An NFL conversation via e-mail
Pat's original message:
I just wanted to get everyone's opinion on something. I talked about this with Tom last night and I've discussed it with AJ as well. I'm always amazed at how NFL teams value draft picks over players. Quality players are put on the trade block for mediocre draft picks and I'm shocked at what their value is. Here are just a few examples of asking prices in recent years:
Shaun Alexander - 2nd
Javon Walker - 2nd
Edgerrin James - 2nd
Daunte Culpepper - 2nd
Donnie Edwards - 3rd
Jake Plummer - I've heard 3rd or 4th rounder
Thomas Jones - This one amazed me! The Bears traded Thomas Jones and their 2nd round pick (63rd overall) for the Jet's 2nd round pick (37th overall). Now Thomas Jones isn't a superstar but he's a quality back and he's been a solid, consistent runner for the Bears... and they traded him to get an earlier pick in the 2nd round. And now, they're supposedly looking for a backup for Cedric Benson?!
I just don't get it! Teams are willing to trade guys who have proven they can play for the chance to get extra rookies who may or may not be able to play. If a team needs to draft a RB in the first round, aren't they hoping he'll be the next Shaun Alexander or Edge? Why not trade your 2nd rounder for Shaun or Edge? If they draft a WR, wouldn't they be thrilled if he was as talented as Javon Walker? Then spend a 2nd on Javon Walker!! The draft is fun to watch and would be really boring if my team didn't have a lot of picks but would the Vikings have been better off A) drafting Troy Williamson in the 1st round, or B) trading their 2nd round pick for Javon Walker? There's no question.
Here are the 1st round receivers from recent drafts:
2005
Braylon Edwards CLE
Troy Williamson MIN
Mike Williams DET
Matt Jones JAC
Mark Claytoin BAL
Roddy White ATL
2004
Larry Fitzgerald ARI
Roy Williams DET
Reggie Williams JAC
Lee Evans BUF
Micheal Clayton TB
Micheal Jenkins ATL
Rashaun Woods SF
How many of those players are better than Javon Walker? Larry Fitzgerald is better... I'd put Roy Williams in the same category as Walker. And I'd say everyone else is worse. Almost every team would've been better off trading a 2nd for Javon Walker than drafting the players listed above. Denver figured it out eventually. They spent a 1st round pick on Ashley Lelie in 2002. Last year, they traded a 2nd round pick for Javon Walker. Which was the better move?
Rookies are just so risky. I don't know the exact number but I'd say 1st picks aren't worth their pay about 50% of the time. Lets look at some 1st round QBs:
2002
David Carr HOU
Joey Harrington DET
Patrick Ramsey WAS
2003
Carson Palmer CIN
Bryon Leftwich JAC
Kyle Boller BAL
Rex Grossman CHI
Again, how many of those guys are better than Daunte Culpepper or Jake Plummer? Carson Palmer and... no one else. Most of those teams could've traded for Daunte with a 2nd round pick and been much better off. And do you think Washington got their moneys worth for whatever they paid Patrick Ramsey? Hell NO!
So my theory is this: I want to see a team trade their draft picks away for quality veterans and see what happens. Take Minnesota for example: They could've gotten Javon Walker and Jake Plummer for a 2nd and a 3rd (maybe 4th). That would take care of their 2 biggest needs and I would argue that aquiring Walker and Plummer would make the Vikings contenders to win the NFC North... and they keep their 1st round pick! Now, is there anyone that the Vikings could draft in the 2nd and 3rd round that will save this team? I think the Vikings are doomed no matter who they draft. Brooks Bollinger or Tarvaris Jackson throwing to Travis Taylor, Troy Williamson and Bethel Johnson? We're doomed. Kevin Curtis won't save that passing game.
Here's another scenario with the players listed above. Any team could trade their first round pick for two 2nd round picks. They'd have three 2nd round picks which they could trade for Shaun Alexander, Javan Walker and Daunte Culpepper. That’s an instant offense.
