Deferring The #1 Draft Choice (1 Viewer)

[Toads]

I didn't find a thread on this so here goes.

DET asked the NFL front office for clarification: if they let the timer expire on the #1 pick, what would be the net effect?

RULING: they could choose do so and submit their choice at any time thereafter.

Net effect: the guaranteed to the #1 pick diminshes from about/around $40M at the #1 slot to about/around $20M at the #10 slot....some serious there.

Now, if DET is smart enough to ask that question, they are probably smart enough to project where a QB is most likely to land in those first fifteen, or so, draft choices and to be first to the podium at a time of their choosing.

If they like Stafford and Garcia Sanchez about equally, they could submit their card after the first of those two player's "falls to the gavel;" endless scenarios here.

This also opens up the possibility that numerous teams could take advantage of the dollar driven market, refusing their option and in essence moving down for salary/risk ratio reasons.

The rookie salary market becomes subject to driven questions: if the #1 choice, or for that matter any choice, is deferred to the #X slot, is it really a #1 choice? The salary negoiatiors ought to have a field day with this one.

The additional net effect is that the rookie salary structure is gonna be obsolete much sooner than latter. The draft begins to resemble an auction rather than the draft we think we know.

 

[TLEF316]

if they pick a guy who is even remotely under consideration for the number 1 pick (This could probably include both QB's, both top OT's, Curry and anyone with Rosenhaus as their agent) the agent will demand that his client be paid as the first pick. If they dont pay, they'll hold out. End of story.

The system is broken. Its stupid. But you cant try to pull a fast one to get around it. It would be an absolute disaster, a disaster that a team as sorry as detroit cant afford.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

No way this happens. Why would a team start out their relationship with a cornerstone of the franchise on a note "hey the rules didnt say we couldnt wait until two hours into the draft to exercise our pick. sure you're technically #1, but We're sure you'll appreciate #8 money". It also sends a signal to all the players on the team that the Lions are going to try to nickel and dime them on reaching incentives, not to mention the shadow it casts over the assumption of good faith in future contract negotiations.

Not only does it screw up things for Detroit, but then whomever St Louis takes will demand #1 money, and so on down the line until the Lions make their pick.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I herd detroit wants to have a deal in place with whomever the pick is

But it woudlnt surprise me as the Fords are notriously cheap.

Also in the next CBA something has to be done about this and the draft in general IMO.

#1- if you time out, the pick should be skipped too bad.

#2 - a rookie salary cap by draft slot much like the NBA has

Having the #1 overall pick is a negative. Very hard to trade unless a once in a lifetime Manning/Vick like talent is available. And the Cap hit is huge.

 

[bigmarc27]

I disagree that it's hard to trade. I think it's easy to trade out of #1, you just won't get what the fair value of the pick.

I promise you right now that if Detroit called KC and said I'll give you 1.01 for your first rounder and your 5th rounder, KC would take it.

 

[puckalicious]

I disagree that it's hard to trade. I think it's easy to trade out of #1, you just won't get what the fair value of the pick.I promise you right now that if Detroit called KC and said I'll give you 1.01 for your first rounder and your 5th rounder, KC would take it.

First, there are several older threads about this, and it comes up every year here.Second, from what I've read about this from insiders (sorry no links but it's been discussed) no team really wants the #1 pick anymore. At least not this year since there is no must-have undisputed #1 type of talent. Why would KC want to pay the extra $10 mil or so in guaranteed money to draft the same guy they are likely going to get at #3???

 

[noneother]

I disagree that it's hard to trade. I think it's easy to trade out of #1, you just won't get what the fair value of the pick.I promise you right now that if Detroit called KC and said I'll give you 1.01 for your first rounder and your 5th rounder, KC would take it.

Yes, the fair market of the pick is based on the DEMAND (der...) there is no glaring single need any team has, the high pick teams have MANY... there isn't that "perfect" guy this year either, the talent is all most mid-shelf...so there is no incentive by a good team to move up,,, and no incentive by teams to move up (KC) cause any player available at their pick will address one of many needs...the premium on high picks, are contingent on the Need and Talent available.. its' an interesting paradigm, the teams that need the most help, prolly need more picks, not higher picks, which lend them themselves to more specific needs...

 

[bigmarc27]

I disagree that it's hard to trade. I think it's easy to trade out of #1, you just won't get what the fair value of the pick.

I promise you right now that if Detroit called KC and said I'll give you 1.01 for your first rounder and your 5th rounder, KC would take it.

