If you draft in the top 5, why not pass on your pick? (1 Viewer)

[{Syrus}]

We keep hearing about Miami and how they would like to trade out of the top spot but have no potential trade suitors due to having to guarantee the #1 overall selected player a huge amount of money. So if Miami has their sights set on a guy like Vernon Gholston or Keith Rivers, for example, why not pass on the 1st overall selection, and keep passing until they feel like they are ready to draft their player and pay him according to the slot he is drafted in? Sure, a trade down with draft compensation from another team would be nicer, but nobody is locked in to draft at a certain point if they don't want. By passing on a draft selection and drafting lower you at least acquire a player you want with a more salary-cap friendly contract. Nobody is holding a gun to Miami's head and saying draft first over all or else. Miami can draft wherever they want in the first round and not be handicapped with that 30 million in guarantees they'll have to give the 1st overall selection.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Because the agent (rightly so) for the player you pick is going to demand you pay the player at the draft spot you were supposed to pick at, not where you actually pick.

 

[FavreCo]

Because the agent (rightly so) for the player you pick is going to demand you pay the player at the draft spot you were supposed to pick at, not where you actually pick.

Yes he is.

 

[Jason Wood]

The logical answer is because you would be silly to give up an asset for free.

If a team REALLY thinks the risk of signing a top 5 pick is too great relative to the cost; then they should have no problem trading it away for much less than what we fans may think is fair. It would still be an infinitely smarter decision than simply passing.

 

[Garts]

Why would you pass ona TOP 5 pick when you could trade it for a ton of value??

 

[{Syrus}]

Because the agent (rightly so) for the player you pick is going to demand you pay the player at the draft spot you were supposed to pick at, not where you actually pick.

They will demand it, but they have no ground to stand on. If Miami passes and lets say drafted Keith Rivers in the 10 spot, there is no way an agent can demand that Keith Rivers be paid 1st overall selection money considering nobody projects him that high to begin with.

 

[{Syrus}]

Why would you pass ona TOP 5 pick when you could trade it for a ton of value??

Nobody wants to trade up very easily. Read my post. Top 5 picks are not as valuable in trade terms as you think.

 

[Beaumont]

There are negotiating problems. But more importantly PR problems.

Try explaining passing on the top 5 pick down to 10 top your fans and see how they respond.

If the pick blows up in your face, you are a GM without a job ever again.

 

[Chaos Commish]

The logical answer is because you would be silly to give up an asset for free.If a team REALLY thinks the risk of signing a top 5 pick is too great relative to the cost; then they should have no problem trading it away for much less than what we fans may think is fair. It would still be an infinitely smarter decision than simply passing.

I'd like to see teams start doing this. It would be a step is solving the value problem of the the first few picks.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Because the agent (rightly so) for the player you pick is going to demand you pay the player at the draft spot you were supposed to pick at, not where you actually pick.

They will demand it, but they have no ground to stand on. If Miami passes and lets say drafted Keith Rivers in the 10 spot, there is no way an agent can demand that Keith Rivers be paid 1st overall selection money considering nobody projects him that high to begin with.

How long do you think the hold out would be. My guess would be the entire season.

 

[happy_donut]

You may be on to something here, but I don't think most teams would consider it because of potential PR problems.

I took a look at how the NFL lists the Vikiing's pick in 2003, when they were forced to pass on pick #7 (time limit) and ended up with #9:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/...kings_draft_ap/

NFL.com does list the pick as #9, without any asterisk or note:

http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft...mp;round=round1

Does anyone know if they paid Williams as a #9 pick? I would assume so.

Edited to add: Does anyone know if Williams held out?

I realize he was outside the top 5, so it's not exactly the same as the OP's question, but I think any first round drop like that is close enough.

 

[Jason Wood]

Why would you pass ona TOP 5 pick when you could trade it for a ton of value??

Nobody wants to trade up very easily. Read my post. Top 5 picks are not as valuable in trade terms as you think.

