Proven Player vs Rookie

[BillsNYC]

I wanted to separate the Parrish thread as there are two discussions going on in it, including one about Peters trade value and its a little confusing, and both are great topics that are unrelated.

 

Tim Graham of ESPN stated in his chat yesterday that the Bills wouldn't get a first round pick in a trade for him, as there are likely 5 OTs that could be taken in the first round of the draft that teams could mold themselves. Also, Peters was undrafted and a converted TE which lowers his value. He's also disgruntled which hurts his value.

 

I don't know if the Bills could get a first rounder or not, but want to discuss the opinion of what's more valuable, a first round talent or a proven talent as Mr. Graham brought up an interesting argument.

 

Peters was an undrafted TE that was converted to RT then LT and we can probably say is a top 5 LT in the league when motivated. He is a two time Pro Bowler, probably only deserving it the first time. He also just turned 27 and is entering his prime and has only been playing the position for 3 years so there is more potential there.

 

Question is, if you had a late first round pick would you take the 50/50 chance on a rookie and pay him big $, or would you rather use that pick on a proven player?

 

When is a first round pick better to use on a proven player, and better to draft somebody? This isn't just about Peters, its a league wide question. Tom Brady was a late round pick, should that affect his trade value? Is he worth less than Peyton Manning taken first overall?

 

Mr. Graham already viewed his opinion, so don't expect him to post in this thread as he has his own thread for questions, this is purely for discussion among us fans.

 

This is his opinion stated in the Parrish thread:

"What I tried to express in my chat was that I don't personally think Peters is worth a first-round pick when a team can use that pick to draft a franchise tackle because a few exist in this year's draft just like they did in last year's. I don't see why a team would take on a tackle who's coming off a shaky season when they can grab a younger player they can mold. Peters wants the type of money No. 1 overall pick Jake Long got, so why not just draft one yourself and pay him less? And, believe it or not, teams will look at where a player was drafted when considering trades. Even though Peters is a two-time Pro Bowler, he was an undrafted, converted tight end. Trade partners aren't going to bend over backwards to reward the Bills and take a headache off their hands at the same time.

 

But it takes only one team to really, really want a player. Maybe the Bills will get a first-round pick for Peters, but he isn't worth it. And that's an opinion based on talking to people who happen to make trades and hammer out contracts for a living."

[Quester74]

It's a ridiculous arguement.. much akin to the people on "Let's Make A Deal" who would take the "Mystery Box", as opposed to the great prize they were being offered, and could see.

 

A bird in the hand, is worth two in the bush, Mr. Graham.

[Glass To The Arson]

If he was top 5... I'd pay him

 

but he's not

 

hes bottom 5 :/

[BillsNYC]

If he was top 5... I'd pay him

 

but he's not

 

hes bottom 5 :/

 

But if you had, let's say the 25th pick in the draft and LT is your priority and the top prospects are gone...would you rather use your pick and spend the money on a 50/50 prospect or on a player of Peter's caliber?

 

Basically, do you give your millions to a potential bust or a young Pro Bowl LT that has top 5 potential when motivated?

[lets_go_bills]

Far too many 1st rounders bust or don't live up to expectations. It is my contention that a proven player has more value than a pick. However, I also firmly believe that you build a franchise through the draft, not free agency. When you draft a player you are drafting him because he is talented, fills a need, fits your system and, as you said, is a guy you can "mold" to be the type of player you want.

 

This is a highly debatable subject, that's for sure.

 

You never saw good players in or around their primes getting traded. Only in the past four years or so have you seen these types of guys get moved around, (Portis/Bailey comes to mind), but these trades are still few and far between. I think that shows that NFL teams believe that you build through the draft and that free agency pools are deep enough for you to fill any remainig holes in your roster.

 

So while I said that a proven player has more value than a pick, because you know what you're getting in the proven player, versus the relative unknown of a prospect, I still think that you must build a team through the draft to be successful.

 

Sorry if I sound contradictory, but it's such a double-edged sword.

[iinii]

But if you had, let's say the 25th pick in the draft and LT is your priority and the top prospects are gone...would you rather use your pick and spend the money on a 50/50 prospect or on a player of Peter's caliber?

 

Basically, do you give your millions to a potential bust or a young Pro Bowl LT that has top 5 potential when motivated?

when motivated seems to be the truth here. peters plays real well when he is motivated but when he isn't, well you know that story. he gave up more sacks than a rookie, a second year man and some teams. would you pay a man top dollar for average productivity or only working when he feels like it? Peters seems to have been bitten by the success bug and i fear he will never live up to the once blossoming potential he once possessed. Say what you want but Jason Peters has Bryan Cox in his ear and just wants the money now.

[BillsNYC]

when motivated seems to be the truth here. peters plays real well when he is motivated but when he isn't, well you know that story. he gave up more sacks than a rookie, a second year man and some teams. would you pay a man top dollar for average productivity or only working when he feels like it? Peters seems to have been bitten by the success bug and i fear he will never live up to the once blossoming potential he once possessed. Say what you want but Jason Peters has Bryan Cox in his ear and just wants the money now.

