Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by XxTDxX, Nov 18, 2013.
You are not making any sense.
Then I suggest you look through the previous posts and aquatint yourself with my original point.
And you can also find examples of teams signing players for less than they would get on the open market.
More often than not you pay more on the open market than you do to keep somebody in house especially if it's top talent and there is more than one time interested in his services (which there normally will be)
In addition you've just spent 3-4 years with a player and you know him well and how he fits on your team.
That's not true with a free agent.
How well did the Eagle's do will all those high priced free agents 3 years ago?
As for picks outside the last four drafts not having the same value, what value would Max Unger have today and in the future had we drafted him in 2009?
About the same as Andy Levitre, the Guard drafted by Buffalo 2 picks after Unger. He now has the same benefit to both Buffalo and Dallas because he signed with Tennessee as a free agent.
So you're implying Dallas would have let Unger (all pro 2012) hit free agency?
Now you’re clutching at straws.
How about answering the other points in my post?
No, I'm saying that despite not drafting Levitre, that he could be on the 2013 team if they wanted to pay him as a free agent.
I don't follow the Eagles' roster closely enough to comment on "all those free agents".
I believe they signed Cullen Jenkins to play DT in a 4-3 a position where he is having success with the Giants. I believe that was when the Eagles moved their OL coach to D-Coordinator which turned out to be a failure.
They also signed Nnamdi Asomugha. If he had been their own draft pick, would they have known that he was going to coast after getting the big money. He was
a 3× Pro Bowl (2008, 2009, 2010) and 4× All-Pro (2006, 2008, 2009, 2010) prior to the contract. It would be speculation to say that they would not have re-signed him if he was their own draft pick.
I asked you the question “What impact would Max Unger have on the Cowboys in 2013 and the future if we’d drafted him in 2009” and you replied Andy Levitre.
In what way, shape or form would the Cowboys have had an interest in Andy Levitre if Max Unger was on the current Cowboys Roster???
As a member of this site since 2005 I find it amusing your supposed ignorance of the Eagles free agent signing splurge of 2011 since it was at topic of many a post on these very forums.
In short they didn’t get what the paid for which is a recurring theme of teams that try to take the next step by splashing out in free agency.
If you’ve nurtured a player for several years on your roster you know his strength’s and weaknesses and how well he fits in with your team.
That much more difficult with free agents, which is why teams that have long term success in the Cap era draft well and occasionally dip into free agency to fill a roster spot or two.
Caveat emptor! is an appropriate saying in this case.
I’d like you to give me examples of teams that regularly ditch all their players not drafted in the last four years and replace them with free agents which your little theory is suggesting and if you’re right you should have little difficultly in doing so.
You missed the point completely.
Levitre is an example of a player similar to Unger in that the Cowboys could have drafted him in the 2nd round of the 2009 draft. The point was that the Cowboys could have had Levitre on the roster despite not drafting him. The Seahawks had to give Unger a similar amount of guaranteed money to what Levitre received as a free agent despite the fact that they drafted Unger and Tennessee didn't draft Levitre.
Didn't I just address 2 of the Eagles free agent busts?
Jay Ratliff was a Cowboys draft pick. Did it prevent them making a huge mistake in re-signing him? Spencer was a draft pick that played in less than 1 game this season at a cost of 10.6M. Austin and Romo were similar to draft picks in that they were developed by the team. Did it make them any cheaper to re-sign? Did it prevent them from over paying for Austin's actual production?
You're trying to change the context of my original argument. I never said it was an advantage to sign free agents over re-signing your own players.
You’re ignoring the question.
If the Boys had drafted Unger in 2009 why would they have any interest in an inferior player for the same money?
I agree the Boys make mistakes in re-signing players but that’s usually because they haven’t drafted an adequate replacement which is why you can’t say they draft well (the theme of this thread is it not?).
Equally if the Cowboys make these mistakes with players they know well, how much more likely is it that they make the same mistakes with ones they don’t know as well?
But if picks made more than 4 drafts ago have very low value in 2013 (your words), where are teams to get the players that have value from if not through free agency?
Again, I'm not saying they should sign Levitre if they have Unger on the team; although, there would be no reason not to sign Levitre. Unger alone would not resolve all of the Cowboys OL issues.
The point was that Tennessee has Levitre and Seattle has Unger and both received similar amounts of guaranteed money, yet no draft pick was required by Tennessee.
The point is that the Cowboys did know those players and still made mistakes which refutes your contention that there is a great risk benefit to re-signing your own player vs a free agent even if the money is similar.
The fact that the player was that team's own draft pick is of low value, not the actual player. I'm just rating that player's value relative to another player that will receive a similar contract but was not the team's own draft pick.
Example: You and another person lease the exact same year, make and model of automobile and drive the same number of miles. The other person turns their auto in and leases another one. You decide to purchase. The lease company offers to sell you the auto you leased or the auto that the other person leased. The auto(s) each have a dollar value of 20k. Is there a significant advantage to buying the one you leased vs the one that was leased by the other person?
In the example the auto, like the player has value. The fact that you originally leased the auto vs someone else originally leasing the auto is of minimal value.
You not going to sign Levitre a centre and pay him the same money as you existing centre now are you?
I never said Unger is solving all the Cowboys OL problems
He’s just an example of the impact of a good draft pick in 2009 and what he could do for the team how as opposed to no decent picks which is what we ended up with (again the point of the thread).
So if you draft well you don’t make the mistake of overpaying paying your own or anyone else’s players because you have their replacements to hand.
That’s the point!
You whole example hinges around money only, but your have to take into account of the players ability to play for your team as well as his cap hit.
As for you car analogy, if you want to win a drag race you don’t buy a VW camper van, you buy a dragster even if it costs more.
So where’s my list of teams ditching their old draft picks for cheap free agents?
You are contradicting yourself. They overpaid their own draft picks who had performed well before they received the big contracts. Those are the players that you are advocating they the retain, the "good" draft picks.
I have no idea how that is relevant to this discussion.
I've already explained that the players themselves have value. In the auto example, you would normally keep your original car out of convenience. There is no point trading out with the other identical car unless there is an advantage to you. The fact that you kept your own car does not make it more valuable than the other car (i.e your car = your draft pick, the other car = a free agent).
If the team's own draft pick and another free agent are rated the same by the team and the cost is the same, then it is more convenient to keep their own player. I did say that the value of making good picks in 2009 and earlier has a value that is minimal but greater than zero.
You know your final argument has convinced me you’re on to something here.
In fact something so good that it would be a shame to keep it to ourselves.
I think you should email Jerry and Stephen with your theory.
Throw in a couple of those diagrams you did in another thread, you know the ones that reminded some on this forum of Boobs.
That’s bound to grab their attention.
Thing is though you’ll need a snappy title for the theory.
The Andy Levitre theory.
They’ll lap that up.
Man I’d going to place a subscription to Star magazine.
You’re bound to be on the cover before the season is over.
Thank you. A civil discussion is always nice.