Trading out of an early pick in the NFL (1 Viewer)

[comfortably numb]

No, not letting the pick expire, and then taling your player 2 slots lower.

Just wondering,

General thought is that the #1 pick is a burden on some teams do to the financial implications.

Thought is always to trade down, even if a few spots, but the cost is so high in terms of draft picks.

Lets say the Lions have the #1 pick, but they don't want the money associated with it.

Lets say the Raiders are willing to swap their #3 overall pick.

The Raiders offer a 5th RD pick for the swap.

Obviously the Lions are "losing" in terms of value in the deal.

But, what if their player will be there at #3, that they would have taken anyway at #1, but they pay him #3 money, and gain a 4th.

Would the NFLPA OK a deal of such low value?

Is it an unwritten rule amongst owners to not trade something like this in terms of value?

 

[Chase Stuart]

The NFLPA would have no authority to prevent a trade. I don't see why there would be an unwritten rule amongst owners not to do a trade like this.

That said, I've maintained for a long time that the whole idea that you can't trade an early pick is just media garbage. In certain rare circumstances, maybe you can't trade down a pick, but for the most part, it's not very hard. As a Jets fan, I'd gladly take the 1st pick over the 29th if the Lions want to deal.

 

[Sweet Love]

I think this "should" happen more often. If your guy should be there at #5 (and you have the #1 pick) and the team at 5 wants the #1 pick, I see no reason why not to do just an all-out swap without the addition of picks to "make it even". Already it is even given that the team paying for a #1 overall is spending more money and in all other years cap space too. Of course the owners are worried about a fan revolt and no one wants to be the first one to do this, but if they educated the fan base that by taking the guy they really wanted, they have more money to spend on someone else, I think the educated fans at least would understand the shrewd move.

I think these guys stick to the trade value chart too closely and it is flawed anyways in the sense that it does not (at least to my knowledge) consider cap ramifications of having the higher pick.

 

[Easy Money]

what would happen if the time expired and a team waited 3 rounds to take their pick? i was wondering that the other day and saw you mentioned it just now.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think this "should" happen more often. If your guy should be there at #5 (and you have the #1 pick) and the team at 5 wants the #1 pick, I see no reason why not to do just an all-out swap without the addition of picks to "make it even". Already it is even given that the team paying for a #1 overall is spending more money and in all other years cap space too. Of course the owners are worried about a fan revolt and no one wants to be the first one to do this, but if they educated the fan base that by taking the guy they really wanted, they have more money to spend on someone else, I think the educated fans at least would understand the shrewd move. I think these guys stick to the trade value chart too closely and it is flawed anyways in the sense that it does not (at least to my knowledge) consider cap ramifications of having the higher pick.

Last year the Browns didn't stick to the trade value chart in the Sanchez deal. I think that was a bad trade for Cleveland, IMO.

 

[comfortably numb]

The NFLPA would have no authority to prevent a trade. I don't see why there would be an unwritten rule amongst owners not to do a trade like this.That said, I've maintained for a long time that the whole idea that you can't trade an early pick is just media garbage. In certain rare circumstances, maybe you can't trade down a pick, but for the most part, it's not very hard. As a Jets fan, I'd gladly take the 1st pick over the 29th if the Lions want to deal.

Yea, of course as a fan, i would take the #1 pick all the time, but if I were in management would be different.Lets say this year, the Jets had the #1 pick.Dez is the #1 player on their draft board, and their biggest need is WR.Would you rather they take Dez #1 and pay him #1 money.Or trade down to lets say #7, pay him #7 money, and get lets say a 5th in 2011?

 

[karmarooster]

yes i've been kind of wondering something similar. i remember reading a while back that the value of the rookie contracts drops alot around picks 7-10. it goes from being absurd money to just redic money.

would anything prevent a team from simply 'passing' on a player in the 6ish range and then taking them at 9 or 10 to save some cash? kind of like what the vikings did a few years back but intentionally?

