PDA

View Full Version : Which is more costly: High 1st round pick bust or big FA signing bust?


The MVPlaya
02-25-2010, 03:16 PM
Jacked the ESPN poll.

I thought this was a pretty good question and to my surprised most people believe it's high 1st round pick bust.

I think it's a little vague to be honest - what is a "big" FA signing or what is a "high" 1st round pick.

What do you guys think

Doggcow
02-25-2010, 03:19 PM
It seems like bad 1st rounders can set organizations back many years. FA's don't really, because you know what you're buying for the most part.

gtown
02-25-2010, 03:23 PM
Definitely the high first round pick bust. First off, you have to pay an unproven player loads of $. Second, if they suck their first year, you keep telling yourself that one day they will put it all together and reach their potential. And third, if they do suck for the entirety of their rookie contract, you have all these people second-guessing the organization. We could of had player X instead of player Y three years ago.

With an FA bust, the team is at least paying someone who was has a track record of good play. If they don't live up to expectations, at least they can bring other intangibles to the team such as leadership and coaching to the younger players. They are probably more costly on a year on year basis, but you may be able to trade them to another team thinking that the player might still have something in the tank.

chaz
02-25-2010, 03:39 PM
draft picks are more valuable than the money. Every first round bust is a missed opportunity to grab a star player. Obviously this is inevitably going to happen, but still...

FAs are "frosting"...they put your team over the top but rarely make or break it. And big time FAs rarely bust...typically are proven commodities. At least much more so than a rookie.

BroncosSouth
02-25-2010, 03:40 PM
Both suck, but I think blowing a big FA signing is worse than a 1st round bust.

You have multiple chances a year through the draft to pick up an impact player, so if your 1st round turns out to be a bust you still could have picked up 3-4 solid starters through the draft. Whereas FA you may only sign 1-2 big names every other year.

When you are bringing in a big FA you usually are going to overpay since you have to outbid all the other teams so the value may not be as good as you first thought. So if his performance is sub-par you are stuck with the contract and you have a guy who you expected to take your team to the next level.

You may hit a few times in the draft to make up for your 1st round bust, but there is no fall back for a blown "big" FA signing.

Build through the draft supplement in FA.

BroncoMan4ever
02-25-2010, 04:19 PM
teams with high picks pin the franchise hopes on that guy with the hope that he will become the face of the franchise. it isn't necessarily the money that breaks down a franchise when a high 1st rounder busts, it is usually the hopes and dreams that were pinned on that guy that tend to demoralize a franchise and its fanbase.

with most FA unless you are getting a guy like Favre, someone meant to be the savior of that team, regardless of who you get you really aren't pinning as much on him as you do a 1st round pick.

a draft bust is much more costly than a FA bust.

azbroncfan
02-25-2010, 04:50 PM
draft picks are more valuable than the money. Every first round bust is a missed opportunity to grab a star player. Obviously this is inevitably going to happen, but still...

FAs are "frosting"...they put your team over the top but rarely make or break it. And big time FAs rarely bust...typically are proven commodities. At least much more so than a rookie.

I disagree with quite abit of the above. Rarely do big time FA's even come close to their contracts. Usually they have already started their slide and that is why their past team didn't resign them. I do agree they are the frosting to make a superbowl run. First round draft picks are a chance to grab a star player but they are severely overrated and prove to be bust more often than not. I think their real value is trading them down and acquiring more picks. I'll bet without even looking there are more all pro players that are not 1st round picks than that are.

Unless your talking top 6 picks or so FA's are usually more expensive because of bidding war but a bust up high will really set your franchise back since you sign the player to the top 3 contracts for his position.

Jesterhole
02-25-2010, 06:01 PM
Draft misses are far worse, not even close. In FA, you can take as many stabs as you want. You have a very limited set of draft picks, and you need to make them all, especially the top ones, count.

Kaylore
02-25-2010, 11:26 PM
Poor drafts reflect worse on an organization than bad free agents. Also people are more forgiving for free agent busts (to a degree) because at least those players have played in the NFL so they are something of a known commodity. Draft picks require more guesswork and therefore make you look really good when you get right and (ironically) much more stupid when you're wrong.

SouthStndJunkie
02-25-2010, 11:34 PM
Bombing on a high first round pick is more costly than bombing on a big free agent.

