Who's worth more than two first round picks?

Phil Plantier

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Mar 7, 2002
2,679
I'm stunned that the Raiders got a team to pay two first round picks for Khalil Mack, but maybe that's just based on my limited football knowledge and my casual fan feeling that Mack is good-not-great.

It got me to thinking: if I were a GM, and someone offered me two first round picks for mu best players, when would I not take that deal?

I would trade any Pats player for two first round picks.

More than that, I would trade any AFC East player for two first round picks with one exception: Sam Darnold.

What say you? My guess is that there's no more than 20 players in the league that are worth more than two first round picks. Who's on your list?
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
9,210
Imagine how pissed we’d all be if the Pats traded Brady for Wynn and Michel going into this season.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Depends where the picks reasonably figure to fall. 28 to 32 is a completely different universe than 1 to 5.

Beyond that, the picks are only part of the freight. I’d have given the Pats 2019 and 2020 first rounders for Mack in a heartbeat. That’s easy — the Pats unlikely to recoup comparable value from those picks. The problem is the contract you have to give Mack.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,857
St. Louis, MO
And it’s going to be more. Rapaport speculating an additional pick and a player. And suspect one of the picks flipped for Earl Thomas.
 

Phil Plantier

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Mar 7, 2002
2,679
First, I'm as big a fan as anyone, but past results are not an indicator of future performance. There's no guarantee that in the 2020 draft the Pats pick is worse than 26.

Second, whatever the team is, giving up that much capital really hamstrings you if your plan doesn't work out.

The two trades of this magnitude that come to mind are the Herschel Walker trade and the Eric Dickerson trades. Neither of those worked out for the acquiring team. Maybe I'm forgetting some.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
42,063
Rotten Apple
Given the difficulty of finding a franchise QB, or potential franchise QB, I doubt the 49ers would trade JG for 2 1s.
Yup and that is why the Jimmy G trade was the worst transaction BB ever made.
Football trades are hard to properly evaluate, as mentioned upthread, injuries often scuttle every technically good decision.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,857
St. Louis, MO
First, I'm as big a fan as anyone, but past results are not an indicator of future performance. There's no guarantee that in the 2020 draft the Pats pick is worse than 26.

Second, whatever the team is, giving up that much capital really hamstrings you if your plan doesn't work out.

The two trades of this magnitude that come to mind are the Herschel Walker trade and the Eric Dickerson trades. Neither of those worked out for the acquiring team. Maybe I'm forgetting some.
True but both were RB’s who age out quickly.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
45,086
First, I'm as big a fan as anyone, but past results are not an indicator of future performance. There's no guarantee that in the 2020 draft the Pats pick is worse than 26.

Second, whatever the team is, giving up that much capital really hamstrings you if your plan doesn't work out.

The two trades of this magnitude that come to mind are the Herschel Walker trade and the Eric Dickerson trades. Neither of those worked out for the acquiring team. Maybe I'm forgetting some.
Eric Lindross.

And the principle holds.
 

Ale Xander

Lacks black ink
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
30,823
Wentz
Rodgers
Donald
Kuechly
Gurley
Goff
Ramsey
Rhodes
T Smith
D Lawrence
Cox

That's about it
 

Phil Plantier

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Mar 7, 2002
2,679
I'd add:

Beckham
Kamara
Julio Jones
Myles Garrett
Antonio Brown

Plus the first ten picks in last year's draft
 

page 2 protege

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
180
NYC
It should also be heavily caveated that this trade was made by the mccaskeys, they don't have a sterling track record in key hiring/decision making when it comes to the bears
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,245
NH
I honestly don't think any player is that isn't a quarterback unless they have an absolutely insane contract. Maybe Mack and Donald with more cost control.

The Bears didn't just trade two first round picks for him, they traded two first round picks and what is likely to be 22-25 mil annually of cap space.

I'd add:

Beckham
Kamara
Julio Jones
Myles Garrett
Antonio Brown

Plus the first ten picks in last year's draft
There's no chance Brown or OBJ are worth first round picks. These are guys making almost $20m per year. Maybe they could have been before their contracts
 

BuellMiller

lurker
Mar 25, 2015
332
I honestly don't think any player is that isn't a quarterback unless they have an absolutely insane contract. Maybe Mack and Donald with more cost control.

The Bears didn't just trade two first round picks for him, they traded two first round picks and what is likely to be 22-25 mil annually of cap space.



There's no chance Brown or OBJ are worth first round picks. These are guys making almost $20m per year. Maybe they could have been before their contracts
That depends on how much of their contracts have already been paid out as signing bonuses, right? If i'm reading it right, Brown got a 4 year extension at 17 million a year. But 19 million paid as a bonus would stay on the Steelers salary cap, so the acquiring team would get him at 12.25 million a year for 4 years. (likewise OBJ would be essentially at 14 million for 5 years for the acquiring team). Or am I understanding that wrong.
 

The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2006
6,125
SS Botany Bay
First, I'm as big a fan as anyone, but past results are not an indicator of future performance. There's no guarantee that in the 2020 draft the Pats pick is worse than 26.