 

[Chase Stuart]

The NFLPA would have no authority to prevent a trade. I don't see why there would be an unwritten rule amongst owners not to do a trade like this.That said, I've maintained for a long time that the whole idea that you can't trade an early pick is just media garbage. In certain rare circumstances, maybe you can't trade down a pick, but for the most part, it's not very hard. As a Jets fan, I'd gladly take the 1st pick over the 29th if the Lions want to deal.

Yea, of course as a fan, i would take the #1 pick all the time, but if I were in management would be different.Lets say this year, the Jets had the #1 pick.Dez is the #1 player on their draft board, and their biggest need is WR.Would you rather they take Dez #1 and pay him #1 money.Or trade down to lets say #7, pay him #7 money, and get lets say a 5th in 2011?

If I knew I could get Dez at #7, and I could pay him #7 money, when he was the #1 player, I would do that even if I didn't get a 5th round pick.I'd also question my scouts if the guy that we thought was the best player was a lock to fall to pick #7.

 

[comfortably numb]

The NFLPA would have no authority to prevent a trade. I don't see why there would be an unwritten rule amongst owners not to do a trade like this.That said, I've maintained for a long time that the whole idea that you can't trade an early pick is just media garbage. In certain rare circumstances, maybe you can't trade down a pick, but for the most part, it's not very hard. As a Jets fan, I'd gladly take the 1st pick over the 29th if the Lions want to deal.

Yea, of course as a fan, i would take the #1 pick all the time, but if I were in management would be different.Lets say this year, the Jets had the #1 pick.Dez is the #1 player on their draft board, and their biggest need is WR.Would you rather they take Dez #1 and pay him #1 money.Or trade down to lets say #7, pay him #7 money, and get lets say a 5th in 2011?

If I knew I could get Dez at #7, and I could pay him #7 money, when he was the #1 player, I would do that even if I didn't get a 5th round pick.I'd also question my scouts if the guy that we thought was the best player was a lock to fall to pick #7.

Yea that was my point.I would liken it to FFif you have the #1 pick, and you have ADP/CJ/MJD all rated the sameBut1.1 paid $12mil1.2 paid $9mil1.3 paid $7milWhy wouldn't you take ANY deal to move back to 1.3 and save your franchise 5mil.

 

[King of the Jungle]

The NFLPA would have no authority to prevent a trade. I don't see why there would be an unwritten rule amongst owners not to do a trade like this.

That said, I've maintained for a long time that the whole idea that you can't trade an early pick is just media garbage. In certain rare circumstances, maybe you can't trade down a pick, but for the most part, it's not very hard. As a Jets fan, I'd gladly take the 1st pick over the 29th if the Lions want to deal.

As a Jet's fan yes, however Jet's organization may have a different viewpoint based on the financial ramifications.

 

[comfortably numb]

Actually, a good scenario was HOUSTON taking Mario Williams

If they knew they wanted Mario, and were fairly certain NO wanted Bush, why not ask NO to trade up 1 spot.

Even if all they got was a 6th RD pick.

They would A) get the pick and B) not have had to pay Mario the slotted money for 1.1

 

[Chase Stuart]

Actually, a good scenario was HOUSTON taking Mario WilliamsIf they knew they wanted Mario, and were fairly certain NO wanted Bush, why not ask NO to trade up 1 spot.Even if all they got was a 6th RD pick.They would A) get the pick and B) not have had to pay Mario the slotted money for 1.1

Because then they couldn't have had Williams signed before the draft.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The NFLPA would have no authority to prevent a trade. I don't see why there would be an unwritten rule amongst owners not to do a trade like this.That said, I've maintained for a long time that the whole idea that you can't trade an early pick is just media garbage. In certain rare circumstances, maybe you can't trade down a pick, but for the most part, it's not very hard. As a Jets fan, I'd gladly take the 1st pick over the 29th if the Lions want to deal.