Syrus, you're missing the point though.Teams complain about how a top 5 pick is too expensive and risky, yet they hold onto them as though they're the most precious commodity.Let's take the Dolphins #1 pick. Let's say the Ravens REALLY loved Matt Ryan and felt they HAD to have him 1st overall. So they inquire to Parcells about the 1st overall pick. Now if Bill REALLY doesn't want to deal with a top 5 pick, he shouldn't hold the Ravens hostage by demanding the 8th, next year's 1st and two starters. He could ask for that, sure, but if it was that much of a no brainer, he would eventually give up the top spot for far less and NOT CARE about the inevitable ribbing he would take from the media and fans.

 

[TheFanatic]

Because if it were a franchise I rooted for I would be PISSED!! If my team wasn't willing to commit to spending on talent I wouldn't be willing to spend my money to support them...

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Didn't the Vikings do this one year?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Because the agent (rightly so) for the player you pick is going to demand you pay the player at the draft spot you were supposed to pick at, not where you actually pick.

, but coming from a Vikings fan....

 

[Andy Dufresne]

You may be on to something here, but I don't think most teams would consider it because of potential PR problems.

I took a look at how the NFL lists the Vikiing's pick in 2003, when they were forced to pass on pick #7 (time limit) and ended up with #9:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/...kings_draft_ap/

NFL.com does list the pick as #9, without any asterisk or note:

http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft...mp;round=round1

Does anyone know if they paid Williams as a #9 pick? I would assume so.

Edited to add: Does anyone know if Williams held out?

I realize he was outside the top 5, so it's not exactly the same as the OP's question, but I think any first round drop like that is close enough.

They paid him as the #7 pick and he did not hold out, IIRC.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Because the agent (rightly so) for the player you pick is going to demand you pay the player at the draft spot you were supposed to pick at, not where you actually pick.

, but coming from a Vikings fan....

Why is that funny coming from a Vikings fan?

 

[happy_donut]

You may be on to something here, but I don't think most teams would consider it because of potential PR problems.

I took a look at how the NFL lists the Vikiing's pick in 2003, when they were forced to pass on pick #7 (time limit) and ended up with #9:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/...kings_draft_ap/

NFL.com does list the pick as #9, without any asterisk or note:

http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft...mp;round=round1

Does anyone know if they paid Williams as a #9 pick? I would assume so.

Edited to add: Does anyone know if Williams held out?

I realize he was outside the top 5, so it's not exactly the same as the OP's question, but I think any first round drop like that is close enough.

They paid him as the #7 pick and he did not hold out, IIRC.

Then the argument is moot. Any good agent would demand the player be paid at the original pick. Interesting idea though.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Actually, my buddy says he remembers the Vikes paying KWill somewhere more than the #9 and a little less than #7 money.

So, #8 money I guess.

 

[faux_bear]

Because the agent (rightly so) for the player you pick is going to demand you pay the player at the draft spot you were supposed to pick at, not where you actually pick.

, but coming from a Vikings fan....

I don't understand why the "rightly so" is added here in parentheses. It seems to me that sure, the agent is within his right as a negotiator to ask for whatever amount of money benefits his client, but I don't see why the player deserves that money. If he's picked 10th, he should get 10th pick money, no matter how much higher the team should have picked.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Because the agent (rightly so) for the player you pick is going to demand you pay the player at the draft spot you were supposed to pick at, not where you actually pick.

, but coming from a Vikings fan....

I don't understand why the "rightly so" is added here in parentheses. It seems to me that sure, the agent is within his right as a negotiator to ask for whatever amount of money benefits his client, but I don't see why the player deserves that money. If he's picked 10th, he should get 10th pick money, no matter how much higher the team should have picked.

