Is It Possible To Trade Up Into The Top Ten?

[Cugel]

I'm not criticizing anybody, but I wanted to illustrate a point. Here's a typical post from another thread. There will be at least 500 similar posts arguing before draft day:

I completely disagree with trading up for Ellis. Maybe last year before we added all the young guys but not this year. He's a beast but I believe nobody in this draft is good enough to trade up for except McFadden and we don't necessarily need him. If Ellis does fall to us then take him. If not you take Philips(best available player and a need pick). Then you get a DT or a LB in the 2nd based on what we get in FA. We'll pick up some depth for the OL later via 4-6th rounds like we always do.

Notice the argument? One side says "trade up! [insert player name] is a beast!" The other side says "don't trade up, he's not worth it!"

Does nobody on these boards remember that not one team has traded down out of the first round in the last 4 years that I remember?

Honestly, I haven't extensively researched this, but can any of you document one single example of a top 10 team trading it's pick and moving out of the top 10 in the 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007 drafts? Because I can't think of one. :coffee:

Perhaps I missed one example or something, but I don't think so. There were occasional trades within the top 10 (the last one I remember was the Phillip Rivers for Eli Manning trade in 2004.

The person who pointed out the 400 points differential between #6 and #12 makes it sound possible. But, history tells us that it just isn't. :coffee:

Normally teams bad enough to have a top 10 pick have either fired their coaches (Miami, Baltimore) or are about to (Raiders, Bengals). Those coaches/GMs desperately need to get the fans & media off their cases for a year. Buy some breathing room to get their rebuilding program going. Then maybe with a bit of luck and some improved coaching they can make a playoff run and save their jobs for a few more years.

Perhaps it makes long-term sense if you have a crappy team that needs 10 new starters to trade down and stockpile picks. Hell, if I were the Dolphins, Falcons, Raiders, or Rams, I'd consider trading down to the bottom of the first round and picking up 3 or 4 late 1st or early 2nd round picks. Get lots of talented players instead of a single blue-chip player (unlesdesperately needed a franchise QB and one were available). Look at the Chargers picking up DT Luis Castillo with the 30th pick, and DeMeco Ryans, the standout Texans MLB was taken with the #1 pick of the 2nd round in 2006, so some good players are available if you know how to pick them! But, teams just don't want to risk passing on a "star" player and looking bad.

So, I challenge all of you who think the Broncos SHOULD trade up into the top 10 to get a player, provide me with some examples of a team doing this during the last 4 years!

[Kon]

I usually respect your points Cugel, but I think you are off with this one. First off, you typo'd "Does nobody on these boards remember that not one team has traded down out of the first round in the last 4 years that I remember? " when I believe you meant top ten. And next, just because it hasn't happened in 4 years doesn't mean it can't/won't happen. No one had ever had a 16-0 regular season, but it happened this year.

Also, saying no one in 4 years.. that's only 4 drafts. That says people had done it before, and not only is it possible, maybe it is about time someone traded into/out of the top ten again.

[Cugel]

I usually respect your points Cugel, but I think you are off with this one. First off, you typo'd "Does nobody on these boards remember that not one team has traded down out of the first round in the last 4 years that I remember? " when I believe you meant top ten. And next, just because it hasn't happened in 4 years doesn't mean it can't/won't happen. No one had ever had a 16-0 regular season, but it happened this year.

Also, saying no one in 4 years.. that's only 4 drafts. That says people had done it before, and not only is it possible, maybe it is about time someone traded into/out of the top ten again.
I've had this argument with people for the last 3 years!

Every year I point out that nobody traded down out of the top 10. Then posters say "well that doesn't mean it can't be done!" and go right on to ignore my point so they can continue with these draft fantasies!

"Let's trade up!"
"No! It's not worth it!"

Well, show me the money! Show me one team during the last 4 years which has traded down out of the first round and maybe I'll look at that and we can discuss whether that example was a fluke or whether it's some indication that the Broncos could do it this year. Because yours is the sort of argument people make when you tell them "you're not going to win the lotto." "Well I COULD win! Prove to me that I won't!" "Well you've spent all your savings on lotto tickets for the last 4 years and haven't won jack, plus the odds are about 10 million to one against!" "So! It could happen!"

Yes, it's statistically possible but only an idiot would talk seriously about it happening.


Shanahan tried the last 2 years and said that not one team in the top 10 would even consider a trade. (Detroit apparently thought about it for about a day before somebody in the organization told their GM or coach to forget about it and despite endless speculation about how they would trade down because they didn't need ANOTHER #1 WR, they kept that pick and took Calvin Johnson!

