The Future Of Draft Trades

[Hoofbite]

I read the article on Dallas going up to #4 or #6 depending on what Cleveland does and it got me wondering.

Could the new rookie pay scale have opened the door for more players to be traded in draft day trades?

You think about the cost of signing Mike Jenkins next year if he has a good season. It could be a lot and it might be a tough decision with the penalty and other cap numbers going up.

But, the rookie salary for the #4 or #6 overall will likely be half as much as Brandon Carr's contract, probably less than that.

Could we see a situation where teams decide to trade players with ability who are in contract years in order to free up cap space for other positions?

Granted, in that single year you might get an improvement at a position that may not be needed at the moment but the following year you reap the benefits of not having to pay market price for that player and you can then devote more space to filling in the other spots.

In the article, the trade was.

Browns #6

For

Dallas #14, Mike Jenkins and Conditional 3rd in 2013.

Robert Quinn went 14th and he got about 10M for his contract last year.

Julio Jones went 16th and he got 16M for his contract.

If Jenkins has a really good year I don't think a contract like Carr's is unexpected. Might actually be more, who knows.



So, if we look at Carr's 50M and throw on Quinn's 10M, we're talking 60M going to those two players in the next year.



If Dallas traded, they'd hand out 16M to Claiborn and essentially have 45M in contract money next offseason to fill the hole they didn't address this offseason at #14.

And of course, if Jenkins was paid by someone else Dallas would be out a player at a position that is more important than the one they would likely address at #14.



I wonder if the rookie scale may have made draft day more interesting as teams move forward. Before, the ridiculous contracts basically made it pointless to think about moving up because you could get a proven vet for the same price, if not less.

Now, there's incentive to move up because you could land a better player at a fraction of the cost if you are willing to forego at a position of need right now.

Any thoughts?

[CCBoy]

Your projection is indeed, very Cowboy friendly as well as provide an eventual upgrade to the secondary. What it doesn't do, is expand positional depth and give package relief. It delays a degree of effectiveness to stabilize and upward turned defensive scheme when that side of ball has to start to dominate.

As to someone looking towards dealing with Dallas, they would have to face a piece that only has a single year's contract to project towards a free agent any way. At a minimum, that team would have to look at a Franchise Tag in protection of it's lost draft value.

Then there is the damaged shoulder right now...and we all saw last season what integration into a new system does to production projections over the course of a season. This points to a question of 'damaged goods' as well as a strain once integrated into their own system.

[M'Kevon]

Dallas #14, Mike Jenkins and Conditional 3rd in 2013.

Really????

Jenkins won't pass a physical until August. Any GM that agreed to this would be fired, if not shot and buried first. Especially when the option at #4 or #6 would be Claiborn.

Claiborn = injured CB, #14 and next year's 3rd rounder.

There isn't a GM or owner this dumb.

[Hoofbite]

Originally Posted by M'Kevon

Dallas #14, Mike Jenkins and Conditional 3rd in 2013.

Really????

Jenkins won't pass a physical until August. Any GM that agreed to this would be fired, if not shot and buried first. Especially when the option at #4 or #6 would be Claiborn.

Claiborn = injured CB, #14 and next year's 3rd rounder.

There isn't a GM or owner this dumb.

That was the rumor and I'm talking more about the idea of that type of trade becoming more common.

[Skerr41]

I think we might see more player for pick trades now, and it is an interesting one you proposed. I doubt the Browns would do that deal, but it certainly is a good way to reduce costs at a position. I think the trading partner will be keeping in mind the cost of resigning that player, they may look at it as a one year rental, which greatly reduces the value of the player you are trading.

[TheSport78]

I agree, Hoofbite. Jerry does not want to open the checkbook for a corner two offseasons in a row.

If CLE accepts the rumored trade, I will be ecstatic. If Jenkins and Felix are a part of the trade, then it shows they weren't going to be back in 2013 anyway!

Claiborne is a ballhawk, and while not as good of a prospect as Patrick Peterson, he's certainly an upgrade over Jenkins IMO.

[Bowdown27]

Only way we move up that far is if we include 1 and 2 round picks. If we include Jenkins and Felix and a third next year it's still alot but doable. I really dont see us trading up period.

[cowboysooner]

Originally Posted by Hoofbite

I read the article on Dallas going up to #4 or #6 depending on what Cleveland does and it got me wondering.

Could the new rookie pay scale have opened the door for more players to be traded in draft day trades?

You think about the cost of signing Mike Jenkins next year if he has a good season. It could be a lot and it might be a tough decision with the penalty and other cap numbers going up.

But, the rookie salary for the #4 or #6 overall will likely be half as much as Brandon Carr's contract, probably less than that.

Could we see a situation where teams decide to trade players with ability who are in contract years in order to free up cap space for other positions?

[View Full Quote]Granted, in that single year you might get an improvement at a position that may not be needed at the moment but the following year you reap the benefits of not having to pay market price for that player and you can then devote more space to filling in the other spots.

In the article, the trade was.

Browns #6

For

Dallas #14, Mike Jenkins and Conditional 3rd in 2013.

Robert Quinn went 14th and he got about 10M for his contract last year.

Julio Jones went 16th and he got 16M for his contract.

If Jenkins has a really good year I don't think a contract like Carr's is unexpected. Might actually be more, who knows.



So, if we look at Carr's 50M and throw on Quinn's 10M, we're talking 60M going to those two players in the next year.



If Dallas traded, they'd hand out 16M to Claiborn and essentially have 45M in contract money next offseason to fill the hole they didn't address this offseason at #14.

And of course, if Jenkins was paid by someone else Dallas would be out a player at a position that is more important than the one they would likely address at #14.



I wonder if the rookie scale may have made draft day more interesting as teams move forward. Before, the ridiculous contracts basically made it pointless to think about moving up because you could get a proven vet for the same price, if not less.

Now, there's incentive to move up because you could land a better player at a fraction of the cost if you are willing to forego at a position of need right now.

Any thoughts?

I think your observations about the system are dead on.

I think you are right and it would be a great trade. You could then take the Jenkins/Claiborne savings and sign a replacement player for the spot you were going to draft. That is especially true if you were planning to take a center, guard or safety that could be had for a 6 million aav.

I'd guess there is about an 80% chance Claiborne becomes a cornerstone player for you and a much lower percentage among the premium position players at 14. For the cost of a 3rd round pick or even in the other case a 3rd rounder and your backup running back you have acquired his services.

It makes sense for the Browns too given where they are in their development. 1 or 2 good players and a chance at a great player is probably better than a better chance at a great player for them. They already have a #1 corner in Hayden and a good #2 plus something else fits their needs.

It is the kind of trade a team would make if they had Micheal Floyd higher on their board than Justin Blackmon. They may be right because he is awfully good.