Myles Fynch
durka durka
Q: Would you take a player at #9 that you didn't intend to keep if you felt he was a player in high demand?
Hypothetical scenario coming... if you find these annoying, this is not the thread for you. :wink:
Mueller & Cam have their board in order. Prior to the draft, attempts were made to trade out of the #9 spot in order to grab more first day prospects, but the value wasn't there, so we stayed put.
But the draft throws an early surprise. After the first 8 picks, two OTs, two QBs, 1 WR, 1 S, 1 DE, 1 DT are gone. It's Miami's turn, and RB Adrian Peterson is still on the board. Not a primary need, but a potentially very special player. Miami's got multiple guys on multiple phones taking calls from interested teams. But the clock is running, 14min, 14min 30 seconds... and the card has to go to the podium.
Which bring us back to the original question: Do you take a player you don't intend on keeping if you felt he was a player in high demand??
The intent is that he will be moved in the next five picks or so for more / slightly more than the #9 pick was originally worth--at least according to the draft chart. You would be moving down in round one and picking up additional first day picks. You can do this because teams that didn't think they had a chance at a player like this (going at around #3 or so) suddenly do at #9. Except that he's off the board, and if they want him, they can have him--but only through dealing with you. Not unlike the situation with Rivers /Manning and the Chargers/Giants.
Why wouldn't a team interested in AP have traded up to #7 or #8 earlier when they saw AP slipping? Maybe they tried, but the teams in those spots were really locked onto a guy on their board who was still there, they were busy trying to work other deals, or they weren't willing to play Russian Roulette.
But are we?
Best case: someone steps up and meets your price, you walk away with more or slightly higher picks than you would have if you had traded #9 for fair market value before the draft--again, according to the draft chart.
Worst case: you can't move him for more than the value of #9. You break even.
"Grass is greener" case: although you didn't have a need for that position, relative to other needs on your team, you keep him because he's a once-in-a-decade type player, and sooner or later you deal the guy playing in front of him.
* In this scenario, I used RB Adrian Peterson as an example, because I think it best illustrates the hypothetical. But feel free to substitute AP for the presumed top ten player of your choice, Johnson, Russell, Quinn, etc. Anyone can fall because of last minute rumors, true or unfounded.
You're on the clock... a stud has fallen, and although extremely talented, it wasn't your favorite scenario to come up--but it has. You've run out of time on the clock. It's take him and see what you can parlay him into, or "just say no" to BPA and Russian Roulette, compromising with a slightly less talented BPA who fills a team need...
...what would you do?
Hypothetical scenario coming... if you find these annoying, this is not the thread for you. :wink:
Mueller & Cam have their board in order. Prior to the draft, attempts were made to trade out of the #9 spot in order to grab more first day prospects, but the value wasn't there, so we stayed put.
But the draft throws an early surprise. After the first 8 picks, two OTs, two QBs, 1 WR, 1 S, 1 DE, 1 DT are gone. It's Miami's turn, and RB Adrian Peterson is still on the board. Not a primary need, but a potentially very special player. Miami's got multiple guys on multiple phones taking calls from interested teams. But the clock is running, 14min, 14min 30 seconds... and the card has to go to the podium.
Which bring us back to the original question: Do you take a player you don't intend on keeping if you felt he was a player in high demand??
The intent is that he will be moved in the next five picks or so for more / slightly more than the #9 pick was originally worth--at least according to the draft chart. You would be moving down in round one and picking up additional first day picks. You can do this because teams that didn't think they had a chance at a player like this (going at around #3 or so) suddenly do at #9. Except that he's off the board, and if they want him, they can have him--but only through dealing with you. Not unlike the situation with Rivers /Manning and the Chargers/Giants.
Why wouldn't a team interested in AP have traded up to #7 or #8 earlier when they saw AP slipping? Maybe they tried, but the teams in those spots were really locked onto a guy on their board who was still there, they were busy trying to work other deals, or they weren't willing to play Russian Roulette.
But are we?
Best case: someone steps up and meets your price, you walk away with more or slightly higher picks than you would have if you had traded #9 for fair market value before the draft--again, according to the draft chart.
Worst case: you can't move him for more than the value of #9. You break even.
"Grass is greener" case: although you didn't have a need for that position, relative to other needs on your team, you keep him because he's a once-in-a-decade type player, and sooner or later you deal the guy playing in front of him.
* In this scenario, I used RB Adrian Peterson as an example, because I think it best illustrates the hypothetical. But feel free to substitute AP for the presumed top ten player of your choice, Johnson, Russell, Quinn, etc. Anyone can fall because of last minute rumors, true or unfounded.
You're on the clock... a stud has fallen, and although extremely talented, it wasn't your favorite scenario to come up--but it has. You've run out of time on the clock. It's take him and see what you can parlay him into, or "just say no" to BPA and Russian Roulette, compromising with a slightly less talented BPA who fills a team need...
...what would you do?