First, there are several older threads about this, and it comes up every year here.Second, from what I've read about this from insiders (sorry no links but it's been discussed) no team really wants the #1 pick anymore. At least not this year since there is no must-have undisputed #1 type of talent. Why would KC want to pay the extra $10 mil or so in guaranteed money to draft the same guy they are likely going to get at #3???

You said it yourself, the guy they are likely going to get at #3.If they feel that Curry (assumption on my part that Curry is who they're targetting) is a franchise LB and the best LB prospect this decade, they'll surely pony up the extra cash to get that guy. Why risk getting a guy they love as opposed to a guy they really like?

 

[Stinkin Ref]

There should be some sort of punishment for going 0-16. You should not be able to manipulate the draft system to your advantage. You should have to make the pick or trade it. You get the first pick because you sucked. You should want the first pick to make your team better, and you should have to pay the money almost as your punishment. It really isn't fair to the teams that didn't get to play Detroit last year, because it was pretty much a guaranteed "W"....they should have to suffer the consequences of shelling out the cash or trading the pick.

 

[puckalicious]

I disagree that it's hard to trade. I think it's easy to trade out of #1, you just won't get what the fair value of the pick.

I promise you right now that if Detroit called KC and said I'll give you 1.01 for your first rounder and your 5th rounder, KC would take it.

First, there are several older threads about this, and it comes up every year here.Second, from what I've read about this from insiders (sorry no links but it's been discussed) no team really wants the #1 pick anymore. At least not this year since there is no must-have undisputed #1 type of talent. Why would KC want to pay the extra $10 mil or so in guaranteed money to draft the same guy they are likely going to get at #3???

You said it yourself, the guy they are likely going to get at #3.If they feel that Curry (assumption on my part that Curry is who they're targetting) is a franchise LB and the best LB prospect this decade, they'll surely pony up the extra cash to get that guy. Why risk getting a guy they love as opposed to a guy they really like?

I'll disagree that KC views any of their top needs (LB, RT, DE) as worthy of #1 money and will happily take BPA at #3 at a significantly lower cost.In a world of rookie salary caps the #1 pick will return to being a very valuable commodity. It just isn't right now.

 

[JAA]

Garcia? Who is that?

 

[Wyld Stallyns]

No way this happens. Why would a team start out their relationship with a cornerstone of the franchise on a note "hey the rules didnt say we couldnt wait until two hours into the draft to exercise our pick. sure you're technically #1, but We're sure you'll appreciate #8 money". It also sends a signal to all the players on the team that the Lions are going to try to nickel and dime them on reaching incentives, not to mention the shadow it casts over the assumption of good faith in future contract negotiations. Not only does it screw up things for Detroit, but then whomever St Louis takes will demand #1 money, and so on down the line until the Lions make their pick.

[/thread]

 

[Jason Wood]

No way this happens. Why would a team start out their relationship with a cornerstone of the franchise on a note "hey the rules didnt say we couldnt wait until two hours into the draft to exercise our pick. sure you're technically #1, but We're sure you'll appreciate #8 money". It also sends a signal to all the players on the team that the Lions are going to try to nickel and dime them on reaching incentives, not to mention the shadow it casts over the assumption of good faith in future contract negotiations. Not only does it screw up things for Detroit, but then whomever St Louis takes will demand #1 money, and so on down the line until the Lions make their pick.

I 100% agree with Sigmund here in that this absolutely SHOULDN'T happen, or even be on the table. That said, the fact DET asked the question tells me a lot about how troubled this franchise is and how it starts [and stays] at the top. To even consider this by asking the question sends the wrong message to fans, the players and whoever they end up drafting with their pick. If you consider that this comes after DET has supposedly begun preliminary inquiries with potential 1st overall picks and their monetary demands, it seems even more incredulous. For those who might not pay as much attention to the draft, it's worth noting that Minnesota inadvertently passed on the 7th pick and ended up drafting Kevin Williams 9th. Tom Condon still demanded, and got, 7th overall pick money for Williams.

 

[Jail]

Man, that would be sweet if Detroit did this. It would be so much fun to watch. Embarrassing for Detroit and its fans, but man would it be fun to watch.

I think the normal trick is to play agents off each other for your top 2 choices, but Smith and Stafford are both represented by the same agent! How classic is that?

 

[Superdbs]

Garcia? Who is that?

I think he meant to say Sanchez--

 

[massraider]

It's a crap article.