One of the arguments I've heard is salary. All those players on the trade block want a big salary so teams don't want to sign them. That doesn't make sense to me. 1st round picks are frequently busts, as I listed above, and they're getting paid $20 million dollar signing bonuses. The Vikings needed a WR... they paid Troy Williamson to suck. They could've paid Javon Walker and gotten a guy who can catch. If they're hoping to find a late round stud that costs less, it still doesn't make sense. If you find a superstar in the 6th round you might get away with paying him 6th round money for a year or two but you're gonna have to pay him eventually. And mediocre free agents are getting paid huge amounts of money. Ahman Green is over 30 and just signed a $30 million dollar deal?! So Ahman Green is worth the big $$ but Shaun Alexander isn't? Travis Henry has a drug problem and he got paid! So the salary argument doesn't make sense! If you're willing to pay $30 million for old, drug addicted running backs then why arent these other guys worth the money?
On a related note, other arguments say that you can get quality players in free agency. Like I just said, Ahman Green and Travis Henry aren't nearly as good as Shaun or Edge and cost a TON of money if you have to compete against other teams. Drew Bennett was just WAY over paid by the Rams because other teams were competing for him (this was hilarious... after the Drew Bennett deal, people started saying things like "If Randy Moss gets traded, he's gonna want Drew Bennett money." REEE-DICULOUS. If you trade for a guy then you don't have to compete with other teams. And this argument that you can get good players in free agency contradicts the argument that trading for players costs too much.
The point is that I'm shocked at how little value proven veterans have compared to draft picks. If all you have to do is trade down in the 2nd round to get Thomas Jones... I'd make that trade every single year! Jake Plummer is better than half the QBs in the NFL and his asking price is only a 3rd or 4th?! But teams would rather waste their 1st round pick and millions of dollars on Kyle Boller... I just don't understand.
So... you guys are smart football people. Am I stupid? It seems so obvious to me, yet no teams are doing it.
Casey's reply:
I think you should get out of the radio biz and become an NFL GM. I agree with you 100% Pat. I thought the Bears/Jets deal was insane. The draft is great and all, but very risky, especially at QB and WR. I think running backs translate well into the NFL. If you look at 1st rounders in past years for that position, I dont think you will find as many busts. And a lot of times you find some good sleepers in later rounds. But, if there is a decent player floating around during the free agency period, I don't see why you wouldn't trade away a 2nd or 3rd rounder for them when you know what they can produce. Last year with the Vikings, I truly beleive they thought they had a good group of receivers with the Robinsons, Williamson and Taylor, and that may be why they and other teams didn't persue Javon Walker. I guess, in my opinion, if you know the guy has any skills, its better than taking a flyer on a rookie that only has college experience. Its crazy to think that this year we probably would have paid Drew Bennett or Kevin Curtis the type of money we would have paid for Walker last year if not more. Free agency is insane too. With the salary cap going up team owners have to spend the money competing with other teams. Its sick that Bennett has a 30 million dollar contract and he has only had one 1000 yard season. But then again, I think receivers are probably the weakest position in the NFL as far as talent goes. Well thats my two cents.
Pat's reply to Casey:
"The" Tom's analysis:
Think about the Vikings. We had Randy Moss. We traded Moss because he was a bad influence, he only played when he wanted to, blah, blah, blah. In 7 years in Minnesota, Randy Moss played in 109 games. He racked up 574 catches, for 9,147 yards and 90 TD's. He had six years where he caught at least 10 TD's. And we traded him for a draft pick because of his attitude, and because Nate Burleson was ready to take over as a #1 reciever?
Nate Burleson? Are you kidding me? In two years with Randy Moss, Burleson played in 32 games, caught 97 passes for 1,461 yards and 11 touchdowns.
As our #1 reciever, Burleson played in 12 games, caught 30 balls for 328 yards and 2 TD. Then we let him go to Seattle as a restricted free agent......SUCKERS!
Haters will say, "Look at what Moss has done since he left." He had 1005 yards and 8 TD's his first season in Oakland, and 553 yards and 3 TD's last season.