If you want to argue it's possible you can't just say "they'll do it this year!" based on exactly ZERO evidence.

4 or 5 years (I haven't examined 2002 or 2003 drafts either so I don't know whether there were any notable to 10 trades then either), is a pretty convincing history.

If teams for whatever reason are reluctant to trade down out of the top ten that makes a difference. It's NOT then just a simple matter of counting the draft points and offering a deal!

[Kon]

Comparing the odds of someone trading out of the top ten (and we are only talking a couple spots, we are #12 which is almost top 10.. ) to the odds of winning the lottery is not really fair. There has not even been 50 seasons in the NFL, and I looked real fast and in 2000 there were 2 teams that traded out of the top ten (at least). So that's already 2 instances in lets say 50 seasons.. thats already a 4% chance made with minimal research and I am sure it is higher than that.

So to say that because it hasn't happened in 4 years doesn't mean it won't happen. It doesn't mean it will either. But to try and claim something won't happen because it didn't happen in the last few years is just ridiculous. I wouldn't take that as a sign of anything.

The reason Calvin Johnson was taken was most likely because he was the most exciting player in the draft. Everyone likes a playmaker, it's the same reason the Saints took Reggie Bush. Ever consider that teams are reluctant to trade UP into the first round? Think of all the heat they take if they sacrifice a lot of picks just to grab a single player than may be a bust.

I don't want to trade up, myself, but your claim is just ridiculous. Will someone in the top ten trade out of the top ten? I doubt it. Is it possible even though it hasn't happened the last few years?!! Definately.

[Javalon]

Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? No.


I believe it depends on how desperate a team is to get that certain player and if there are any less than desperate teams in the top 10 willing to deal. The "value chart" for draft picks makes it prohibitive to trade into the top 10 but it can definitely happen and will again.

As for the Broncos, I find it unlikely we'll be trading up this year unless somebody unexpectedly slides to the 8 - 10 range and the Broncos really want him and are willing to overpay for him. But that's only moving a few spots, not 6 or more spots.

What I don't understand is WHY more teams don't trade out of the top 10. Would you rather have one blue chip prospects or a couple borderline ones? Considering how many top 10 picks bust, I'd find safety in numbers and opt for more pretty high picks over one really high pick... although obviously certain circumstances could dictate otherwise.

In this upcoming draft, people are suggesting that we trade up to get Ellis. We'd probably have to move up to at least #7 since the Ravens would likely draft him instead of trading away their pick. But the Patriots are pretty savvy drafters and I think they would be willing to take advantage of the Broncos' desperation and trade with us at #6.

Looking at that possibility, we're talking a 300 point difference according to the value charts. They could probably demand both our 1st and 2nd rounders this year, or that's the least I'd ask for if I were them. If the Broncos are that desperate, or that dumb, they might be willing to fork it over. Then the Pats would still have the #12 pick, which isn't to shabby, plus a couple of 2nd rounders including ours which is a relatively high 2nd.

Is that likely to happen? No, I don't think so. Hopefully the Broncos' value that 2nd rounder enough to not cough it up and just take their chances where they are.

Again, these trades aren't going to be common because you need both a desperate team willing to overpay and a team with that top-10 pick that is NOT desperate. Now if more of those desperate teams felt like I do that the top-10 picks are too risky for the money you pay them, we might see more of these trades. Until then, we'll probably just see one or two every few years.

[myoung]

You are correct it has not happened in the last 4 years but before you believe that I agree with your point let me explain why Denver Bronco fans have every reason to believe it could happen.

1- You conveniently mention top 10. There was one team in the last four years that moved up to number 11 to take a player. The Denver Broncos moved up to take Jay Cutler just two years ago. So while your example has not occured our team was very close.

2- Over the past several years Denver has moved up and down in the first round in most drafts. It is crazy not to speculate that it would happen again. Additionally in most drafts we have had a pick significantly lower than pick 12 so therefore it was much more expensive to move into the top 10. This year with the 12 it is not a stretch at all to predict we may move up a couple of spots or down several spots. Just because it hasn't occured does not mean that teams don't talk and that it hasn't been seriously discussed. I believe Shanahan will decide on a group of players he covets based on workouts and move us in a range to get one of them. That could be up or down. If we are already in range to get one of the players we want we could very well stand at #12. But isn't this why the draft is fun, to speculate what could happen?

3- It is well documented that the real high money picks (that people are concerned about jumping up to get financially) are actually the top 5 picks. Especially the financials of the top very few picks. Those are really expensive and better pay off. The difference in money between 12 and 10 is not great and it certainly would not have a big impact on our cap this year or the immediate future.