No team asks the league office what happens if they pass on their pick, everyone knows. It's the same thing that happens every other time.

The ugly side of the internet, some bonehead with a blog hypothesizes the Lions should pass on the pick, and it becomes a 'legitimate' story.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I would think it's about time that some team stepped up, put their balls on the table, and said "We're not paying a rookie that much money."

That said, I do agree that Detroit (or any last place team, but especially one that went 0-16) should pay the "penalty" of a 1st overall pick. Incentive to not suck.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Garcia? Who is that?

I think he meant to say Sanchez--

I was assuming it was Hernandez. Or Gallegos... maybe Vasqez.

 

[zadok]

This would never come up again if this simple rule were put in: if you don't pick in your time, you lose the pick.

 

[bcr8f]

There should be some sort of punishment for going 0-16. You should not be able to manipulate the draft system to your advantage. You should have to make the pick or trade it. You get the first pick because you sucked. You should want the first pick to make your team better, and you should have to pay the money almost as your punishment. It really isn't fair to the teams that didn't get to play Detroit last year, because it was pretty much a guaranteed "W"....they should have to suffer the consequences of shelling out the cash or trading the pick.

Going 0-16 isn't punishment enough?

 

[Jason Wood]

This would never come up again if this simple rule were put in: if you don't pick in your time, you lose the pick.

I would think they could simply state that your slot within the rookie salary cap would remain at your intended pick; thereby guaranteeing that players would be paid where the team was supposed to draft rather than where they DO draft.It's a silly loophole that teams never use, for good reason. It would be kind of poetic for the first 0-16 team in league history to be the first one to do it on purpose.

 

[Apollo]

I don't think a guy like Stafford (or anyone for that matter) would be pleased if Detroit did this to draft them. These players dream of being drafted #1. Why piss off and humiliate your new franchise player by doing this? It would be a PR nightmare.

 

[noneother]

I don't think a guy like Stafford (or anyone for that matter) would be pleased if Detroit did this to draft them. These players dream of being drafted #1. Why piss off and humiliate your new franchise player by doing this? It would be a PR nightmare.

Corporate Integrity sucks in today's world... that said.. FoMoCo, has a surplus, to their detriment, they are loyal, and respect those they chose to partner with.. I think this is a great aspect of their organizations, and I don't think they get enough respect for it.yet, I do not own ford product, and the Lions are not very good (tongue in cheek) I think They will behave with class.

 

[TitusIII]

The owners will eventually get rookie salaries under control, it's simply a matter of time. Until that happens, the agents would demand #1 money...

Curry is the best talent in this draft, followed by the LT brigade, but Detroit, like so many other teams that have landed the #1, is under intense pressure to land a franchise QB with this opportunity.. Stafford is a solid prospect, but in no way does he deserve the contract his agent will demand. It's quite a joke...

 

[Balance]

There is something fundamentally wrong when the entire league would rather NOT have a chance to choose the best player in the draft.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

No way this happens. Why would a team start out their relationship with a cornerstone of the franchise on a note "hey the rules didnt say we couldnt wait until two hours into the draft to exercise our pick. sure you're technically #1, but We're sure you'll appreciate #8 money". It also sends a signal to all the players on the team that the Lions are going to try to nickel and dime them on reaching incentives, not to mention the shadow it casts over the assumption of good faith in future contract negotiations. Not only does it screw up things for Detroit, but then whomever St Louis takes will demand #1 money, and so on down the line until the Lions make their pick.

I 100% agree with Sigmund here in that this absolutely SHOULDN'T happen, or even be on the table. That said, the fact DET asked the question tells me a lot about how troubled this franchise is and how it starts [and stays] at the top. To even consider this by asking the question sends the wrong message to fans, the players and whoever they end up drafting with their pick. If you consider that this comes after DET has supposedly begun preliminary inquiries with potential 1st overall picks and their monetary demands, it seems even more incredulous. For those who might not pay as much attention to the draft, it's worth noting that Minnesota inadvertently passed on the 7th pick and ended up drafting Kevin Williams 9th. Tom Condon still demanded, and got, 7th overall pick money for Williams.

