This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I'd love 1.12 for the Browns. 2.05 might be a good spot for a QB. 2.05 + 2012 #2 + 2011 #6 for 1.12 ?Or, how about 2012 #1 for it?I can tell you right now that the Vikings are looking to trade back in the 1st round.
Can't figure out if he's joking.
I'm not that into 40 times.
We can agree to disagree. I think Arizona would be better off getting a veteran, then picking a QB to develop behind that veteran in the second round. Personally I prefer the QB's available in the second round over Newton and Gabbert. To each their own.
So you think an NFL team would do this just to save a couple bucks?
Great success.I like you peoples.
Pretty convincing argument that he is serious? Or pretty convincing argument that a team pays to move down in a draft? Cause the latter is nutso, you don't pay a team to drop down in the draft because you think there is better value lower. That's nonsensical. Other teams pay to move up. I guess he has to be joking but he seemed serious.
"Couple bucks." ;DI suppose that's relative.Just supply and demand. There are projected to be a lot of first day movement this year. If a lot of teams want to move up, you'll be able to make ground on your higher picks. If a lot of teams feel the value is in moving down, you may have to pay a little bit to do so.
Oof! Put the crack pipe down son!
When has ANYONE paid something to move DOWN in the draft. I mean, ever?
So you are serious. This is one of the nuttier things I've read here. You really think teams are going to "pay" for the privilege of obtaining a worse pick? Too funny.
Off the top of my head, I don't know. I suppose I could go looking. On draft day I'm usually too pissed off at bellichick to pay a ton of attention.If you can draft essentially the same player at 17 as at 11, and pay millions of dollars less to sign him... Maybe it's worth losing a bit of ground in the 2nd.
I guess. But what I say does make sense, if you actually read what I'm saying.
It make sense to pay less for the same. But to pay for the privilege does not.
Pay a little to save a lot? Kind of like BJs wholesale club drafting.I think you at least understand what I'm getting at now. So if you deny the trade offer, that's cool.Who's on the clock?
Define worse? Because 17 is more than 11? Does it mean you get a far superior player at 11 than at 17? Are you certain of this? Because that's what talent evaluation is all about, and many teams this year want to move down. You will certainly pay a good degree more for the 11th overall pick than for the 17 overall pick.So it depends on the depth of the position in the player pool of the players your targeting. And if the players available at 17 are comparable to the players available at 11, but you pay less for them, and all it costs you to target the players you pay less for is losing a few slots in the 2nd round, yes it might be worth it to you.
Dude are you in 4th grade. The move up six spots in the first would cost you a third round pick. You aren't gonna get something for it.
Lets see the sanity clause in that contract.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS2khYJZKwA&feature=relatedDude. If it's so lucrative to be drafting that high, how come people wanna move downDude are you in 4th grade. The move up six spots in the first would cost you a third round pick. You aren't gonna get something for it.
Is there really a huge difference in cost between the 11th and 17th player? I know a lot of teams with the top overall pick would almost pay for someone to take that rediculous contract off their hands, but I don't know that the 11th overall picks is going to bankrupt any teams. Especially if the rookie wage scale goes into effect this year.
I don't want to derail this mock and it's foolish even responding to this. Nobody said anything about "far superior". Everyone knows that player evaluation is an inexact science. But higher picks have more value than lower picks, teams don't give them away, much less PAY MORE to do so. The value comes from having first choice of the pool of players available. There are always teams that want to move down. Just because Carolina doesn't think Cam Newton is worth taking at #1 (as an example) doesn't mean that some other team won't feel differently. Teams move down for a variety of reasons, *one* of which is a perceived equality in talent between several players at a position (for example, DL this year). There are many other reasons though. But no team is going to give away the value of a pick, and pay for doing so, in the way you describe. When it happens, I'll be the first to eat my words.
The difference in guaranteed money between the 11th pick and 17th pick was 5.2 Million over 5 years in 2010. Add to the fact there will most likely be a rookie wage scale which would also decrease the liability with high draft picks. Think about it in fantasy football, if you offered a trade to move up in the first and second round with someone else, they would probably never trade with you again.
Last years 11 was Anthony Davis. 26.5mil over 5 hrs, 16 mil guaranteed.17th went iupati, 18.25 mil over 5, 10mil guaranteed.So that's a savings of 8 or so million total, 6 of which is up front, to a player that's never set foot on an NFL field before.If these were glamor positions, figure on the numbers to be a bit higher.
Right but you don't have to pay your FF team. So it's a bit of an oversimplification to break it down thus.
Yes, you're right, sorry. I'll let it be for now.
This is what happens when you have 5 hour lulls between picks. I like the Julio Jones pick, however there is a 0% chance of San Fran actually making that pick
I got an offer ya can't refuse.
Ah yes! The Sanity Clause! Great stuff!Bracie, if you're in / around Cleveland, we gotta get together some day!Lets see the sanity clause in that contract.
If he'll play 100%, Fairly looks like an excellent 4-3 tackle. I'm down with this pick.
I wouldn't say 0%. There's a very good chance that like this mock, Newton, Gabbert, Peterson, Miller, Dareus, and Green will go in the top 6 in the actual draft, and the niners are left with the same dilemma. The niners haven't finished better than 23rd overall in total yds on offense since 2003. Coincidentally, the last year that Owens was in town (They were 5th overall in 2003). I'm sure the organization has taken notice of this, they've been working hard towards a return to their roots.
I am still laughing, well played sir
No, it doesn't. Teams do not trade down just to have a lower pick. They trade down to acquire extra picks as compensation for doing so. This is how it has been since the beginning of time and it will remain this way until the sun collapses into itself, and at no point between those two events will anything you're saying on this matter make any amount of sense. At all.