4- It is well documented that we attempted to move into the top 10 the last two years. We not only tried to move up with the Lions last year but two years ago when we took Cutler at 11 we were talking to teams from 8-11 about moving up to get a QB. Not only have we moved up but we tried to move up even higher. i don't think there is anything magical about the number 10.

5- The cap keeps moving up. More teams have money under the cap that just 4 or 5 years. As teams have shedded more dead money off of the cap this gives alot of teams flexibility. The bottom line is that less teams are cap strapped right now. That leaves a stronger possibility for a trade than it did just 4 years ago. The last several years have been good to the cap.

I do not disagree with you that it hasn't happened in the last 4 years. I normally respect your posts and enjoy reading them. But I will say this; when you say that only an idiot would believe it could happen you have taken it a bit too far. You are simply ignoring way too many facts about our team. I would ask you to take a closer look at our team's draft history before you criticize anyone on speculating what we might do. The only thing I find consistent is that there is a good chance we could move up or down. So as draft fans shouldn't we speculate on how and where that could occur?

[KWHIT97]

If I'm watching the draft and I see Denver trade up I will shut the TV off without even watching who they select in the top 10!!!

The only players they should even consider trading up for are Glenn Dorsey and Darren McFadden and that is only if they fall to 8 or 9, and that will never happen!!!!!!

[bjoli198]

I'm not criticizing anybody, but I wanted to illustrate a point. Here's a typical post from another thread. There will be at least 500 similar posts arguing before draft day:



Notice the argument? One side says "trade up! [insert player name] is a beast!" The other side says "don't trade up, he's not worth it!"

Does nobody on these boards remember that not one team has traded down out of the first round in the last 4 years that I remember?

Honestly, I haven't extensively researched this, but can any of you document one single example of a top 10 team trading it's pick and moving out of the top 10 in the 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007 drafts? Because I can't think of one. :coffee:

Perhaps I missed one example or something, but I don't think so. There were occasional trades within the top 10 (the last one I remember was the Phillip Rivers for Eli Manning trade in 2004.

The person who pointed out the 400 points differential between #6 and #12 makes it sound possible. But, history tells us that it just isn't. :coffee:

Normally teams bad enough to have a top 10 pick have either fired their coaches (Miami, Baltimore) or are about to (Raiders, Bengals). Those coaches/GMs desperately need to get the fans & media off their cases for a year. Buy some breathing room to get their rebuilding program going. Then maybe with a bit of luck and some improved coaching they can make a playoff run and save their jobs for a few more years.

Perhaps it makes long-term sense if you have a crappy team that needs 10 new starters to trade down and stockpile picks. Hell, if I were the Dolphins, Falcons, Raiders, or Rams, I'd consider trading down to the bottom of the first round and picking up 3 or 4 late 1st or early 2nd round picks. Get lots of talented players instead of a single blue-chip player (unlesdesperately needed a franchise QB and one were available). Look at the Chargers picking up DT Luis Castillo with the 30th pick, and DeMeco Ryans, the standout Texans MLB was taken with the #1 pick of the 2nd round in 2006, so some good players are available if you know how to pick them! But, teams just don't want to risk passing on a "star" player and looking bad.

So, I challenge all of you who think the Broncos SHOULD trade up into the top 10 to get a player, provide me with some examples of a team doing this during the last 4 years!


welll... 49ers have traded out of first round from top 10 this years draft :coffee:

[Javalon]

welll... 49ers have traded out of first round from top 10 this years draft :coffee:

They didn't trade it this year, though. At the time they traded it, they thought they would improve and not be in the top 10... They were wrong. :D

I'm pretty sure Cugel is talking about trading out of the top 10 when the team KNOWS it's a top 10 pick.

[fraguela09]

FOUR years ago... 2004 NFL Draft...

San Diego Chargers traded the first pick of the draft to the Giants for the 4th pick of the 2004 draft, a 3rd rounder in the 2004 draft, along with NY's first rounder in 2005...

Giants received

Rights to 2004 1st Overall Pick, Eli Manning.

Chargers received

Rights to 2004 4th Overall Pick, Philip Rivers.
2005 1st Round Draft Pick - Used to draft Linebacker Shawne Merriman.
2004 3rd Round Draft Pick - Used to draft and sign Kicker Nate Kaeding.
2005 5th Round Draft Pick - Traded to Tampa Bay Buccaneers for Left Tackle Roman Oben.

[MindField]

I'm not criticizing anybody, but I wanted to illustrate a point. Here's a typical post from another thread. There will be at least 500 similar posts arguing before draft day:



Notice the argument? One side says "trade up! [insert player name] is a beast!" The other side says "don't trade up, he's not worth it!"