I disagree that this option shouldn't be on the table, or that, by asking this question, Detroit is showing itself as a troubled franchise. In fact, I think it would be negligent of them to not seriously consider this option, or at least to have fully investigated the circumstances, costs and benefits of passing on the top pick. There can be no question that the reverse-order draft system, to the extent it is intended to promote parity by benifitting poor teams, is "broken". A #1 pick that doesn't quickly contribute on the field in a big way is an absolute disaster to a team like Detroit, and finding a player like that is more the exception than the rule. Particularly this season, when it is widely recognized that there is substantial parity amoung the top 10-20 players. I hope someone can find the link to the study from a few years ago (which was discussed here some time ago) indicating that, under the modern salary structure and salary cap, picking at the top of the NFL draft is more of a penalty than a benefit for teams that need to re-build. I would like to read that again as I think it made the point rather well.Consider Jerry Angelo's recent comments, made in connection with the Cutler trade (as quoted by Peter King):

I've kind of changed about draft choices, particularly first-rounders,'' Angelo told me. "I don't have the same conviction on ones that I used to. It's the money, the totally unrealistic expectations, players coming out younger and not as experienced, players with too much time on their hands and too much money and not being grounded enough. I've become a little pragmatic about the first-round picks. They've been looked at like the Holy Grail for so long. Here, we had a chance to get a quarterback who's already shown he can play really well in the league.

 

[TitusIII]

There is something fundamentally wrong when the entire league would rather NOT have a chance to choose the best player in the draft.

This varies by year, but in years like this when there is no clear-cut franchise talent at the LT/QB/DE position, tossing $40 million at rookie is not a winning proposition. Once the union caves on rookie salaries, and I doubt they put up too much of a fight given the money will find it's way into the veterans hands, this should no longer be a dramatic issue. Slot it like the NBA does, quite simple...

 

[Mario Kart]

I would not mind seeing a rookie salary cap on draft picks that is much lower than what it is right now. The #1 pick and the money that comes with it is dumb and has hurt the league for the past decade. If the players want an NFL they can play in, they will have to implement a rookie cap or something because I could see many "fans" leaving the teams they follow because the money is just plain dumb. When many people are out of jobs and these guys are getting raises... I could see the NFL imploding in on itself. At this point, and maybe it will happen, but the only ones who are going to bail out the NFL is the corporations who buy luxury boxes and so forth.

If Detroit was going to let time expire on the #1... I think it is genius and would bring most of this to a head much sooner than the pace going and for a good thing.

 

[Addai's Adidas]

Detroit has had so many top ten picks, and paid them, its no wonder they can't afford another.

 

[Jason Wood]

I disagree that this option shouldn't be on the table, or that, by asking this question, Detroit is showing itself as a troubled franchise. In fact, I think it would be negligent of them to not seriously consider this option, or at least to have fully investigated the circumstances, costs and benefits of passing on the top pick. There can be no question that the reverse-order draft system, to the extent it is intended to promote parity by benifitting poor teams, is "broken". A #1 pick that doesn't quickly contribute on the field in a big way is an absolute disaster to a team like Detroit, and finding a player like that is more the exception than the rule. Particularly this season, when it is widely recognized that there is substantial parity amoung the top 10-20 players. I hope someone can find the link to the study from a few years ago (which was discussed here some time ago) indicating that, under the modern salary structure and salary cap, picking at the top of the NFL draft is more of a penalty than a benefit for teams that need to re-build. I would like to read that again as I think it made the point rather well.

Even if you accept the premise that picking high is a penalty, that's still doesn't obfuscate the stupidity of Detroit considering this move IMHO. I personally disagree that picking high is, inherently, a bad thing. Picking high is a RISKY thing, sure, but so too is signing a high priced free agent or hiring a new coach. GMs are well compensated to shape franchises and, if they're worth their contracts, should relish making tough, risky decisions. You get nothing in a league as competitive in the NFL is you aren't willing to take chances. It's really that simple.But again assuming for a second picking 1st IS a detriment, then Detroit should trade the pick. This all-too-popular assertion that the 1st overall pick can't be traded simply rings hollow. The problem is teams are too beholden to a disconnect between the value they want for the pick, and the value they put on the pick. In this case, if Detroit REALLY feels like there is no one deserving of the 1st overall pick given the financial commitment that would involve, then they should be willing to take back less than the "pick calculator" created by Jimmy Johnson 15 years ago, says. You want bold? A GM trading the 1st pick away for less than the "pundits" say he could've gotten is a ballsy move. Having a GM stand up and say that after countless months of player evaluation, due diligence and investigation, no rookie was worth $50mm in contractual terms and they were better served saving that money to be used elsewhere. THAT would be ballsy.But of course no GM will trade the 1st pick without getting back what 'pundits' will call a real haul. And therein lies the problem.GMs are human. They operate in their own self interest. Taking a highly rated QB with the 1st overall pick is a textbook, acceptable move. If Stafford doesn't pan out for Detroit, the GM will still be able to say "he was the top QB on everyone's board, these things happen." And he'll get three, four years before people will start calling him on the carpet about whether Stafford was a mistake. But trading away the 1st? He would be under the microscope immediately.

