Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501
It's not a terrible example. It is a perfect example.
The Chargers drafted Eli Manning knowing full well he had zero desire to play or sign for that team weeks before the draft. He was drafted by the Chargers only because they were unable to work out a deal with the Giants for regular draft compensation. Why? Because the Chargers were asking for reeruned draft chart compensation and the Giants thought those demands were absolutely outrageous (keep in mind... that Giants thought those demands were outrageous in spite of the fact that Eli Manning was a consensus #1 pick and as close to a surefire franchise QB as we've seen in 5-10 years).
So if the trade chart says that the trade to move up two spots for a close-to-surefire franchise QB is 200 points off value, what does that say about #1 picks who walk in with a lot less hype? I don't understand why people continue to rally around a draft chart that says that the Chargers got ripped off big time for the Eli Manning trade. The trade only happened because the Chargers were forced to move away from the draft chart because it was dealt with as a free agent swap, not a draft swap. I don't understand the logic--free agent trades are made by negotiating deals between two teams, and those trade values change every single year. Draft trades are made by a standard chart. Why?
|
Because they knew Manning wasn't going to play for SD under any circumstances, thus effectively eliminating any leverage to negotiate.
Again, Manning essentially orchestrated the entire process, not the "archaic" nature of the draft chart.