Does nobody on these boards remember that not one team has traded down out of the first round in the last 4 years that I remember?

Honestly, I haven't extensively researched this, but can any of you document one single example of a top 10 team trading it's pick and moving out of the top 10 in the 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007 drafts? Because I can't think of one. :coffee:

Perhaps I missed one example or something, but I don't think so. There were occasional trades within the top 10 (the last one I remember was the Phillip Rivers for Eli Manning trade in 2004.

The person who pointed out the 400 points differential between #6 and #12 makes it sound possible. But, history tells us that it just isn't. :coffee:

Normally teams bad enough to have a top 10 pick have either fired their coaches (Miami, Baltimore) or are about to (Raiders, Bengals). Those coaches/GMs desperately need to get the fans & media off their cases for a year. Buy some breathing room to get their rebuilding program going. Then maybe with a bit of luck and some improved coaching they can make a playoff run and save their jobs for a few more years.

Perhaps it makes long-term sense if you have a crappy team that needs 10 new starters to trade down and stockpile picks. Hell, if I were the Dolphins, Falcons, Raiders, or Rams, I'd consider trading down to the bottom of the first round and picking up 3 or 4 late 1st or early 2nd round picks. Get lots of talented players instead of a single blue-chip player (unlesdesperately needed a franchise QB and one were available). Look at the Chargers picking up DT Luis Castillo with the 30th pick, and DeMeco Ryans, the standout Texans MLB was taken with the #1 pick of the 2nd round in 2006, so some good players are available if you know how to pick them! But, teams just don't want to risk passing on a "star" player and looking bad.

So, I challenge all of you who think the Broncos SHOULD trade up into the top 10 to get a player, provide me with some examples of a team doing this during the last 4 years!

Well, it's widely being reported Miami is looking to trade down...so much for your argument:coffee:

[Cugel]

Well, it's widely being reported Miami is looking to trade down...so much for your argument:coffee:

Wrong. :coffee:

Nobody said that because they wanted to trade down they wanted to trade out of the top 10. The want to move down out of the top spot. Teams often want that, but they rarely get their wish, because they don't want to move very far - only down a few places where they think their player will be available for a lesser price and they can pick up draft picks.

Hasn't worked since the Giants went ape for Eli Manning in 2004.

[kratos_godofwar]

Not even, unless we can stock pile on draft picks by trading away our players for draft picks. Not likely because we shouldn't be willing to trade away any great young talent. Getting into the top 10 will probably cost us next years first as well. So, better to trade down rather than to throw away our whole draft for one player. Just ask the Saints how that affected their team. Getting into the top 10 is like trying to get into a secret club. Unless you have a friend who can help you get in, the chances of you getting in alone are slim to none.

Sure, Sedrick Ellis is tempting. But he is most likely going to be a top 8 pick. Kenny Phillips most likely a top 5, Dorsey top 5, Long both of them top 5, Clady most likely going to KC. So I'd perfer to see if any of those players drop to us, the most likely scenario is if we get the 10th overall pick, but that would be wasted unless it was Ellis, Phillips, or Dorsey. Even then, it meant we would be with only 1 day 1 pick and probably only 1 for 2009 as well. Just too much for 1 player when we need all the young talent we can get.

Well, it's widely being reported Miami is looking to trade down...so much for your argument
yeah, but you do realize anybody not in the top 5 would have to throw away their whole entire draft to get that pick. Only teams who might be willing is NE or Dallas. But even then, the chances Wade or Bellichek throw away an entire draft is as likely as Denver trading both Cutler and Champ.

[Cugel]

FOUR years ago... 2004 NFL Draft...

San Diego Chargers traded the first pick of the draft to the Giants for the 4th pick of the 2004 draft, a 3rd rounder in the 2004 draft, along with NY's first rounder in 2005...

Giants received

Rights to 2004 1st Overall Pick, Eli Manning.

Chargers received

Rights to 2004 4th Overall Pick, Philip Rivers.
2005 1st Round Draft Pick - Used to draft Linebacker Shawne Merriman.
2004 3rd Round Draft Pick - Used to draft and sign Kicker Nate Kaeding.
2005 5th Round Draft Pick - Traded to Tampa Bay Buccaneers for Left Tackle Roman Oben.

I've mentioned this trade numerous times in other threads. This was NOT a trade out of the top 10.

The #1 team Chargers traded down to #4 and picked up some draft picks. They didn't trade down to #11! :coffee:

What I want to see is somebody come up with an example of a team that IN the top ten trading their pick to a team that is NOT in the top 10.

