There’s been plenty of "talk" on BBI that the Giants might take JJ McCarthy (or whomever they see as QB-4) at 6. And while most agree that drafting QB-4 at 6 might be a bit of a reach, trading down does not guarantee that the Giants will land the QB they covet.
Meanwhile there’s speculation in Chicago that the Bears want either Nabors or Odunze to pair with Caleb and fear that both will be gone when they pick at 9. So, here’s my plan that allows both teams to get what they want.
Rather than over drafting QB-4 at 6, the Giants should reach out to Chicago to let them know that they (the Giants) will draft Nabors on the Bears’ behalf, and then if the Giants choice for QB-4 is still available at 9, they will flip Nabors to Chicago for picks 9, 75 and 111… which is equal value according to the chart.
If the Giants choice for QB-4 is NOT available when the Bears pick at 9, they can keep Nabors and go to whatever their plan B is to secure a QB in the draft… such as using some combination of picks 39, 47, 70 and 108 to trade back into late RD-1 to choose Nix or Penix or drafting Rattler in RD-2.
The Bears could increase the chances of this plan working (and restock their total number of picks) by trading Fields to Atlanta for a 2 and a 4.
This may sound like a crazy plan, but it’s better than simply over drafting QB-4 at 6.
Thoughts?
???
That's how we acquired Eli Manning.
Also whose to say it's our QB4? Just because 3 QBs went ahead of him doesn't mean he was the Giants 4th rated QB.
Giants draft Nabors, Bears draft a QB, then they trade him (along with picks) to the Giants for the QB they drafted.
Who's to say when the Giants and Bears discussed the plan. I could be wrong, but I don't think that trading picks made is against the rules.
If the Giants want your QB4, they are not risking losing him for 5 draft spots.
The Jones pick was bad at 6, and it would have been bad at 17. The problem was never the slot they drafted him at, it's the player he was, has been, and will continue to be.
Don't get cute. Get your guy
I wonder why teams do not shuffle/trade multiple players NBA style 2 and/or 3 team trades. At that point there isn't any $$$ ramifications.
Also whose to say it's our QB4? Just because 3 QBs went ahead of him doesn't mean he was the Giants 4th rated QB.
If the Giants' QB-3 is still there at pick 6, then they should stay put and pick him. I just don't believe all the chatter that Maye or Daniels will drop or that JJ will break the top 3 QB ranking.
Quote:
it is an interesting idea.
???
That's how we acquired Eli Manning.
I think the rules have since been changed. You can now trade a player that is under contract or a pick that has not been made, but you cannot trade the draft rights to a selected player until he signs.
Which means that, in the OP scenario, the Giants would have to sign Nabers, and then eat his signing bonus (dictated by the rookie wage scale) in full to trade him. The benefit, of course, is that the Bears would also be eating QB4's signing bonus in that trade, but as the lesser pick, it would be the lesser bonus. Both teams would acquire the fully guaranteed rookie contract that remains after signing bonus. This hypothetical trade could not be executed until after both players are signed, which means that both teams would be running the remainder of their draft from that point forward on faith that their handshake agreement won't crumble.
Functionally, it's similar to a franchise tag and trade situation: the player needs to sign the tender in order to be traded. The same underlying logic applies to unsigned draft picks now. That was not the case 20 years ago, but many things about the draft (and rookie wage scale) were different then.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 16404098 mfjmfj said:
Quote:
it is an interesting idea.
???
That's how we acquired Eli Manning.
I think the rules have since been changed. You can now trade a player that is under contract or a pick that has not been made, but you cannot trade the draft rights to a selected player until he signs.
Which means that, in the OP scenario, the Giants would have to sign Nabers, and then eat his signing bonus (dictated by the rookie wage scale) in full to trade him. The benefit, of course, is that the Bears would also be eating QB4's signing bonus in that trade, but as the lesser pick, it would be the lesser bonus. Both teams would acquire the fully guaranteed rookie contract that remains after signing bonus. This hypothetical trade could not be executed until after both players are signed, which means that both teams would be running the remainder of their draft from that point forward on faith that their handshake agreement won't crumble.