I'd take a banged up Randy Moss with his numbers from last year who could someday get healthy again and repeat past years over the Vikes leading reciever last year, Travis Taylor. Taylor. Taylor played every game last year, and gained 651 yards and scored 3 TD's.
Career year for Mr. Taylor.
And don't even get me started on Daunte.
Sigh.
Anyways, coming back to the point, there are a lot of considerations on why you wouldn't want to trade your picks for veterans.
Say you gave up your second round pick for Edge two years ago. You lose your shot at a potential stud, and what if Edge plays like he did last year? You gave up the pick, got shitty production, and then Edge decides he can't be succesful in your system and signs with a different team. You could lose Edge to a division rival, and he could run all over you for years.
1st round picks make a lot of money, sure. But generally, the biggest paydays are the ones right after the rookie contract. A player who outperforms his rookie contract is going to look for $$ to make up for what he should have made in his rookie contract. Would you trade a second round pick for a guy with 3 years of success for another team, knowing that you are going to have to pay him for the benefit he provided for the other team, with no gaurentee that he will perform for you? It's a disincentive to trade a pick, where you could draft a guy, pay him less, and at least have a body to plug in when a starter gets hurt.
And say you take the bait, you want an Edge. Say you're the Packers. Ahman Green is always hurt. You send off your 2 to the Colts, and get a sharp new Edge. Regardless of Edge's production, what the hell are you going to do with Green? Say you can't trade him. Do you pay him to sit on your bench pissed off? Do you cut him and let him go somewhere he can hurt you? Say you do trade for Edge and cut Green, Edge gets hurt, misses 8 games and Green wins the rushing title and scores in the NFC championship game. Is it worth the risk of losing the production of your second round player and the production of your mediocre incumbant to acquire Edge and his potential production? It's a risk.
And what if you trade for Plummer and he retires?
I do agree teams should eat up the productive players being shopped for less than a 1st round pick, but I can see why teams would be hesitant to do so.
Final argument: Name a 2nd round draft pick that was a complete bust. Now, start naming trades for veterans that were a complete bust.
There are risks both ways, but people will forget about Troy Williamson and Dontarrious Thomas long before they do Herschel Walker.
Casey's reply:
I think you should get out of the radio biz and become an NFL GM. I agree with you 100% Pat. I thought the Bears/Jets deal was insane. The draft is great and all, but very risky, especially at QB and WR. I think running backs translate well into the NFL. If you look at 1st rounders in past years for that position, I dont think you will find as many busts. And a lot of times you find some good sleepers in later rounds. But, if there is a decent player floating around during the free agency period, I don't see why you wouldn't trade away a 2nd or 3rd rounder for them when you know what they can produce. Last year with the Vikings, I truly beleive they thought they had a good group of receivers with the Robinsons, Williamson and Taylor, and that may be why they and other teams didn't persue Javon Walker. I guess, in my opinion, if you know the guy has any skills, its better than taking a flyer on a rookie that only has college experience. Its crazy to think that this year we probably would have paid Drew Bennett or Kevin Curtis the type of money we would have paid for Walker last year if not more. Free agency is insane too. With the salary cap going up team owners have to spend the money competing with other teams. Its sick that Bennett has a 30 million dollar contract and he has only had one 1000 yard season. But then again, I think receivers are probably the weakest position in the NFL as far as talent goes. Well thats my two cents.
Pat's reply to Casey:
Good points Casey. You're right about the running backs... there are a lot fewer busts and they can produce a lot sooner than other rookie positions. And you're right that a lot of the crazy free agency signings are being caused by the increase in the salary cap. GMs are faced with a tough decision: either we overpay for Drew Bennett or we don't get him. It makes me wonder how it will affect good receivers. If Drew Bennet gets $30 million after a season with 46 receptions, 737 yards, and 3 TDs... what are the stud receivers gonna think? There are plenty of WRs that regularly double those statistics... are they gonna $60 million? I also think it'll put the teams in a bad situation. I don't know what the Vikings are paying Troy Williamson this year but its probably a lot. The Vikings could go to Troy and say "We're supposed to pay you $5 million this year but we're worried about last years performance so we want to restructure your contract. We'll offer you $3 million guaranteed plus the other $2 million in incentives if you get 1000 yards and 8TDs." And Troy will say "No. Drew Bennett just got $30 million. If you cut me, someone will pay me at least $5 million and probably a lot more so I'm not restructuring anything." And the Vikings will have no room to negotiate.
