It is. Don't forget the Nicks over Britt part of this. At least in a strong Class I can understand doing it, but still no way I would. Sure if you wanna go back and look at the last 5-6 draft classes and pick and choose the top guys. Unfortunately, you can't do that. And you may as well take out guys like Richardson, Peterson, and at least one out of Green and Julio (people taking Ingram that year at 1 were insane).The Wells, Moreno's, Bests, and may others even in "good draft classes" turn me off when I know what I have in Charles and Nicks, and I know I like what they are going to do (likely).In this particular class, if you take the top talent and put them on any team you want, still this deal is horrid.Heading into this offseason in a league I had picks 1,2,3,4,5,6,7. I had ZERO chance of getting Charles and Nicks with these picks, let alone just picks 2 and 3. Apparently I am in a league of smart owners. I picked the WRONG year to have a ton of 1st rounders, already sold half of them for 2014 1sts
If you played in a league with "smart owners", how'd you wind up with the top 7 picks? If you're in a league with smart owners, why are they so quick to sell 2014 firsts for 2013 firsts? If you're in a league with smart owners, why wouldn't they trade Charles/Nicks for the top 7 picks? If I was rebuilding, I'd do that in a heartbeat. Hell, even if I wasn't rebuilding, I still might do that- there hasn't been any class I can remember that hasn't produced at least two major studs in the top 7 picks (hell, it's rare to see one that hasn't produced at least three)- and there's plenty of potential this year in guys like Lacy, Patterson, Bernard, Ertz, Allen, etc. If you had the roster space to draft and hold (admittedly, a big if), those seven picks would almost certainly outperform Charles/Nicks going forward, making it a slam dunk for any shallow squad looking to add instant depth or rebuilding squad looking for instant relevance. A double slam dunk when you remember that those picks are only going to rise in value as we get closer to the draft and they start to get some names attached. Again, I think back to the last "weak draft" we had- the Moreno/Wells draft. Well, that year also gave us McCoy, Harvin, Crabtree, and Nicks among the top picks. It looks to me like you're just playing in a league with owners who ludicrously undervalue rookie firsts. But to address your main criticism, I'm not "picking and choosing players", I'm giving you a complete list of guys viewed as "top tier" by the time the draft rolled around. If I were picking and choosing, I would have left the Bests and the Ingrams off the list. I'm saying, go ahead and leave those busts on the list... but pretend you could put all of those names in a bag and pull out two randomly. Would you trade Charles and Nicks for those two names and Britt? I sure as hell would. Of the 24 names, only 5 were outright busts (Moreno, Wells, Brown, Ingram, Best), with another 5 as startable-but-disappointing (Mathews, Crabtree, Stewart, Mendenhall, McFadden), and the remaining 14 as home run, first-2-rounds-of-a-startup type value. As such, here are the percentages on each outcome:Bust/Bust (e.g. Wells/Best): 3.6%Starter/Bust (e.g. Crabtree/Moreno): 9.1%Two Starters (e.g. Stewart/Mendenhall): 3.6%Stud/Bust (e.g. Richardson/Brown): 25.3%Stud/Starter (e.g. Luck/McFadden): 25.3%Stud/Stud (e.g. Green/Martin): 34.0%You'd only have a 16.3% chance of failing to wind up with at least one player the quality of Jamaal Charles (but several years younger). On the other hand, you'd have a 1-in-3 chance of winding up with two guys as valuable as Jamaal Charles but with twice the career left ahead of them. Saying you wouldn't trade the 1.02/1.03 for Charles/Nicks in this particular year is understandable, but suggesting that it doesn't make sense even in the best of years is indefensible. Top-3 rookie picks have historically been insanely valuable. I'm open to the possibility that this year will be the exception, but I'm not open to the possibility that that exception might soon become the rule.
