Bloomberg.com Pans Jets Draft … From a Pure Economic Standpoint
Bloomberg.com (not always known for their sports coverage) takes a look at the NFL draft, and uses an economic model called the Thaler-Massey Model to look at how teams did in the draft. According to the analysis by Kevin Hassett, the Jets didn’t do all that well.
The Jets made a classic error, falling in love with University of Southern California quarterback Mark Sanchez and virtually guaranteeing they will have a large number of undrafted scrubs on their roster. Given the high salaries at the top of the draft, Sanchez will probably not generate much value above that demanded by his salary, even if he becomes a superstar.
This was one of the points of my disappointment on Saturday. Rather than taking advantage of the number of picks they did have and improve the team in multiple areas, it was the “all in one basket” philosophy that made me frustrated. Still no one’s complaining (at least too loudly) that Eli Manning is the QB of the Giants and the G-men gave up quite a bit to get him.
We’ll have to see how it all plays out over time, but I do think that there’s reason to be very excited, and reason to be very concerned.
Thanks to AL for sending this on …
did we give up too much if we are trying to win the whole thing now as in this year–yes
since the odds are stacked to the above…
did we give up too much to secure a potential franchise qb to put us on a winning program for years to come–no
The Jets needed depth on both lines and help at receiver. If they stayed at 17 they could have drafted Maclin in the first Greene in the second and kept all of their day 2 selections.
With that said I think there is reason to be optimistic about Sanchez and can’t blame the Jets for making the move.
Quickly read through the article and although there’s some ok points made, I don’t think the guy really knows what he’s talking about. I like how he cites the Bengals as a success – they had one big year and have otherwise been a trainwreck. He also points out how he successfully picked New England as a loser last season, but last time I checked that was just the 2nd time an 11 win team didn’t make the playoffs, if they were in the AFC West they’d be fine. Basically, he’s right about how it’s a good idea to get players in later rounds as you have more cap space and picks to fill more holes, but things don’t always work that way.
Did we give up too much to not have to hear, “yeah, but they didn’t address their biggest need, QB” after EVERY signing or draft pick we make for the next 10 years?
Did we give up too much to NOT be linked to any QB dead or alive that MAY be available or become available in the next 10 years?
Answer to both questions? NO!
If Sanchez becomes a “superstar” then he will by far outperform whatever money we pay him. You cannot value QB’s and any other position equally. its the most important position in all of sports.
If you have a chance to grab an “elite” player, you do it. Would you rather have 2 quality starters or 1 elite player? I’ll take the elite player every single time and so would most GM’s.
The problem always with this type of “analysis” is that it removes the human element from the equation. There are things in sports that simply can’t be measured by numbers. By any type of “analysis”, the Chargers got the better of the deal for Eli Manning. Except for one fact. Eli got hot for 4 games and the Giants won the Superbowl and Eli was the MVP. In terms of numbers, Santanio Holmes was a mediocre pick. Marquis Colston certain looks better from any type of economic “analysis.” Again, except for one important fact. Last year Santanio Holmes made one of the great catches in NFL history and the Steelers won the Superbowl. If Mark Sanchez has a long and solid career but Brett Ratliff leads the Brown to a Superbowl victory, then it will have been a bad deal. Right now it’s not possible to make an assessment.
Tanny has been trading up and losing picks for the past few years to get players he covets. I dont mind the strategy but I dont think its feasable every single year. When is he going to trade back and accumulate some extra picks? To go from 6 picks this year and ending up with 3 is pretty weak. Clearly the Jets are not trying to be New England west anymore as their approach has almost always been trade down and accumulate extra picks. I hope the reason the trades were done this year is because it was a so-called “weak” draft. Essentially the jets gave up 6 players (3 draft picks, 3 current players) for 2 rookies. Just my opinion, I know most wont agree because they think Sanchez is a franchise QB but I personally havent sen that in him. I hope I am wrong.
If you take a look at next years situation and lets say there is a cap that is about 130 million, up 3 million from last year. We are still projected to be about 20 million dollars under the cap after the rookie pool and about five million in incentives. Our situation is not bad at all, we will also be able to clear 7 million off of our cap next offseason by releasing Thomas Jones. Alot of our contracts were front loaded and our cap situation is looking good, we can thank Mr T for that one. GO JETS!