I guess it depends on how far away from the original pick it gets. In the "Should have picked #1 but picked #10" scenario, I wouldn't expect the agent to demand and get #1 money, but I would think the team should have to pay more than #10 money.It would never happen that way anyway so it's hard to come up with even a reasonable scenario to discuss.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Because the agent (rightly so) for the player you pick is going to demand you pay the player at the draft spot you were supposed to pick at, not where you actually pick.

, but coming from a Vikings fan....

Why is that funny coming from a Vikings fan?

Because of Minnesota timing out in Round 1?

 

[GregR_2]

Why would you pass ona TOP 5 pick when you could trade it for a ton of value??

Nobody wants to trade up very easily. Read my post. Top 5 picks are not as valuable in trade terms as you think.

Syrus, you're missing the point though.Teams complain about how a top 5 pick is too expensive and risky, yet they hold onto them as though they're the most precious commodity.Let's take the Dolphins #1 pick. Let's say the Ravens REALLY loved Matt Ryan and felt they HAD to have him 1st overall. So they inquire to Parcells about the 1st overall pick. Now if Bill REALLY doesn't want to deal with a top 5 pick, he shouldn't hold the Ravens hostage by demanding the 8th, next year's 1st and two starters. He could ask for that, sure, but if it was that much of a no brainer, he would eventually give up the top spot for far less and NOT CARE about the inevitable ribbing he would take from the media and fans.

I think you also need to factor in the difficulty it may cause you in future trades if you give in to an offer that is considered far below market value. Other teams may be less willing to compromise and meet you in the middle when you gave them the perception you were willing to settle for less on past trades.Think of it in FF terms. If there are 2 owners, and one normally seems to make market value trades (or at least perceived value trades) and another always seems to give up too much, people are going to be more likely to compromise and get to market value with the first guy because they believe that's what it takes to get a deal done with him. The other guy has shown he'll give up too much so you're going to try to get more from him.So I think part of it is that we won't see teams trading down for less until the perception becomes more accepted that top picks are worth less. And that may not happen until someone is willing to take the hit in PR and future trade negotiations to make trades that set the price as lower.

 

[Phurfur]

We keep hearing about Miami and how they would like to trade out of the top spot but have no potential trade suitors due to having to guarantee the #1 overall selected player a huge amount of money. So if Miami has their sights set on a guy like Vernon Gholston or Keith Rivers, for example, why not pass on the 1st overall selection, and keep passing until they feel like they are ready to draft their player and pay him according to the slot he is drafted in? Sure, a trade down with draft compensation from another team would be nicer, but nobody is locked in to draft at a certain point if they don't want. By passing on a draft selection and drafting lower you at least acquire a player you want with a more salary-cap friendly contract. Nobody is holding a gun to Miami's head and saying draft first over all or else. Miami can draft wherever they want in the first round and not be handicapped with that 30 million in guarantees they'll have to give the 1st overall selection.

Why not approach these players, say you are interested and hammer out a contract before the draft? If the agent is smart he will know he will get more than he would at #10 but nowhere near what a real #1 would get. I think Houston was accused of this to a lesser degree with Mario Williams.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

There are negotiating problems. But more importantly PR problems.

Try explaining passing on the top 5 pick down to 10 top your fans and see how they respond.

If the pick blows up in your face, you are a GM without a job ever again.

I can only imagine how fans would react to watching a team just twiddle their thumbs on draft day to save a few bucks.

 

[Lab]

Maybe I am not understanding the proposal .... If a team has the #1 overall pick, and does not think the value is there (i.e., does not want to pay #1 money for player it would pick at #1), then wouldn't the logical response be for the team to trade down to wherever the cost/value level is appropriate? For example, if Miami really wants the top WR in the first round (who probably will not go in the top 10 picks this year), then wouldn't Miami trade down to pick #10 or so, instead of just "passing" until the right time? Miami might not get the best value for the trade-down -- for example (bad-case scenario), maybe Miami trades pick #1 for pick #10 + a 6th round pick. However, even in that bad-case scenario, Miami is getting more value than by simply passing on its #1 pick. This seems like a straightforward "free market capitalism" issue, but maybe I am not understanding.

