Is trading down worth giving up the chance to take a future Pro-Bowler

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Good point re: salary cap considerations. As I posted in another thread, for those of you who want to trade up to #2 to nab CJ, just consider that Reggie Bush got $23M guaranteed on a deal averaging $10M per year. Aside from Brady, Manning, Palmer, or Brees, is there anyone worth $10M per year?

Peter King began to touch on this issue in his latest MMQB entry, and I hope he goes into it further in the future. The draft was created as the great equalizer in the NFL. If your team stunk, you got the highest pick. If you were great, you got the lowest pick.

This worked well as an equalizing force in the pre-salary cap era. And to some extent it still worked well in the 1990s because the salaries at the top of the draft weren't so exhorbitant that they'd kill your cap. But now that salaries of the top 5 players in the draft have gotten so high, you wonder if teams are now better off being in the middle or even the end of the 1st round. The risk associated with missing on such a high-dollar player has risen right along with the rising contracts. With this increased risk, having the #1 pick is often viewed as a bad thing in a lot of ways. King told a story of how last year Charley Casserly called Jets GM Mike Tannenbaum and asked him if he'd be interested in trading for the Texans' #1 overall pick. Tannenbaum said "Sure, what else are you going to give me for it?"

The draft value chart which Jimmy Johnson's staff created in the early 1990s was spot-on back then. A #1 pick really was worth 3000 points. But now that the #1 pick commands over $20 million in guaranteed money, it's no wonder that nobody wants to trade up anymore. 3000 points and $25 million guaranteed? No way, Jose. The draft value chart needs to be adjusted to account for the massive change in salary structure.

That's why we'd be so much better off trading down if we can find a willing partner.