The Chiefs seem to have gotten screwed in that trade deal, at least compared to what the Giants and Browns got for Shockey and Winslow respectively. The Browns got a 2nd rounder this year and a 5th rounder next year (equivalent to a sixth this year supposedly) while the Giants got a 2nd and a 5th rounder for what was next year at the time, so a 3rd and 6th. The Chiefs are getting only a 2nd next year which might be about 75% of what the Giants got and probably less than 50% of what the Browns got. I suppose you have to adjust for the fact that Gonzo is old, but his production and the fact that Winslow and Shockey were practically lame ducks seems to mitigate that.
All in all, seems like the Chiefs could have reasonably demanded a 2nd this year or a 2nd and a 5th or 6th next year.
Some people feel Stafford could take a tumble if he doesn’t go number one as well. (Seems to happen to one QB every year.) That’s why I think the deal gets done with Stafford.
Agreed that rookie salaries have gone nuts. I’m also piping up to say my brother is rooting for Carolina to take Nate Davis at 59, just so I can do the ‘told you so’ thing if he gets picked there.
I almost hope Stafford does dig in and forces the Lions to go with Curry or Smith. The drama that would cause with teams who were targeting Sanchez in the 4 to 10 range would be priceless. Suddenly teams could be leapfrogging up to get Stafford at 3 or 4, maybe teams in love with Sanchez stick to their guns and he goes ahead of Stafford. The excitement would be too much to bear. Though a Stafford-Sanchez dominated ESPN broadcast might become insufferable by hour 12.
I don’t know about that. I rather enjoyed watching Brady Quinn getting progressively sweatier and shedding bits of his rather ugly suit as the afternoon wore on.
The best part was watching his girlfriend’s expression change from adoration to barely contained distaste while her boyfriend’s potential net worth dropped from $100 million to $12 million in a couple of hours.
Precisely why it could be so much fun!!! You know Stafford will have a blonde little hottie on his arm with dollar signs in her eyes! And after the Lions pass and Sanchez goes ahead of him and he slides, and slides…the drama would be palpable.
Granted that future draft picks tend to be discounted in trade value, but otherwise they’re not *actually *less valuable. In fact, unless this draft is unusually deep, the Chiefs probably helped themselves by getting next year’s 2nd Rounder as opposed to this year’s, as in 2010 the pick will probably be earlier than 55th overall.
I doubt the Lions will pass on him. It’s interesting conjecture, though, especially since a lot of the other quarterback-needy teams seem to have Sanchez ranked higher.
Todd McShay said something interesting today: Stafford has more upside, but Sanchez has a higher floor. Meaning that if they’re both busts, Sanchez could still end up as, say, a Brian Griese, while Stafford will be an Akili Smith.
I’m not sure what the Panthers are thinking, since it’s not like other teams are beating down their door to trade for Delhomme. Still, John Fox seems to be a pretty loyal guy, and I think he might have decided he doesn’t have enough job security to go 5-11 while he develops a new quarterback. Plus, if DeAngelo Williams plays anything like last year this season they won’t have to throw the ball.
I think Gonzo makes Atlanta a better team, so it seems unlikely that you can assume they’ll be getting a pick better than the 55th next year.
The “one round depreciation” math that goes along with the famous draft pick value chart is only an estimation but it’s pretty much all that you can use. And even if you think the numerical values are fictional and ridiculous there’s no rationale that could possibly exist which makes a future pick equal to a current pick.
At the very least, the Chiefs are losing 1 year of Gonzo for NOTHING in that scenario. They are also losing 1 year of productivity from a potential 2009 draft pick to get a future pick. Plus the Chiefs are going to need to replace that 2009 2nd rounder with a FA or veteran player who is almost certainly going to be more expensive than a 2nd round rookie. Everything about waiting until 2010 is bad for the Chiefs.
Heh, I love it.
I’m not sure if I buy that, it sounds like a lot of posturing and leverage. Almost no one was talking about Sanchez over Stafford at any point until it became clear that Sanchez was their only option, then it becomes good marketing to pretend that he was your guy all along. Big arms are still the most important thing for scouts by a wide margin.
I can believe that. But still, I’m not sure anyone drafts based on the “floor”. If you get the floor of both guys both of their teams are still looking for a replacement in 3 years. The Bengals had Smith and then knew he sucked and got Palmer, the Broncos stuck with Greise longer and ended up trying to patch him with Plummer and are still without a real go to guy. In anything, a mediocre guy can create indecisiveness.
Even if they are a better team next year (which is hardly guaranteed), it doesn’t mean they’ll have as good a record – every year, only the best one or two teams have a better than 50% chance to have as many as 11 wins.
I guess what I’m saying is, if you want to bet money on it, I’d be open to that. (Seriously.)
I don’t think any of that holds. Those aren’t downsides to getting next year’s pick, they’re just things that are happening earlier than they would if they were getting this year’s pick. For example, they lose a year of productivity from the pick now, but they gain a year of productivity at the end of the eventual draftee’s contract by getting him a year later. Just because they get a rookie a year from now instead of this weekend doesn’t mean they get to keep him for a shorter amount of time, so the delay ultimately costs the franchise nothing.
I’ll tell you what. Show me one example where a team gave away a pick this year for a pick in the exact same round next year, straight up. Then maybe we can see if you are arguing against all logic or not.
I’m aware of no such trade (though I wouldn’t be shocked to find one in the case of an end-of-round pick – there are a *ton *of trades in the mid-late rounds during the draft; there could well be a case of team not having a player they really wanted and just banking the pick instead).