 

[TitusIII]

I disagree that this option shouldn't be on the table, or that, by asking this question, Detroit is showing itself as a troubled franchise. In fact, I think it would be negligent of them to not seriously consider this option, or at least to have fully investigated the circumstances, costs and benefits of passing on the top pick. There can be no question that the reverse-order draft system, to the extent it is intended to promote parity by benifitting poor teams, is "broken". A #1 pick that doesn't quickly contribute on the field in a big way is an absolute disaster to a team like Detroit, and finding a player like that is more the exception than the rule. Particularly this season, when it is widely recognized that there is substantial parity amoung the top 10-20 players. I hope someone can find the link to the study from a few years ago (which was discussed here some time ago) indicating that, under the modern salary structure and salary cap, picking at the top of the NFL draft is more of a penalty than a benefit for teams that need to re-build. I would like to read that again as I think it made the point rather well.

Even if you accept the premise that picking high is a penalty, that's still doesn't obfuscate the stupidity of Detroit considering this move IMHO. I personally disagree that picking high is, inherently, a bad thing. Picking high is a RISKY thing, sure, but so too is signing a high priced free agent or hiring a new coach. GMs are well compensated to shape franchises and, if they're worth their contracts, should relish making tough, risky decisions. You get nothing in a league as competitive in the NFL is you aren't willing to take chances. It's really that simple.But again assuming for a second picking 1st IS a detriment, then Detroit should trade the pick. This all-too-popular assertion that the 1st overall pick can't be traded simply rings hollow. The problem is teams are too beholden to a disconnect between the value they want for the pick, and the value they put on the pick. In this case, if Detroit REALLY feels like there is no one deserving of the 1st overall pick given the financial commitment that would involve, then they should be willing to take back less than the "pick calculator" created by Jimmy Johnson 15 years ago, says. You want bold? A GM trading the 1st pick away for less than the "pundits" say he could've gotten is a ballsy move. Having a GM stand up and say that after countless months of player evaluation, due diligence and investigation, no rookie was worth $50mm in contractual terms and they were better served saving that money to be used elsewhere. THAT would be ballsy.But of course no GM will trade the 1st pick without getting back what 'pundits' will call a real haul. And therein lies the problem.GMs are human. They operate in their own self interest. Taking a highly rated QB with the 1st overall pick is a textbook, acceptable move. If Stafford doesn't pan out for Detroit, the GM will still be able to say "he was the top QB on everyone's board, these things happen." And he'll get three, four years before people will start calling him on the carpet about whether Stafford was a mistake. But trading away the 1st? He would be under the microscope immediately.

Excellent post, agree with everything.

 

[SuperJohn96]

I think skipping the pick would be completely moronic.

The only options should be (a) make the pick or (b) trade the pick for less than Jimmy Johnson's pick calculator says you can get.

If you are fine with picking anywhere in the top 8 or 10, then call all those teams, and see what the ACTUAL cost to swap would be. If it means you get less than Jimmy Johnson says you should then so be it.

FWIW, his calculator is WAY off at the top of the draft, and has been for a little while, as the salary structure gets more and more skewed at the top.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I hope the Jets offer the #17 pick for the #1 pick, and Detroit accepts.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I disagree that this option shouldn't be on the table, or that, by asking this question, Detroit is showing itself as a troubled franchise. In fact, I think it would be negligent of them to not seriously consider this option, or at least to have fully investigated the circumstances, costs and benefits of passing on the top pick. There can be no question that the reverse-order draft system, to the extent it is intended to promote parity by benifitting poor teams, is "broken". A #1 pick that doesn't quickly contribute on the field in a big way is an absolute disaster to a team like Detroit, and finding a player like that is more the exception than the rule. Particularly this season, when it is widely recognized that there is substantial parity amoung the top 10-20 players. I hope someone can find the link to the study from a few years ago (which was discussed here some time ago) indicating that, under the modern salary structure and salary cap, picking at the top of the NFL draft is more of a penalty than a benefit for teams that need to re-build. I would like to read that again as I think it made the point rather well.