 

If you knew Peters would be motivated and at his best, would he be worth it?

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

Great topic, NYC. I think part of Mr. Graham's point though, is that a 1st round tackle comes far, far cheaper than Jason Peters does.

 

People are talking about Philly as a potential trade partner, so I'll use them as an example. Lets say Buffalo calls Philadelphia up and offers Peters for their 1st pick, 21st overall. Well, last year, the 21st overall pick was also an offensive tackle, Sam Baker to the Atlanta Falcons. Baker signed for 5 years, $13 million.

 

What about teams higher up in the 1st round? Well, Chicago took Chris Williams 14th overall last year, and signed him for 5 years, $12.73 million. After Jake Long, the second OT off the board was Ryan Clady at 12 to Denver; he signed for 6 years at $14.75 million, not even an average of $2.5 million annually. When you consider that Peters will likely command something in the neighborhood of $10-$11 million annually and about $30 million in guarantees, you can see why teams would rather pick from 4-5 first round talents at the position, and take their chances.

 

While it is true that some picks in the draft are getting ridiculous salaries, to the point where its a major problem and its throwing things out of whack, its mainly restricted to the top few picks. Even our Leodis McKelvin at #8 signed for 5 years, $19 million, hardly a bank-breaker, and nothing close to what Peters will get.

 

Personally, I agree with you that Peters is worth a 1st rounder. He's only 27, he's only played the position for a couple of years, and he's already showed he can play at a Pro Bowl level (while the incoming rooks haven't shown a thing). But I can understand the other side of the argument, and why finances might lead teams to take their chances with a premier draftee. And Tim has his ear to the ground, so if he says thats how teams are thinking, its probably the case.

 

It kinda sucks for us. We have a guy who, by all rights, we definitely ought to be able to get at least a 1st rounder for. As Tim said, it only takes one team to really want a player. Lets hope that, if we do decide to deal Peters, somebody out there decides to go for the proven commodity.

[atlbillsfan1975]

The point is really do you want to tie up that much money in Peters. And could it end up hampering you for years to come. Yes he has shown he CAN be great, but he has also shown he is a huge negative force. And what happens if you sign him to the mega deal he wants. Are you 100% positive he will play at the highest most motivated level? And if you are please tell me what you are basing that assumption on. And dont bring up other players. Just tell me what about Peters past shows you he will be a happy content camper and play out that contract w/o a peep.

Personally if you could get a first for him i would do it. There has been many more LT panning out lately then not. You could get a good to great LT with your 1st pick in the draft and then go after another impact player with your other first later. And the two salaries of those firsts would not equal Peters one that he wants now. Something about Peters is very unsettling to me. He seems to have money written all over him. Thats not a bad thing, but a guy who doesn't love the game, and like to compete, is very easy to become complascent once he has the money.

[BillsNYC]

Great topic, NYC. I think part of Mr. Graham's point though, is that a 1st round tackle comes far, far cheaper than Jason Peters does.

 

People are talking about Philly as a potential trade partner, so I'll use them as an example. Lets say Buffalo calls Philadelphia up and offers Peters for their 1st pick, 21st overall. Well, last year, the 21st overall pick was also an offensive tackle, Sam Baker to the Atlanta Falcons. Baker signed for 5 years, $13 million.

 

What about teams higher up in the 1st round? Well, Chicago took Chris Williams 14th overall last year, and signed him for 5 years, $12.73 million. After Jake Long, the second OT off the board was Ryan Clady at 12 to Denver; he signed for 6 years at $14.75 million, not even an average of $2.5 million annually. When you consider that Peters will likely command something in the neighborhood of $10-$11 million annually and about $30 million in guarantees, you can see why teams would rather pick from 4-5 first round talents at the position, and take their chances.

 

While it is true that some picks in the draft are getting ridiculous salaries, to the point where its a major problem and its throwing things out of whack, its mainly restricted to the top few picks. Even our Leodis McKelvin at #8 signed for 5 years, $19 million, hardly a bank-breaker, and nothing close to what Peters will get.

 

Personally, I agree with you that Peters is worth a 1st rounder. He's only 27, he's only played the position for a couple of years, and he's already showed he can play at a Pro Bowl level (while the incoming rooks haven't shown a thing). But I can understand the other side of the argument, and why finances might lead teams to take their chances with a premier draftee. And Tim has his ear to the ground, so if he says thats how teams are thinking, its probably the case.

 

It kinda sucks for us. We have a guy who, by all rights, we definitely ought to be able to get at least a 1st rounder for. As Tim said, it only takes one team to really want a player. Lets hope that, if we do decide to deal Peters, somebody out there decides to go for the proven commodity.

