PDA

View Full Version : Our 2010 1st rd pick traded due to the cost?


eddie mac
04-25-2009, 07:11 PM
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_12228831

To acquire Smith, the Broncos surrendered their first-round pick in the 2010 draft, a move that was at least financially motivated.

You know something that's a crying shame that the cost of rookie contracts is forcing teams to deal away higher picks in later years just because of the contractual commitment to these youngsters who haven't proved anything in the NFL.

We've witnessed the evidence today via the Cleveland Browns trading their 5th choice down to pick 21, 3 times to save approx $20m in guaranteed money.

McDaniels also stated he didn't consider Sanchez because of the financial cost.

The NFL needs to do something about this and fast because pretty soon there'll be no need for a salary cap at all and no parity in the league, even the draft will come down to who has the most money out there to invest.

broncofan7
04-25-2009, 07:15 PM
That is a plain chicken **** argument.

Br0nc0Buster
04-25-2009, 07:16 PM
I dont know what to think
We traded both 3rds for a blocking TE
Trade our first next for a 2nd this year to avoid paying a lot to a rookie?

This is worrisome.......this is not good

Hercules Rockefeller
04-25-2009, 07:20 PM
Sell the team Bowlen. If you're making financially motivated moves and not football motivated moves, then you need to sell the team to someone who will be making decisions that are the best for the Broncos and not whether or not you can write the check.

broncosteven
04-25-2009, 07:20 PM
Maybe they were afraid that the Chicago pick was going to end up almost like a 2nd at the 26-30 range and wanted the 2nd round pick this year.

Crazy move. Glad I wasn't in front of the TV following this as I would have been pissed.

eddie mac
04-25-2009, 07:24 PM
We traded our own pick NOT Chicago's

Plus the Pittsburgh trade got us their 4th as part of the deal.

WABronco
04-25-2009, 07:28 PM
I'm sure people will point to this and say it's a shoddy excuse, but it does make sense, albeit a little (just better hope we don't end up giving up a high, high 1 for a late first type pick). My jaw dropped when looking at that graphic on ESPN showing the guaranteed amounts given out to previous no. 1's. Stafford got almost twice the amount Alex Smith did only four years ago. Obviously, the incremental increase from year to year doesn't only affect number one picks.

Forget the part about trading our future first, actually. It is simply ludicrous how much money is being doled out to these never-stepped-foot-on-an-NFL-field guys. And it won't reach a peak if unchecked. There will always be that X percentile increase every year.

Was listening to a local John Clayton radio show, and he made it seem like both parties know that the rookie wages will be an issue in the upcoming CBA's, which is great.

However, I'm sure the move wasn't entirely driven by financial worries.

lex
04-25-2009, 07:29 PM
If thats the case, Pat just needs to sell the team. He was the one who chose to pay two coaches 10 million dollars and opted to violate the trust had with his franchise QB who was playing under a cap friendly contract.

Never Trust a Snake
04-25-2009, 07:33 PM
Sell the team Bowlen. If you're making financially motivated moves and not football motivated moves, then you need to sell the team to someone who will be making decisions that are the best for the Broncos and not whether or not you can write the check.

Bowlen was present in the war room today. What happened to the hand's off owner?

From SI.com:

Englewood, Colo., 5:09 p.m.

All is quiet at Broncos headquarters. The team has moved its war room from the large team meeting room just behind the lobby to the coach's conference room on the second floor.

Unlike with previous coach Mike Shanahan, who had all the coaches, personnel people, medical staff and scouts in the war room, new coach Josh McDaniels has only himself, general manager Brian Xanders, owner Pat Bowlen and a few others. The media are now working out of the previous war room.

Don't look for much action for the Broncos in terms of trading up. McDaniels said yesterday he would not surrender the team's two first-round picks, Nos. 12 and 18, to move up for one player. That does not mean he won't trade one of the selections as part of a deal to move up.

Denver is expected to go heavy on defense. Many of their moves this offseason have been on offense, and they need to start adding pieces for the new 3-4 defense they plan to run.

-- Jim Trotter (Follow on Twitter.)

oubronco
04-25-2009, 07:35 PM
B.S. he just doesn't know what he's doing

Orange_Beard
04-25-2009, 07:39 PM
Sell the team if you can't afford to play the game.
I believe that will be a top ten pick.

bpc
04-25-2009, 07:54 PM
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

You just have to laugh at these amateurs and remember... SOME OF YOU guys wanted this ****.