Quote:
The only players who are restricted from trade negotiations are the actual players drafted. Once a player is chosen in the draft, he can only sign with the team who drafted him. Until the contracts are signed, he is not technically an asset of the team, but only a potential asset. No other team may approach him until the following year’s draft.
Functionally, it's similar to a franchise tag and trade situation: the player needs to sign the tender in order to be traded. The same underlying logic applies to unsigned draft picks now. That was not the case 20 years ago, but many things about the draft (and rookie wage scale) were different then. Link - ( New Window )
Thanks. I didn't know that, probably because a trade hasn't happened like that since Eli.
Dumb change if true.
If it's against the rules, then I would be in favor of the Giants and Bears making this trade prior to the Giants' pick at 6.
It's a limited risk that pick 7 or 8 will be the QB the Giants covet... especially if the Bears traded Fields to Atlanta.
I just don't feel that drafting QB-4 at 6 is a good idea, whithout getting additional compensation.
Dumb change if true.
I don't have any opinion on the rule as far as whether it's smart or dumb, but I do think it makes sense for it to be consistent with the way franchise tag & trade scenarios would work. Both are instances where a team is exerting their control, unilaterally, over a player who has not yet bargained for their end of the agreement.
Quote:
If they changed the rule, I was not aware of that.
Dumb change if true.
I don't have any opinion on the rule as far as whether it's smart or dumb, but I do think it makes sense for it to be consistent with the way franchise tag & trade scenarios would work. Both are instances where a team is exerting their control, unilaterally, over a player who has not yet bargained for their end of the agreement.
NFL is not consistent about shit so that explanation from them means very little.
Being able to trade players AFTER you draft them on draft day would make draft day much more exciting.
But hey, the NFL has given us the red carpet fashion show and Roger Goodell hugs, so all is good!!!
Dumb change if true.
This rule was changed a while back. Not recently.
Who can forget the photo of Eli holding up his never-to-be-worn Charger's jersey, looking like he was making a hostage tape?
If it's against the rules, then I would be in favor of the Giants and Bears making this trade prior to the Giants' pick at 6.
It's a limited risk that pick 7 or 8 will be the QB the Giants covet... especially if the Bears traded Fields to Atlanta.
I just don't feel that drafting QB-4 at 6 is a good idea, whithout getting additional compensation.
"Limited risk"? You're assuming no one would jump up to 7 or 8 to take the QB, knowing that if the Giants traded back it was because they wanted someone other than the receivers. Not to mention the Falcons might do it. But the Vikings (11), Broncos (12), and Raiders (13) are all teams that would be interested in a QB. Heck, the Jets (10) might even be willing to hop up two spots for a mid to late third round pick (it cost the Eagles pick no. 82 in 2021. The only downside for the Jets is they don't have a second rounder) to grab Rodgers' replacement.
If you are sure about the QB, then don't take him at 9 either.
Who can forget the photo of Eli holding up his never-to-be-worn Charger's jersey, looking like he was making a hostage tape?
Which glovedone told us would happen.
It's pretty agonizing thing to do to the players too. It's arguably the biggest day of their professional lives and they've spent months preparing for where they will start the new lives.
Quote:
So, I can see why the NFL avoids it. Makes it hard to track as a fan.
It's pretty agonizing thing to do to the players too. It's arguably the biggest day of their professional lives and they've spent months preparing for where they will start the new lives.
I think the millions of dollars will comfort them.
It's pretty agonizing thing to do to the players too. It's arguably the biggest day of their professional lives and they've spent months preparing for where they will start the new lives.
I think the millions of dollars will comfort them.
Be that is it may, I still think it's likely the NFLPA that pushed this.
Manufacturing excitement with made for TV human drama moments of uncertainty seems right up Goodell's alley.
Isn't that the kind of shit you hate?
They would be trading for players who they hoped had fallen to them but they missed the boat.
It would make things much more interesting, and the players may not be as traumatized as you think. See Eli Manning.
I think if the league felt like it would generate excitement they would allow it. Goodell loves dramatizing everything. Goodell has made the draft into a reality show.
