LA Rams Strategy Begs Question: Are Draft Picks overvalued?

[klos63]

Just now, apuszczalowski said:

But that $80 million in space also requires them having to replace players whose contracts are up and fill holes. Everyone gets excited over cap space but no one accounts for the fact that having that kind of space also means you usually have a lot of holes to fill to replace guys whose contracts are up to creating that space.

I understand that. But you don't need to replace a lot of these players with $15m contracts.  People also get too worked up worrying about cap space. Like I've said, I'd love to be in the Rams position right now. A strong team making a big push to be able to win it all during the next few seasons.

[Luxy312]

10 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

I think it is indicative of a strategy change which is that the rookie pay scale means your best chance to win is with a young QB. 

 

1. You draft one in the 1st round and get him secured for 4 years cheap and the 5th year option at reasonable money.  

2. Then you give him his rookie year and in some cases if he needs it his second year (Goff needed year 2 to show he had it, Russell Wilson showed it by the end of year 1)

3. Then once you know you have a guy who is even top 10-15 in the league you push your chips into the middle of the table for years 3 and 4 of that rookie deal (and year 2 if like Russel Wilson you already know what you have). Load up on FAs with the money in those 3rd and 4th years. Get him protection and weapons and pass rushers and shut down corners.  

4. Then in year 5 pay him the option or make year 1 of the new long term deal only a small bump over what he would have got through the option. To do that you have to start to wean him off some of the support structure so you shed some of your older difference makers.  

5. By year 6 you now need that Quarterback to be good enough to not just contribute to you winning most weeks but to be THE reason you win most weeks and you shift the rest of your money to the other 4 "franchise positions" - LT, DE, WR1, CB1.  

6. From thereon in you are filling the rest of your roster by accumulating draft picks to get cheap talent and street / dust settles FAs.  

 

 

One thing that I would add to this as far as free agent moves are concerned.  For the FAs that you "load up" on your team, you try to get productive veterans on short term contracts (1-2 year deals) and productive younger players on longer term contracts (4-5 year deals) that are friendly later on.  This has the effect of freeing up capital as you move forward in years to keep doing the same thing while at the same time paying your draft picks.  If you cycle it right, there will always be capital to invest in free agency.  Beane right now, is cleaning up from bad contracts that Whaley entered into, facing $35m in dead cap just this year.  None the less, he appears to be doing exactly what I'm saying.  Veterans on shorter term deals and younger guys on longer.

[Jerome007]

It's not that picks are bad, but I'd trade picks for PROVEN starters anyday. It is a crapshoot with picks whether people want to admit or not. The allure of "new blood" seem to blind people to the reality that most draft picks do NOT become starters! But, when you do find a gem, it's worth it for sure. So I'd say Rams have the right approach, and so do the Browns and Bills. Not one better way, unless you picks turn bad that is....

 

 

Edit: and GunnerBill makes a great point  that picks have less impact on the salary cap and you can get them on the cheap. Still, the goal is to get producers, so proven starters are better... but do come with an higher price tag. Next year the Bills have room in the salary cap, so then it could make sense to trade their picks for players while this year it's the other way around.

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2018 by Jerome007

[dpberr]

The Rams are definitely trying out the "but....you can do it in Madden" approach to free agency this year.  

[Buffalo716]

I will say that I expect them to be in a world of cap hurt in about 3-4 years 

[Chicken Boo]

For a team like the Rams who still have their 3 key players (Goff, Gurley, Donald) on rookie deals and a good amount of cap room, it makes sense in the short term.

 

Long term, it cannot work.

[SoTier]

1 hour ago, MarkyMannn said:

a QB takes you to the Super Bowl.  A DT doesn't.  And AD is great too

 

Would you rather have Tre White or Deshaun Watson?

 

How many Super Bowls have the San Diego Chargers participated in since they drafted Phillip Rivers?  What about the Detroit Lions? 

 

I'd take Tre White because I know he's proven himself.  The history of the NFL is cluttered with all the flash-in-the-pan rookie QBs who looked good for part of a season.

 

1 hour ago, klos63 said:

If they win a super bowl before that happens, then the strategy worked. Cap will be up a lot in the next few seasons, rosters change all the time. As long as you don't sign someone and then get rid of them with lot's of dead space on the books, teams should be able to manage. If I'm a Ram's fan, I'm pumped for the next few seasons.

 

Isn't the cap dependent upon the amount of $$$ the NFL gets from its TV contracts, as per the last CBA?  There were numerous articles in 2017 about the networks taking significant losses on games because of lowered ratings.  That suggests that the television money may not increase significantly if at all in the next contract, and the cap won't be able to increase -- and might even decrease -- unless the CBA is changed.

[BmarvB]

They're going all in on winning right now, then dump the one year contract guys next season

[Rob's House]

I get OP's point, but I'm not sure what it has to do with begging the question. Perhaps it was stated as follows:

 

Draft picks are overvalued because teams assess them as having more value than they do.

[buffalostu2]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

Brandin Cooks is much better then any WR in this class IMO.  He is good value for the 23 pick.  And a 5th for Talib is a bargain

Cooks is on a one year deal for the 23rd pick in the draft.  That is not good value

[blacklabel]

I'd say no, they aren't over-valued. Especially if we're looking at the Rams as an example. They basically had Watkins as a rental for 2017. And they have quite a few of their star players due for new contracts soon. Not gonna be able to keep everyone. And if Goff continues to play well, he'll be in line for a monster deal. With draft picks, yeah, it may take some time before the player reaches his full potential but at least he's on the roster for 3-4 years on a team-friendly deal.