 

[Jason Wood]

Maybe I am not understanding the proposal .... If a team has the #1 overall pick, and does not think the value is there (i.e., does not want to pay #1 money for player it would pick at #1), then wouldn't the logical response be for the team to trade down to whether the cost/value level is appropriate? For example, if Miami really wants the top WR in the first round (who probably will not go in the top 10 picks this year), then wouldn't Miami trade down to pick #10 or so, instead of just "passing" until the right time? Miami might not get the best value for the trade-down -- for example (bad-case scenario), maybe Miami trades pick #1 for pick #10 + a 6th round pick. However, even in that bad-case scenario, Miami is getting more value than by simply passing on its #1 pick. This seems like a straightforward "free market capitalism" issue, but maybe I am not understanding.

Exactly. It's what I said above. A top 5 pick is an asset. If you feel it's genuinely an overvalued one, then you part ways with it for something; but you don't let it diminish to nothing.

 

[Lab]

Maybe I am not understanding the proposal .... If a team has the #1 overall pick, and does not think the value is there (i.e., does not want to pay #1 money for player it would pick at #1), then wouldn't the logical response be for the team to trade down to whether the cost/value level is appropriate? For example, if Miami really wants the top WR in the first round (who probably will not go in the top 10 picks this year), then wouldn't Miami trade down to pick #10 or so, instead of just "passing" until the right time? Miami might not get the best value for the trade-down -- for example (bad-case scenario), maybe Miami trades pick #1 for pick #10 + a 6th round pick. However, even in that bad-case scenario, Miami is getting more value than by simply passing on its #1 pick. This seems like a straightforward "free market capitalism" issue, but maybe I am not understanding.

Exactly. It's what I said above. A top 5 pick is an asset. If you feel it's genuinely an overvalued one, then you part ways with it for something; but you don't let it diminish to nothing.

Yes, I think you've got it exactly right. If Miami does not value the top-five asset as highly as some other team, then Miami would trade the asset for better value, before the asset drops in value. I don't know of any quirk to how the market for NFL draft picks works that might change this dynamic, but maybe someone else does.

 

[ukshane]

Who was the last first rounder to hold out for the entire season and re-enter the draft? I remember Elway and E. Manning threatening to do it.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

A top 5 pick is an asset. If you feel it's genuinely an overvalued one, then you part ways with it for something; but you don't let it diminish to nothing.

I don't necessarily see it that way. For example, if I have the #1 overall but I feel any of the top 5 guys would help my team equally, I would consider trading EVEN UP with any of the teams at picks 2-5 simply in order to save the cap space. The key factor there being that I view the guys available as being equal in impact.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Who was the last first rounder to hold out for the entire season and re-enter the draft? I remember Elway and E. Manning threatening to do it.

Bo Jackson, I think.

 

[ukshane]

Who was the last first rounder to hold out for the entire season and re-enter the draft? I remember Elway and E. Manning threatening to do it.

Bo Jackson, I think.

My point is these kids may talk about holding out but at the end of the day 99% of them sign a contract with the team that drafted them and become instant millionaires. I don't understand why more teams don't take a "take it or leave it" stance with these draftees and their agents. I wouldn't fault my teams GM for choosing not to cripple his salary cap by overpaying someone who has never proven anything in the NFL.

 

[{Syrus}]

Any way you cut it, having that 1st overall pick is the kiss of death to a franchise. The player will commnad 30+ million in guaranteed money...heck, even the best proven players in the NFL right now, Manning/Fitzgerald/Moss/Brady aren't even commanding that. Why would you want to give it to some guy like Matt Ryan who could be the next David Carr, or some legacy kid like Chris Long who hasn't proven anything on the NFL level. Just very bad economics. I know people say you shouldn't give away something so valuable for nothing, but a team would be better off just giving the pick away and then using that money to sign a proven free agent or trade for a proven player and spend the money on his contract. The draft has become a joke at the top end.