Yea, of course as a fan, i would take the #1 pick all the time, but if I were in management would be different.Lets say this year, the Jets had the #1 pick.Dez is the #1 player on their draft board, and their biggest need is WR.Would you rather they take Dez #1 and pay him #1 money.Or trade down to lets say #7, pay him #7 money, and get lets say a 5th in 2011?

If I knew I could get Dez at #7, and I could pay him #7 money, when he was the #1 player, I would do that even if I didn't get a 5th round pick.I'd also question my scouts if the guy that we thought was the best player was a lock to fall to pick #7.

Yea that was my point.I would liken it to FFif you have the #1 pick, and you have ADP/CJ/MJD all rated the sameBut1.1 paid $12mil1.2 paid $9mil1.3 paid $7milWhy wouldn't you take ANY deal to move back to 1.3 and save your franchise 5mil.

Well, in FF there are no holdouts. If guys #2 and #3 agree with you, there'd be no incentive for *them* to make that trade, either.In the NFL, there are holdouts. And if you had a situation where the #3 guy is just as good as the #1 guy, and you're trying to pay him #3 pick money, you might have a problem. See Crabtree this year.

 

[comfortably numb]

Actually, a good scenario was HOUSTON taking Mario WilliamsIf they knew they wanted Mario, and were fairly certain NO wanted Bush, why not ask NO to trade up 1 spot.Even if all they got was a 6th RD pick.They would A) get the pick and B) not have had to pay Mario the slotted money for 1.1

Because then they couldn't have had Williams signed before the draft.

The deals they got were actually very similarBush 6/52 26.3 guaranteedMario6/5426.5 guaranteedNot sure if Mario gets the same kind of money Bush got if he had gone #2

 

[Sinrman]

It's a pretty gray area. When it's straight picks for picks, I think it's an unwritten rule to not undervalue a pick, or the whole system goes down. They'll start to undervalue a pick, then someone outdoes them and goes even lower, and eventually you have someone giving a high 1st rounder for like a 1st and a 6th NEXT year. Who knows? I think it would cause some animosity among teams and you'd start to see possible blackballing in trades, who knows?

Otherwise, it's hard to say. As Chase pointed out, when you start involving players, like Cleveland in the trade with the Jets that netted them Sanchez, they took several players that it's hard to pin a value on. One team may value them at a certain level, while another might not.

 

[coolnerd]

The problem is not the willingness to trade down by teams, it is the willingness to trade-up by teams. Two reasosn in my mind that you don't see more at the very top portions of the draft.

1) financial- The 6-8 spot in the draft are just out of proportion to the difference in players even the rest of the first round.

2) needs- teams in the top portion of the draft have multiple needs or just pure lack of overall talent, so they should not be trading up for a single player and, in fact, should be trying to trade down. It was no surprise that a team like the Jets who had a core of talent targeted a player and broke the several year streak of not trades down in the highest regions of the draft.

As both the money and quality teams even out somewhere in the mid first round, there is always bunches of movemnt, so I think that at least fixing the money will make teams more likely to trade up to those spots.

 

[Sinrman]

The problem is not the willingness to trade down by teams, it is the willingness to trade-up by teams. Two reasosn in my mind that you don't see more at the very top portions of the draft.1) financial- The 6-8 spot in the draft are just out of proportion to the difference in players even the rest of the first round. 2) needs- teams in the top portion of the draft have multiple needs or just pure lack of overall talent, so they should not be trading up for a single player and, in fact, should be trying to trade down. It was no surprise that a team like the Jets who had a core of talent targeted a player and broke the several year streak of not trades down in the highest regions of the draft. As both the money and quality teams even out somewhere in the mid first round, there is always bunches of movemnt, so I think that at least fixing the money will make teams more likely to trade up to those spots.

Agreed on the financial part, which probably is the #1 reason. But if the owners can work in a rookie salary cap, we just might see a LOT more trading of high picks in the future...

