fyi : NEW DRAFT TRADE CHART Posted by Mike Florio on April 15, 2008, 10:04 a.m > http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/15/new-draft-trade-chart/
so they made everything cheaper because the players this year are so close in talent? Will this change back when there is a larger gap between the players at the top of the draft than the rest.
From what I read on his site, it is about factoring in the financial side, i.e. $15mm+ guaranteed to the players drafted in the Top 10 despite having never played a down. Half the players in the Top 10 won't ever live up to their contract value (if not more).
It's interesting that under that interpretation the #1 pick is considered equivalent to the 19 the 20 and the 171. I'll bet you just about anything that Parcells would jump at that offer.
That chart is absolutely ridiculous. According to that you could move from 6 to 2 with just a first and a third.
Did you listen to some GMs and Coaches lately, the "I?m glad i don?t have a top 5 pick!" is a pretty common view nowadays. If you jump that 4 spots, it?s about $10M more in guarantees. btw. that link doesn?t work.
Yeah, they all say that. Doesn't matter. If that chart was accurate then why wouldn't the Jets just trade their 6 and one of their 4s to move into the #4 pick and guarantee they get a player they want? And what motivation would they ever have to move down when they would get nothing in return? Same for everybody else. Because it isn't, that's why.
Every team makes their own value chart every year and this is just Mike Florio either leaking some specific team's chart or pretending that PFT.com is legitimate.
Actuall, this draft chart is not Florio's. It appears it is one that is making the rounds. If teams adopt it for this year it will make the draft intriguing to say the least. The top 5 picks lose much of their value and the rest of round 1 all increase. Rounds 2-7 stay the same. While every owner and GM chirp about the risk and cost of a top 5 pick, that is as much a smokescreen as anything else. There are owners who don't care about the money. This could really cause some major draft day trades if there is a player somebody really wants. With the old chart it would be prohibitive in the cost of picks. Now it's easy.
The owners don't care about the cash, but the organizations care about the money. $20mm+ guaranteed ($30mm for the #1) on a 6 year deal for a guy that hasn't played a down in the NFL is the problem here. Deals like that hurt a team's flexibility under the cap if the player is a bust. Consider this: Tom Brady signed a 6-year, $60mm deal in 2005 with $26.5mm in bonuses money the first two years. Alex Smith signed a 6-year, $60mm deal in 2005 with $24mm in bonus money JaMarcus Russell signed a 6-year, $60mm deal in 2007 with $32mm in guarantees Ben Roethlisberger signed an 8-year, $102mm deal in 2007 with $33mm in guarantees See a problem there?
Yeah, but I'm not sure it matters. Most owners believe (and since they do the voting so that's all that matters) the CBA will be thrown out and there will be NO cap in two years. That changes the entire dynamic.
Wow, I never looked at it like that! The league really needs to implore a maximum salary/guaranteed money policy for rookie contracts like the NBA & NHL have. (mind you all their contract money is guaranteed but still). The issue would be getting the NFLPA on board with it. A top 5 quarterback of all-time getting the same as Smith - Bust & Russell - jury still out = something wrong with rookie contracts in the NFL, PERIOD!
The issue is that they have a minimum salary cap right now and the small market teams can't stand it. They want to stuff all that money into their pockets just like baseball owners do in the small market towns. They have enough votes to throw it out but by doing so that means there will be no cap on either end. It probably won't last more than a year or two but when they come to a new agreement the salaries the big market teams are paying at that point will have to be taken into acoount.
I'm not sure if the smaller market football teams can't stand the minimum salary cap or just don't want to. MLB is broken because the majority of the teams can't get enough revenue to spend with the big market teams. You can effectively buy a good team (hire most of the good players away from small market teams) if you have the money. The salary cap system in the NFL is supposed to avoid that by limiting the maximum a team can spend so that all teams can have an equal chance at good veterans (at least as far as paying them goes). If the small market teams start pocketing all the money, they would be defeating the purpose of the system which I believe is having all teams competitive over time. It would be really sad for the small market teams to opt out of a salary bounding system. It would hurt overall competitiveness and the NFL in general. I gave up on MLB because of this imbalance and their unwillingness to strongly deal with PEDs.
