Take this for what it's worth...

[The Dallas1575]

this is acording to a liquor store clerk I know. On Jenkins latest visit by the store, he told him "Claiborne" is the reason he won't be resigned... :laugh2:

 

[AsthmaField]

The higher picks should be worth more than the old trade chart because the salaries of the players are so much less than they used to be.

I agree. Seems like with the smaller payday's for the top 10 players, it would take more to move up into the top 10 picks. IOW, it would take more to get the top 10 teams to trade down because they stand to lose less money on any mistake made on a player.

In the past, I heard that teams were wanting to move down because of the sheer size of the contracts they had to hand out to the top guys.

 

[wittenacious]

I do not doubt the validity of the information. SDogo has a rep. All I want is some oline guys that can ball. Mean men with a mission.

I love that! I'll take those Triple-M types whenever/ wherever we can get them, as long as they can ball and stay out of trouble off the field. And, like you, I hope our O-line gets their fair share as well.

 

[cowboysooner]

I believe your going to see a vast difference between the old chart and the trades that actually go down this year. It's going to be interesting to see who does the work to come up with the first re-write.

I'm certain that several of the teams have done this and are keeping the information proprietary for as long as possible. It's obvious the Patriots have by their behavior of trading a pick in the late 1st for a late 2nd plus next year's 1st.

The other obvious one is trading for next year's picks. The teams quite stupidly treat that as a full round ahead in value while using a trade chart with extraordinarily cheap drops in relative value by round. Those 2 ideas are incongruent.

 

[QT]

Moving up for a DT on the eve of the draft. It's like Russell Maryland all over again.

Actually, they traded up to get a chance to draft Rocket Ishmail. Rocket jumped ship to the CFL right after the trade up. I remember that draft like yesterday. I was pretty mad when Rocket decided to go to the CFL.

 

[danielofthesaints]

It's like Organic Chemistry...

"Never have I studied so hard, so long
To answer so much, so very wrong"

Organic Chemistry is easy

 

[silverbear]

That would support our favorite liquor store clerk's story...

Mock not the liquor store clerk... nobody ever lies to a liquor store clerk, at least not once they hit 21...

 

[RS12]

Love Claiborne would move up for him or Cox.

 

[a_minimalist]

I hope it's Barron they are willing to trade up for. As I said before, I like interceptions more than sacks.

Claiborne and Richardson would be a dream come true and IMO are unrealistic expectations. Never gonna happen.

 

[Wulfman]

I agree. Seems like with the smaller payday's for the top 10 players, it would take more to move up into the top 10 picks. IOW, it would take more to get the top 10 teams to trade down because they stand to lose less money on any mistake made on a player.

In the past, I heard that teams were wanting to move down because of the sheer size of the contracts they had to hand out to the top guys.

I agree. I think it's easier to take a "less desirable" position or a risky player in the top 10 simply because you don't have to guarantee him the massive money you did previously. It's not like we're going to have a Heath Shuler taken and paid handsomely for not offering more than Gus Frerotte did in his career anymore (sorry for the comparison, but I lived in northern VA at the time). You pick the player and if he doesn't work out, you jettison him and take another with a lesser hit to the cap.

I think safeties, guards, and inside linebackers are going to see their stock rise because of the change, with teams not as hesitant to take them in the top 10. Interesting, considering the players available this year (Barron, DeCastro, and Kuechly).

 

[Beast_from_East]

Our first, third and fourth or our first and second for a late top ten pick. Anything below 8 or so would require more. Moving up to 6 to get Claiborne would probably cost us either our top three picks this year or a first next year.

Dam, that is pricey.


Claiborne better be the next Deon freaking Sanders for that price tag.

 

[Beast_from_East]

i dont see any way in which claiborne falls to 6..i dont think hes the target..dont get me wrong..i bet theyd love to have him..and probably have a sneaky plan just in case he falls..but i highly doubt this is their main target..

so i change my mind..its not claiborne..its gotta be cox..

i think the trade has to be with miami or jacksonville

Agreed, I think I have changed my mind as well...........Claiborne and Richardson are top 5 locks, so its pretty obvious the target is going to be Cox.


Is Cox worth giving up our first three picks if that is the price tag???

 

[Beast_from_East]

I hope it's Barron they are willing to trade up for. As I said before, I like interceptions more than sacks.

Claiborne and Richardson would be a dream come true and IMO are unrealistic expectations. Never gonna happen.

You dont go from 14 to 6 to get a safety, the target is obviously Cox since Richardson and Claiborne are top 5 locks by almost every mock out there.

 

[a_minimalist]

You dont go from 14 to 6 to get a safety, the target is obviously Cox since Richardson and Claiborne are top 5 locks by almost every mock out there.

I don't think they really intend to move to 6 for Barron. Maybe 9 or 11.

 

[CowboysLaw87]

I believe your going to see a vast difference between the old chart and the trades that actually go down this year. It's going to be interesting to see who does the work to come up with the first re-write.

I agree the old chart overvalued 1st rounders. However, with the rookie wage scale, the higher picks should be even more valuable. Interestingly, the wage scale might actually have moved the current Trade Value Chart closer to accurate/fair than it was before.

 

[fanfromvirginia]

If they do trade up, I hope it is for Cox.

 

[CATCH17]

Agreed, I think I have changed my mind as well...........Claiborne and Richardson are top 5 locks, so its pretty obvious the target is going to be Cox.


Is Cox worth giving up our first three picks if that is the price tag???

If he can create pressure than yeah it's probably worth it.

We are in desperate need of pass rushers.

 

[Miller]

#Cowboys have had conversations with the #Chiefs about a potential trade up, and #Chargers about moving down: is.gd/QUf1VW

Evan Silva on Twitter

 

[InmanRoshi]

I agree the old chart overvalued 1st rounders. However, with the rookie wage scale, the higher picks should be even more valuable. Interestingly, the wage scale might actually have moved the current Trade Value Chart closer to accurate/fair than it was before.

It's more complicated than that. Teams now have only 4 years of control of a player in his rookie contract with a standard option for the 5th year. And the amount of the tender for the 5th year depends on where the player is drafted and what position he plays.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

If he can create pressure than yeah it's probably worth it.

We are in desperate need of pass rushers.

Yeah, him and his 8.5 career sacks just screams pass rusher.

There is noway we should sacrifice that much for Cox, unless he falls quite a bit.