Even if you accept the premise that picking high is a penalty, that's still doesn't obfuscate the stupidity of Detroit considering this move IMHO. I personally disagree that picking high is, inherently, a bad thing. Picking high is a RISKY thing, sure, but so too is signing a high priced free agent or hiring a new coach. GMs are well compensated to shape franchises and, if they're worth their contracts, should relish making tough, risky decisions. You get nothing in a league as competitive in the NFL is you aren't willing to take chances. It's really that simple.But again assuming for a second picking 1st IS a detriment, then Detroit should trade the pick. This all-too-popular assertion that the 1st overall pick can't be traded simply rings hollow. The problem is teams are too beholden to a disconnect between the value they want for the pick, and the value they put on the pick. In this case, if Detroit REALLY feels like there is no one deserving of the 1st overall pick given the financial commitment that would involve, then they should be willing to take back less than the "pick calculator" created by Jimmy Johnson 15 years ago, says. You want bold? A GM trading the 1st pick away for less than the "pundits" say he could've gotten is a ballsy move. Having a GM stand up and say that after countless months of player evaluation, due diligence and investigation, no rookie was worth $50mm in contractual terms and they were better served saving that money to be used elsewhere. THAT would be ballsy.But of course no GM will trade the 1st pick without getting back what 'pundits' will call a real haul. And therein lies the problem.GMs are human. They operate in their own self interest. Taking a highly rated QB with the 1st overall pick is a textbook, acceptable move. If Stafford doesn't pan out for Detroit, the GM will still be able to say "he was the top QB on everyone's board, these things happen." And he'll get three, four years before people will start calling him on the carpet about whether Stafford was a mistake. But trading away the 1st? He would be under the microscope immediately.

I don't see how one can say that it is stupid for the team to consider all its options, and inform itself as to each. We have no idea what their plans are now or what they will actually do with the pick (they could still use the pick, pass it, or trade it). I think the preferred course of action is to use the pick on a player who has already agreed to terms, and this inquiry could well be part of that strategy. Also, how do you know that Detroit is not willing to take less than what the "pick calculater" says? I think that chart is widely recognized as outdated. All we know is that Detroit has not, as of today, traded its pick or agreed to terms with a player. But the draft is over a week away. It is possible that Detroit is considering a trade right now, or even possible that there are truely no offers, because no team is remotely interested in the first pick this year. You suggest that it would be bold either to use the first pick or to trade it for market value. I agree, and they will likely choose one of those paths, but I think it would be more bold to actually pass the pick and really test some uncharted territory (assuming the GM has decided that is in the team's best interest). In short, I think its too early to judge them "stupid" just for making this inquiry. I don't expect Detroit to pass, but not for the reasons stated. I think main reason it won't happen is because it won't deliver the value of a lower salary. As for those mentioning an NBA-style rookie salary schedule, it is certain that will be on the table in the current labor discussions. In typical union collective bargaining discussions, the practice of sacrificing the interests of future union members is colloquially known as "eating the young" and is a common practice. The downside of course is that the higher veteran salaries are much easier to justify when you have higher rookie salaries. Lowering the rookie salaries will naturally put downward pressure on the negotiations for a player's 2nd and 3rd contracts, even with the CBA guaranteed minimum percentages.

 

[puckalicious]

No way this happens. Why would a team start out their relationship with a cornerstone of the franchise on a note "hey the rules didnt say we couldnt wait until two hours into the draft to exercise our pick. sure you're technically #1, but We're sure you'll appreciate #8 money". It also sends a signal to all the players on the team that the Lions are going to try to nickel and dime them on reaching incentives, not to mention the shadow it casts over the assumption of good faith in future contract negotiations.

Not only does it screw up things for Detroit, but then whomever St Louis takes will demand #1 money, and so on down the line until the Lions make their pick.

I 100% agree with Sigmund here in that this absolutely SHOULDN'T happen, or even be on the table. That said, the fact DET asked the question tells me a lot about how troubled this franchise is and how it starts [and stays] at the top. To even consider this by asking the question sends the wrong message to fans, the players and whoever they end up drafting with their pick. If you consider that this comes after DET has supposedly begun preliminary inquiries with potential 1st overall picks and their monetary demands, it seems even more incredulous. For those who might not pay as much attention to the draft, it's worth noting that Minnesota inadvertently passed on the 7th pick and ended up drafting Kevin Williams 9th. Tom Condon still demanded, and got, 7th overall pick money for Williams.

