Why trading up to #1 MIGHT make sense to me

[golfer704u]

Bear with me this might be a little hard to follow and I am likely wrong in some of my assumptions. But that's why I want to throw this out there so everyone can shoot holes in my theory and I can learn!


So here are the assumptions I am making.

1) 2010 is an uncapped year and that includes rookie contracts
2) which means you COULD draft someone and structure their contract in a way to front load almost all the costs into the first year of the contract.
3) while in the future there will likely be a "rookie cap" put in place, it's not going to take the cost of the #1 pick from the 40 million it is today down to 15 million. It's much more likey it's still gonna be 25-30 million for the #1 pick.
4) we will at least be MARGINALLY better this year than we were last year. So we'll likely be drafting 14-20 instead of at 7.

Given all those assumptions, to me it makes a WHOLE LOT of sense to trade up to the #1 pick to take Sam Braddford if they think he can be a "franchise" QB.

We have lots of picks this year to trade, you could sign Braddford to a HUGE contract but front loaded so that the only person it really costs is Lerner, and it wouldn't affect the salary cap for future years. You get your shot at your franchise guy that way with actually LESS of an economic risk to the team, and also likely less of a cost in trade than you will have to do next year.

Thoughts?

[hiwaygal]

Hiya golfer!

Your assumptions are about the costs to our team and what we would be compromising...but what do you think about what the OTHER team is going to want? I'm not sure all those "costs" are really factored in.

Who is it that says the biggest thing about trading is having a willing trade partner?

[golfer704u]

Originally Posted by hiwaygal

Hiya golfer!

Your assumptions are about the costs to our team and what we would be compromising...but what do you think about what the OTHER team is going to want? I'm not sure all those "costs" are really factored in.

Who is it that says the biggest thing about trading is having a willing trade partner?

Oh for sure.

But I guess what I am saying is. I'm willing to pay a slighty higher price in draft picks this year if it would make the cap easier to manage in future years because you got your franchise QB "on the cheap" so to speak.

also. the difference in what you have to give up to move from 7-1 and 15-1 is huge, so even if they are over asking for it this year, you'd basically have to hope we suck next year to get a better deal...

[mohican]

The only downside is we would probably be giving up a lot of talent in other areas for a QB who barring injury or massive suckage will be wearing the Holmgren Apprentice Wizard robes for a year or two. And if a QB is gotten by trading up to 1/1, pressure will be high to see him.

I imagine the browns have been doing their due diligence and talking to the Lions, Bucs, and Skins. I keep reading that St. Louis, if they stay at #1, really want a deal done pre draft, and Bradford/agent Condon aren't down with that so far. So if St. Louis stays at 1, They could opt for a boy named Suh, and get a Colt in the 2nd.

[golfer704u]

Originally Posted by mohican

The only downside is we would probably be giving up a lot of talent in other areas for a QB who barring injury or massive suckage will be wearing the Holmgren Apprentice Wizard robes for a year or two. And if a QB is gotten by trading up to 1/1, pressure will be high to see him.

I imagine the browns have been doing their due diligence and talking to the Lions, Bucs, and Skins. I keep reading that St. Louis, if they stay at #1, really want a deal done pre draft, and Bradford/agent Condon aren't down with that so far. So if St. Louis stays at 1, They could opt for a boy named Suh, and get a Colt in the 2nd.

Two things. You have that same risk next year with a QB. again, I am likely with you that I don't want to give up those other picks on a maybe great QB. but it would at least make some sense to me as to why now and not next year.

also, the whole thing with St. Lois wanting a deal done plays into an idea you could talk them into a better deal for that pick. They can trade down to 7, get and impact player there AND gather more picks, and not have to worry about the contract issues of #1.

Again I am not saying this is what I WOULD do. I'm just throwing it out there as one reason it might make some sense.

[mohican]

Unless you think you absolutely, positively want Bradford above all others, then IMO you risk them picking him. If they are adamant about a pre signed player, and take SUH, then the price probably gets better, both from paying him and what you have to give up in picks.

