Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Benefits of trading for Vets

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I think teams should be open minded about possibilities to improve their roster, within the guidelines of the cap.

    In the long run, the draft and develop mode is critical. They are your players from day one, you teach them your systems/processes, you develop them into the best players they can be, they will often turn into cornerstone players/leaders, and so forth.

    Free Agency is another smart way of helping you improve and often by filling a need, again, if wise from a financial perspective.

    Similarly, trades make sense, if it gets you what you want for a fair price in return, in terms of the resource(s) you must pay. If a team has a real need, and a quality player with a salary you can afford is available, for a draft pick, I have no real issue. Why? If you can afford the deal and resulting salary, and you need a player, it is worth the risk....given that draft pick may not be a good long term investment. But to be sure, pending on the quality of vet, if the draft pick is a 1st or even a 2nd, you must do extra homework. Just like you do not want to miss on a 1st or 2nd, you also do not want to acquire a vet that does not live up. BUT I certainly understand trading a draft pick or two, if that vet is a home run fit.

    In the end, you want to stick with The Draft whenever possible, because even though you might miss on some, good selections are inexpensive initially, and can grow into cornerstone players on your team and in your organization. This can include even mid to late, to "Undrafted". But as a rule, I like it when my team is open minded to various resource possibilities. As long as we have a core group of young players, I am not against FA or Trades, even for draft picks.
    Last edited by CanDB; 02-15-2020, 05:27 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by MHSalute View Post
      "Why not ? You spend 4 picks inside the top 100 on adding quality, starter caliber players at positions of need" So extremely rare to hit 1-2-3 in any draft, much less all 3 playing elite ball year one. If you can't even admit that Diggs, Campbell and Slay are going to be far more talented guys than three 3rd round picks, no use debating. You are comparing rookies to multiple pro-bowl players.

      I also do not think you are accounting for traded contracts being discounted vs FA contracts. Diggs at 11.4M is going to be 5-6M less than what A Cooper will get AAV.
      Again, you just do not understand. Obviously Diggs, Campbell, and Slay are better players, and as free agents, I would happily welcome them, all 3 of them, but they are not. They will come with large contracts, while giving up picks, so it's not smart, as the NFL has shown us repeatedly. But, this new crazy idea you think you have found, it isn't new, creative, smart, or any of the above, evident by the lack of NFL teams willing to do it, succeeding doing it, and by how poorly you argue for it.

      Also, rookies don't need to play at an elite level, they need a chance to play and develop, and with a commitment to that last year, Fangio seen great steps taken by all 4 players picked and given opportunities as rookies. We have a thin roster, so I have no doubt you could find a tackle, guard/center, cornerback, and reciever, all inside the top 100 picks, and with playing time, could be productive. I also don't think we are in win now mode, we are in re-building mode, and I don't want rookies to be elite right now. But developing on their way there in year one would be nice, so maybe next year, we have a really solid foundation, with 3 nice draft classes in a row all together, playing on small contracts, hopefully turning the corner, with potentially a quarterback in place.

      Comment


      • #18
        Brilliant moves by Elway and fits my argument, both Bouye and Casey offer nice upgrades below FA market prices. With Foles going to Bears maybe a pick for Hicks to complete DL overhaul? or Heyward from Pitt?
        Ravens GM 2016 - Ravens are looking to trade down 4-8 spots

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by MHSalute View Post
          Brilliant moves by Elway and fits my argument, both Bouye and Casey offer nice upgrades below FA market prices. With Foles going to Bears maybe a pick for Hicks to complete DL overhaul? or Heyward from Pitt?
          Great call. I would be for Hicks if available.
          Fightin' Texas Aggie c/o '16