[klos63]

28 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

How many Super Bowls have the San Diego Chargers participated in since they drafted Phillip Rivers?  What about the Detroit Lions? 

 

I'd take Tre White because I know he's proven himself.  The history of the NFL is cluttered with all the flash-in-the-pan rookie QBs who looked good for part of a season.

 

 

Isn't the cap dependent upon the amount of $$$ the NFL gets from its TV contracts, as per the last CBA?  There were numerous articles in 2017 about the networks taking significant losses on games because of lowered ratings.  That suggests that the television money may not increase significantly if at all in the next contract, and the cap won't be able to increase -- and might even decrease -- unless the CBA is changed.

I doubt that will happen. Fox just signed a deal to broadcast TNF for about $700 million a year, the NFL was getting about $220 million a year with the old contract. Plus new revenue streams with Verizon signing to stream more games. I think the NFL will be fine for quite some time.

13 minutes ago, buffalostu2 said:

Cooks is on a one year deal for the 23rd pick in the draft.  That is not good value

I read that the Rams are trying to sign him to a long term deal.

[Mat68]

Draft picks overrated.  The best players on the team  Geoff, Gurley, Donald all top 10 picks of the franchise.  Sure FA can help and trade as well but the foundation of the LA Rams has been drafted by them.  

[klos63]

Keep in mind also, In a couple years the Rams will have a brand new stadium with high ticket prices. Having a top team will make those seats and  suites very desirable.

[Tyrod's friend]

15 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

I get OP's point, but I'm not sure what it has to do with begging the question. Perhaps it was stated as follows:

 

Draft picks are overvalued because teams assess them as having more value than they do.

Mmmm.

The Rams are pursuing a different strategy than anyone else in the draft it seems. They are not accumulating draft picks and instead are using them to acquire veteran talent. Most of the NFL it seems to me is selling veteran talent to acquire draft picks - the sellers (like the Bills, Patriots, presumably the Giants) are stockpiling. 

So to me, it begs the question of why are they going it alone? I've seen several posters are repeating (with cause) the idea that they are putting their chips to the center of the table. 

That doesn't seem enough of an answer to me. Sure, trying to win now. But their direction is a radical departure, they are absolutely denuding themselves of future talent flows. George Allen in the 60s and 70s was a radical departure as well. I'm wondering if they haven't seen a different inherent valuation of the picks themselves. And in particular they are doing this in a draft that seems for all the world to be chock full of talent. 

A sort of different Moneyball. 

And at any rate, it does get to the bottom line of your point: "teams assess them as having more value than they do". What is the value of a draft pick?
It just strikes me that the average fan and even the superior fan cannot answer this question, because no effort is made to put a dollar sign to the picks. 

So the Rams, by trading so many picks for veterans, seem to be putting into place some information and creating an arbitrage that we can't count. 

 

[Awwufelloff]

Rookie contracts are where the bargain is at in a cap space world.

[Rob's House]

1 minute ago, Tyrod's friend said:

Mmmm.

The Rams are pursuing a different strategy than anyone else in the draft it seems. They are not accumulating draft picks and instead are using them to acquire veteran talent. Most of the NFL it seems to me is selling veteran talent to acquire draft picks - the sellers (like the Bills, Patriots, presumably the Giants) are stockpiling. 

So to me, it begs the question of why are they going it alone? I've seen several posters are repeating (with cause) the idea that they are putting their chips to the center of the table. 

That doesn't seem enough of an answer to me. Sure, trying to win now. But their direction is a radical departure, they are absolutely denuding themselves of future talent flows. George Allen in the 60s and 70s was a radical departure as well. I'm wondering if they haven't seen a different inherent valuation of the picks themselves. And in particular they are doing this in a draft that seems for all the world to be chock full of talent. 

A sort of different Moneyball. 

And at any rate, it does get to the bottom line of your point: "teams assess them as having more value than they do". What is the value of a draft pick?
It just strikes me that the average fan and even the superior fan cannot answer this question, because no effort is made to put a dollar sign to the picks. 

So the Rams, by trading so many picks for veterans, seem to be putting into place some information and creating an arbitrage that we can't count. 

 

You raised an interesting point. I was just ribbing you about the common misuse of "begging the question." 

 

http://grammarist.com/rhetoric/begging-the-question-fallacy/

[Tyrod's friend]

14 minutes ago, klos63 said:

Keep in mind also, In a couple years the Rams will have a brand new stadium with high ticket prices. Having a top team will make those seats and  suites very desirable.

Indeed this could be part of the cost calculation. The NPV of a dollar and NFL talent takes on a different perspective. 

They haven't the timeline to let talent appreciate in value. Maybe I'm giving the NFL too much credit.

I've spoken to people inside baseball HQ - guys that do this sort of intense financial analysis of baseball moves. They are truly mathematical geniuses and they don't fool around; they are using different variables to assess risk and return of various inputs. I just have a hard time thinking that ownership - with access to Ivy League brilliance in their own businesses outside sport - wouldn't apply that sort of acumen within their fantasy world on Sundays.

[SinceThe70s]

Someone made this point in a thread last night and I thought it made sense. 

 

The Rams strategy may be to win now so they can sell season tickets and fill the new stadium when it's open in a few years.

[klos63]

7 minutes ago, SinceThe70s said:

Someone made this point in a thread last night and I thought it made sense. 

 

The Rams strategy may be to win now so they can sell season tickets and fill the new stadium when it's open in a few years.

I don't think that's the only reason they are trying to win it all, but it's an obvious boon for the franchise to win and field a strong team. Nobody want's an empty stadium.