Hell, the teams are screwed even if they're trying to give a guy a bonus. ATLANTA: "Hey, DeAngelo Hall. You had a great season and your contract expires after this year so we want to get a long-term deal done now. We'll offer you a $30 million dollar signing bonus plus $3 million a year for the next 5 years." And DeAngelo will say "Hell no. Nate Clements just signed an $80 million dollar deal with the 49ers. I'd rather play out my contract and become a free agent. Sorry."
I want to be an agent.
"The" Tom's analysis:
Think about the Vikings. We had Randy Moss. We traded Moss because he was a bad influence, he only played when he wanted to, blah, blah, blah. In 7 years in Minnesota, Randy Moss played in 109 games. He racked up 574 catches, for 9,147 yards and 90 TD's. He had six years where he caught at least 10 TD's. And we traded him for a draft pick because of his attitude, and because Nate Burleson was ready to take over as a #1 reciever?
Nate Burleson? Are you kidding me? In two years with Randy Moss, Burleson played in 32 games, caught 97 passes for 1,461 yards and 11 touchdowns.
As our #1 reciever, Burleson played in 12 games, caught 30 balls for 328 yards and 2 TD. Then we let him go to Seattle as a restricted free agent......SUCKERS!
Haters will say, "Look at what Moss has done since he left." He had 1005 yards and 8 TD's his first season in Oakland, and 553 yards and 3 TD's last season.
I'd take a banged up Randy Moss with his numbers from last year who could someday get healthy again and repeat past years over the Vikes leading reciever last year, Travis Taylor. Taylor. Taylor played every game last year, and gained 651 yards and scored 3 TD's.
Career year for Mr. Taylor.
And don't even get me started on Daunte.
Sigh.
Anyways, coming back to the point, there are a lot of considerations on why you wouldn't want to trade your picks for veterans.
Say you gave up your second round pick for Edge two years ago. You lose your shot at a potential stud, and what if Edge plays like he did last year? You gave up the pick, got shitty production, and then Edge decides he can't be succesful in your system and signs with a different team. You could lose Edge to a division rival, and he could run all over you for years.
1st round picks make a lot of money, sure. But generally, the biggest paydays are the ones right after the rookie contract. A player who outperforms his rookie contract is going to look for $$ to make up for what he should have made in his rookie contract. Would you trade a second round pick for a guy with 3 years of success for another team, knowing that you are going to have to pay him for the benefit he provided for the other team, with no gaurentee that he will perform for you? It's a disincentive to trade a pick, where you could draft a guy, pay him less, and at least have a body to plug in when a starter gets hurt.
And say you take the bait, you want an Edge. Say you're the Packers. Ahman Green is always hurt. You send off your 2 to the Colts, and get a sharp new Edge. Regardless of Edge's production, what the hell are you going to do with Green? Say you can't trade him. Do you pay him to sit on your bench pissed off? Do you cut him and let him go somewhere he can hurt you? Say you do trade for Edge and cut Green, Edge gets hurt, misses 8 games and Green wins the rushing title and scores in the NFC championship game. Is it worth the risk of losing the production of your second round player and the production of your mediocre incumbant to acquire Edge and his potential production? It's a risk.
And what if you trade for Plummer and he retires?
I do agree teams should eat up the productive players being shopped for less than a 1st round pick, but I can see why teams would be hesitant to do so.
Final argument: Name a 2nd round draft pick that was a complete bust. Now, start naming trades for veterans that were a complete bust.
There are risks both ways, but people will forget about Troy Williamson and Dontarrious Thomas long before they do Herschel Walker.
Labels: Football-NFL
