also traded a #1 to Dallas for QB Craig Morton. That overall #1 turned into the HOF Manster DT Randy White.
Quote from: files58 on March 13, 2017, 11:47:53 PM
It may be ancient history but in 1971 the Giants traded their #1 to the Bears for C Bob Hyland and CB Bennie MaCrae. The Giants were 4-10, and the Bears with the #3 took OT Lionel Antoine who played 6 seasons. They also traded a #1 to Dallas for QB Craig Morton. That overall #1 turned into the HOF Manster DT Randy White.
Good points Files. But today's Giants are in a 'win now' mode. We have pieces in place to make a run and maybe are a player or two short. I would trade a draft pick for a player whose 'potential' could carry us to the top. We have a narrow window until Eli leaves and unless we can do a Joe Montana/Steve Young thing, or a Farve/Rodgers thing, we might be treading water for a while. My thoughts, if you are in position to make a good run, do whatever is necessary to make that happen, and if trading a draft pick to help that cause, there will be many takers.
I have always advocated trading a pick for a proven starter, it takes the mystery out of it and gives you what you need instead of drafting and hoping..
Good draft picks are what makes a the salary cap work for teams. With the last CBA and the rookie salary cap, the amount paid to draft picks is negligible. The more draft picks and undrafted free agents you team has filling roster spots the more money you have to retain players and sign other team's free agents.
Bill Belichick has been brilliant in his cap management and his team routinely has more than the usual 7 draft picks. As a result the Pats were swimming in cap space and could afford to part with a couple of valuable draft picks to acquire proven players.
Quote from: files58 on March 13, 2017, 11:47:53 PM
It may be ancient history but in 1971 the Giants traded their #1 to the Bears for C Bob Hyland and CB Bennie MaCrae. The Giants were 4-10, and the Bears with the #3 took OT Lionel Antoine who played 6 seasons. They also traded a #1 to Dallas for QB Craig Morton. That overall #1 turned into the HOF Manster DT Randy White.
And sandwiched in between those 2 trades you mentioned was the year we had TWO #1 draft choices....Larry Jacobsen, DT, and Eldridge Small WR/DB. Bottom line, it helps if your scouts know what they are doing....or your front office.
BTW, the #1 for Morton came AFTER the front office (basically Mara and Robustelli) made an agreement that there was NO WAY they were trading away #1 draft choices anymore. A steady diet of Norm Snead, Randy Johnson and Jim del Gaizo (who they traded TWO #2's for) must have caused an quick alteration to that agreement.
God those years were a mess. Even worse was signing Larry Czonka....not the signing persay, but the fact we GAVE Miami Two #3 draft choices for him and he wasn't even their property at the time. He had spent a year in the WFL with the Memphis Southmen and the league folded creating a slew of free agents.
Quote from: Painter on March 13, 2017, 07:24:30 PM
I would say yes if my team was anything close to what the Patriots have been and apparently still are which is a top tier contender. But it could be risky to draw broad conclusions based on what the Pats have done in that regard as there are many more reasons why they are a dynasty if not the GOAT.
I agree with Ed that the player's age and costs would be factors while the perhaps greater certainty with a proven starter would be an incentive for a team which see itself with a "win-now" opportunity. For most teams, the question is are you rebuilding, reloading, or relying?
Cheers!
It also depends on available CAP space. That starter is going to hit your CAP a lot harder than a second, or even first, round pick.
Quote from: MightyGiants on March 13, 2017, 07:37:49 PM
There is no way to copy Bill Belichick. The man is a genius and his moves have no set pattern. Bill simply knows how to keep his team top notch and his moves are based on what will work at the time.
. Agreed. BB constantly reinvents. The Pats always seem to shuffle pieces so well..their OL always seems to be in flux yet they stay highly productive...not to mention letting some vets go and luring key ones as plug and play guys. An amazing run of success and shrewd moves..and some chicanery as well. Whatever it takes.
Quote from: MightyGiants on March 14, 2017, 10:31:28 AM
Good draft picks are what makes a the salary cap work for teams. With the last CBA and the rookie salary cap, the amount paid to draft picks is negligible. The more draft picks and undrafted free agents you team has filling roster spots the more money you have to retain players and sign other team's free agents.
Bill Belichick has been brilliant in his cap management and his team routinely has more than the usual 7 draft picks. As a result the Pats were swimming in cap space and could afford to part with a couple of valuable draft picks to acquire proven players.
You could also credit Nick Caserio, Director of Pro Personnel and his staff for the Pats' success. Bill B coaches the team, but I am sure he does not run the scouting department and the Draft/Free Agency. It also stands to reason that he does not monitor the salary cap which has turned into a full time position for every team.
Still can't help to wonder how many Super Bowls the Pats would have won without the greatest QB of all time. My guess? Zero
Granted #1's are valuable, but back in the 'old days' as some were referring, we had, what, 17 picks? So trading away a few wasn't as meaningful as it might be today.
If they keep their defense in tact, feel Eli still has it, and a left tackle and TE would push them deep into the playoffs, why not trade some future to fill 2 gaps? The salary cap would make it difficult for any team to trade too many picks.
Bill Parcells signed Curtis Martin to the Jets, but sent a #1 to New England. He said, "think of Martin as our 1st round pick. That worked out well for the Jets.
Well Mara traded picks & youth in 1961 to boost their aging team. It got them to 3 championship games before most of those players ran out of gas. Was it worth it? Most people think so. The team started sinking to all time lows in 1964, but could've dug themselves out in a few years if they drafted right the years following the trades. No matter what, they would've sunk some after having so many starters retire in a 2 or 3 year span.
Quote from: files58 on March 13, 2017, 11:47:53 PM
It may be ancient history but in 1971 the Giants traded their #1 to the Bears for C Bob Hyland and CB Bennie MaCrae. The Giants were 4-10, and the Bears with the #3 took OT Lionel Antoine who played 6 seasons. They also traded a #1 to Dallas for QB Craig Morton. That overall #1 turned into the HOF Manster DT Randy White.
It doesn't matter how many times I read this story I am always equally angry and sick each time.
Imagine giving up a #1 overall for Craig Morton. I know he was a good QB in his prime but he was pretty much done when we got him.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The value of draft picks increased significantly with the addition of the rookie cap. Parcell's comment made sense then, but not so much now.