Actually he got a compromise between 7th and 9th "level" of pay. Minnesota wanted Kevin Williams all along and ended up with him anyway for less money. Who's to say the whole thing was an accident? Let's face it, the precedent has been set.

 

[Chase Stuart]

FWIW, his calculator is WAY off at the top of the draft, and has been for a little while, as the salary structure gets more and more skewed at the top.

Often repeated, never proved.

 

[JamesTheScot]

I disagree that it's hard to trade. I think it's easy to trade out of #1, you just won't get what the fair value of the pick.

I promise you right now that if Detroit called KC and said I'll give you 1.01 for your first rounder and your 5th rounder, KC would take it.

I disagree with the bolded part. What you can get out of it IS the fair value of the pick. It's kinda like saying the book value is the fair value for a car when no one in the market will pay that for it. The book is simply wrong...the present market is THE authority on value, not some book somewhere. The same is true of the draft.This year, the value of the #1 pick is much lower than what it has been in some previous years. There aren't many teams that want to pay their round 1 pick that #1 money when they can save millions by taking him or someone they like just as much later in the round.

I'm not saying there isn't anyone that will be willing to trade up to the #1, I'm just saying that trying to trade this year's #1 pick and get the price you could if Crabtree had ran a 4.30 forty will only ensure that Detroit will have over-valued the pick and they'll still be holding it on draft day when the clock starts.

 

[3nOut]

There is something fundamentally wrong when the entire league would rather NOT have a chance to choose the best player in the draft.

Well thats one of the problems. The best player is not always drafted first. The best player available which fills a need is taken instead. If NE, Indy, or Atlanta, for example, had the first pick, and Stafford was hands down the best player, I still highly doubt any ofhtem would draft him.

 

[3nOut]

What would be really funny is if EVERY team defers until its Detroits turn to pick again.

 

[Alwazefun]

I think it would be a brilliant move by Detroit to let Stafford (if that is indeed who they are picking) slip to the lowest spot they think they can get him and then pay him the MUCH lower salary.

If his agent demanded/threatened to hold out I would thell him ""fine hold out and re-enter next year". Stafford stands to lose ALOT more then Detroit by trying to play hard ball.

-If he does decide to holdout for #1 money, then when he does come out next year he wil no longer be the "new toy" with all the media attention, he will get to compete with all the QBs coming out next year.

-Also IF the CBA does institute a roookie salary cap/slotted system then Stafford stands to lose ALOT more money then the difference between #1 pick money and #10(for ex.) pick money.

And lets not kid ourselves Detroit most likely wont go 0-16 next year, but there is a good chance they have another very high pick next year ... they might as well take a stand and send a message to the players union now. And I dont see a fan back lash because I think most fans know the current situation is screwed . if anything I thinkfootball fans get behind them.

 

[bcr8f]

DET Opens The Worm Can



Don't you guys that think this stuff up realize that agents will counter it? They'll say all 4 players are #1 picks. and have them hold out.

It's a clever trick that will only hurt the league.

We need to find ways to get players to sign faster. Hold outs can screw up the whole season.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

some interesting comments from Maycock via Tom Pelissero (via Aaron at Cheeseheadtv):

Mayock: Trade chart 'Completely out the window'

Sat in on the first hour of a media conference call this afternoon with NFL Network draft analyst Mike Mayock, who offered two bold statements regarding teams that hold top-10 picks this year:

They're all looking to get rid of those picks, and they're willing to accept less -- perhaps as a little as half -- of the value the standard trade chart dictates.

"Every team in the top 10 is looking to trade out," Mayock said. "Never seen it, never seen the situation quite this heavy. And the theory is, everybody knows we’re upside-down right now with this draft. The rookies are getting paid way too much money proportionate to their value. So, teams are scared to death of missing (in) the top-10.

"Here’s what happening, though, that I think is really interesting, and I’m anxious to see if this trend plays out. That whole trade chart that all the teams used to use, it began to go out the window last year, and I think, like the economy, it’s completely out the window now. So, I think any team in the top 10 that is looking to get out will listen to any reasonable offer, and more than ever, teams are looking to get down (to picks) 15 to 25, because you can get the same kind of player at (No.) 20 as you can at (No.) 7, and you pay one-third the money."