High first round draft picks are supposed to be the cornerstone of your franchise for a decade.

You can sign numerous free agents in any given year, but high draft picks are limited in number.

chaz
02-25-2010, 11:46 PM
I disagree with quite abit of the above. Rarely do big time FA's even come close to their contracts. Usually they have already started their slide and that is why their past team didn't resign them. I do agree they are the frosting to make a superbowl run. First round draft picks are a chance to grab a star player but they are severely overrated and prove to be bust more often than not. I think their real value is trading them down and acquiring more picks. I'll bet without even looking there are more all pro players that are not 1st round picks than that are.

Unless your talking top 6 picks or so FA's are usually more expensive because of bidding war but a bust up high will really set your franchise back since you sign the player to the top 3 contracts for his position.

Everything I said was meant to be in comparison between first round picks and free agents. Thus, I'd say more free agents live up to their contracts than first round picks. You seemed to state that you disagreed and then digress from that into actually agreeing with me for different reasons.

No one mentioned trading back. First round pick busting vs. free agent busting.

And more all pros outside of the first round than in it? Really? I bet only about 10-15% of players currently in the league were drafted in the first round...so 50% of all pros is a lot to ask.

NFLBRONCO
02-25-2010, 11:51 PM
Bombing on a high first round pick is more costly than bombing on a big free agent.

High first round draft picks are supposed to be the cornerstone of your franchise for a decade.

You can sign numerous free agents in any given year, but high draft picks are limited in number.

Yep my thoughts exactly

The MVPlaya
02-26-2010, 12:20 AM
Just FYI - I think you should also factor in that they are saying "big" FA signing bust not just ANY FA...

16slayer24
02-26-2010, 01:17 AM
jake plummer stud cutler bust gaffney played well lelie bust

16slayer24
02-26-2010, 01:19 AM
and ed macaffery and gary zimmerman and stinky

Kaylore
02-26-2010, 07:50 AM
and ed macaffery and gary zimmerman and stinky

Niko Koutovides, Ihop, Browncos, Jed Weaver, Travis Henry.

Cool Breeze
02-26-2010, 08:27 AM
Dale Carter and that DT who broke his hand at IHOP

DawnBTVS
02-26-2010, 10:32 AM
I'm gonna say a 1st round pick. Generally those 1st rounders are drafted at key need positions (QB especially). You've now wasted millions usually (sometimes a ton guaranteed regardless of their failure/success) and very rarely does the franchise come back from that mistake.

People also seem to forget that if a high 1st round rookie struggles in the first season, teams are very rarely going to waste another 1st or 2nd round pick at the exact same position to fix the issue. At best they'll grab a guy in the 3rd or 4th round, much cheaper with potentially less of a ceiling, and hope he can be groomed. So now as a GM you're wasting money on a potential bust at a position that's still a need (which is why Player A got drafted in the first place) and basically crossing your fingers that if he continues to fail, you can luck out in another drafted player at the same position.

Nevermind the fact that the rookie likely starts due to the contract over a player who may be superior (See Rivers over Brees despite Brees' having 2 very good seasons in San Diego which SD got lucky with). Imagine if Rivers had busted and they let Brees walk. Now their franchise could've been set back for 2-3 more seasons while they decide, "Do we stick with Rivers despite struggling or draft a QB/sign a FA?" If they drafted another QB, now they're paying Player C a high contract with hopes that he doesn't bust.

The Detroit Lions basically went through this. They busted with Charles Rogers in 2003 and wasted another 1st on Roy Williams who was subpar. So they go with Mike Williams in 2005 (to replace the struggling Charles Rogers) and he busts hard as well. Finally they land Calvin Johnson in 2007. So they basically went from 2003-2006 (4 seasons) with 2 high contract busts as a key offensive position and 1 player who looked solid but eventually got sent out of town.

Whereas with a free agent bust, generally they're not paid as highly and as others have pointed out, what you see is what you get from them so you don't have to worry about any mental struggles as it's usually injuries/physical fall off (ala Adalius Thomas with the Patriots recently who's been injured and underperformed) that turn them into "busts".

BlaK-Argentina
02-26-2010, 10:35 AM
Niko Koutovides, Ihop, Browncos, Jed Weaver, Travis Henry.

I don't think the Browncos were bad. They contributed quite a bit in that 2005 season.

But yeah... the rest are just... wow.