I feel bad for die-hard Bronco fans. We are now entering the dark days.

Garcia Bronco
04-25-2009, 09:31 PM
I thnk this will end up being a shrewd move.

Rohirrim
04-25-2009, 09:34 PM
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_12228831

To acquire Smith, the Broncos surrendered their first-round pick in the 2010 draft, a move that was at least financially motivated.

You know something that's a crying shame that the cost of rookie contracts is forcing teams to deal away higher picks in later years just because of the contractual commitment to these youngsters who haven't proved anything in the NFL.

We've witnessed the evidence today via the Cleveland Browns trading their 5th choice down to pick 21, 3 times to save approx $20m in guaranteed money.

McDaniels also stated he didn't consider Sanchez because of the financial cost.

The NFL needs to do something about this and fast because pretty soon there'll be no need for a salary cap at all and no parity in the league, even the draft will come down to who has the most money out there to invest.

Ha! We traded our pick? Ha! All I can do now is laugh. Given this draft and our schedule, we just traded a top five pick for a midget, slow corner who can't tackle. :rofl: And I thought Shanahan was trying to turn us into the Browns.

SoCalBronco
04-25-2009, 09:34 PM
If thats the case, Pat just needs to sell the team. He was the one who chose to pay two coaches 10 million dollars and opted to violate the trust had with his franchise QB who was playing under a cap friendly contract.

Yeah.

There is really no benefit to having Pat if he isn't willing to spend money, anymore. That was what made him great. He would spare NO EXPENSE in making this a first class organization, whether that meant the facilities or spending up to the cap or anything like that. If he's a penny pinching miser now, he's basically useless, because God knows his decision making isn't exactly an asset, either.

Garcia Bronco
04-25-2009, 09:37 PM
You can't spend what don't have. Come back to reality.

Punisher
04-25-2009, 09:39 PM
This Thread has been intercepted By future Pro Bowler Alphonso Smith

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3207/2953033547_76da26d3df.jpg?v=0

Jekyll15Hyde
04-25-2009, 09:40 PM
This a lame argument. If the top 10 pick next year that we gave to Seattle was going to be expensive, we could have traded out of it, several times for that matter and ended up with a few 2nds and a 3rd or whatever.

bpc
04-25-2009, 09:40 PM
Wasn't Bowlen's argument for the new stadium so he could afford to pay free agents in the future?

So now he's a jagoff, short-sided dumbass, a liar and a POS.

Glad we clarified that.

SELL BOWLEN. DO IT NOW.

lostknight
04-25-2009, 09:42 PM
Unlike with previous coach Mike Shanahan, who had all the <b>coaches, personnel people, medical staff and scouts in the war room</b>, new coach Josh McDaniels has only <b>himself, general manager Brian Xanders, owner Pat Bowlen and a few others</b>. The media are now working out of the previous war room.

<i>This tells you all you need tro know. Also note that they talk about McDaniel's war room, not Xanders</i>

PaintballCLE
04-25-2009, 09:46 PM
this makes no sense considering next year is uncapped

SportinOne
04-25-2009, 09:50 PM
I could see if cap concerns were an issue, but next year is an UNCAPPED YEAR!

Drek
04-25-2009, 10:14 PM
I could see if cap concerns were an issue, but next year is an UNCAPPED YEAR!

That only makes the problem worse for many teams, since rookies can demand more.

Also, they have the right to sue the NFL (which there is a precedent of) as the draft is a violation of their right to fairly shop their services. The only reason that doesn't happen now is its a union workforce that has negotiated in that right for the employers.

Next year's draft is probably going to be a **** storm for a lot of teams.

Archer81
04-25-2009, 10:17 PM
Yes...next year is an uncapped year...which means there would be no control on rookie contracts coming into the league. If Stafford got 41 mil guaranteed with a cap, whats to stop teams from going nuts and overpaying to keep these guys longer? Chill out, watch the process. I think some of the people on this board are upset because they were used to how Shanahan drafted players. New coach, new GM, different way of evaluating players. Lets see how they play before we decide this is the "worst draft evar"

:Broncos:

Cosmo
04-25-2009, 10:17 PM
I swear NFL network said we traded the Bears pick. Someone give me a link where it is written down.

