Dodo Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 I posted this over on the Raiders forum but thought it better for a thread. Been thinking about this a while and I want input on why you wouldn't do this if you were in the Raiders' shoes. The formula for success is talented rookies on low-money deals and proven vets/superstars on higher ones. The rookies who are not quarterbacks or top 10 picks have no leash to develop since if they aren't proven by the time their rookie deal is over they get shipped out or hit FA. The Raiders have three first-round picks this year and at least two next year. Considering this capital, why not trade one of your firsts every year for a first the following draft as much as possible? IE trade one of the three first rounders this year for another next year, so that they have three first rounders again next year, and trade down and pick up another for the next year, repeat again the following year and so forth. The draft is such a crap shoot that you may as well get two first-round talents each year. If you hit on one and not the other then at least you get one contributor. If you hit on both then you get the production from both before having to decide which to keep when the deals are done. If you miss on both, then you at least have another two the next year and so on. In order to even get to this scenario you would need some horrible stars to align, but the Raiders are already over that. The only downside I can think of is that there may not always be suitors to trade, but in a league where the front office leashes are also getting shorter I feel there will always be someone itching to move up for one of the three slots. You would also have a substantially younger team, but you could use your cap for elite/very-good veterans to be your mentors/discipliners. Whenever you feel like stoping the cycle or you can't find partners, you can use what you have to trade up for a talent you're sold on. I would do it, and would think this is what Gruden might be aiming for if it wasn't for other bonehead moves like the Bryant debacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 First off, it takes a team willing to give up future FRPs to make this happen. How many NFL GM/HC have the kind of job security that they'd be willing to risk forking over a future top 10 pick? You can probably count on one hand the number of teams who would probably be willing to do so. Secondly, a pick now is always going be worth more than a pick in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodo Posted January 7, 2019 Author Share Posted January 7, 2019 1 hour ago, CWood21 said: First off, it takes a team willing to give up future FRPs to make this happen. Correct, and I admit that this aspect not being in control is a possibility. I would only say that your odds of it happening are far better with three 1st rounders than just one. Keep in mind Oakland still has all of their picks in the other rounds this year. In 2020 they don't have a 2nd rounder but do have two 3rd rounders. Obviously you wouldn't go in wanting to trade your only first, but with multiple ones at a certain point your rookie class is going to get very large if you choose to use all your picks. 1 hour ago, CWood21 said: How many NFL GM/HC have the kind of job security that they'd be willing to risk forking over a future top 10 pick? You can probably count on one hand the number of teams who would probably be willing to do so. I'm not taking into account where the pick you'd receive would be, only that you would get a 1st rounder. Or hell, even a second would still net you a chance at a high-quality player that slips. If you mean who has the security to actually implement this strategy, it's Jon Gruden for better or worse and he so happens to be in this exact scenario. If you mean on the other side, teams trade away 1st rounders every year and it doesn't always work out the way they envision. Just this past year Cleveland had #4 overall thanks to Houston. Teams never expect to be giving away high-end picks but it happens due to injuries/etc. 1 hour ago, CWood21 said: Secondly, a pick now is always going be worth more than a pick in the future. This is the exact line of thinking this strategy would be taking advantage of. "This guy whom we love is still on the board and he's right there! Let's go get him! We don't know what will be available next year, let's give up our pick next year to make sure we get him. He's there now!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncofan Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 Other than Sammy Watkins, teams don't trade future 1sts except for 2 types of players: 1. QB's 2. EDGE players, especially where there's scarcity. The problem is that the best EDGE's are going super early - so OAK's 24 & 25+ picks aren't really getting the big difference maker there. The QB class is so bad, a swap of a 2020 1st is a no go. If anything, a team might move up from low 2nd to end of 1st to get the 5th year option - but that's not netting a 1st. The teams that have late 1sts are likely not in the market for this QB class - if anything, they might dive in to the 2nd/3rd round for a developmental guy (NO, LAC, NE, etc.). And there's actually a fair amount of depth there, and the cost isn't worth the extra year of control - paying a 3rd/4th for an extra year of control, no problem, but a future 1st? Way too steep. Every team wants to trade down. The problem is finding a team who wants to trade up. Trading a 1.24 or 1.25+ pick straight up for a future 1st pick is a pipe dream IMO. Trading them both for a 2019 2nd and a future 1st could work, but 1-for-1, don't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roninho Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 Well this tactic works in Madden for me 😂 But seriosly, it can work, but yiu need to be in a position where there is demand, which you dont always will have. This year i think they might be in a position to do it if no qb is drafted when they pick at #4. You have 3 teams at 5, 6 and 7 needing a qb in a weak qb pool. There will be a team making itself believe that 1 qb prospect is special, so who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedTheClock Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 16 hours ago, CWood21 said: First off, it takes a team willing to give up future FRPs to make this happen. How many NFL GM/HC have the kind of job security that they'd be willing to risk forking over a future top 10 pick? You can probably count on one hand the number of teams who would probably be willing to do so. Secondly, a pick now is always going be worth more than a pick in the future. This is the year to do it. Teams will covet the crap out of Oliver, Bosa, Williams, and QB1 (even if it is the raw Haskins). Hell, I want the Browns to explore a trade up to land one of the freak DL and I'd be willing to part with a 2020 1st rounder if it meant putting Oliver/Bosa/Williams with Ogunjobi and Garrett. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humble_Beast Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 as a Raider fan, I would happy with just using two 1sts, and trading one of the first for future picks with more value.... we would have to be more aggressive in free agency to cover holes for the current team... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom cody Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 Given they do have 3 1sts this year, I figure they could trade 1 of them for future picks. Will be interesting to see what they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 12 hours ago, Dodo said: Correct, and I admit that this aspect not being in control is a possibility. I would only say that your odds of it happening are far better with three 1st rounders than just one. Keep in mind Oakland still has all of their picks in the other rounds this year. In 2020 they don't have a 2nd rounder but do have two 3rd rounders. Obviously you wouldn't go in wanting to trade your only first, but with multiple ones at a certain point your rookie class is going to get very large if you choose to use all your picks. Going back to 2000, the only teams who've dealt future FRPs were Atlanta (2011, Julio Jones), New Orleans (2011, Mark Ingram), Redskins (2012, RG3), Rams (Jared Goff, 2016), Eagles (Carson Wentz, 2016), Chiefs (Patrick Mahomes, 2017), Texans (Deshaun Watson, 2017), Vikings (2017, Sam Bradford), and Saints (2018, Marcus Davenport). That's 9 picks in the last last 9 drafts. That means roughly 3% of future FRPs have been traded. Of those 9, six of them involved QBs. Of the 3 that didn't, you've got Julio Jones, Mark Ingram, and Marcus Davenport. In the Julio Jones trade, the Falcons moved up 20 picks. A SRP alone wasn't going to get them up very far, let alone high enough to select Julio Jones. In the Mark Ingram trade, the Saints moved up 28 spots from a late SRP to a late FRP. The Patriots got really good value for that pick. The Saints moved up 13 spots, but the problem is they lacked a SRP as part of the Alvin Kamara trade, so they either needed to cough up a future FRP or they weren't getting Marcus Davenport. They opted to make sure they got Davenport. So in summary, teams usually only are willing to give up FRPs if they're moving up for a QB or if they're hamstrung into making that deal. Currently, the only team "hamstrung" is Chicago (without a FRP or SRP), Dallas (without FRP), and New Orleans (without FRP). The Bears lack a SRP as well this year, so they'd have to give up their 3rd or 4th round pick along with a FRP in 2020 to get into Day 1 or early Day 2. Saints dealt their 3rd and 4th round pick, so their deal would probably have to look like the Mark Ingram trade. 13 hours ago, Dodo said: I'm not taking into account where the pick you'd receive would be, only that you would get a 1st rounder. Or hell, even a second would still net you a chance at a high-quality player that slips. If you mean who has the security to actually implement this strategy, it's Jon Gruden for better or worse and he so happens to be in this exact scenario. If you mean on the other side, teams trade away 1st rounders every year and it doesn't always work out the way they envision. Just this past year Cleveland had #4 overall thanks to Houston. Teams never expect to be giving away high-end picks but it happens due to injuries/etc. Again, I'll ask how many HC or GMs have that kind of job security that they can afford to kick a pick into the future? New England is probably the only one I'd argue for sure, and given Tom Brady's age it seems unlikely. I suppose you could make an argument with Jon Gruden and his guaranteed contract, but even then that seems unlikely. As I've mentioned, there's only been a handful of teams over the last decade that have given up FPRs, and they've dealt them for franchise QBs. There's really only one potential one in this year's class, and the difference between Oakland (4th) and New York/Jacksonville (6th/7th) isn't a future FRP. On 1/7/2019 at 12:20 AM, Dodo said: This is the exact line of thinking this strategy would be taking advantage of. "This guy whom we love is still on the board and he's right there! Let's go get him! We don't know what will be available next year, let's give up our pick next year to make sure we get him. He's there now!" Because it's not just a one-for-one swap. It isn't a case of I'll give you my FRP next year for a FRP this year. You're giving up another asset (most likely a 4th) on top of that pick. Plus, you don't want to be the team to give a top 10 pick to another franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugboat Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 On 07/01/2019 at 8:35 AM, Broncofan said: Other than Sammy Watkins, teams don't trade future 1sts except for 2 types of players: 1. QB's 2. EDGE players, especially where there's scarcity. The problem is that the best EDGE's are going super early - so OAK's 24 & 25+ picks aren't really getting the big difference maker there. The QB class is so bad, a swap of a 2020 1st is a no go. If anything, a team might move up from low 2nd to end of 1st to get the 5th year option - but that's not netting a 1st. The teams that have late 1sts are likely not in the market for this QB class - if anything, they might dive in to the 2nd/3rd round for a developmental guy (NO, LAC, NE, etc.). And there's actually a fair amount of depth there, and the cost isn't worth the extra year of control - paying a 3rd/4th for an extra year of control, no problem, but a future 1st? Way too steep. Every team wants to trade down. The problem is finding a team who wants to trade up. Trading a 1.24 or 1.25+ pick straight up for a future 1st pick is a pipe dream IMO. Trading them both for a 2019 2nd and a future 1st could work, but 1-for-1, don't see it. Exactly. This is always the challenge for teams looking to trade down and "add value" that way. Be it via future picks, or even just more picks in the current draft. Always easier said than done. Right back to @CWood21's point...you have to find a dance partner. There has to be a reason for teams to want to give up value to move up like that. And that value typically comes in the form of one of those two or three types of players listed. A QB that the team loves, an impact pass rusher, or occasionally maybe a potentially gamebreaking elite WR prospect. The way this particular draft looks...i could see teams making a move up for the last 1-2 guys in that top tier of DLinemen. Or for a QB. Top-10 pick sort of range might have the interest to trade down. But outside of that, i think it becomes the typical "small swapsies", or the late 1st teams who get calls from teams looking to move back in for a QB or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreshPrince Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 As a raider fan who is oddly also a Celtics fan. I’m all about adding future first round picks. Now only if Danny Ainge could draft for the raiders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.