Second, whatever the team is, giving up that much capital really hamstrings you if your plan doesn't work out.

The two trades of this magnitude that come to mind are the Herschel Walker trade and the Eric Dickerson trades. Neither of those worked out for the acquiring team. Maybe I'm forgetting some.
How about the Ricky Williams trade?
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,408
Portsmouth, NH
Yup and that is why the Jimmy G trade was the worst transaction BB ever made.
Football trades are hard to properly evaluate, as mentioned upthread, injuries often scuttle every technically good decision.
People still harping in this huh? Thought it was pretty much settled that half a season of JG as a backup that had played a game and a half had a limited market; and further that it wasn’t mathematically possible for them to theoretically franchise him to try to extort more out of another team? No, that’s not true again?
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,408
Portsmouth, NH
First, I'm as big a fan as anyone, but past results are not an indicator of future performance. There's no guarantee that in the 2020 draft the Pats pick is worse than 26.

Second, whatever the team is, giving up that much capital really hamstrings you if your plan doesn't work out.

The two trades of this magnitude that come to mind are the Herschel Walker trade and the Eric Dickerson trades. Neither of those worked out for the acquiring team. Maybe I'm forgetting some.
True, but I think it’s fought to compare those of the Ricky Williams deal to this. Both of those were far more capital and as someone else noted, they were for running backs, which were the height of over valued; they also require many more other moving parts (obviously an offensive line that can block, a vague semblance of a passing game, which the Colts, Saints and Vikings didn’t have) for the player to have an impact. If you traded let’s say Gurley to the Eagles he’d look much more worth it than if you traded him to say the Jets.

Mack, he has less reliance on his surrounding players and schemes (less, not none). He can still disrupt an offense on his own almost. And I think plenty of teams have shown you can swing and miss on a couple first round picks and be fine. Pats included, but there’s plenty of other examples, no hits every year. Someone noted that they also have to pay him. Yes, but if they have the cap space (and I’ll admit not knowing) to do so and structure it that they take a bit hit this year on the guarantees, why not? They have to spend that money one way or other.

I find it kind of weird that you note Darnold, but also talk about ‘past performance doesn’t guarantee future performance’. Darnold doesn’t even have past performance. And as a rookie, how is that trade different than the multiple times a year we see teams trade their own first plus another first to move up to get a guy they want?
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
23,753
Bill Belichick, age and all, is still worth more than two 1st round picks.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
11,356
Bill Belichick, age and all, is still worth more than two 1st round picks.
Given that the Pats gave up one first round pick to get him, and then were penalized two more #1s for no particular reason other than BB is too good, and he still brought them to eight going on nine Super Bowls, I would say you are correct.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
13,805
Pittsburgh, PA
Yup and that is why the Jimmy G trade was the worst transaction BB ever made.
What team* was going to pay more than a high 2nd + Hoyer, and when were they going to pay it?

What happens if BB had held out for more, and not gotten it by the trade deadline?

* And don't say Cleveland. Many reported offers were total speculation and we may never know what really happened there, but it ended with a Browns front-office change.
 
Last edited:

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,781
La Mancha.
When he scores a rushing touchdown in a Super Bowl blowout win against the Patriots this thread is going to seem silly.

edit: yes, sarcasm.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
What team* was going to pay more than a high 2nd + Hoyer, and when were they going to pay it?

What happens if BB had held out for more, and not gotten it by the trade deadline?

* And don't say Cleveland. Many reported offers were total speculation and we may never know what really happened there, but it ended with a Browns front-office change.
We’re not going to be able to evaluate this fairly until we’re aware of the constraints Belichick was operating under, and that we may never know.

So I’ll stipulate right now that if the Bears had not drafted Trubisky and offered the 49ers the same package — or even a better package — than they paid for Mack, the answer would have been “no”. But that does not mean Bill screwed up. For all we know, if it were up to him, he never would have moved JG. The trade of JB last year at this time, for a 4th round pick, was consistent with that possibility.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,408
Portsmouth, NH
We’re not going to be able to evaluate this fairly until we’re aware of the constraints Belichick was operating under, and that we may never know.

So I’ll stipulate right now that if the Bears had not drafted Trubisky and offered the 49ers the same package — or even a better package — than they paid for Mack, the answer would have been “no”. But that does not mean Bill screwed up. For all we know, if it were up to him, he never would have moved JG. The trade of JB last year at this time, for a 4th round pick, was consistent with that possibility.
If you’d to presume that BB wanted to part ways with TB, that’s a possibility sure. Or assume JG would have agreed to sit the bench until. 12 hangs them up. Sure. But neither of those are at all defensible positions.