 

[Bobcat10]

I think this "should" happen more often. If your guy should be there at #5 (and you have the #1 pick) and the team at 5 wants the #1 pick, I see no reason why not to do just an all-out swap without the addition of picks to "make it even". Already it is even given that the team paying for a #1 overall is spending more money and in all other years cap space too. Of course the owners are worried about a fan revolt and no one wants to be the first one to do this, but if they educated the fan base that by taking the guy they really wanted, they have more money to spend on someone else, I think the educated fans at least would understand the shrewd move. I think these guys stick to the trade value chart too closely and it is flawed anyways in the sense that it does not (at least to my knowledge) consider cap ramifications of having the higher pick.

Last year the Browns didn't stick to the trade value chart in the Sanchez deal. I think that was a bad trade for Cleveland, IMO.

If they didn't miss with two-thirds of their 2nd round picks (maybe all of them), I think you're singing a different tune. IMO. And I know it takes years to grade a draft class, but I don't think it's far fetched to say Robiskie and Vekuine (whatever his name is) are not going to live up to those draft slots. I think they made the right trades in general, they just didn't execute the picks properly.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't think I understand the premise of the thread.

It's not like teams don't trade up or down in the first round. They do.

If the question is why a team wouldn't trade down from #1 to #5 and pick up an extra sixth-round pick . . . it's because trading down from #1 to #5 can bring in a lot more than that. Why settle for a sixth-round pick when you can get next year's first instead?

The Chargers gave up an awful lot, for example, to trade up from #3 to #2 when they picked Leaf. They also got a lot in return when they moved down from #1 to #5 to take Tomlinson. Or when they effectively moved down from #1 to #4 and got Rivers.

So . . . what's the question again?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Agreed on the financial part, which probably is the #1 reason. But if the owners can work in a rookie salary cap, we just might see a LOT more trading of high picks in the future...

There's been a rookie salary cap in the NFL since 1994.

 

[Pictus Cat]

Did Ditka offer all of New Orleans picks plus the 1st & 3rd of the following year

to the first four picks before landing Ricky Williams with the 5th?

 

[comfortably numb]

The point, was that is seems many teams will not trade down if not given the full value of the pick.

(According to the Jimmy Johnson chart or whatever)

In the draft listed above, lets say CLE wanted to address RB in that draft with their 1st pick.

But they knew either Jamal or TJones would be there at #4.

If CIN called them and said, hey we will offer you next years 4th to swap picks, that is our best offer.

I highly doubt they would have done it.

My question is, why not?

You save money and get a player that you prefer.

 

[Getinthemix]

A GM could not trade the pick for so far below market value. He would get destroyed in the court of public opinion and based on who the owner of said franchise would be, he might have a hard time keeping his job for very long.

 

[comfortably numb]

A GM could not trade the pick for so far below market value. He would get destroyed in the court of public opinion and based on who the owner of said franchise would be, he might have a hard time keeping his job for very long.

See, this is exactly what I mean.This would make 100% sense from a business standpoint.Why not get the player you really want, at a lower price, and anything you pick up in the process is gravy, even if it is only a 3rd or 4th.I agree, media and fans would say worst trade ever.

 

[Catbird]

As a GM, the first time the #2 pick took one RB (which you knew was a possibility) and another team you didn't anticipate traded up for the third and took the other guy ... you would be out of a job and deservedly so. If you want the guy,its risky to do much of anything hoping he'll still ve there.

If the Rams really, really want Bradford, they can assume that the Lions sure don't need him, but the minute they even trade down one slot to let the Lions take Suh, the Lions might trade back down with the 'Skins who then take Sammie. One space down you might control with Lions secretly promising to take Suh or something, but beyond that, you have to be awfully sure you overvalue the guy you want compared what EVERYONE else thnks to be sure he'll be there. If the price isn't extremely high, just keep your damn pick and take the guy you want.