So who really needs a QB? The Browns. The Bills. Could the Steelers, as rumored entertain shipping BR to Saint Louis for Bradford? Would the Redskins trade for McNabb and draft a QB early?

[jason j]

Originally Posted by golfer704u

Bear with me this might be a little hard to follow and I am likely wrong in some of my assumptions. But that's why I want to throw this out there so everyone can shoot holes in my theory and I can learn!


So here are the assumptions I am making.

1) 2010 is an uncapped year and that includes rookie contracts
2) which means you COULD draft someone and structure their contract in a way to front load almost all the costs into the first year of the contract.
3) while in the future there will likely be a "rookie cap" put in place, it's not going to take the cost of the #1 pick from the 40 million it is today down to 15 million. It's much more likey it's still gonna be 25-30 million for the #1 pick.
4) we will at least be MARGINALLY better this year than we were last year. So we'll likely be drafting 14-20 instead of at 7.

Given all those assumptions, to me it makes a WHOLE LOT of sense to trade up to the #1 pick to take Sam Braddford if they think he can be a "franchise" QB.

We have lots of picks this year to trade, you could sign Braddford to a HUGE contract but front loaded so that the only person it really costs is Lerner, and it wouldn't affect the salary cap for future years. You get your shot at your franchise guy that way with actually LESS of an economic risk to the team, and also likely less of a cost in trade than you will have to do next year.

Thoughts?

Two contentions I'd make to that would be:

1.) Front loading the contract doesn't relieve the organization from paying the money. It's not the cap, it's the money. You're not going to front load $40 million or $50 million of a $80 million contract for the purpose of end-arounding the salary cap system. Especially a guy with a very real, very recent injury history.

You can't do it in signing bonus, because the NFL has very strict rules on how much of a contract can be designated as "signing bonus" in relation to salary.

NFL owners aren't interested in beating the system when it comes to the salary cap. They like it. The only thing they like more than the salary cap, is dead cap space. Money they don't have to pay out in the current year that is being tied up contractually to monies that have been accounted for in prior fiscal years.

2.) I can't for a minute believe that if you throw a rookie quarterback out there (which in today's NFL, you'll have to do), and get this team to 8-8 or 9-7 - in deference to your draft position of 14-20. More often than not, teams that draft in the top 10 and take a quarterback, return to the top ten in the subsequent season.

My thinking is, if the Browns can get up to #1 by giving up a 2nd in 2011... I won't blow a gasket. I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't touch Bradford with the proverbial 10 foot pole. Not in the top 10 anyway. But that's just me. I don't think Holmgren, Heckert, and Mangini want to rest their jobs and reputations on the rickety right shoulder of a guy who hasn't played a meaningful game in more than a year. I wouldn't do it. But they don't ask me these things.

-jj

[hiwaygal]

Originally Posted by jason j

But they don't ask me these things.

-jj

They should.

Just sayin'

[golfer704u]

Originally Posted by jason j

Two contentions I'd make to that would be:

1.) Front loading the contract doesn't relieve the organization from paying the money. It's not the cap, it's the money. You're not going to front load $40 million or $50 million of a $80 million contract for the purpose of end-arounding the salary cap system. Especially a guy with a very real, very recent injury history.

You can't do it in signing bonus, because the NFL has very strict rules on how much of a contract can be designated as "signing bonus" in relation to salary.

NFL owners aren't interested in beating the system when it comes to the salary cap. They like it. The only thing they like more than the salary cap, is dead cap space. Money they don't have to pay out in the current year that is being tied up contractually to monies that have been accounted for in prior fiscal years.

2.) I can't for a minute believe that if you throw a rookie quarterback out there (which in today's NFL, you'll have to do), and get this team to 8-8 or 9-7 - in deference to your draft position of 14-20. More often than not, teams that draft in the top 10 and take a quarterback, return to the top ten in the subsequent season.