I’m saying that front offices are (mostly) behaving irrationally by valuing immediate draft picks over future draft picks. They spend months scouting this year’s draft class, so it’s no surprise that they fixate on it. They pore over the prospects and find one or two that they love, at which point that Linebacker that they think they can get with their 2nd Round pick becomes real to them, while the player from next year’s class whom they will inevitably love just as much is still too abstract to be valued in quite the same way. Likewise with their needs: they have a hole at Cornerback and think they need this year’s pick to address it, without giving the same weight to the fact that they’ll probably have just as big a hole to fill next year. It’s totally understandable why teams part with future draft picks relatively cheaply when they can use them to get the prize that’s in front of them now, but it’s also totally illogical.
It would be easier to see on a large scale. A team that was constantly swapping immediate draft picks for future draft picks of greater value, year after year, would eventually be a team with multiple 1st Rounders (and 2nds and 3rds) in perpetuity. A team that was constantly doing the opposite, year after year, would eventually be a team with a lot of pitiful draft classes.
There are some valid exceptions, I think. If you’re a team with a fair chance to contend for a championship next year and you really do have a big hole that you really can address with a draft pick, then it makes sense to hold on to that pick. If there’s a prospect who’s fallen much further than he should have (like Brady Quinn, perhaps), then it can make sense to sacrifice pick-value to go and get him.
The vast majority of the time, though, a 2nd Rounder next year will help the franchise more than a 3rd Rounder this year, in the long run.
ETA: So is that a “no” on the idea of a wager? Atlanta’s 2010 2nd Rounder Over/Under 55th overall?
How about last season between the Eagles and Panthers? Eagles give up the 2008 #1 (#19 overall) for Carolina 2009 #1 (#28 overall). Of course, the Eagles also got Carolina’s 2008 #2 and #4. This is a ridiculous overvaluing of a current year’s pick versus a pick of the same round next year.
The former is an example of the New England Patriots, who have the 23, 34, 47, and 58th picks this year (that’s a 1, and three 2’s). Can’t think of an example of the latter, though. Washington?
You could go a step further, really. This year’s #2 won’t be worth as much as next year’s #2, if that also comes with a #4 and a #5, for instance. I really like what teams are able to do when they have an entire offseason to plan what to do with the versatility from a wealth of picks. The Eagles were (and technically still are, but not in actuality) in play for Anquan Boldin, Braylon Edwards, Tony Gonzalez, and made a move for Jason Peters, all on the back of having lots of picks. They may not land Boldin or Edwards, but they drove the price up enough that their rivals, the Giants, might not get either of them, either.
Given how often first rounders bust, is it worth mortgaging next year’s draft for the chance at one extra first rounder or second rounder?
There’s no need to be that cynical. Coaches, Owners and GMs aren’t illogical. They just prioritize winning NOW over winning later. This is perfectly logical and explains everything. As a fan, I expect this from my team. A team that constantly is positioning itself for the future is a team with a very frustrated fan base, no primetime games and furious season ticket holders. And, probably most importantly, the coaches need to be successful this year or they might not be around next year. All of this is entirely rational and the market reflects that, your arguing for some hypothetical football world where a win next year is equal to a win this year is fictional and irrelevant.
No, because my point isn’t that I’m sure Atlanta will be better. My point is that, from the Chiefs perspective, they can’t assume they’ll be worse. The fact that KC is sending them a Pro Bowl caliber player makes it really illogical that the Chiefs would somehow use the assumption that next year’s 2 will be better next year. It may or may not be the case, but there’s no reason to assume so in this case.
I’ll grant that the desire to win now is part of it, especially for coaches/GMs whose jobs are not 100% secure (whereas a guy like Pioli, with a new contract, big reputation, and very long leash can afford to forgoe getting a shiny new toy this year in order to get an even shinier toy next year).
A win next year may well be less valuable to the front office personnel than a win this year, but, say, 1.2 wins next year is more valuable to the *franchise *than 1.0 wins this year, and GMs ultimately do a disservice to the fan base by giving up that kind of equity.
Obviously there’s no guarantee – it’s not implausible that Atlanta could win the Super Bowl next year – but the expected value of their 2010 2nd Rounder is greater than the value of their 2009 2nd Rounder (IMO).
No kidding, and especially since they were coming off of a 7-9 campaign (itself following an 8-8 season) and were *probably *a good bet to be picking earlier than 19th this year. That they actually wound up going 12-4 is irrelevant: from the perspective of the Carolina executives making the trade at the time, they gave up 2nd and 4th Rounders for the right to *sacrifice *value in the 1st Round. Equity is a real thing.
Yeah, those are the teams I had in mind, though the Redskins more often make a different kind of “win now” mistake, namely trading draft picks for veterans, which has had the franchise stuck in neutral: since Daniel Snyder started directing the personnel decisions, trying furiously to win now at the expense of later, Washington is 66-78 (which is especially poor considering that Washington has spent more money than any other team).
Contrast that with New England which, in spite of doing it’s fair share of moving up within drafts to get the players they’ve targeted, has, in the 9 years since 2001 (including this year), had 11 Firsts*, 10 Seconds, 9 Thirds, and 14 Fourths. (Washington has had just 25 picks in the first four rounds in that same time span).
→ Including the 1st Rounder they lost in the SpyGate business.
Bowe is pretty good, but Gonzalez was absolutely lights out last season- he played as well during the second half of the year as he ever has. With the great Tyler Thigpen at quarterback, no less.
Bowe may prove to be a legit #1, but I don’t think he’s the kind of guy that can be a team’s entire downfield passing game, a la Chad Johnson in his first five years.
The team’s other wideouts are 93-year-old Bobby Engram and Mark Bradley (who admittedly showed flashes of brilliance last year).