 

[Catbird]

Its also easy to say now, but I think rare, that you have the #1 pick, there are 2 top level RBs, and you couldn't care less which one of them becomes the face of your offense for the next decade. In almost every instance you would think one guy at that top level is decidedly better for your team, whatever the reasons, and there is no way you'll be sure that guy is there at 4 - even if you are sure one of them will be. You would probably assume that most teams looking closely would also prefer the guy you do - or certainly that some team surely could - so trading down might cost you the choice of the 2 RBs - which might be the difference between Peyton and Leaf (as 2 'equal' talents coming out). Want the guy, take the guy - unless the payoff for the trade is worth that risk. IMO that's why it has to be solid value.

 

[Marauder]

The point, was that is seems many teams will not trade down if not given the full value of the pick.(According to the Jimmy Johnson chart or whatever)In the draft listed above, lets say CLE wanted to address RB in that draft with their 1st pick.But they knew either Jamal or TJones would be there at #4.If CIN called them and said, hey we will offer you next years 4th to swap picks, that is our best offer.I highly doubt they would have done it.My question is, why not?You save money and get a player that you prefer.

I think you are presenting a hypothetical that would never happen IRL. I strongly suspect that NFL teams value those high picks a lot more than you think they do.First, they can never be sure that the player they want will be available at 4 or 5. Other teams are looking at the same information you are. If you have a player rated that highly it's a pretty good bet that someone else does too. Second, if they really want to trade down they can always get a lot more than a 4th round pick in return. I'd be willing to bet that CLE had offers much, much higher than a 4th round pick that year but they turned them down because Courtney Brown was the #1 player on their board and they valued the chance to draft him more than they valued the compensation offered + the money savings.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

A GM could not trade the pick for so far below market value. He would get destroyed in the court of public opinion and based on who the owner of said franchise would be, he might have a hard time keeping his job for very long.

There are a number of GMs who just don't care at all about public opinion. See: AJ Smith. (I'd say that most of them don't, but Smith is pretty obvious about it.) (Al Davis and Jerry Jones come to mind as well.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In the draft listed above, lets say CLE wanted to address RB in that draft with their 1st pick.But they knew either Jamal or TJones would be there at #4.If CIN called them and said, hey we will offer you next years 4th to swap picks, that is our best offer.I highly doubt they would have done it.

I think they would have done it if they really valued Jamal and TJones more than Brown (which they apparently didn't), and if that was really the best offer they could get (which it probably wouldn't have been).

 

[Getinthemix]

A GM could not trade the pick for so far below market value. He would get destroyed in the court of public opinion and based on who the owner of said franchise would be, he might have a hard time keeping his job for very long.

There are a number of GMs who just don't care at all about public opinion. See: AJ Smith. (I'd say that most of them don't, but Smith is pretty obvious about it.) (Al Davis and Jerry Jones come to mind as well.)

I never said the GM cared about public opinion. the owner will. You can also bet that if a GM ever did a trade like the OP proposed, that as soon as the team took a negative turn, there would be fans howling about his poor performance and that trade would be continually brought up. Also would be hard for another team to hire said GM with that on his track record. GM's don't care about what the public thinks, owners do.

 

[Sweet Love]

In the draft listed above, lets say CLE wanted to address RB in that draft with their 1st pick.But they knew either Jamal or TJones would be there at #4.If CIN called them and said, hey we will offer you next years 4th to swap picks, that is our best offer.I highly doubt they would have done it.

I think they would have done it if they really valued Jamal and TJones more than Brown (which they apparently didn't), and if that was really the best offer they could get (which it probably wouldn't have been).

