One Team Funding Another Team's Rookie Contract (1 Viewer)

[Couch Potato]

We hear all the time that teams like the Rams, Chiefs, Lions (Pre-Stafford) want to move down in the draft. They have lots of needs to fill and would love the extra picks.

Teams like the Skins and Jets would love to move up to get Sanchez. Other teams who don't have a lot of holes may want to trade up for that one impact player.

But the cost of player contracts at the top of the draft stops it all.

Is it possible / legal for a team trading down and a team trading up to negotiate some sort of financial compensation whereby the the team trading down in effect helps pay the high priced contract?

I'm not talking about taking on the contract, but finding a financial balance, in addition to the pick/player balance, that makes a deal palatable for both sides. I've heard in the past (in baseball at least) that team A traded YYY to team B for ZZZ and cash. Why not in the case of rookie draft slots? Cap problems?

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Yeah. Real simple too. Team trading down takes on a contract that team trading up wants to dump. But then again the team trading down most likely is doing so because they want to save money, so I'm not sure you're scenario makes much sense. If the the motive is to acquire extra picks though, and saving money is not the motivation then yes, just take on a bad contract to subsidize the financial difference.

 

[Couch Potato]

Yeah. Real simple too. Team trading down takes on a contract that team trading up wants to dump. But then again the team trading down most likely is doing so because they want to save money, so I'm not sure you're scenario makes much sense. If the the motive is to acquire extra picks though, and saving money is not the motivation then yes, just take on a bad contract to subsidize the financial difference.

Team trading down and team trading up swapping contract costs just puts the problem on the other team and solves nothing. What I'm talking about is a middle ground, negotiated, that would again make trades doable.Although they don't know exactly what the contracts will cost before they are negotiated with players and signed, teams have a fair estimate at the time picks are made or traded.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Let me make this more simple for you. Team trading up is relutant due to high fincial cost that comes with the guaranteed money that goes with the high slot. Team trading down wants to stockpile picks and isn't as worried about saving money. Solution: Team trading down agrees to a trade which also involves team trading up throwing in a player they have under contract but want to get out from under. Team trading up hypothetically throws in a player they currently have on their roster with say 7 million in guaranteed money left on his contract. The money they saved by dumping that player off helps pay for the added cost of drafting a player at the top of round one. Team trading down collects picks and adds a player with whom they might find some use or simply cut and absorb the cap hit.

 

[Couch Potato]

Let me make this more simple for you. Team trading up is relutant due to high fincial cost that comes with the guaranteed money that goes with the high slot. Team trading down wants to stockpile picks and isn't as worried about saving money. Solution: Team trading down agrees to a trade which also involves team trading up throwing in a player they have under contract but want to get out from under. Team trading up hypothetically throws in a player they currently have on their roster with say 7 million in guaranteed money left on his contract. The money they saved by dumping that player off helps pay for the added cost of drafting a player at the top of round one. Team trading down collects picks and adds a player with whom they might find some use or simply cut and absorb the cap hit.

You don't have to 'make this more simple for you' there chief.I don't think you should make the assumption the team trading down isn't also interested in saving money.

Setting aside the dumping of a contract of an existing player, I'm asking the Shark Pool if a deal is legal and makes sense in which $$ changes hands if, say, Team A deals a draft pick that will cost $78 mil to Team B for draft picks that will cost $30 mil and $18 mil, roughly splitting the $30 mil difference so a deal can get done.

 

[trader jake]

Not sure if this is what you mean CP but...

As long as teams swap the players before the draft ends that player's allotted draft slot money also moves with the player. If the trade occurs after the draft the rookie pool allocation would not move.

 

[Couch Potato]

Not sure if this is what you mean CP but...As long as teams swap the players before the draft ends that player's allotted draft slot money also moves with the player. If the trade occurs after the draft the rookie pool allocation would not move.

Right, I get that. The reason trades aren't happening for teams to move up is that contract costs at the top of the draft are out of line with the player's worth, yet everything is so slotted now that the teams are forced to pay it. Teams below aren't willing to move up and be the ones forced to pay it. The NFL has put itself in a position of overpaying players early in the draft, beyond their actual value to teams. Teams are penalized for picking early, as evidenced by teams no longer wanting to move up and all the teams wanting to move down to get out from under the contract they know they'll have to play by drafting early.I'm talking about payment outside of the player contract from Team A to Team B for being relieved of the burden of the huge contract in the trade, sharing that burden, so a trade can take place.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Let's just put it this way. I'm 99.9% sure cash can't be thrown into trades. If it were allowed I think we'd see it happen every once in awhile. Don't ya think? That's why trades made in the manner I outlined above go down in lieu of cash trading hands.

 

[Couch Potato]

Let's just put it this way. I'm 99.9% sure cash can't be thrown into trades. If it were allowed I think we'd see it happen every once in awhile. Don't ya think? That's why trades made in the manner I outlined above go down in lieu of cash trading hands.

That's what I'm thinking, that if they could, they already would. I just don't know the reason they can't or don't, whether it's economics or capology or league rules or what. I'm not a guy who usually pays a lot of attention to the contract side of sports (things are so out of control it bothers me to think about it very much), so I was wondering. I've never seen it discussed so I thought I'd raise the question.Thanks for your input guys.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

My guess as to why the NFL would prohibit cash exchanges would be perception. To me it's somewhat of an embarassment for MLB when a trade is made where a team dumps a player for nothing more than cash. Especially when it's a small market team. When they do it, it gives off the appearance that they're sole focus is staying afloat as opposed to putting the best talent on the field. Not the best message to be sending fans. In the NFL when the salary dump occurs at least the team absorbing the contract can sell the idea that they're going to get something out of the player being thrown in. If it's a veteran say a Mike Vrabel for instance, Kansas City can sell him to the fans as a veteran who will lead in the lockeroom and help in the transition to the 3-4. I think that's a lot easier sell than sending back cash. And yes I know the Vrabel example isn't the perfect fit for your scenario, but you get the idea.