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by MHSalute View Post
            Brilliant moves by Elway and fits my argument, both Bouye and Casey offer nice upgrades below FA market prices. With Foles going to Bears maybe a pick for Hicks to complete DL overhaul? or Heyward from Pitt?
            I do not think it fits your argument. I think there is a significant difference in trading all 3 third round picks for big contracts vs what we did. I will also argue the value of middle round picks. Strong teams should be built in the 2nd and 3rd rounds while not missing with 1st rounders. Those teams also find guys that contribute in later rounds. It would not be a good strategy, IMO, to dump so much draft capital. We need to add good, young, cheap talent to the roster. I believe it is the key to building a franchise that competes almost every year. Going the other route, and gutting your middle round picks will create an aging team that is constantly fighting the cap.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by myoung View Post
              I do not think it fits your argument. I think there is a significant difference in trading all 3 third round picks for big contracts vs what we did. I will also argue the value of middle round picks. Strong teams should be built in the 2nd and 3rd rounds while not missing with 1st rounders. Those teams also find guys that contribute in later rounds. It would not be a good strategy, IMO, to dump so much draft capital. We need to add good, young, cheap talent to the roster. I believe it is the key to building a franchise that competes almost every year. Going the other route, and gutting your middle round picks will create an aging team that is constantly fighting the cap.
              Read the OP’s points 1-4. He used the three thirds as an example, but each of the points he made have feet.
              Fightin' Texas Aggie c/o '16

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by BroncoooJohnson View Post
                Read the OP’s points 1-4. He used the three thirds as an example, but each of the points he made have feet.
                I probably should have more fully explained myself. There is a big difference IMO between trading a 4th that we picked up for a veteran or a 7th we picked up for a veteran vs. trading away a draft pick in the first 3 rounds. Much less trading all 3 of the third round picks we have. The example that was provided, was way too rich for me to buy into the strategy. But as I said in my post, I think there are parts of the idea that I think have merit. Again just opinions here and I see it differently.

                I also think it is important to look at the quality of the draft, especially against our positions of need. I happen to think this draft is deep in talented players we can use. I like this draft 100-120 player deep.

                I think the idea, presented, has merit when you are trading away a draft pick that you question would make the team vs a draft pick that the teams should expect to get production out of. I know teams swing and miss, but every hit on a 2nd or 3rd rounder is a big deal to the team. I think you have to be careful how often you give up picks in the first 3 rounds. The cases where I think it makes sense is like the Steelers did with Fitzpatrick or a clear superstar. The Steelers traded for a young guy, in a position of need, still on a rookie contract and had shown he could play in the NFL. In the Hopkins case, the deal was just too good to pass up. And he is just too good.

                I also think there are ALWAYS exceptions for superstars but I wouldn't put any player provided, in the example, in that category.

                Bottom line, I love the Casey and Hopkins deals and hate the Diggs deal. I like the Bouye deal and like the Slay deal (for the Eagles but not for us after Bouye was already done). I am mixed on Buckner because he is a great player but was really expensive AND cost a high draft pick.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Never intended the argument to mean trade away all picks, and I also would become much more hesitant to deal 1st and 2nd. However, us getting two possible pro bowl guys for the defense for what we did was amazing, I would have actually been fine if we had sent a third for Casey. 5 time Pro bowl guy...we could drop down 6 spots in round one and recoup a third.

                  Contracts are okay as long as you avoid "dead cap" which is a reson I liked the idea of trading for talent vs the FA market and the large guarantees.
                  Ravens GM 2016 - Ravens are looking to trade down 4-8 spots

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    That’s very fair. I probably over read your example. I agree that contracts are not necessarily bad and agree we have to avoid dead money. That being said the third year on a rookie contract is still much better than a big contract if the players are even close in performance. It only pays off if the guy you trade for severely outplays the draft pick. I think the danger in the strategy is looking too short term vs building through the draft. Casey was a steal but I think The Bills way overpaid for Diggs. I think we agree it is about making smart choices and don’t be the Texans!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I think the OP's points a very good. The Broncos definitely took advantage of the concepts imo.

                      It is hard for us fans to know exactly what is available and what is being talked about. Even in hindsight for us we only see what was agreed to but have no idea what was being discussed.

                      Casey and Bouye fit the point imo
                      Let's Ride!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X