 

[bcr8f]

some interesting comments from Maycock via Tom Pelissero (via Aaron at Cheeseheadtv):

Mayock: Trade chart 'Completely out the window'

Sat in on the first hour of a media conference call this afternoon with NFL Network draft analyst Mike Mayock, who offered two bold statements regarding teams that hold top-10 picks this year:

They're all looking to get rid of those picks, and they're willing to accept less -- perhaps as a little as half -- of the value the standard trade chart dictates.

"Every team in the top 10 is looking to trade out," Mayock said. "Never seen it, never seen the situation quite this heavy. And the theory is, everybody knows we’re upside-down right now with this draft. The rookies are getting paid way too much money proportionate to their value. So, teams are scared to death of missing (in) the top-10.

"Here’s what happening, though, that I think is really interesting, and I’m anxious to see if this trend plays out. That whole trade chart that all the teams used to use, it began to go out the window last year, and I think, like the economy, it’s completely out the window now. So, I think any team in the top 10 that is looking to get out will listen to any reasonable offer, and more than ever, teams are looking to get down (to picks) 15 to 25, because you can get the same kind of player at (No.) 20 as you can at (No.) 7, and you pay one-third the money."

They had an argument/conversation about that on NFL N.Marshall thought they take a tackle and not a QB because without a good o line Stafford may be another Alex Smith.

 

[FavreCo]

Pretty sure Detroit doesn't have much to lose if they do this. As someone said earlier, Stafford either plays for what they want to pay him or waits out a year. What can happen...0-16 again? They limit their risk and at the same time could cause this ridiculous pay scale to be fixed.

However, I don't see it happening. The pay scale is ridiculous though and need addressed. What's funny is that the NFLPA doesn't want to change it yet hurts them that rookies make the big money that they would be getting if it was fixed.

 

[LHUCKS]

I think it's a brilliant move by Detroit, paricularly if:

A) they believe there isn't a player worth #1 money

and

B) Nobody will trade for the pick

I'm not sold on Stafford.

 

[Apollo]

I'm not sold on Stafford.

 

[Jason Wood]

I think it's a brilliant move by Detroit, paricularly if:A) they believe there isn't a player worth #1 money and B) Nobody will trade for the pickI'm not sold on Stafford.

LHUCKS, it's not a brilliant move b/c they'll still need to pay him 1.01 money. That's the failing of any kind of "letting the clock run out" maneuver.

 

[3nOut]

I think it would be a brilliant move by Detroit to let Stafford (if that is indeed who they are picking) slip to the lowest spot they think they can get him and then pay him the MUCH lower salary. If his agent demanded/threatened to hold out I would thell him ""fine hold out and re-enter next year". Stafford stands to lose ALOT more then Detroit by trying to play hard ball. -If he does decide to holdout for #1 money, then when he does come out next year he wil no longer be the "new toy" with all the media attention, he will get to compete with all the QBs coming out next year. -Also IF the CBA does institute a roookie salary cap/slotted system then Stafford stands to lose ALOT more money then the difference between #1 pick money and #10(for ex.) pick money.And lets not kid ourselves Detroit most likely wont go 0-16 next year, but there is a good chance they have another very high pick next year ... they might as well take a stand and send a message to the players union now. And I dont see a fan back lash because I think most fans know the current situation is screwed . if anything I thinkfootball fans get behind them.

OR, they can just draft him first overall and take a stand and make an offer they think is fair. If Stafford doesn't like it, he can sit out and blah, blah,blah. Same scenario as yours except that they dont have to wait and let him drop.

 

[3nOut]

DET Opens The Worm Can



Don't you guys that think this stuff up realize that agents will counter it? They'll say all 4 players are #1 picks. and have them hold out.

It's a clever trick that will only hurt the league.

We need to find ways to get players to sign faster. Hold outs can screw up the whole season.

Which four? Only two can claim to be the number one pick. Whoever the Lions draft (no matter WHERE they take him) and the first the player actually taken. Thats it.

 

[Buckeyedawgs]

I am not sure i agree with you JWood! Detroit can say they were undecided which qb they wanted. Pass and slide to where the first one is taking. (Sounds like Seattle) Then jump in and get the one Seattle doesn;t take. Sounds like it will still be Stafford and they can save by paying him the same Seattle pays Sanchz. It can happen and I would not put anything past Detroit. Stafford would be forced to accept what Sanchz gets under this situation I would think. And Detroit can save some millions too.

I don't see how Detroit would be forced to pay Stafford more if they wait and take him after Sanchz. Heck I would do it if I was Lions General Manager just to prove you all wrong!