Atlas
04-25-2009, 11:31 PM
I swear NFL network said we traded the Bears pick. Someone give me a link where it is written down.

Check the Denver post it's in there

Garcia Bronco
04-26-2009, 08:11 AM
That only makes the problem worse for many teams, since rookies can demand more.

Also, they have the right to sue the NFL (which there is a precedent of) as the draft is a violation of their right to fairly shop their services. The only reason that doesn't happen now is its a union workforce that has negotiated in that right for the employers.

Next year's draft is probably going to be a **** storm for a lot of teams.

Exactly.

People seem to forget this. That's why Chicago really got a good deal on Cutler. And truthfully it didn't matter what they gave us. It will never be a win for us on paper unless we win a couple of Super Bowls. Getting rid of our first pick, which will most likely be higher, was a great idea from a financial perspective. You can't dump that pick most years and getting rid of it now was a shrewd move.

Denver724
04-26-2009, 08:17 AM
In another thread someone said the #1 will be the lowest of the two. They said McDaniels said this in the presser. Can anyone confirm?

Garcia Bronco
04-26-2009, 08:19 AM
In another thread someone said the #1 will be the lowest of the two. They said McDaniels said this in the presser. Can anyone confirm?

HE didn't say that in his presser on NFLN.

Steve Prefontaine
04-26-2009, 08:21 AM
This doesn't make sense. Bowlen is the best owner in sports (as I've been told).

Man-Goblin
04-26-2009, 08:30 AM
I don't buy this at all. I think this was strictly a football move. They liked the guy (Smith) and moved up to get him and the thinking was they won't be trading down that much.

And here's why.

There's only two reasons to trade their own 1st round pick instead of the Bears'; they think their performance will be better than the Bears, making the Bears' pick lower, or, they are so scared of finishing in the top 5 and having to deal with that salary, that they flipped the pick before it was impossible to trade.

I think its the former because I don't believe there will be a draft next year until there is a new CBA, a deal that will include a rookie wage scale. The owners want it, AND the players want it (although they will use it as a bargaining chip). And there is no way the minority of the owners that would welcome an uncapped year (the super-rich and the super-frugal) will outweigh the majority that don't want it.

So most likely, if the Broncos were scared about having a high pick they couldn't pay, that contract is going to look more like the one they are about to give Knowshon Moreno, not the outrageous contracts we're going to see this year.

Now, you can call it arrogance in the Broncos thinking that they didn't trade down that much from the 1st to #37, but the draft in itself is going to become a lot cheaper in 2010.

Drek
04-26-2009, 08:33 AM
In another thread someone said the #1 will be the lowest of the two. They said McDaniels said this in the presser. Can anyone confirm?

On DenverBroncos.com he makes reference to something like that, but its not a very conclusive wording. It'd make sense if you could hear what the reporter asked, but you can't.

My early guess, listening to how he worded it a few times, is that we traded a conditional first, in that where the two firsts are situated next year will determine which one they get. So something like if both picks are 20 or later the Seahawks get the earlier of the two, but if both picks are 20 or lower they get the later of the two.

Not exact or anything but he said "You can label it several ways, as our pick, as the Bears, pick, as the later of the two, or as the earlier of the two, and that is what we agreed on."

So it sounds like there was some top 10 protection built into it. Should be interesting to hear the full details whenever they become available.

DrFate
04-26-2009, 08:40 AM
Can someone get a conclusive answer to this?

Drek
04-26-2009, 08:52 AM
Can someone get a conclusive answer to this?

I don't think one has been given. We'll have to wait until after the draft to know for sure.

bpc
04-26-2009, 09:18 AM
Alphonso Smith has value. Not top 10 2010 draft value but he's a player. I think he can make an impact on 3rd down.

Look at the cost though, Colt McCoy, Sam Bradford, Jevan Snead, hell even Tim Tebow, impact play makers like Taylor Mays, Sergio Kindle or Mt. Cody. Pretty steep price to pay.

Garcia Bronco
04-27-2009, 02:27 PM
bump

Beantown Bronco
04-27-2009, 02:34 PM
Can't believe all the crap I took just a few weeks ago when I said Bowlen was stingy and had been living off his "throw money around at whatever Mike needed" rep from several years ago.