And I'm not sure that there are NO examples of this. I can't think of any and I usually paid attention the last few drafts, so I doubt it happened, but I could be wrong. So prove it.

If you all want to argue that it's possible, show me a time it happened. If you can't provide one single example then get off your trading band-wagon.

I don't care if the statistical sample is small. There ought to be at least a few examples out of the last 50 top 10 picks where a team traded that pick.

If there's not that says something and you can't just ignore it and roll it under the rug because it's an inconvenient fact that stomps all over your fantasies!

[Cugel]

Not even, unless we can stock pile on draft picks by trading away our players for draft picks. Not likely because we shouldn't be willing to trade away any great young talent. Getting into the top 10 will probably cost us next years first as well. So, better to trade down rather than to throw away our whole draft for one player. Just ask the Saints how that affected their team. Getting into the top 10 is like trying to get into a secret club. Unless you have a friend who can help you get in, the chances of you getting in alone are slim to none.

Sure, Sedrick Ellis is tempting. But he is most likely going to be a top 8 pick. Kenny Phillips most likely a top 5, Dorsey top 5, Long both of them top 5, Clady most likely going to KC. So I'd perfer to see if any of those players drop to us, the most likely scenario is if we get the 10th overall pick, but that would be wasted unless it was Ellis, Phillips, or Dorsey. Even then, it meant we would be with only 1 day 1 pick and probably only 1 for 2009 as well. Just too much for 1 player when we need all the young talent we can get.


yeah, but you do realize anybody not in the top 5 would have to throw away their whole entire draft to get that pick. Only teams who might be willing is NE or Dallas. But even then, the chances Wade or Bellichek throw away an entire draft is as likely as Denver trading both Cutler and Champ.

YOur point is a sound and correct one! There are obvious problems with a team trading from a top 5 pick to a pick outside the top 10 in that the draft value declines from 1700 at #5 to 1250 at #11, and the difference (450 points) is already the equivalent of a mid second round pick.

So a team aiming to move up from #11 to #5 would have to give up at LEAST it's second round pick to move up 6 places! That's a LOT to give up to move up that little.

But, the point difference between #10 and #11 is only 50 points. So, it should be easy to make a trade from a mere points perspective.

But, apparently there are other factors at work.

[MindField]

Wrong. :coffee:

Nobody said that because they wanted to trade down they wanted to trade out of the top 10. The want to move down out of the top spot. Teams often want that, but they rarely get their wish, because they don't want to move very far - only down a few places where they think their player will be available for a lesser price and they can pick up draft picks.

Hasn't worked since the Giants went ape for Eli Manning in 2004.

You are making an assumption, the Dolphins are looking to trade down, period. That could be one spot, it could be anywhere in the Top 10, or in fact it could be anywhere in the first round...it depends on who values what player, and if there are multiple opportunites to trade down. If the Dolphins pass on Foster and say Jake Long, what player in the Top 10 is a player that you would say the Dolphins would ABSOLUTELY have to Draft? To me, there isn't one.

One of the best Drafts in the history of the NFL was the 49ers back in the 80's when they made multiple trades and ultimately had no first round pick, but ended up with a couple of two's, three three's and three four's, which turned into players like Tom Rathman, Charles Haley and Tim McKyer.

If I were Parcells, I would be looking to do something similar and get as many picks as I could, which is entirely possible.

Say someone REALLY wants Foster or McFadden, the Dolphins could probably trade down to the #6 area...then say someone wants to get up in front of New England for a player....then a trade down to the early teens is possible...then maybe someone wants one of the OT's...now a trade down into the late teens or early twenties is possible...etc, etc, etc

If I were the Dolphins, I would spend Draft day trading down and out of the first round, and live in the second, third and fourth rounds, where they can stockpile multiple picks, yet not get killed in salary cap bonuses.

[Cugel]

Comparing the odds of someone trading out of the top ten (and we are only talking a couple spots, we are #12 which is almost top 10.. ) to the odds of winning the lottery is not really fair. There has not even been 50 seasons in the NFL, and I looked real fast and in 2000 there were 2 teams that traded out of the top ten (at least). So that's already 2 instances in lets say 50 seasons.. thats already a 4% chance made with minimal research and I am sure it is higher than that.

So to say that because it hasn't happened in 4 years doesn't mean it won't happen. It doesn't mean it will either. But to try and claim something won't happen because it didn't happen in the last few years is just ridiculous. I wouldn't take that as a sign of anything.

The reason Calvin Johnson was taken was most likely because he was the most exciting player in the draft. Everyone likes a playmaker, it's the same reason the Saints took Reggie Bush. Ever consider that teams are reluctant to trade UP into the first round? Think of all the heat they take if they sacrifice a lot of picks just to grab a single player than may be a bust.

