Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Benefits of trading for Vets

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

  • Hadez
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • myoung
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • MHSalute
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • myoung
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoooJohnson
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • myoung
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoooJohnson
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MHSalute
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • johnlimburg
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • CanDB
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Butler By'Note
    replied
    Originally posted by MHSalute View Post
    Starting to see a lot of post or opinion pieces on who the Broncos should trade for (Diggs, Slay, Campbell,...) and the truth is...they are right. I honestly do not know why more teams do not trade for guys as there is a substantial benefit to doing so:

    1. Cash flow - No signing bonus to pay here, so while the cap number may be similar, the $$$ get to be dispersed over the course of the season and not in a big chunk.
    2. No or little guaranteed $$$ - This gives team plenty of roster flexibility to re-trade a guy later or cut them if it does not work out.
    3. Chance to recoup pick later. I will use Slay as an example. We send Detroit a 3rd, he leaves in 2021 and signs big contract, we get a comp pick.Is that a third back, 4th, 5th? Who knows, but could get something.
    4. Exclusive shot at evaluating and extending vets you like.

    Lets say we traded all 3 3rd round picks for Diggs, Slay, and Campbell, we would be looking at 35M in cap space this year, but filling 3 big holes with big time talents. Also most likely getting a 3rd or 4th round comp bick for CHJ and Harris compared to signing a FA CB and DE.

    So would you trade a 3rd for these guys? Who else out there would you trade for?
    Good idea in theory, but you're underestimating the fact that players you trade for will want new contracts. Slay and Diggs are two players that could demand to get new contracts or they won't report. Which takes away the lack of signing bonus aspect.

    There's also the fact that none of those players are coming from winning cultures, and if you're going to add several vets for draft picks, you'd probably want at least one or two to bring with them leadership from within a winning locker room.

    And of course you're going to end up bidding against other teams in trades, which drives up the compensation that you need to pay.

    There's also a reason why all of those teams are willing to make those players available. For Campbell it's simply a salary cap issue, with Diggs it's a player who's been a headache and pouted when he didn't get targets.

    I'm not saying you're wrong and that Denver shouldn't go trade a bunch of picks for vets (although it's not what I would do), but it's not as easy as calling up the team, offering a pick, they accept. Player shows up happy, and player leads a culture change towards a winning team.

    Leave a comment:


  • MHSalute
    replied
    "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.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnlimburg
    replied
    Originally posted by MHSalute View Post
    Once again, this is a method used by NE more than any other team. They ae okay with the "rental guys" and use plenty of picks this way. They typically trade down to get the extra ammo to do this.
    When you have your quarterback in place, taking a discount, with the best coach in football, you can take these kinds of chances, especially when you are competing for a championship year in and year out. But, your multiple examples to support your case by using New England as an example to advocate trading for high paid veterans has multiple holes. Half of them pre-dated the CBA which was a completely different environment, and the other couple didn't even really work out or fit your narrative as they were not high paid players.

    It is relevant that it was a rental with the objective of having the most talent possible, fit under the restraint of the cap. What one is making for the year is what is not relevant. We have a very cheap QB, we can afford higher contracts for 2-3 years. Point here is the three vets I am talking about are most likely more talented for 2020 roster than any third round picks.
    No, your Trent Brown example was not relevant to the conversation of trading middle or high round picks for highly paid veterans. It doesn't fit the story as Brown was in his rookie contract, and the only way it kind of fits as an example for what you are arguing is that you get some kind of inside track on what a veteran has to offer. But, with 3 plus years of tape, again, it's not really needed, and a paper thin positive reason for trading for veteran players.

    Broncos do not have a losing culture and most players don't care about anything more than most $$$. The overpay is where teams get into cap issues, not short term contracts with no dead money from trades.
    As a bias Broncos fan I am sure you think that, however, the reality is that they do. We are 4 years out of the playoffs, and over that span while most of the guys you would be wanting to trade for, would know Denver as a bad team. Also, you really don't understand what is being said here. It isn't short term, high paid contracts which ruin the teams cap management, it's doing that while giving up high round picks in the process. I know you think that this idea you have had is some kind of innovative and forward thinking idea, because we don't see it to often, but it isn't, it's just not explored more often because it isn't smart on so many levels. Why do you think quality players over the years get traded for 5th round picks and lower ? They are obviously more valuable and offer more than a 5th round pick would, but they have big money attached to them.