I agree with CN. There is no chance in heck (even if they had a crystal ball) that they would have made that move based on public and media perception. The reason I know this is because lopsided (on the surface) deals are not done like this. It was evident back in 05 (or whatever year) that SF needed a QB and they reached with Smith...while thought of somewhat highly, he was not a sure thing as compared to Matt Ryan or even Joe Flacco for that matter (and they went 3rd and 15th?) in their respective draft. Yet they took him #1 overall because they were in need of a franchise QB and that was what was being offered that year. I know there are those who say, "if you can get a franchise QB, go for it regardless of other needs", but remember, he and Rodgers were neck-and-neck leading up to the draft and the loser of that battle fell into the 20s (maybe mistakenly, but that was the overall thought of GMs at that time). I have no problem going on record that the move to take Smith was as politically based as it was a true determination of talent, yet they could have taken a guy like Edwards and gotten more out of the pick and selected the guy they really wanted at QB, Leinart, the following year. And yes, we are not talking workd beaters here, but I would take Edwards over Smith any day of the week.There are just two schools of thought here: take the best player available or do what the fans/media/owners want...either way has its own set of detractors, but it provides a glimpse of the politics CN is alluding to when he states that deal would not have been done...and he is right.

 

[massraider]

A GM could not trade the pick for so far below market value. He would get destroyed in the court of public opinion and based on who the owner of said franchise would be, he might have a hard time keeping his job for very long.

There are a number of GMs who just don't care at all about public opinion. See: AJ Smith. (I'd say that most of them don't, but Smith is pretty obvious about it.) (Al Davis and Jerry Jones come to mind as well.)

I never said the GM cared about public opinion. the owner will. You can also bet that if a GM ever did a trade like the OP proposed, that as soon as the team took a negative turn, there would be fans howling about his poor performance and that trade would be continually brought up. Also would be hard for another team to hire said GM with that on his track record. GM's don't care about what the public thinks, owners do.

I agree with this.It's not so much that a guy might be roasted for it, but it is also just easier to not make a "bad" deal, and take the guy they want, and then say that there wasn't any deals available. With Top 5 salaries where they are, people will believe that. It is safer to NOT make a move. You can just say, 'yeah, we would have liked him, but he was gone when we picked...."Why stick your neck out, and risk getting taken to the woodshed for "losing" a trade? To save money? Most fans won't like that reason, especially draft geeks. And I think too many GMs have seen big trade-ups blow up in people's faces. You make a massive trade-up for a guy, your job might very well be linked to that kids career. Not to mention there is a lot more history of teams holding onto/acquiring more draft picks, and those teams performing better.

 

[Fallerjw]

I think this "should" happen more often. If your guy should be there at #5 (and you have the #1 pick) and the team at 5 wants the #1 pick, I see no reason why not to do just an all-out swap without the addition of picks to "make it even". Already it is even given that the team paying for a #1 overall is spending more money and in all other years cap space too. Of course the owners are worried about a fan revolt and no one wants to be the first one to do this, but if they educated the fan base that by taking the guy they really wanted, they have more money to spend on someone else, I think the educated fans at least would understand the shrewd move. I think these guys stick to the trade value chart too closely and it is flawed anyways in the sense that it does not (at least to my knowledge) consider cap ramifications of having the higher pick.

Last year the Browns didn't stick to the trade value chart in the Sanchez deal. I think that was a bad trade for Cleveland, IMO.

If they didn't miss with two-thirds of their 2nd round picks (maybe all of them), I think you're singing a different tune. IMO. And I know it takes years to grade a draft class, but I don't think it's far fetched to say Robiskie and Vekuine (whatever his name is) are not going to live up to those draft slots. I think they made the right trades in general, they just didn't execute the picks properly.

Trades were great, but the resulting selections were TERRIBLE. I was on cloud 9 until I saw their 2nd round picks. It could have been:Jairus Byrd or Rey ReyPhil LoadholtShonn GreeneIf that's what they had done, people would be singing a different tune. Yes, I know that everybody passed on these guys, but the Browns passed too many times.

 

[BassNBrew]

This year I would trade down in the first round and not ask for anything in return if needed. The NFL landscape is about to change and those teams carrying large rookie contracts are going to be at a huge competitive disadvantage.