I was simply responding to your comment:
I was just surprised generating excitement during the draft is something you'd be in favor of.
To the OP, even if there wasn’t a rule against it, it’s a bad plan. 1st off how would Nabers feel knowing he was being used? It’s not a good way to start a 5 year relationship. 2nd Why risk losing the player you want? A top 10 pick is a top 10 pick. If you’re worried about drafting a guy 3 picks too early he’s not worth it. 3rd it’s a bad look for the franchise imo. The QB is the face of the franchise, we look foolish enough over the last 10 years. Stand up and have the balls to say he was your guy. One thing about Schoen that we have seen is that when he likes a player he does what it takes to get them. Whether you like the move or not, he gets the guys he wants. If they want the QB he is taking the QB and not letting the draft dictate who he gets.
Quote:
So, I can see why the NFL avoids it. Makes it hard to track as a fan.
It's pretty agonizing thing to do to the players too. It's arguably the biggest day of their professional lives and they've spent months preparing for where they will start the new lives.
I think the millions of dollars will comfort them.
Be that is it may, I still think it's likely the NFLPA that pushed this.
Manufacturing excitement with made for TV human drama moments of uncertainty seems right up Goodell's alley.
Isn't that the kind of shit you hate?
It’s like that feeling you get when we stop a team on 3rd and short…a brief moment of happiness followed by 20-seconds of dread waiting for a flag.
The draft is totally a reality show now. I can just picture Caleb Williams gets drafted number one and jubilation ensues. But wait, in a shocking turn, the phone rings and we go to commerical break. Cue up a shocked girlfriend in a prom dress and mom crying. Caleb's been traded!
To the OP, even if there wasn’t a rule against it, it’s a bad plan. 1st off how would Nabers feel knowing he was being used? It’s not a good way to start a 5 year relationship. 2nd Why risk losing the player you want? A top 10 pick is a top 10 pick. If you’re worried about drafting a guy 3 picks too early he’s not worth it. 3rd it’s a bad look for the franchise imo. The QB is the face of the franchise, we look foolish enough over the last 10 years. Stand up and have the balls to say he was your guy. One thing about Schoen that we have seen is that when he likes a player he does what it takes to get them. Whether you like the move or not, he gets the guys he wants. If they want the QB he is taking the QB and not letting the draft dictate who he gets.
Like some others, I wasn't aware of the rule.
To address your numbered objections (if there wasn't a rule against it):
1.) Not sure how Nabers could ever feel he was being used. If the trade didn't go through Nabers would be a Giant and he'd never know about the proposed trade that never happened. If the trade DID go through and he ended up in Chicago, then he goes to a team that wanted him badly enough to trade up for him.
2.) You risk losing the QB (if you're the Giants) because you value Nabers just as highly and you're willing to take a small, calculated risk that the QB will still be there at 9, in order to get more picks. (Remember in my scenario, Chicago has traded Fields to Atlanta. So a team would have to trade up to 7 or 8 and want the same QB as the Giants, in order for the Giants to miss out.)
3.) Bad look for the franchise? I doubt it. The trade would be viewed as a smart move by Schoen. Trade down to get more picks and still land the QB you want. Genius! (If Gettleman had moved down from 6 to 9 and still taken Jones he would have looked less foolish, not more.)
Again, it's all a moot point since my contingent trade scenario is no longer allowed. However, if Fields was traded to ATL and the Giants wanted to take a QB, AND the Bears offered a 1, 3 and a 5 in a straight trade, I'd risk it.
Lol, I can actually hear this right now.
Being able to trade players AFTER you draft them on draft day would make draft day much more exciting.
But hey, the NFL has given us the red carpet fashion show and Roger Goodell hugs, so all is good!!!
I think the NFL is remarkably consistent in their efforts to avoid antitrust filings in the name of a rare draft-day trade scenario.The actual use case for the OP hypothetical is way too uncommon to risk exposure on labor practices that fall outside their CBA protection. And rookies aren't union members until they sign, so having consistent policies with the franchise tag & trade has a larger value than a rounding error for Nielsen.