My thinking is, if the Browns can get up to #1 by giving up a 2nd in 2011... I won't blow a gasket. I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't touch Bradford with the proverbial 10 foot pole. Not in the top 10 anyway. But that's just me. I don't think Holmgren, Heckert, and Mangini want to rest their jobs and reputations on the rickety right shoulder of a guy who hasn't played a meaningful game in more than a year. I wouldn't do it. But they don't ask me these things.

-jj

Thanks Jason!

1) YOU did cover the one question I meant to ask. Can it be in "signing bonus" or would it have to all be in first year salary. IF it's all in first year salary I can see that being a bigger issue because you are then somewhat setting a precedent for what a guy is paid.

I get your point that the owners like the cap. But given Clevelands history. I could see Holmgren convincing Lerner to do it just this once to really make a huge PR splash type move. But I get where you are coming from.

2) I think you misunderstood. Moving to15-20 next year was assumed we DIDN'T draft Braddford and let Delhome play this year in hopes of drafting a guy next year. I 100% agree with you that if you draft Braddford he HAS to play this year, likely week 1. and that likely means this team is drafting in the top 10 again.

On your last point. That's the other thing I don't claim to understand. Could you do it for only a second next year? How about our highest 3rd this year with a "conditional" 3rd next year based on Bradfords stats or something? or two 3rds this year?

and yeah like I said. I'm not sure I would do this either. It's just something I thought of driving into work this morning listening to Greenberg talk about how the Rams may not want to pay a QB that much money, and it hit me about the cap implications of an "uncapped" year and hwo it might affect contracts. Which then led me to this draft scenario

[jason j]

Sorry to jump back in so quickly... but there is one more thing that steers me well clear of the trade up scenario. 2010 is a rare draft when it comes to upper echelon talent. You've got 45 or 50 players that would be first round picks in any year. That means you have the opportunity to get first round talent in the second round.

There is almost no way for the Browns to get up from 7 to 1 without giving up the 38th pick - a pick where the Browns are likely to nab an immediate impact player.

Consider, last year's pick brought Brian Robiskie in the same neighborhood. It's not unlikely that among the players available at 38 would be Golden Tate. Now, Brian Robiskie is a fine young receiver, but Golden Tate is on a different level.

And he's not alone. That top of the second round if full of first year starters.

I firmly believe in ride your veteran quarterback, and go big after a quarterback in 2011. Make your team better to the point it can handle the step back to a rookie. Right now, the Browns with a rookie quarterback are a bottom 5 team in this league.

If they can grab two starters in the first to rounds of 2010, and run with a guy who's been around the block a little, maybe they're in the 8-8 discussion. Wouldn't that be a nice change of pace in these parts.

-jj

[AdaM]

If we traded up to #1 and didn't get Suh I would be pretty upset.

[golfer704u]

Originally Posted by jason j

Sorry to jump back in so quickly... but there is one more thing that steers me well clear of the trade up scenario. 2010 is a rare draft when it comes to upper echelon talent. You've got 45 or 50 players that would be first round picks in any year. That means you have the opportunity to get first round talent in the second round.

There is almost no way for the Browns to get up from 7 to 1 without giving up the 38th pick - a pick where the Browns are likely to nab an immediate impact player.

Consider, last year's pick brought Brian Robiskie in the same neighborhood. It's not unlikely that among the players available at 38 would be Golden Tate. Now, Brian Robiskie is a fine young receiver, but Golden Tate is on a different level.

And he's not alone. That top of the second round if full of first year starters.

I firmly believe in ride your veteran quarterback, and go big after a quarterback in 2011. Make your team better to the point it can handle the step back to a rookie. Right now, the Browns with a rookie quarterback are a bottom 5 team in this league.

If they can grab two starters in the first to rounds of 2010, and run with a guy who's been around the block a little, maybe they're in the 8-8 discussion. Wouldn't that be a nice change of pace in these parts.

-jj

Jump in as often as you like. Take the whole thread over!

I guess my scenario was just that going Big next year , and then getting it wrong on which QB you pick could cost you a lot more in the long run than going big this year and getting it wrong on the QB you pick. Because of the cap implications of the overall #1 pick.