 

[Jason Wood]

A top 5 pick is an asset. If you feel it's genuinely an overvalued one, then you part ways with it for something; but you don't let it diminish to nothing.

I don't necessarily see it that way. For example, if I have the #1 overall but I feel any of the top 5 guys would help my team equally, I would consider trading EVEN UP with any of the teams at picks 2-5 simply in order to save the cap space. The key factor there being that I view the guys available as being equal in impact.

Again, this comes down to what the person holding 1.01 thinks the pick is worth. The media would eviscerate Miami if they simply swapped their 1st overall pick for Kansas City's 5th overall. But, in your example, if they genuinely felt the savings from 1.01 to 1.05 was worth the swap, they should make the deal. Of course we both know they would never; which gets back to the initial thesis. Teams can't complain about the inequity of the top picks unless they're willing to part ways with them for less-than-perceived value. Either 1.01 is worth a boatload as an asset or it's not. Pretty simple really but GMs get too caught up in the court of public opinion.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Why would you pass ona TOP 5 pick when you could trade it for a ton of value??

Nobody wants to trade up very easily. Read my post. Top 5 picks are not as valuable in trade terms as you think.

Sure they are.This is becoming an overblown misconception.

 

[Lab]

A top 5 pick is an asset. If you feel it's genuinely an overvalued one, then you part ways with it for something; but you don't let it diminish to nothing.

I don't necessarily see it that way. For example, if I have the #1 overall but I feel any of the top 5 guys would help my team equally, I would consider trading EVEN UP with any of the teams at picks 2-5 simply in order to save the cap space. The key factor there being that I view the guys available as being equal in impact.

Right, but even in the situation you describe, I suspect one of the teams in slots 2-5 would be willing to pay something to move up, and you would make the trade to get that extra value. If no one in spots 2-5 is willing to give you anything to move up (not even a bag of footballs), then I suppose the value of pick #1 is even to (or even less valuable than) picks 2-5. I suspect that someone would want to move up though.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

A top 5 pick is an asset. If you feel it's genuinely an overvalued one, then you part ways with it for something; but you don't let it diminish to nothing.

I don't necessarily see it that way. For example, if I have the #1 overall but I feel any of the top 5 guys would help my team equally, I would consider trading EVEN UP with any of the teams at picks 2-5 simply in order to save the cap space. The key factor there being that I view the guys available as being equal in impact.

Right, but even in the situation you describe, I suspect one of the teams in slots 2-5 would be willing to pay something to move up, and you would make the trade to get that extra value. If no one in spots 2-5 is willing to give you anything to move up (not even a bag of footballs), then I suppose the value of pick #1 is even to (or even less valuable than) picks 2-5. I suspect that someone would want to move up though.

Yes. If a team wants to move up it means they DON'T equally rate the top 5 prospects. In which case you could get something.But this year, for example, if I'm Parcells, any of the top 5 teams can trade up to my spot for a Chick-Fil-A coupon.

 

[WhoDat]

We keep hearing about Miami and how they would like to trade out of the top spot but have no potential trade suitors due to having to guarantee the #1 overall selected player a huge amount of money. So if Miami has their sights set on a guy like Vernon Gholston or Keith Rivers, for example, why not pass on the 1st overall selection, and keep passing until they feel like they are ready to draft their player and pay him according to the slot he is drafted in? Sure, a trade down with draft compensation from another team would be nicer, but nobody is locked in to draft at a certain point if they don't want. By passing on a draft selection and drafting lower you at least acquire a player you want with a more salary-cap friendly contract. Nobody is holding a gun to Miami's head and saying draft first over all or else. Miami can draft wherever they want in the first round and not be handicapped with that 30 million in guarantees they'll have to give the 1st overall selection.