Seems the Bloomberg guy is a bit of a tool. If he’s looking at it from an economic standpoint, shouldn’t he be pleased with the bumper crop of “undrafted scrubs” who are all low cost investments with potential for return far above our initial investment?
Granted the #17 pick would have had less initial outlay then Sanchez, but still would have cost as much as three or four of our UFAs.
Not to say I am completely thrilled with only having 3 picks in the draft, but we really didn’t give up that many picks to grab Sanchez.
I agree completely on the danger of drafting only 3 guys- coupled with 6 last year and 4 two years ago. But, they drafted 10 in 2006, and 7 are still on the roster. So, if Tanny gets a few extra picks next year, the long term effect shouldn’t be too harmful. This “9-10 wins one year 4-5 the next” thing that the Jets have been into this decade is getting a bit boring though.
I am not even the biggest Sanchez fan but this is total over analysis . we only had 5 picks anyway – why not package and move up .. and what it doesn’t value is we jumped 12 spots to get a guy they believe in !! What were we going to get at 17 ? I was actually all over trading down and I’m sure Mr T tried that route ..
and don’t undervalue FA: See Hampton on Pittsburgh – Defensive player of the year ??
Just to let everyone know the Thaler-Massey model is the one that says, and I’m only simplifying a little, that the higher draft picks in the first round are less valuable than those below it.
The model is, in my opinion, a little flawed in that it does not take the ability to make the choice you want into effect, and simply looks at which picks in the draft generate the “Best” players.
Even if you appreciate the model, as someone above said, the author does not even address that UDFA’s are the best “value” in the draft.
Figured I’d shed a little light on the model to help discussion.
Back to Work.
Why do they even bother to play the games if an “economic model” can tell me how great (or not great) my football team is…
The Eli comparison is apples to oranges. The Giants were stacked at most positions, especially the pass rush, where the Jets are as weak as anyone in football, and the O-line. The Giants, therefore, were in a good position to deal those future picks. The Jets are not.
Listen, Sanchez and Green may turn out great. But NFL championships are won in the trenches, and the Jets are extremely thin on both lines, especially the D. You can set a franchise back years by continually giving up picks, as the Jets do, and throwing all eggs in one basket. You’re exposing yourself too much to the boom/bust factor. The draft is too much of a crapshoot and smart teams get as many guys as they can to minimize risk.
Much as I hope Sanchez is the savior, I am weary of the Terry Bradway “panic” strategy on draft day (and don’t forget TB is still employed here). Whether it was the D-Rob fiasco in ‘03 (because Josh Evans was rumored to be suspended) or drafting a kicker in the 2nd round in ‘05 on the false assumption that Doug Brien was the one weak link on the team (where is Nugent now?), or this year thinking Favre left the cupboard bare at QB (by the way, only 3 years after we traded up to get Clemens!) giving up all those draft picks to go for one specific guy is a losing strategy in the long term, IMO.
Hey Bent check these numbers out, how could the Jets possibly fit their three picks in the 3.4 million dollar range when Sanchez is going to make 8 or 9 a year, this is where the rookie pool gets a little confusing?
Rookie pool allocations
Team Picks Pool
1. Lions 10 $8,074,992
2. Broncos 10 $7,117,871
3. Bengals 8 $6,636,324
4. Patriots 12 $6,032,711
5. Bills 8 $5,940,374
6. Rams 7 $5,925,441
7. Jaguars 9 $5,737,150
8. Chiefs 8 $5,538,247
9. Packers 8 $5,443,396
10. Seahawks 7 $5,192,801
11. Titans 11 $5,158,799
12. Raiders 7 $5,048,693
13. Browns 8 $4,928,948
14. Giants 9 $4,867,462
15. Dolphins 9 $4,820,998
16. Cowboys 12 $4,639,193
17. Texans 8 $4,603,346
18. Steelers 9 $4,284,902
19. Chargers 8 $4,200,683
20. Falcons 8 $4,126,197
21. 49ers 7 $4,107,801
22. Colts 8 $4,079,726
23. Eagles 8 $4,060,021
24. Cardinals 8 $3,976,197
25. Bears 9 $3,497,111
26. Redskins 6 $3,460,954
27. Jets 3 $3,429,442
28. Colts 6 $3,372,231
29. Bucs 6 $3,359,466
30. Panthers 7 $3,326,694
31. Vikings 5 $3,064,512
32. Saints 3 $2,802,342
Total 256 $150,755,025
Bernie, you make valid points that I generally agree with. If you look through my pre-draft posts, you’ll see that I was advocating that KC would be fine and that we should load up on OLs and DLs in the draft. Obviously, that’s not what happened. If you are going to go the high risk route then you better be right. Tanny entire tenure will now be defined by the success or failure of the “Sanchez Era.” Given the history of QB play in the NFL, that’s pretty risky. But I’m a Jet fan. I want them to win. Therefore, I hope Sanchez (and, by extension, Tanny) goes down as one of the greats. My fear now is that a couple of injuries along the OL or DL will put us in a world of hurt. 2007 was not fun and I don’t want to repeat it. But hey, it’s April, it’s a time for optimision. We’ve got a new QB. Let’s enjoy the moment and hope it all works out.