I don't want to trade up, myself, but your claim is just ridiculous. Will someone in the top ten trade out of the top ten? I doubt it. Is it possible even though it hasn't happened the last few years?!! Definately.

What you're ignoring is that 1st round trades happen all the time. They just don't involve the top 10 teams!

I'm saying there is a REASON why top 10 teams don't trade their pick, and that reason is that the fans and GMs fall in love with the blue-chip players they can only get in the top 10.

The media focus on these players, the draftniks go bananas over their stats, they're the second coming.

If a team passes on a local hero (think the Texans passing on Vince Young) the fans and media descend into a whirl-wind of bitter vituperation. The GM takes all kinds of flack.

And then what happens if one of the players they passed on turns out to be the next Peyton Manning or the next Marvin Harrison or the next L.T.? They never hear the end of it.

Their entire administration becomes like the "idiot GM" who drafted Sam Bowie instead of Michael Jordan and everytime the fans see that player leading another team to the SB they remember that "he could have been ours!"

And the GM and coach are probably under fire anyway for having a terrible record, and need desperately to turn things around immediately and take the pressure off.

And so they have to consider. "I might pass on Calvin Johnson if I think somebody else in the top 10 fits a need better, but I can't trade down too far, I need to get a star to point to when people point out how many catches Calvin Johnson has."

And so they think maybe they can trade down from #2 to #6 or something and still get their player, but not below that!

There's just something "magic" about "top 10 draft pick" status that is different for some reason.

And I think it's all hype.

(Thus, you might see the Patriots trade down, because they don't need the top pick - but on the other hand they have VERY few places where a rookie stands a chance of making their squad, so 1 or 2 blue-chip players are better than a lot of good ones for the Patriots -- which means they are unlikely to trade down).

[Cugel]

You are making an assumption, the Dolphins are looking to trade down, period. That could be one spot, it could be anywhere in the Top 10, or in fact it could be anywhere in the first round...it depends on who values what player, and if there are multiple opportunites to trade down. If the Dolphins pass on Foster and say Jake Long, what player in the Top 10 is a player that you would say the Dolphins would ABSOLUTELY have to Draft? To me, there isn't one.

One of the best Drafts in the history of the NFL was the 49ers back in the 80's when they made multiple trades and ultimately had no first round pick, but ended up with a couple of two's, three three's and three four's, which turned into players like Tom Rathman, Charles Haley and Tim McKyer.

If I were Parcells, I would be looking to do something similar and get as many picks as I could, which is entirely possible.

Say someone REALLY wants Foster or McFadden, the Dolphins could probably trade down to the #6 area...then say someone wants to get up in front of New England for a player....then a trade down to the early teens is possible...then maybe someone wants one of the OT's...now a trade down into the late teens or early twenties is possible...etc, etc, etc

If I were the Dolphins, I would spend Draft day trading down and out of the first round, and live in the second, third and fourth rounds, where they can stockpile multiple picks, yet not get killed in salary cap bonuses.

If I were ANY of the top 10 teams (except the Patriots of course) I would do this!

Every one of those teams SUCKED! They don't need 1 or 2 great players to fill a couple of holes! They need 10 or 12 new starters on offense and defense to put together a serious playoff contender. They suck all over the place. Obviously they can't fill all their holes with 2 or 3 draft picks a year!

So, why don't they do this? If any team has translated a top 5 pick into, say, 5 late 1st, 2nd & 3rd round picks by trading down, and then trading down again and stockpiling picks, I'm not aware of it!

I'm suggesting that GMs are afraid to take the chance of passing on a player who turns out to be a star in order to get 2 or 3 decent players who fill needs.

That might make better long-term sense, but if you're an NFL GM whose team has just gone 4-12 what's long term?

If you don't do something next season, you're probably gone, unless you are a new GM coming in where the previous regime got fired.

In either case, getting the fans & media excited about the team and off your back for 1 year is probably the most immediate concern. Thus, there's terrible pressure to get somebody BIG. A BIG name who will excite the fans and get them to the ball-park, and take pressure off the owner, thus taking pressure off you.

There seems to be a lot of fear of looking bad by doing the unconventional or missing out on an L.T. or other game-breaking player.

I'm not arguing that Miami WON'T trade down out of the top 10. If I were them I definitely would. But, history suggests that if they trade down at all they won't go far and not nearly as far as you suggest.

[Kon]

What you're ignoring is that 1st round trades happen all the time. They just don't involve the top 10 teams!

I'm saying there is a REASON why top 10 teams don't trade their pick, and that reason is that the fans and GMs fall in love with the blue-chip players they can only get in the top 10.