Why not approach these players, say you are interested and hammer out a contract before the draft? If the agent is smart he will know he will get more than he would at #10 but nowhere near what a real #1 would get. I think Houston was accused of this to a lesser degree with Mario Williams.

My understanding is that "signability" is very much a factor with the #1 overall pick. For example, Texans ownership gave management a directive that whomever they picked would have a handshake agreement in place prior to being selected. Likewise, Bush had made it clear he really did not want to play in Houston and signing him would be difficult...ie an extended holdout. That...signability... is part...not all...of the reasons Williams goes 1st overall. It is borderline backroom but it is not illegal activity either. It is common place. If I remember correctly, the 49'ers and A. Smith already had something in place prior to him being selected. Conversely, you have a situation where the sides are not on the same page...Russell...and you have an extended holdout. And, as Dufense pointed out, an agent is going to be all over this and I am sure the NFLPA would have a say in the matter too if a team holding 1.01 decided to purposely let it drop.

 

[JKL]

A top 5 pick is an asset. If you feel it's genuinely an overvalued one, then you part ways with it for something; but you don't let it diminish to nothing.

I don't necessarily see it that way. For example, if I have the #1 overall but I feel any of the top 5 guys would help my team equally, I would consider trading EVEN UP with any of the teams at picks 2-5 simply in order to save the cap space. The key factor there being that I view the guys available as being equal in impact.

Again, this comes down to what the person holding 1.01 thinks the pick is worth. The media would eviscerate Miami if they simply swapped their 1st overall pick for Kansas City's 5th overall. But, in your example, if they genuinely felt the savings from 1.01 to 1.05 was worth the swap, they should make the deal. Of course we both know they would never; which gets back to the initial thesis. Teams can't complain about the inequity of the top picks unless they're willing to part ways with them for less-than-perceived value. Either 1.01 is worth a boatload as an asset or it's not. Pretty simple really but GMs get too caught up in the court of public opinion.

The problem is that the exchange rate has been agreed and set, without consideration of the cap (and factoring in the success rates since the chart was made). The benefit of having a virtually universal chart is that there is a known exchange rate, and in a market where the players are operating under time constraints (and those constraints will get even tighter with the change to 10 minutes between picks), there is little time to haggle once the draft has begun. Of course, the problem with this is that the exchange rate is bad, so it impacts the likelihood of trades in the first place. A team that truly believes a high pick is not worth as much as the pick value chart dictates will have to take less than the accepted exchange rate, while still getting more than what they personally believe the pick to be worth. It actually presents a good opportunity for a forward thinking team.

 

[delusional]

Something i see happening now is people trading out the top 5 and some players getting bumped from the top 5 will still demand top 5 money

 

[Phurfur]

Who was the last first rounder to hold out for the entire season and re-enter the draft? I remember Elway and E. Manning threatening to do it.

Bo Jackson, I think.

My point is these kids may talk about holding out but at the end of the day 99% of them sign a contract with the team that drafted them and become instant millionaires. I don't understand why more teams don't take a "take it or leave it" stance with these draftees and their agents. I wouldn't fault my teams GM for choosing not to cripple his salary cap by overpaying someone who has never proven anything in the NFL.

and Bo Jackson had another option, he played baseball.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Why would you pass ona TOP 5 pick when you could trade it for a ton of value??

Correct....by just simply passing you're losing value somewhere, somehow. You don't want the 5th pick, trade down.

 

[ROCKET]

What happens if 2 teams that are both eligible to pick run up to the podium simultaneously and try to hand in a card ? I'm assuming there is a rule about this?

 

[renesauz]

Any way you cut it, having that 1st overall pick is the kiss of death to a franchise. The player will commnad 30+ million in guaranteed money...heck, even the best proven players in the NFL right now, Manning/Fitzgerald/Moss/Brady aren't even commanding that. Why would you want to give it to some guy like Matt Ryan who could be the next David Carr, or some legacy kid like Chris Long who hasn't proven anything on the NFL level. Just very bad economics. I know people say you shouldn't give away something so valuable for nothing, but a team would be better off just giving the pick away and then using that money to sign a proven free agent or trade for a proven player and spend the money on his contract. The draft has become a joke at the top end.