It is possible. He will probably have a low salary in year one and at least half of his guaranteed money will be in the form of roster bonuses in year two (and maybe later years). The signing bonus will be spread over the life of the contract, so only a sixth of it will count against the cap in 2009 and so when coupled with the low salary, the cap number could be less than $3m and Greene and Slauson could be signed with the rest.
The rookie cap they got was lower than I expected though, so the Jets do have about $1.5m more cap room than I had estimated. They still couldn’t have afforded Chad Jackson or Torry Holt though and would only be able to get guys like Cutler, Boldin and Braylon if they didn’t seek a new deal (or if the new deal was structured in a similar way to the example above).
As a general comment though, I do think a lot of teams will struggle to get their rookies signed because of the different rules for incentives in 2009. Hopefully, the Jets aren’t one of them.
Jehuu Caulcrick
Kenwin Cummings
Mike Devito
Marques Douglas
Jay Feely
James Ihedigbo
Larry Izzo
Jim Leonhard
Brandon Moore
Marques Murrell
Tony Richardson
Bart Scott
Jason Trusnik
Robert Turner
Wallace Wright
That’s a list of noteable undrafted free agents currently on the jets roster. Maybe sometimes its not so bad to have these “undrafted scrubs” on the roster.
Bloomberg should know that the best way to get wealthy is to put your eggs on a single bet (a stock, a company, a potential star QB, whatever). On the other hand, the best way to preserve wealth is to spread the risk (stocks, bonds, funds, currencies, mid-round draft picks, etc) . So, since the Jets are not yet wealthy they have done the right thing in placing their draft pick eggs in the Sanchez basket. Its boom or bust. If it works out then the Jets can in future look to preserve the wealth by accumulating draft picks and shore up the rest of the roster.
The Colts sucked until they got Manning. The Giants did not compete for the super bowl until they had Manning. Belicheck was not a genius until he had Brady.
I understand that there are exceptions to this rule.
I don’t think anyone understood this article.
Let me explain it another way. The structure of the NFL makes it very difficult to maintain success.
One way to do that is maintain an “edge”
An edge is any statistically significant outcome in your favor over time. This is how professional traders, and professional gamblers make a living.
If you pay 1 dollar for an apple and it costs 1 dollar you didn’t get a deal. Even if it was the tastiest apple you ever had. If you paid 50 cents or 75 Cents than you are ahead of the game.
Buying players in the second and third rounds that play at a first round value is how you maintain success.
If you pay a guy in the first round a zillion dollars and he is great it doesn’t put you ahead of the game it just means you kept pace. Over time no one can keep pace.
I like the players that tannebaum got. But doing this strategy 3 years in a row a recipe for failure.
[...] thejetsblog.com. Please read the complete article and let us know what you think [...]
Well said, AL. The argument is that over time you are going to have the most efficient team possible by eschewing high picks and accumulating picks in the second round. Of course, sometimes a top pick is going to outperform even what a top pick should be–Peyton Manning comes to mind–and of the three top franchises this decade, all have pulled the trigger on at least one top five pick (Seymour to NE, McNabb to Philly, Peyton and Edgerrin James to Indy). But by in large, they keep their rosters deep and competitive by consistently weighing salary versus production in their team building strategies. Look no further than New England’s draft strategy this year if you want to see a team that has fully incorporated cost into their draft strategy.