Might Kansas City want to move up.....

*Richbert88* · #1 (**permalink**) -28-02-2008

If Chris Long is taken by Miami, seems the best fit is to grab Jake Long or trade down.

From what I've read, Kansas City would pee themselves to get Jake. Could that be the trade down we're looking for? What would going from #2 to #5 overall be worth? A second round pick? A third? Who would the Rams select with the #5?

What are your thoughts?

My answers are: I'd take a 3rd, and grab Gholston or best player at #5, though he does look pumped on roids. Maybe even trade down again and grab some more picks.

*Mooselini* · #2 (**permalink**) -28-02-2008

I think Gholston is the best player at #5 for us. I like this trade idea. They can give us their first and second round for our one. We can get Gholston, Barrett and another stud player.

*Nick_Weasel* · #3 (**permalink**) -28-02-2008

I brought this up in a different thread - I think it's a good idea. I don't like Gholston at #2, but I do like him at #5. I think the Chiefs need to at least consider reaching for Ryan Clady at #5 if J. Long is gone, and if that's their plan I think they'd be willing to pay dearly to move up to #2. If we could get their 2nd rounder out of the deal, then we could grab Gholston at #5 and use our 2 2nd-rounders to grab SS, WR, OL, depending on what the value on the board looks like.

**HUbison** · #4 (**permalink**) -28-02-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbert88

What would going from #2 to #5 overall be worth?

To answer the question, a drop from #2 to #5 is worth KC's 2nd, 3rd, & 4th. So if that is the deal, we'd have picks #5, #33, #35, #65, #67, #97, & #99 through the first four rounds.

*Nick_Weasel* · #5 (**permalink**) -28-02-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by HUbison

To answer the question, a drop from #2 to #5 is worth KC's 2nd, 3rd, & 4th. So if that is the deal, we'd have picks #5, #33, #35, #65, #67, #97, & #99 through the first four rounds.

No way we could get that. The top picks aren't as valuable as that chart suggests. I would be happy with just their 2nd rounder to be honest.

*TekeRam* · #6 (**permalink**) -28-02-2008

Weasel's right, the chart was made many years ago and does not take into account that after you pay dearly to get that pick, then you pay dearly to sign that pick. It's truly time for a revising of that darn chart.

I too would be happy with their second and maybe a fourth.

**HUbison** · #7 (**permalink**) -28-02-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick_Weasel

No way we could get that. The top picks aren't as valuable as that chart suggests. I would be happy with just their 2nd rounder to be honest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TekeRam

Weasel's right, the chart was made many years ago and does not take into account that after you pay dearly to get that pick, then you pay dearly to sign that pick. It's truly time for a revising of that darn chart.

I too would be happy with their second and maybe a fourth.

I didn't make it up, fellas. Take it up with the 32 teams that use it. All I can do is relay the results.

Having said all that, I am truly curious:

1. What makes you think a team couldn't get that in a trade?

2. What exactly makes that chart out of date? When was it made? Did they not pay rookies back then?

*Nick_Weasel* · #8 (**permalink**) -29-02-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by HUbison

I didn't make it up, fellas. Take it up with the 32 teams that use it. All I can do is relay the results.

Having said all that, I am truly curious:

1. What makes you think a team couldn't get that in a trade?

2. What exactly makes that chart out of date? When was it made? Did they not pay rookies back then?

I wasn't trying to knock you for consulting the chart, I think it's definitely a useful guideline. Sorry if I came off otherwise.

That being said, it is only a guideline, and I think that the value of the top picks needs to be adjusted downwards this year for 2 reasons:

1. The dropoff in talent between the top 5 or 6 picks and "everybody else" is not as steep this year as it is in many years. This year's draft class is being described as "deep" but doesn't have any super-sexy can't-miss prospects that every team is drueling over.

2. Top picks are paid substantially more (compared to average NFL salary) than they used to be.

**HUbison** · #9 (**permalink**) -29-02-2008

Quote:

I wasn't trying to knock you for consulting the chart, I think it's definitely a useful guideline. Sorry if I came off otherwise.

No, no, nothing like that. We're family, no need for apologies. I just don't see this draft as dramatically different than any other draft. And yes, top picks are paid more than they used to be, but so are mid-level picks, bottom picks, free agents, veterans.......pert near everybody in the NFL is paid more.

I just don't see why adjustments should be made to a chart (which, of course, as we both agree is merely a guideline) that has been used all along under the same circumstances.

Ultimately, the only chart value that matters is the one the two trading partners agree to.

*TekeRam* · #10 (**permalink**) -29-02-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by HUbison

I didn't make it up, fellas. Take it up with the 32 teams that use it. All I can do is relay the results.

Having said all that, I am truly curious:

1. What makes you think a team couldn't get that in a trade?

2. What exactly makes that chart out of date? When was it made? Did they not pay rookies back then?

I'll be the next to quote Hub on this message.

Somewhere I thought I read that Bill Parcells made the trade chart back in his days with the Giants, but I could be completely wrong about that. In any case, the chart was made before three key things occurred. The first, free agency as we know it now. The effect this has, is that good players will leave to get paid, and team building comes even more so from the draft now. The second, the draft was much longer when it wa sintroduced, so even if a team gave up a number of higher picks, they still had a bunch of lower picks. Last, and most importantly, is, the immense TV contracts done by Tagliabue, and the new CBA which has gotten the players and agents seeing everything in green.

Rookie contracts for the top 10-15 picks are raising faster than inflation, free agent contracts, and even the rate at which the salary cap is going up. This can be traced to the first year of that new CBA two years ago where the cap went up like 15 million, and top rookie contracts skyrocketed, because teams had tons of room, and the agents knew it. The issue is, the cap hasn't risen like that again, but the agents are still pressing for more money.

Now, as for why the trade chart is outdated. The chart made a lot more sense in a time when there were very few really great players and when drafts were very top heavy in terms of talent. Where you could look at a player like Lawrence Taylor and know he'd a be a hall of famer but there might only be one other even pro-bowl quality linebacker in the whole draft. With the rise of the rookie salaries, the overall rise of talent in the pool, and agents willing to foot the bill to aggressively train their players for the combine, the drafts have gotten a lot closer and a lot more muddled. As we see in our own trade talks, we'd rather have two low first round picks than a #2, because the salaries paid will be so much less and we'll get two for one.

The chart was made to try to help the struggling teams get a bunch of picks to help build their teams faster, however, with free agency, teams can rebound much quicker for a couple years, and the chart puts too much emphasis on the top of the draft, thusly no one wants to trade because, like the Saints did to get Ricky Williams, they trade their whole draft away just for one guy that then holds out and demands tons of money for doing absolutely nothing.

Anyone wondering if I support structured rookie contracts? They say that the players association won't support it, but when the owners say that then they'll have more money for free agents, I tend to think that they'll agree, as they'll be free agents again, not rookies.

*tomahawk247* · #11 (**permalink**) -29-02-2008

il drop down to the fifth pick in a switch with KC...

if they give us Jared Allen as part of the deal

**HUbison** · #12 (**permalink**) -29-02-2008

Regarding the chart..... I believe it actually goes back to Jimmy Johnson in the early 90's, not Bill Parcells in the 80's. And I'm just not seeing how the chart is anything less now than what it has been all along. Here's an interesting article on the chart. Again, ultimately, the only value that matters is whats agreed upon by the GMs involved in the trade.