Which is more costly: High 1st round pick bust or big FA signing bust? - The Orange Mane

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by chaz

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by azbroncfan

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthStndJunkie

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by 16slayer24

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaylore

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.

View Poll Results: Which is more costly: High 1st round pick bust or big FA signing bust?
High 1st round pick bust	40	81.63%
Big FA signing bust?	9	18.37%
Voters: 49. You may not vote on this poll

02-25-2010, 03:16 PM	#1
The MVPlaya Denver Broncos out with the old, IN WITH THE NEW Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 5,384	Which is more costly: High 1st round pick bust or big FA signing bust? 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

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-25-2010, 03:19 PM	#2
Doggcow Rebel Laughs At Unbelievers Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,338 Adopt-a-Bronco: Von Miller	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.

02-25-2010, 03:23 PM	#3
gtown Perennial Pro-bowler Hoya Saxa!! Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: DC Posts: 925 Adopt-a-Bronco: Juggernaut #46	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.

02-25-2010, 03:39 PM	#4
chaz highly touted recruit Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,456 Adopt-a-Bronco: Mr. Bruton	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.

02-25-2010, 03:40 PM	#5
BroncosSouth Just Drafted Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 9 Adopt-a-Bronco: None	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.

02-25-2010, 04:19 PM	#6
BroncoMan4ever Ring of Famer Here to chew bubblegum and kick ass Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 11,666 Adopt-a-Bronco: VIRGIL GREEN!!!	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.

02-25-2010, 06:01 PM	#8
Jesterhole Ring of Famer Ridin' the McFailboat... Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 2,041	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.

02-25-2010, 11:26 PM	#9
Kaylore 6-37, Raider fans. Yummy birds and snow! Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Ceti Alpha V Posts: 41,306 Adopt-a-Bronco: Wesley Duke	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.

02-25-2010, 11:34 PM	#10
SouthStndJunkie Ring of Famer Shannon Says: Listen to The Junkman Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 15,349	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.

02-26-2010, 12:20 AM	#13
The MVPlaya Denver Broncos out with the old, IN WITH THE NEW Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 5,384	Just FYI - I think you should also factor in that they are saying "big" FA signing bust not just ANY FA...

02-26-2010, 01:17 AM	#14
16slayer24 Solid Starter Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 126	jake plummer stud cutler bust gaffney played well lelie bust

02-26-2010, 01:19 AM	#15
16slayer24 Solid Starter Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 126	and ed macaffery and gary zimmerman and stinky

02-26-2010, 08:27 AM	#17
Cool Breeze Ring of Famer Broncos Rock! Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: south of town Posts: 1,221	Dale Carter and that DT who broke his hand at IHOP

02-26-2010, 10:32 AM	#18
DawnBTVS Laugh This Off... Puddin' Rookie Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Sudbury, MA Posts: 88 Adopt-a-Bronco: David Bruton	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".