 

Totally agree with your entire post. I guess I would liken Peters to a TV, would you rather spend $800 on a no-name tv (late first round draft pick) and pray for the best, or would you spend $2,000 for a top of the line TV (Peters) you know will be a great product?

 

I guess the only thing I didn't agree with was draft position selection affecting trade value, but that wasn't Tim's opinion, it was what he reported teams are looking at. As I said, would Peyton Manning be worth more on the trade block than Tom Brady? Both are elite QBs with Super Bowl rings, but should Brady's stock be less as he was a 6th round pick?

 

I don't think Peters being undrafted should affect his value, the guy is a rare elite tackle when he's at his best.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

I guess the only thing I didn't agree with was draft position selection affecting trade value, but that wasn't Tim's opinion, it was what he reported teams are looking at. As I said, would Peyton Manning be worth more on the trade block than Tom Brady? Both are elite QBs with Super Bowl rings, but should Brady's stock be less as he was a 6th round pick?

 

I don't think Peters being undrafted should affect his value, the guy is a rare elite tackle when he's at his best.

I completely agree on this point. It almost seems like a no-brainer, actually.

[atlbillsfan1975]

To use your analogy; if that T.V was so expensive it stoped you from being able to buy a nice comfortable couch to watch the T.V on, would you still do it?

And i am by no means being a smart ass. But i think you have to look at the longterm consequences/returns of doing the deal with Peters. If he had gone about this the right way. And played at a high level the last two years. And not held out. Then i would be right there with ya. But he hasn't and i am not.

[BillsNYC]

To use your analogy; if that T.V was so expensive it stoped you from being able to buy a nice comfortable couch to watch the T.V on, would you still do it?

And i am by no means being a smart ass. But i think you have to look at the longterm consequences/returns of doing the deal with Peters. If he had gone about this the right way. And played at a high level the last two years. And not held out. Then i would be right there with ya. But he hasn't and i am not.

 

Same here...he hasn't earned the Bills' trust.

[ExWNYer]

Totally agree with your entire post. I guess I would liken Peters to a TV, would you rather spend $800 on a no-name tv (late first round draft pick) and pray for the best, or would you spend $2,000 for a top of the line TV (Peters) you know will be a great product?

 

I guess the only thing I didn't agree with was draft position selection affecting trade value, but that wasn't Tim's opinion, it was what he reported teams are looking at. As I said, would Peyton Manning be worth more on the trade block than Tom Brady? Both are elite QBs with Super Bowl rings, but should Brady's stock be less as he was a 6th round pick?

 

I don't think Peters being undrafted should affect his value, the guy is a rare elite tackle when he's at his best.

Exactly. Well said, Bill. Another good example is Pat Williams. Just because he was undrafted, does he not deserve to be paid amongst the best DTs in the game? A player's draft slot should only affect his first contract. Beyond that, he should be paid based on performance. BTW, the league really needs to address these rookie contracts. The money these unproven, top of the draft players are receiving is ridiculous. It's extremely difficult for a team with a top 5 pick to trade out of those spots based on the money the crapshoots in those slots command.

[BillsVet]

I have a feeling Peters' demands are pricing him out of the trade market. IMO, teams do not want to devote 11M+ to a LT in this economy and NFL era. They'll take their chance on a rookie in the first round and pay that player much, much less.

 

Of course none of this really matters to Eugene Parker, primarily because he's there to get the most money for his client no matter which teams gives it. And I can guarantee he's telling Peters that there's a market for him at 11M+ per season. I don't think there is. Teams that have a need just aren't going to shell out that kind of money right now.

[BillsNYC]

I have a feeling Peters' demands are pricing him out of the trade market. IMO, teams do not want to devote 11M+ to a LT in this economy and NFL era. They'll take their chance on a rookie in the first round and pay that player much, much less.

 

Of course none of this really matters to Eugene Parker, primarily because he's there to get the most money for his client no matter which teams gives it. And I can guarantee he's telling Peters that there's a market for him at 11M+ per season. I don't think there is. Teams that have a need just aren't going to shell out that kind of money right now.

 

The only caveat is what if Peters is driving up the price to see if the Bills will pay, and if not will take less money elsewhere on a better team. Wouldn't be surprised if Parker's next move is to demand a trade to force Buffalo's hand.

[Rock'em Sock'em]

Would you rather have a 2 time pro-bowler LT, who is under contract for 2 more years, who fills a need on this team and who might be a distraction? Or would you rather have an unproven, yet to be developed 1st round prospect who you would have for 5 years or so. Tough choice, but I would not except a single late 1st round pick. If I was the Bills, I'd go with Peters for 2 years whilst trying to sign him long term at a rate that works for the team. Then tag and trade him for a 2nd or 3rd rounder - or keep him for a 3rd year.

[atlbillsfan1975]

He has already shown he will hold out. In theory your post sounds good but in reality it cant happen . Either you rework his deal or trade him. Those are the teams two options at this point.