    For me it depends on if you think you can compete for a championship THIS YEAR. If the answer is yes, I would get as much talent as possible on the squad. I think with the resources available in picks and cap, we could build a 13 win team. I do not think we can do that just drafting 12 guys or just giving top $$$ to FAs.
    Why not ? You spend 4 picks inside the top 100 on adding quality, starter calibar players at positions of need, then supplement that with a free agent or 2, resigning the only player Elway has drafted and developed in half a decade, Simmons. Why can't you upgrade 2 spots on the offensive line in the draft, add a cornerback in free agency and the draft, resign Simmons, and then look then to fill out the roster with other potential filled players and look to build for the future ? We need depth, we were very thin across the board last year, those picks will come in handy. Fangio has shown an ability to get quality play out of young guys, fast tracking their development in just one season. The tired free agent route that Elway has lost his eye for, and the trading for high paid veterans that are no longer wanted isn't what we need to be doing. This losing organisation for almost half a decade now needs to try something new, and developing young guys is that approach.

    Leave a comment:


  • MHSalute
    replied
    Originally posted by johnlimburg View Post
    The players we are talking about here are quality players, guys who outperformed rookie deals, and then went on to sign large extensions, the tape is out there on them. One year rentals, or even two years are not needed, not to get an "inside track". It's just not worth the risk of losing a high or middle round pick, the risk to reward just isn't worth making the move. Also, Dee Ford played 11 games, he was outperformed by numerous free agent players who hit the open market, and a year down the road, right now, there will be more guys who were more productive than him in his 11 games hitting the open market, the move looks like a complete dud right now.

    Once again, this is a method used by NE more than any other team. They ae okay with the "rental guys" and use plenty of picks this way. They typically trade down to get the extra ammo to do this.

    Your arguments here are losing shape and going off on tangents, stick to the topic. Your example, again, is irrelevant. Of course people would of preferred the contract for Trent Brown over Juwan James, and although it's still way too big, he signed with the Raiders as a free agent. The Raiders didn't trade for him with that huge contract, it was solely money, not money and picks which is the core of this argument and thread. Also, New England did give up a 3rd rounder for him, and in that situation I would agree it was a decent move, due to their Super Bowl chances. However, it isn't a valid example for what you are arguing here. The contract that came attached to Trent Brown when New England traded for him was how much ? 1.9 Million, the final year of his rookie deal, irrelevant example.

    It is relevant that it was a rental with the objective of having the most talent possible, fit under the restraint of the cap. What one is making for the year is what is not relevant. We have a very cheap QB, we can afford higher contracts for 2-3 years. Point here is the three vets I am talking about are most likely more talented for 2020 roster than any third round picks.

    I have been saying this for years whenever fans think we can go after the best available free agent players, they don't want to come here to this losing culture, and the only way to make it happen is to overpay. However, are you now advocating that trading middle and high round picks, for high paid veteran players, is a smart move because they wouldn't come here as free agents, therefore advocating bringing guys in who don't want to be here and are assured to leave after the 1 or 2 year rent you use them for ? That again doesn't seem smart, and the compensatory pick in return again, will be like trading down, comp picks are always lower and not assured in the slightest.

    Broncos do not have a losing culture and most players don't care about anything more than most $$$. The overpay is where teams get into cap issues, not short term contracts with no dead money from trades.

    I would move Von for a second round pick in a heartbeat. As draft picks are the most valuable asset you can have to rebuild a team, to clear cap and gain a high round selection, especially from a bad team which will pick in the top 10, that would be great for the future of the team from a roster building perspective. And would I trade a 3rd round pick for any players ? Veterans who are highly paid ? Probably not. No one on the block is exponentially better than the free agents coming up, so it makes no sense to do so. Unless I want to bring in players who don't want to be here, like you are seemingly a fan of and now arguing for.
    For me it depends on if you think you can compete for a championship THIS YEAR. If the answer is yes, I would get as much talent as possible on the squad. I think with the resources available in picks and cap, we could build a 13 win team. I do not think we can do that just drafting 12 guys or just giving top $$$ to FAs.

    Leave a comment:


  • MHSalute
    replied
    Originally posted by Letswinplz77 View Post
    I think the trees in this forest is that there are MULTIPLE ways to skin a cat, and trying to use just one is self-defeating.
    I agree and am not suggest all draft picks get traded, just that trades more than not turn out to have better impact than the picks. Take SF starting offense

    QB - Via Trade
    RB - Added to PS off waivers and CFA
    WR 2nd round pick (19) and via trade
    TE 5th round pick
    LT 1st round pick (07)
    LG via trade
    C FA
    RG claimed off waivers
    RT 1st round pick (18)

    Three draft picks in the last 5 years worth of drafts on offense. QB, WR, and OG via trade. This offense ranked 2nd in points scored. Keep seeing these mid round picks are essential, but really not finding a team built off mid round picks.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X