There have been several threads discussing this in the past. I believe MOST of us agree that the top picks are dramaticly, and ridiculously, overpaid. For those who scream "free market", they underestimate the press and the pressure placed on teams by their fans. The only way to fix it is some sort of rookie cap, which the NFLPA will vehemently (and with SOME good reasons) oppose. The NFL will, at some point, fix this problem, but not until enough fans understand the problem well enough to back the owners instead of frying them when the #1 pick isn't signed.

 

[delusional]

Ill be happy when the day comes that each pick is a set amount of money. No holding out, you havent played a down yet, you cant hold out, etc etc.

Wait until there is no cap ( if it happens for a year or two ), that is going to sky rocket what rookies get.

 

[Drew RosenhausFan]

This would never work, trust me.

 

[{Syrus}]

Why would you pass ona TOP 5 pick when you could trade it for a ton of value??

Correct....by just simply passing you're losing value somewhere, somehow. You don't want the 5th pick, trade down.

Guys, can you not read the original post!? I said trading down would be nice, but if there is no trade partner then that doesn't mean The Dolphins have to pick at #1 if they don't want to, thus the scenario of passing on the pick. Whoever said you can't give away something for nothing is a real genius. Trading down only works if someone wants to trade up to the top spot, and nobody has done that in almost a decade! Duh.

 

[GregR_2]

The more I think about it the more I think that isn't a good strategy for Miami. Though it would depend on how many players they can let slide by and still be happy with who they got.

Let's say Miami does what you say, and there are 5 players they are content with getting so they let 4 picks be made then rush up with their slip to take the 5th guy. Now they have to negotiate the contract with him. His agent is going to ask for #1 money, the team is going to offer #5 money, and they will probably meet somewhere in the middle. The player does have the option of holding out, or even going back into the draft.

Ok, now let's consider a different approach. You go to that #5 player and you tell him, "We aren't considering you with the #1 pick, and on our board you're 5th and that's where we think you'll probably go. If you're willing to agree to sign for the money the #3 pick made last year, we'll take you #1."

If the player agrees, now you got the guy for probably the same price as if you let the pick slide. You have him signed before the draft even starts so there is no risk of a holdout. Unlike with letting the pick slide and then negotiating after you select him, you're not locked into that guy. You can go to the #4 guy on your list and do the same thing. You can even do this with all the top 5 guys at once and play them off each other, possibly even ending up with your #1 choice at lower than #1 pick money.

And at the worst, you can't come to agreement and then you're still in the situation you can trade the pick, take a guy and pay #1 money, or if you want to go that path, let your pick timer expire and do as you were advocating.

 

[bjabrad]

Here's another angle to consider.

Jerry Jones has been quoted as saying that he thinks the owners are going to force a work stoppage/lockout in the near future. If the owners are able to institute a rookie cap then upper tier draft picks in the future will be worth more than they are this year and it would be in some smart teams best interests to stock up on future picks where possible.

Question: How is the draft talent level supposed to be this year compared to next and at what positions are each year's draft class the strongest???

 

[flranger]

Eli?.....Vick?.........

Why would you pass ona TOP 5 pick when you could trade it for a ton of value??

Correct....by just simply passing you're losing value somewhere, somehow. You don't want the 5th pick, trade down.

Guys, can you not read the original post!? I said trading down would be nice, but if there is no trade partner then that doesn't mean The Dolphins have to pick at #1 if they don't want to, thus the scenario of passing on the pick. Whoever said you can't give away something for nothing is a real genius. Trading down only works if someone wants to trade up to the top spot, and nobody has done that in almost a decade! Duh.