Otherwise, no. It’s been proven multiple times on this board by multiple people and by outside sources that the math didn’t work. Keeping him was. Not. An. Option.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
16,997
Mack would be on my list he's a top 5 defensive player to me. (also they added a 3rd and a future 6th for a 2nd and a future 5th so it's probably less than 2 1sts in total value).
Obviously it depends of the team, but generally if you have a roster that isn't bottom 5 i think I'd trade 2 1sts for the following (I've excluded this years picks).
Rodgers
Wilson
Wentz
Goff
Watson
Donald
Bosa
Mack
Garrett

I'd probably be willing to go a lot deeper if I was a likely playoff team. Also, QB should probably be a longer list including a bunch of guys who are dependable if not elite and have 3+ years left, but to me the list above is the no doubt guys.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
18,881
Newton
That makes him worth less than Myles Garrett or Jared Goff?

I mean I get it: two first round washouts can seriously harm a franchise in theory.

But this isn’t KG/Pierce at the end of the line. The guy just won MVP and has shown zero signs of slowing down. And he’s undoubtedly in better physical shape than Manning was when the Broncos signed him at 36 years old coming off major neck surgery (when he came in second in MVP voting before winning it the following year when he threw 55 TDs).

I’m not saying there isn’t risk. But the idea that it’s any more of a risk than dealing for one of those dudes is ridiculous. Just ask JJ Watt.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
John Lynch tried when Belichick said no to JG last spring. Brady may not have fetched two 1s, but it might have been close.

San Francisco would have been a special case. Tom grew up there, he has family there, it’s a great place to live, and the 49ers needed a spark.

Otherwise, you have to be right on the cusp for a deal like that to make sense. Who other than the Jaguars qualified?

(It’s not the Rams. McVay happy enough with Goff, and Goff’s contract is the reason they could empty the bank for all these other guys.)
 

jodyreeddudley78

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 22, 2007
1,834
orange county NY
I'd add:

Beckham
Kamara
Julio Jones
Myles Garrett
Antonio Brown

Plus the first ten picks in last year's draft
Everyone on that list, except maybe Garrett would be traded for two first round picks, especially if one of the the picks is a top ten pick.

Beckham because of new contract.

Kamara because he’s a an RB, and while he seems amazing, we don’t even exactly know if what he did last year is predictive or repeatable.

Julio and AB for basically the exact same reasons: age (29 and 30, and while WRs have a longer prime than other skill position players, they are coming to the end of their prime years) + contracts + both teams are addressing the position with young talent (James Washington and Calvin Ridley).
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
16,997
That makes him worth less than Myles Garrett or Jared Goff?

I mean I get it: two first round washouts can seriously harm a franchise in theory.

But this isn’t KG/Pierce at the end of the line. The guy just won MVP and has shown zero signs of slowing down. And he’s undoubtedly in better physical shape than Manning was when the Broncos signed him at 36 years old coming off major neck surgery (when he came in second in MVP voting before winning it the following year when he threw 55 TDs).

I’m not saying there isn’t risk. But the idea that it’s any more of a risk than dealing for one of those dudes is ridiculous. Just ask JJ Watt.
I alluded to it in my post, but it isn't for every team. Goff and Garrett are on cheap rookie deals for multiple years, and having a good starting QB or a stud pass rusher on a rookie deal is one of the best building blocks in the league, any team can benefit from having them as it opens up a wealth or roster options, and it lets you keep them long term since top pass rushers and QBs rarely hit the market with the tag looming.

Brady is worth it for some teams, but others couldn't build around him quick enough to make sense as the window is what... 2 years? He's in unprecedented territory, sure he looked great last year, and is in great shape for 41, but the cliff comes hard in professional sports. Having him take up a bunch of cap space and fall off a cliff or retire is much more crippling than regression from a guy who takes up a small cap hit.
 

Michelle34B

lurker
Aug 2, 2006
264
The Raiders needed the 5th overall pick to draft Mack, so the chances of the Bears having a chance at drafting the "Next Khalil Mack" is close to being a myth. I think this trade from the Raiders' side is more telling of their roster evaluation, rather than the value they could get in trading Khalil Mack. The Bears' side, they already went out and got the QB they wanted. Now they can add one of the premiere pass rushers in the NFL to a LB corps with ridiculous speed while Trubisky hopefully figures it out.

True, but I think it’s fought to compare those of the Ricky Williams deal to this. Both of those were far more capital and as someone else noted, they were for running backs, which were the height of over valued; they also require many more other moving parts (obviously an offensive line that can block, a vague semblance of a passing game, which the Colts, Saints and Vikings didn’t have) for the player to have an impact. If you traded let’s say Gurley to the Eagles he’d look much more worth it than if you traded him to say the Jets.

Mack, he has less reliance on his surrounding players and schemes (less, not none). He can still disrupt an offense on his own almost. And I think plenty of teams have shown you can swing and miss on a couple first round picks and be fine. Pats included, but there’s plenty of other examples, no hits every year. Someone noted that they also have to pay him. Yes, but if they have the cap space (and I’ll admit not knowing) to do so and structure it that they take a bit hit this year on the guarantees, why not? They have to spend that money one way or other.

I find it kind of weird that you note Darnold, but also talk about ‘past performance doesn’t guarantee future performance’. Darnold doesn’t even have past performance. And as a rookie, how is that trade different than the multiple times a year we see teams trade their own first plus another first to move up to get a guy they want?
Great points about running backs and positional value to consider here.