The media focus on these players, the draftniks go bananas over their stats, they're the second coming.

If a team passes on a local hero (think the Texans passing on Vince Young) the fans and media descend into a whirl-wind of bitter vituperation. The GM takes all kinds of flack.

And then what happens if one of the players they passed on turns out to be the next Peyton Manning or the next Marvin Harrison or the next L.T.? They never hear the end of it.

Their entire administration becomes like the "idiot GM" who drafted Sam Bowie instead of Michael Jordan and everytime the fans see that player leading another team to the SB they remember that "he could have been ours!"

And the GM and coach are probably under fire anyway for having a terrible record, and need desperately to turn things around immediately and take the pressure off.

And so they have to consider. "I might pass on Calvin Johnson if I think somebody else in the top 10 fits a need better, but I can't trade down too far, I need to get a star to point to when people point out how many catches Calvin Johnson has."

And so they think maybe they can trade down from #2 to #6 or something and still get their player, but not below that!

There's just something "magic" about "top 10 draft pick" status that is different for some reason.

And I think it's all hype.

(Thus, you might see the Patriots trade down, because they don't need the top pick - but on the other hand they have VERY few places where a rookie stands a chance of making their squad, so 1 or 2 blue-chip players are better than a lot of good ones for the Patriots -- which means they are unlikely to trade down).

Yes I understand what you are saying. What I am trying to say, is that, your thread is about how its NOT POSSIBLE that a team will trade out of the top ten. Not that there is a good chance it wont happen, but that it WONT happen because its not POSSIBLE. See what I am getting at?

In my opinion, if I were a head coach, I would try to do something that hadn't been done before. Especially with a top 5 pick. The top picks are so over valued anyways, there are plenty of stars that have come out of the top 20. Not to mention I don't care what player you have, if there is no talent to surround them, then the team wont be winning. So people can get their blue chip players one at a time and watch the superstars waste a few years of their lives not winning and then go to another team. I bet the Raiders would be contenders had they traded down.

Either way, there is no rule against trading out of the top 10. So, until April of next year, YES, trading out of the top ten IS POSSIBLE. :salute:

[Cugel]

You are correct it has not happened in the last 4 years but before you believe that I agree with your point let me explain why Denver Bronco fans have every reason to believe it could happen.

1- You conveniently mention top 10. There was one team in the last four years that moved up to number 11 to take a player. The Denver Broncos moved up to take Jay Cutler just two years ago. So while your example has not occured our team was very close.

2- Over the past several years Denver has moved up and down in the first round in most drafts. It is crazy not to speculate that it would happen again. Additionally in most drafts we have had a pick significantly lower than pick 12 so therefore it was much more expensive to move into the top 10. This year with the 12 it is not a stretch at all to predict we may move up a couple of spots or down several spots. Just because it hasn't occured does not mean that teams don't talk and that it hasn't been seriously discussed. I believe Shanahan will decide on a group of players he covets based on workouts and move us in a range to get one of them. That could be up or down. If we are already in range to get one of the players we want we could very well stand at #12. But isn't this why the draft is fun, to speculate what could happen?

3- It is well documented that the real high money picks (that people are concerned about jumping up to get financially) are actually the top 5 picks. Especially the financials of the top very few picks. Those are really expensive and better pay off. The difference in money between 12 and 10 is not great and it certainly would not have a big impact on our cap this year or the immediate future.

4- It is well documented that we attempted to move into the top 10 the last two years. We not only tried to move up with the Lions last year but two years ago when we took Cutler at 11 we were talking to teams from 8-11 about moving up to get a QB. Not only have we moved up but we tried to move up even higher. i don't think there is anything magical about the number 10.

5- The cap keeps moving up. More teams have money under the cap that just 4 or 5 years. As teams have shedded more dead money off of the cap this gives alot of teams flexibility. The bottom line is that less teams are cap strapped right now. That leaves a stronger possibility for a trade than it did just 4 years ago. The last several years have been good to the cap.

I do not disagree with you that it hasn't happened in the last 4 years. I normally respect your posts and enjoy reading them. But I will say this; when you say that only an idiot would believe it could happen you have taken it a bit too far. You are simply ignoring way too many facts about our team. I would ask you to take a closer look at our team's draft history before you criticize anyone on speculating what we might do. The only thing I find consistent is that there is a good chance we could move up or down. So as draft fans shouldn't we speculate on how and where that could occur?

these are actually some pretty good reasons why it MIGHT happen. But, certainly if there weren't SOME important reason why top 10 teams have been unwilling to trade out of the top 10 in the last 4 or 5 years (and quite frankly, I just wasn't paying that close attention or remember back before that so it could be 10 years for all I know) it would have happened by now.

