Several teams picking in the Top 10 are trying to desperately trade down.

[irish]

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/04/13/...of-the-top-ten/

 

Jags Trying Hard To Trade Out Of The Top Ten

Posted by Mike Florio on April 13, 2009, 4:42 p.m. EDT

 

As the 2009 draft approaches, several teams in the top ten actively are trying to trade out of it.

 

We’re hearing that this group includes the Lions, Chiefs, and Browns.

 

It also includes the Jaguars, whom we’re told are desperately trying to get out of the eighth overall spot in the draft.

 

But the Jags currently can find no takers.

 

Nor can any of the other teams in the top ten.

 

As one league source explained it, there are three issues making the top-ten teams want to get out, and keeping other teams from wanting to get in.

 

First, the money paid at the top of the draft has gotten out of hand. Even hard-core agent types who previously have argued with us about this issue are now admitting that the values of the contracts at the top of the process are too high.

 

Second, there’s no “bell cow” in the draft — no must-have player in the view of one or more teams.

 

Third, there’s no real separation between the top players at each position. For example, Michael Crabtree isn’t $20 million better than Hakeem Nicks. But if Crabtree goes within the first seven picks of the round and Nicks goes in the last ten, the dollar value of their respective contracts will entail a gap potentially that large, if not larger.

 

Ditto for the tackles and the quarterbacks.

 

So why take a guy at No. 2 when a comparable player can be gotten — for much less money — at No. 20?

 

In the end, this year’s experience could provide just enough ammunition to get a meaningful rookie wage scale implemented as part of the next CBA.

[piratesownninjas]

I bet at least two teams trade out of the top ten... Everything is doom and gloom two weeks out, but come draft day, teams will be wheeling and dealing.

[irish]

I bet at least two teams trade out of the top ten... Everything is doom and gloom two weeks out, but come draft day, teams will be wheeling and dealing.

 

Especially once Stafford goes off the board.

[BeeR]

Nah. I think it's usually the opposite from this - there's all this draft pick trade rumouring going on and the trades that do happen tend to be modest (like trading from 1.25 to 1.20).

 

Poor Lions. It figures they would pick first in a year with so few if any really amazing players.

[bpwallace49]

It wouldnt be a draft without Ted Thompson trading dpown for the Packers . .

[irish]

It wouldnt be a draft without Ted Thompson trading dpown for the Packers . .

 

Response from Randall- 5...4...3...2...1...

[Randall]

Unless people like Mike Florio name their sources I see it as more potential BS; sources for other teams to spread mis-information. .

 

 

 

It wouldnt be a draft without Ted Thompson trading dpown for the Packers . .

 

 

Especially this year when he needs several 3-4 players.

[piratesownninjas]

Response from Randall- 5...4...3...2...1...

 

I don't expect the Packers to have a pick within the first 15 or so this year. The man will find someone to trade down with, and will trade down at least three times.

[muck]

I have been wondering about KC for some time...

 

Signing / trading for two old LBs (Mike Vrabel and Zach Thomas) allows KC to either ... (i) bring in Curry to get mentored (alongside the underwhelming Derrick Johnson) by two guys who know how to play the position ... or ... (ii) trade the #3 pick to another team who wants "a sure thing" at the top of the draft because we've addressed one of our biggest shortcomings with two veterans who know the position cold ...

 

...and, KC knows that they'll have a shot at Curry because they are convinced that Stafford is #1 and one of the two OL men are #2 (or, alternatively, the two big tackles go #1 and #2, leaving teams to trade up for either Curry or Stafford) ... so ... KC tries to move down a couple / few picks allowing someone to jump up and get Curry (or Stafford) ...

 

Other than that, I'm not really sure how to interpret the two old LBs on the roster ...

 

Presumably, if there are no trading partners, we get another OT or a new LB. Either way, KC has the best pick to have at the top of the draft (imo).

Edited April 14, 2009 by muck

[muck]

I think they should take Crabtree.

 

I am sure you do...

 

[T_bone65]

:gil: 15 :gil:

[Randall]

Packers General Manager Ted Thompson covets draft choices as if his life depends on them...

[STL Fan]

The Rams were also widely reported here in STL to be open to offers for their #2 overall because they have so many holes to fill. They expected not to get any serious offers and so far they have been right.

 

Why would you trade in to that spot? To get who? We're going to have to roll the dice and hope we land a long-term impact player. Especially now that we have real big-boy football guys running the show.

[Sox]

Poor Lions. It figures they would pick first in a year with so few if any really amazing players.

 

 

No need to fret,there's always next year.

 

[Belushi]

Packers General Manager Ted Thompson covets draft choices as if his life depends on them...

 

Good article. I think we're seeing allot of those points come to fruition this year with the difficulty teams are having trading down. No one wants to pay those huge contracts for unproven players that bust just as often as they hit. Why not take a guy later, pay him less, and have just as much chance for success? I'm fine with the Packers trading down for extra picks. The NFL draft is like a lottery - the more chances you have, the better your odds of winning.

[budlitebrad]

From a phone conference with Mike Mayock:

 

"Every team in the top 10 is looking to trade out," Mayock said. "Never seen it, never seen the situation quite this heavy. And the theory is, everybody knows we’re upside-down right now with this draft. The rookies are getting paid way too much money proportionate to their value. So, teams are scared to death of missing (in) the top-10.

 

"Here’s what happening, though, that I think is really interesting, and I’m anxious to see if this trend plays out. That whole trade chart that all the teams used to use, it began to go out the window last year, and I think, like the economy, it’s completely out the window now. So, I think any team in the top 10 that is looking to get out will listen to any reasonable offer, and more than ever, teams are looking to get down (to picks) 15 to 25, because you can get the same kind of player at (No.) 20 as you can at (No.) 7, and you pay one-third the money."

[Randall]

From a phone conference with Mike Mayock:

 

 

This is why Marshall Faulk said draft a left tackle. If they bust there move them to right tackle.

 

 

 

I don't agree the 20th pick is as good as #5 but I see his point.

 

In the past players could be brought along slowly, but now the money is just too great.

 

A lot of these guys are set financially for life before even getting in the league.

[irish]

This is why Marshall Faulk said draft a left tackle. If they bust there move them to right tackle.

 

 

 

I don't agree the 20th pick is as good as #5 but I see his point.

 

In the past players could be brought along slowly, but now the money is just too great.

 

A lot of these guys are set financially for life before even getting in the league.

 

Or guard at worst.

[Big John]

This is why Marshall Faulk said draft a left tackle. If they bust there move them to right tackle.

 

 

 

I don't agree the 20th pick is as good as #5 but I see his point.

 

In the past players could be brought along slowly, but now the money is just too great.

 

A lot of these guys are set financially for life before even getting in the league.

Like John Michels being a bust al left tackle (and anywhere else)