RealGM

Given how much finances and the salary cap have altered teams' thinking about the draft over the past few years, I had the following idea (sure I am not the first):

Why not let teams choose their draft position based on today's worst-to-first ranking system? I mean, does having the first pick in the draft really provide the most help to a team like Detroit in a draft class like this year's? I am sure they would rather trade the pick (not very likely they are able to) or draft lower in order to get a good player AND have money to plug other holes.

For instance, the Lions look at the players available and say, "We want one of the top 3 tackles. We think that at minimum Crabtree and Curry and one of the QBs would go before all three are gone, so we'll take the sixth pick."

Imagine the drama as you wait to hear what pick your favorite team decided to take!




I also have a question for everyone:

What would happen if a team with say, the first pick, didn't turn their pick in when they were supposed to? Using the above example, say Detroit let the clock expire...allowed five other teams to go ahead and make their picks...and then turned in their card? I'm guessing both players (the 'new' first pick and Detriot's player) would try and negotiate for #1 money, but it sure would be interesting

Look at the 2003 draft when the Vikings had the seventh pick and didn't get their pick in. They missed out on Byron Leftwich and Jordan Gross. Finally with the ninth pick they drafted Kevin Williams. It was a long negotiating battle between the two considering the Vikings held the seventh pick and finally landed him with the ninth.

I understand what your saying, but your also running the risk another team could get their pick in first. Also I can't imagine the reputation you would have around the league.

It isn't that the holders of the top pick can't trade down, it's that they believe they don't receive adequate compensation. For example, in the Manning/Rivers trade, San Diego received the 2004 #4 overall, a 3rd rounder in 2004, a 1st in 2005 and a 5th in 2005. All that so New York could move up three spots.

But that's the kind of package a lot of teams ask for when they hold one of those top two picks. When they don't get that they don't move down. If they simply asked for a second rounder or maybe a third and a fourth, they could probably find a deal. But I don't think many GMs want to answer to fans and media when they start asking why they sacrificed talent to save money.

I think it might just be easier to impose rookie salaries on these ridiculous numbers some players are generated before taking a snap. That way, teams wouldn't want to trade down, they'll just stick to whoever.

Granted not every draft class is the same, but I bet that this year the Lions would trade the #1 for the #6 or #7 straight up.

This proposal is way to complicated and uneccessary. I agree on just setting a cap for the top picks.