Mindfield has suggested some pretty good reasons why the Dolphins ought to trade down to the 2nd round and stockpile picks this year, and I would add the 49ers refusal to accept multiple picks for their #6 pick in 2006, which they used to take Vernon Davis. Why, when your entire team sucks, would you go for 1 (possibly) great player when you need 5 or 6 good ones?

I've suggested some reasons why I think teams are reluctant to give up those picks. Those are essentially just pure speculation. The only hard evidence is that nobody has done it and lots of teams have tried.

We have Shanahan's own statements that: "not one team in the top 10 was willing to consider a trade and we talked to every one." The Rams were the first team to be willing to talk trade (in the Cutler deal).

As for "only an idiot would think it could happen" that was in reference to my lotto analogy: only an idiot could think he was going to win the lotto. That was exaggeration to make a point. Apparently people here have no sense of irony.

But, frankly, when I started this thread I expected somebody to provide at least 1 example of some team trading down from the top 10 during the last 4 or 5 years. And nobody's come up with anything, which makes me think I'm onto something here. :coffee:

I think it would be interesting to learn when was the last time a team traded down out of the top ten, and when was the time before that to see how rare it is overall. Is this a new phenomena in the last few years? Has it been this way for a long time? I just don't know.

[Javalon]

I think it would be interesting to learn when was the last time a team traded down out of the top ten, and when was the time before that to see how rare it is overall. Is this a new phenomena in the last few years? Has it been this way for a long time? I just don't know.

Well, if you just mean any team trading out of the top 10, the Raiders traded the #7 overall pick plus a player for Randy Moss shortly before the 2005 draft.

If you mean only for draft picks, the Bears traded the #4 overall pick in 2003 for the Jets' #13 and #22 overall picks (plus a late rounder).

That same year, the Cardinals traded the #6 overall plus the #37 pick to the Saints for their #17, #18 and #54 overall picks.


It's rare but it does occasionally happen. But there definitely haven't been many teams trading out of the top 10 the past few years, possibly just the trade for Moss since 2004.

[Cugel]

Well, if you just mean any team trading out of the top 10, the Raiders traded the #7 overall pick plus a player for Randy Moss shortly before the 2005 draft.

If you mean only for draft picks, the Bears traded the #4 overall pick in 2003 for the Jets' #13 and #22 overall picks (plus a late rounder).

That same year, the Cardinals traded the #6 overall plus the #37 pick to the Saints for their #17, #18 and #54 overall picks.

It's rare but it does occasionally happen. But there definitely haven't been many teams trading out of the top 10 the past few years, possibly just the trade for Moss since 2004.

Thanks Jav! :wave: I'd forgotten those trades. Obviously, trading the #7 pick for a player doesn't really count, but Randy Moss was the #1 WR in football (still is despite how little use the Raiders got out of him).

That information could explain some of the reluctance of teams to trade for high draft picks.

Take a look at the first pick! The Jets gave up #13 and #22 (plus a late round pick for #4. They took (*gulp*) DT Dewayne Robertson. The Bears traded the #13 pick to the Patriots who grabbed outstanding DE Ty Warren and drafted Rex Grossman with the other? Nobody but the Patriots made out there! DeWayne Robertson was a humongous bust, Rex Grossman is a huge bust, Ty Warren is a stud.

And the Saints sent the Cardinals their #6 and #37 pick for the Saints THREE draft picks - #17, #18 & #54? Then the Saints grabbed DT Jonathan Sullivan. Yet another BUST, but #37 (T Jonathan Stinchcomb) is still with the team at least. The Cardinals meanwhile took WR Bryant Johnson and DE Calvin Pace with their 1st round picks, but they at least took Anquaan Boldin with the 2nd pick (#54).

Now you begin to see the problem. Teams are afraid to make a wrong move.

It's bad enough to draft DeWayne Robertson #4 overall, without having to give up multiple picks to MOVE UP and get DeWayne Robertson! :laugh:

What happened to all the coaches/GMs of those teams the Jets, the Bears and the Cardinals? They got fired, that's what! None of them are currently with their teams! (In the case of Chicago coach Dic K Juron who got fired later that year). :laugh:

Ironically, Saints GM Mickey Loomis somehow managed to survive his drafting failures and later made more in selecting RB Reggie Bush over better RBs taken much later (Joseph Addai, Lawrence Muroney).

That isn't always a direct result of these particular trades, but you can bet they didn't help. The only one who comes out of them looking good was Bill Belichek. :laugh: