Trading Champ Bailey

[WARHORSE]

Hes in the fifth year of a seven year contract. He will be 30 years old in June. If we sign him to another deal, he will most likely not see the end of it. That deal, will be HUGE, to say the least.

Champ Bailey has displayed everything we could ask in a player in being a consumate professional football player in this org. He has lead with example.

But this is not a franchise quarterback. A live arm can keep an aging QB in the pocket for years to come, as they learn through experience how to play from the pocket, and letting smarts keep them standing on two feet rather than mobility.

If we do not have a dominant pass rush, Champ will not be worth the investment. If we do, he can play a good number of years more productively.

That being said, if we dont have a dominant pass rush before we resign him, I would suggest we trade him. That probably means........this upcoming offseason.........2009.

We would then allow his contract to enter the final years......you know.....the years that they begin holding out in. Make no mistake about it.....Champ is about the money.

Though we arent Ziggy Wilf of the Vikings, they had to borrow the money to sign Jared Allen.


Im a Champ Bailey fan. I love his play. He plays the run, pass both with heart and pride. He is a future HOFer.

But its a business thats about winning first.

Do we trade Champ next year for a mega deal the likes of Jared Allen?

Or do we keep him?

Is it smart to put mega money in a player thats in his twilight?

I know he has a number of productive years left, but waiting until his skills start to diminish is plain stupid, cause NFL GMs arent dumb. (except Millen)

[Ziggy]

Warhorse, I think you make a good argument, but I doubt Shanahan will do it. it took him forever to find a great corner, and he had to give up a huge commodity to do it. That beind said.... I would.

I'll take a dominant pass rusher over a dominant corner any day of the week. Champ has been the best, most professional corner this organization has ever seen. The only one close was Louis Wright. Champ plays the pass well, the run well, and if Denver chose to, he would be a great return man. At the age of 32, I don't think you keep giving him top corner money, which is what it will take to keep him.

The only thing that I would like to see in a trade like that is a sure fire pro bowl caliber player in return. Forget the draft picks, if we are going to trade a hall of famer, we need to be sure that we are getting a stud player in return. I liked the original deal for Portis to bring Champ here. I actually thought it was a good trade for both teams, and would have been had Portis been able to stay healthy. As it is, I think Denver got the best of the deal.

Trade Champ? Count me in.

[claymore]

If we can get a Jared Allen deal,,,,,,, Then hell yeah trade him tomorrow. He is a HOF'er if he keeps it up though. And a good influence, and a guy to look up too. So it would need to really be something so good that we couldnt refuse.........

[r8rh8r]

I doubt that happens. Champ will probably restructure his deal next season for another 4-5 years. His brother is in town and he wants to be a Bronco. A rare specimen like him can play well into his 30's.

BTW the Jared Allen trade isn't a blueprint for good general management. The Chiefs could draft a defensive end in the first round 100 times and they'd be lucky to get a player as special as Allen. I see Peterson's reluctance to hang onto the kid given his string of DUI's, but really, if Allen wanted to stay in Kansas City I think they'd have made it happen.

Truth is, KC is out of money and feared they wouldn't have the cash to sign him and Allen didn't really want to play for them. You don't trade away a player like Allen to rebuild. You get a player like Allen to rebuild. The kid is only 26. Unless your rebuilding plan is half a decade, you don't let talent like that walk away. If they really wanted to embrace the rebuilding process, they should have traded Larry Johnson last year while he still had value.

The toughest and arguably most important positions to have franchise talent at on any football team are the following:

QB
LT
CB
DE

That Allen trade has set KC back at least a year if not more, in my opinion. Of course, they could hit draft gold, but the odds are aligned strongly against that happening. Time will tell...

[Mike]

I doubt that happens. Champ will probably restructure his deal next season for another 4-5 years. His brother is in town and he wants to be a Bronco. A rare specimen like him can play well into his 30's.

BTW the Jared Allen trade isn't a blueprint for good general management. The Chiefs could draft a defensive end in the first round 100 times and they'd be lucky to get a player as special as Allen. I see Peterson's reluctance to hang onto the kid given his string of DUI's, but really, if Allen wanted to stay in Kansas City I think they'd have made it happen.

Truth is, KC is out of money and feared they wouldn't have the cash to sign him and Allen didn't really want to play for them. You don't trade away a player like Allen to rebuild. You get a player like Allen to rebuild. The kid is only 26. Unless your rebuilding plan is half a decade, you don't let talent like that walk away. If they really wanted to embrace the rebuilding process, they should have traded Larry Johnson last year while he still had value.

Allen was on his way out. I don't think he would have re-signed next year because of his relationship with King Carl. Money certainly played a factor, byt I think it was mostly the Chefs felt they needed to get as much as they could now or get nothing next year. They weren't going anywhere with him this year anyway. I thought it was a solid move...how solid depends on what they do with the picks.

As to Champ...eh. It would have to be a really good offer to sell me on it. But it wouldn't be out of the question.

[BeefStew25]

I think this year Champ is going to quiet all this nonsense. He IS our defense.

[MOtorboat]

I think the Chiefs got lucky that someone actually paid them that high of a price for a guy who was going to probably be a free agent next season. I think they got very lucky, and I don't think teams are going to give up a No. 1, 2 and 3 for Champ at this stage. They won't because of exactly why War wants to trade him. Cornerbacks who have been physical early in their career don't last too long...and Champ is going to be 30...Allen is four years younger than Champ, and this was his first big contract...Champ's next contract will be his second big deal. I think it's very hard to say we could get what KC got for Jared Allen, if we traded Champ.

[r8rh8r]

Allen was on his way out. I don't think he would have re-signed next year because of his relationship with King Carl. Money certainly played a factor, byt I think it was mostly the Chefs felt they needed to get as much as they could now or get nothing next year. They weren't going anywhere with him this year anyway. I thought it was a solid move...how solid depends on what they do with the picks.

As to Champ...eh. It would have to be a really good offer to sell me on it. But it wouldn't be out of the question.

I'm not disagreeing that KC made the best move they could under the circumstances. I'm merely saying that their circumstance was a product of failed personnel management. Maybe it was more Allen than Peterson; either way, they are worse off without Allen, rebuilding or not. His contract is commensurate with his impact.

How nasty is Minnesota's defense going to be? 15 picks and 8 defensive touchdowns last year after a 27 pick season in 2006. Now they have an explosive end rusher on the best DL against the run in the NFL. Watch out. If Tarvares Jackson pulls his head out of his ass next year Minnesota could be in the super bowl.

[r8rh8r]

I think the Chiefs got lucky that someone actually paid them that high of a price for a guy who was going to probably be a free agent next season. I think they got very lucky, and I don't think teams are going to give up a No. 1, 2 and 3 for Champ at this stage. They won't because of exactly why War wants to trade him. Cornerbacks who have been physical early in their career don't last too long...and Champ is going to be 30...Allen is four years younger than Champ, and this was his first big contract...Champ's next contract will be his second big deal. I think it's very hard to say we could get what KC got for Jared Allen, if we traded Champ.

And as we all know, Shanahan makes his CB's play more physical than arguably any other team in the league. That's why I've said all along I wouldn't be opposed to drafting McKelvin if he drops to us at 12. Every year is a gamble that Bailey and Bly are going to stay healthy. Last year both played, but neither was healthy.

[Medford Bronco]

I think this year Champ is going to quiet all this nonsense. He IS our defense.

Agreed, he is our best defensive player and has been for 4 years.

I would never trade a future Hall of Fame cornerback still in his prime.

[Ziggy]

I'm not disagreeing that KC made the best move they could under the circumstances. I'm merely saying that their circumstance was a product of failed personnel management. Maybe it was more Allen than Peterson; either way, they are worse off without Allen, rebuilding or not. His contract is commensurate with his impact.

How nasty is Minnesota's defense going to be? 15 picks and 8 defensive touchdowns last year after a 27 pick season in 2006. Now they have an explosive end rusher on the best DL against the run in the NFL. Watch out. If Tarvares Jackson pulls his head out of his ass next year Minnesota could be in the super bowl.

Not to mention that they were #1 against the run the last 2 years. Now they have a pass rush too? Just plain nasty.

[MHCBill]

Play Champ at corner for another 2 or 3 years and then have him make the switch to free safety ala Rod Woodson.

Champ would be a GREAT free safety from age 33-35.

[lex]

I think we should trade him. We've just witnessed first hand how reliant the CBs are on the pass rush. Either the guys we drafted are going to get it done or they arent. Weve built our defense from back to front. If the dollars make sense, its a trade that makes sense. I like him too. The guy is tremendous but for how this team is built, we're kind of wasting his talent. And if were going to trade him its better to sooner than later.

[topscribe]

Yessir, that's the ticket. The pass rush has been weak, so let's decimate the defensive backfield, too.

Yessir, I think we've found the answer. :nod:

-----

[NightTrainLayne]

I think that there's too many variables to really answer for sure one way or the other.

I am from the camp that you shouldn't let any player hold you hostage, so there would certainly be circumstances arise where I would be happy for us to trade Champ.

That being said, at this point we couldn't get the value we need for him right now. In another year, who knows what other variables might have changed that we would need to take into account?

We just don't have enough information to make that decision now.

[Stargazer]

for a guy who was going to probably be a free agent next season.

A player of Allen's caliber doesn't just walk away via FA. The Chiefs were going to get compensated for him leaving the team.

[Stargazer]

I think Champ will eventually move to S.

[Mike]

A player of Allen's caliber doesn't just walk away via FA. The Chiefs were going to get compensated for him leaving the team.

:confused:

[underrated29]

I would only trade champ for 2 1sts or a probowl player and a 1st and a 3rd.

so as you can see, my stance would be NO!

He is a bronco and needs to retire as one. On top of that we will probably be draftig another CB to replace one of them in the next few years, so why not have the best in the business mentor said player.

[Davii]

When I think of the best players to ever don the Blue and Orange....

Champ's name is always right near the top, if not the top.

Champ is a special player, a definite superstar.

In terms of impact, there is no player on this team that has the impact on the game Champ does. He is not just a good or even a great corner, he is dominant, and he is the yard stick every other corner in the NFL is compared to, and will be compared to for decades to come.

Trading Champ would be lunacy, and I don't care what the terms of the trade are, Champ is a Bronco, should retire as such, should be in our ring of fame, and should have his bust in Canton as a Denver Bronco.

Hopefully that includes a couple rings before he retires.

[Benetto]

Champ is not going to be traded as long as Shanahan is Coach. He believes you can't win a championship without a shutdown backfield...He said it in Champ's signing day press conference..Shanny is usually a man who sticks to his guns..Unless they turn their backs on him.

Champ is here to stay..ESPECIALLY with the WR's and TE's we go up against in the AFCW.

Sounds kinda Homer and everything but, I also believe a CB like Champ helps Cutler get better...And become a better problem solver as a QB..He practices against Champ everyday..

[BOSSHOGG30]

Can we trade Bly instead? I mean really.... He isn't that much better than Foxworth and at least Foxworth can tackle. Foxworth also has potential to get better where I can't see Bly getting much better but only worse as he ages.

[DenBronx]

im on board if we could swing an allen type deal...other than that i dont think hes going anywhere because his brother is now in town

[JONtheBRONCO]

wow... wow... wow...

Lets trade Jay too while we're at it. We could get some sweet draft picks.

[topscribe]

Can we trade Bly instead? I mean really.... He isn't that much better than Foxworth and at least Foxworth can tackle. Foxworth also has potential to get better where I can't see Bly getting much better but only worse as he ages.

The Broncos have two playmakers on the team: Champ and Jay.

Get rid of Champ, then Jay can have that distinction all to himself.

What a deal!! :beer:

-----

[WARHORSE]

I doubt that happens. Champ will probably restructure his deal next season for another 4-5 years. His brother is in town and he wants to be a Bronco. A rare specimen like him can play well into his 30's.

BTW the Jared Allen trade isn't a blueprint for good general management. The Chiefs could draft a defensive end in the first round 100 times and they'd be lucky to get a player as special as Allen. I see Peterson's reluctance to hang onto the kid given his string of DUI's, but really, if Allen wanted to stay in Kansas City I think they'd have made it happen.

Truth is, KC is out of money and feared they wouldn't have the cash to sign him and Allen didn't really want to play for them. You don't trade away a player like Allen to rebuild. You get a player like Allen to rebuild. The kid is only 26. Unless your rebuilding plan is half a decade, you don't let talent like that walk away. If they really wanted to embrace the rebuilding process, they should have traded Larry Johnson last year while he still had value.

The toughest and arguably most important positions to have franchise talent at on any football team are the following:

QB
LT
CB
DE

That Allen trade has set KC back at least a year if not more, in my opinion. Of course, they could hit draft gold, but the odds are aligned strongly against that happening. Time will tell...


The only comparison to the Jared deal I was trying to view was the compensation. The Chefs dealt away a stud in his prime.........yes I agree....wrong move.

But without a pass rush, Champ will slowly, but surely, begin to lose his battles more and more. Champ is a dominant enough athlete to play into the later years IF we have a killer pass rush. Without it, his man up ability will be less effective with age.

I really hope we get a stud in this draft, and that Moss and Crowder and Thomas add to Doomsdays production in order to maximize CHamps skillset.

Champ with a pass rush...........what a dream.:rolleyes:

[WARHORSE]

I think this year Champ is going to quiet all this nonsense. He IS our defense.


With a pass rush........he will indeed be a force like hes never been before...........scary.

[WARHORSE]

The Broncos have two playmakers on the team: Champ and Jay.

Get rid of Champ, then Jay can have that distinction all to himself.

What a deal!! :beer:

-----

........and Brandon.

[broncosfanscott]

Champ is a stud and for anyone to even think of trading him is an idiot.

A pass rush will make him that much more dangerous.

[nevcraw]

I see Champ moving to safety eventually like Carnell Lake or Rod Woodson. If the Broncos are smart they will keep in on Blue and Orange until he hangs them at the ripe old age of 42.

[UnderArmour]

Hes in the fifth year of a seven year contract. He will be 30 years old in June. If we sign him to another deal, he will most likely not see the end of it. That deal, will be HUGE, to say the least.

Champ Bailey has displayed everything we could ask in a player in being a consumate professional football player in this org. He has lead with example.

But this is not a franchise quarterback. A live arm can keep an aging QB in the pocket for years to come, as they learn through experience how to play from the pocket, and letting smarts keep them standing on two feet rather than mobility.

If we do not have a dominant pass rush, Champ will not be worth the investment. If we do, he can play a good number of years more productively.

That being said, if we dont have a dominant pass rush before we resign him, I would suggest we trade him. That probably means........this upcoming offseason.........2009.

We would then allow his contract to enter the final years......you know.....the years that they begin holding out in. Make no mistake about it.....Champ is about the money.

Though we arent Ziggy Wilf of the Vikings, they had to borrow the money to sign Jared Allen.


Im a Champ Bailey fan. I love his play. He plays the run, pass both with heart and pride. He is a future HOFer.

But its a business thats about winning first.

Do we trade Champ next year for a mega deal the likes of Jared Allen?

Or do we keep him?

Is it smart to put mega money in a player thats in his twilight?

I know he has a number of productive years left, but waiting until his skills start to diminish is plain stupid, cause NFL GMs arent dumb. (except Millen)

Stop playing Madden.

[weazel]

I say trade Bly before Champ...

[D1g1tal j1m]

Simple answer is no.

[r8rh8r]

Vote Obama/Bailey '08!

[WARHORSE]

Stop playing Madden.


I kinda like playing Madden.

Im good at it.

[WARHORSE]

Simple answer is no.



Whats the complicated answer?:coffee:


I got time.:D:

[Retired_Member_001]

WARHORSE, you are a good poster in my opinion but what the hell were you thinking with this thread?

You want to trade Champ Bailey? Arguably the best cornerback to ever play? The leader of our defense (we have no other leaders since Al left)? I mean Champ Bailey makes up one half of our defense? The only way I would trade Champ Bailey is if I got half a defense in return.

Champ covers, playmakes, tackles, leads, provides experience and scares the other team in the process. How many guys in the league can do that to the level that Champ does it at?

Seriously, we shouldn't trade Champ unless we get a Madden type deal.

[lex]

Wow, all this boo hooing is a classic case of people saying a bird in the hand is worth more than one in the bush. The idea would be that we would improve the team. That would be the whole point...plus get something of value before there might be a decline in play. The problem is that its too hypothetical for most people. Without having a more distinct idea of who we would get with those picks, all people are able to see is that we're losing Champ Bailey.

[r8rh8r]

Wow, all this boo hooing is a classic case of people saying a bird in the hand is worth more than one in the bush. The idea would be that we would improve the team. That would be the whole point...plus get something of value before there might be a decline in play. The problem is that its too hypothetical for most people. Without having a more distinct idea of who we would get with those picks, all people are able to see is that we're losing Champ Bailey.

Everything I have is for sale. I'm not so emotionally attached to anything I own that I won't walk away from it. You want my watch? Sure. You want my car? That can be done. My house? Okay.

...for a price.

I'm not so emotionally attached to Champ Bailey that I wouldn't trade him. Champ is such a rare, special talent in so many tangible and intangible ways that he would be perhaps the hardest player to trade in the NFL. Draft picks entail a lot of risk. Champ is a sure thing. In economic terms, what is Champs certainty equivalent? That is, how much upside do you have to be offered to overcome the risk of just giving him away. The answer is "too much." Won't. Ever. Happen. Period.

The logic that Champ is wasted because Denver doesn't have a pass rush is contextually irrelevant. I'm not flaming the poster. I think this is a great thread. He's trying to apply the logic fallacy of trading Jared Allen (which was damage control by KC, not some fortuitous situation for them) to our own franchise player. The message is: its pure foolishness. You try and acquire players like Bailey to build a great team, not sell them for lottery tickets.

As an aside, how dumb are the Redskins? I wouldn't give them Dominique Foxworth for Clinton Portis at this point in his career. I was actually surprised to look down our draft sheet this season and see that we didn't have at least one of their first day picks. The beautiful thing is, it could still happen!

[topscribe]

Whats the complicated answer?:coffee:


I got time.:D:

Not only no, but hell no.

How's that? :coffee:

-----

[lex]

Everything I have is for sale. I'm not so emotionally attached to anything I own that I won't walk away from it. You want my watch? Sure. You want my car? That can be done. My house? Okay.

...for a price.

I'm not so emotionally attached to Champ Bailey that I wouldn't trade him. Champ is such a rare, special talent in so many tangible and intangible ways that he would be perhaps the hardest player to trade in the NFL. Draft picks entail a lot of risk. Champ is a sure thing. In economic terms, what is Champs certainty equivalent? That is, how much upside do you have to be offered to overcome the risk of just giving him away. The answer is "too much." Won't. Ever. Happen. Period.

I think the thread was more hypothetical in terms of what Denver should do and not asking people to predict what Denver will do.


The logic that Champ is wasted because Denver doesn't have a pass rush is contextually irrelevant. I'm not flaming the poster. I think this is a great thread. He's trying to apply the logic fallacy of trading Jared Allen (which was damage control by KC, not some fortuitous situation for them) to our own franchise player. The message is: its pure foolishness. You try and acquire players like Bailey to build a great team, not sell them for lottery tickets.

The fallacy with this argument is that scouting means nothing. A lot of people have little faith in our scouting...and Im not saying the dont have a good reason when you look at 2000-2004 but your argument is basically its a crap shoot which is to imply that scouting means nothing. I actually think the point that he is wasted is absolutely and completely relevant. It just goes to show that if you give QBs enough time, theyll find a player even with a Champ Bailey.

[topscribe]

Everything I have is for sale. I'm not so emotionally attached to anything I own that I won't walk away from it. You want my watch? Sure. You want my car? That can be done. My house? Okay.

...for a price.

I'm not so emotionally attached to Champ Bailey that I wouldn't trade him. Champ is such a rare, special talent in so many tangible and intangible ways that he would be perhaps the hardest player to trade in the NFL. Draft picks entail a lot of risk. Champ is a sure thing. In economic terms, what is Champs certainty equivalent? That is, how much upside do you have to be offered to overcome the risk of just giving him away. The answer is "too much." Won't. Ever. Happen. Period.

The logic that Champ is wasted because Denver doesn't have a pass rush is contextually irrelevant. I'm not flaming the poster. I think this is a great thread. He's trying to apply the logic fallacy of trading Jared Allen (which was damage control by KC, not some fortuitous situation for them) to our own franchise player. The message is: its pure foolishness. You try and acquire players like Bailey to build a great team, not sell them for lottery tickets.

As an aside, how dumb are the Redskins? I wouldn't give them Dominique Foxworth for Clinton Portis at this point in his career. I was actually surprised to look down our draft sheet this season and see that we didn't have at least one of their first day picks. The beautiful thing is, it could still happen!

Good analysis. By far the best post in the thread. :2thumbs:

-----

[r8rh8r]

I think the thread was more hypothetical in terms of what Denver should do and not asking people to predict what Denver will do.



The fallacy with this argument is that scouting means nothing. A lot of people have little faith in our scouting...and Im not saying the dont have a good reason when you look at 2000-2004 but your argument is basically its a crap shoot which is to imply that scouting means nothing. I actually think the point that he is wasted is absolutely and completely relevant. It just goes to show that if you give QBs enough time, theyll find a player even with a Champ Bailey.

I would agree with you that Bailey being "wasted" is noteworthy within some relevant range. Jason Taylor is in precisely that situation. Rebuilding, however, is a one to two-year process. It doesn't take 5 years, which is probably a conservative estimate of how much longer Champ will be in the league.

I have plenty of faith in scouting, but even the best scouting doesn't yield 100% great results. Think of it this way:

Probability that draft pick is a bust: X
Value if draft pick is a bust: 0

Probability that draft pick is an average player: Y
Value if draft pick is an average player: 50

Probability that draft pick is a franchise-quality impact player: Z
Value if draft pick is the above: 100

Expected value of draft pick = (0 + 50Y + 100Z)/3
Where X + Y + Z = 1

In Denver's case, we have 6 starters to show for our last 5 drafts. Even under the most favorable conditions, say San Deigo who drafted 14 starters and 6 pro bowlers over the same period, you still have to piss away a lot of picks to find great talents. Its hard to match Bailey's value with those odds.


Now this:

Probability that Champ Bailey is a hall of fame quality CB for 5 more years: 90%?

Probability that Champ is average after 2 more years: 5%?

Probability of career ending injury: 5%?

Champs value at hall of fame quality level: 120


If you are risk averse, you would want more than even value (even value is "risk neutral") for Champ to forgo the certainty that you already have a great player. If you are risk loving, well, then you shouldn't be a GM.

Edit: I forgot to mention that far less than 1% of all NFL starters ever make it to the hall of fame. When you consider the entire universe of drafted and undrafted players, the probability of drafting a hall of famer is so astronomically small that assigning value to them in that expected value equation above would have zero impact. Champ happens to be one of those players. You could use the best NFL scouts to draft 2 CB's in the next 50 drafts and you'd be extremely lucky to land a player as special as Champ. He's a once in a generation talent.

[Slick]

Play Champ at corner for another 2 or 3 years and then have him make the switch to free safety ala Rod Woodson.

Champ would be a GREAT free safety from age 33-35.

If Champ would go for this I completely agree. When we put Foxy at safety to fill in, I wondered to myself...wouldn't we be much better off with Foxy and Dre at corner and Champ being the guy to fill in at safety? I think his ball skills and his tackling would make him a more than adequate at the position.

[r8rh8r]

Good analysis. By far the best post in the thread. :2thumbs:

-----

Thanks!:D

[lex]

I would agree with you that Bailey being "wasted" is noteworthy within some relevant range. Jason Taylor is in precisely that situation. Rebuilding, however, is a one to two-year process. It doesn't take 5 years, which is probably a conservative estimate of how much longer Champ will be in the league.

I have plenty of faith in scouting, but even the best scouting doesn't yield 100% great results. Think of it this way:

Probability that draft pick is a bust: X
Value if draft pick is a bust: 0

Probability that draft pick is an average player: Y
Value if draft pick is an average player: 50

Probability that draft pick is a franchise-quality impact player: Z
Value if draft pick is the above: 100

Expected value of draft pick = (0 + 50Y + 100Z)/3
Where X + Y + Z = 1

In Denver's case, we have 6 starters to show for our last 5 drafts. Even under the most favorable conditions, say San Deigo who drafted 14 starters and 6 pro bowlers over the same period, you still have to piss away a lot of picks to find great talents. Its hard to match Bailey's value with those odds.


Now this:

Probability that Champ Bailey is a hall of fame quality CB for 5 more years: 90%?

Probability that Champ is average after 2 more years: 5%?

Probability of career ending injury: 5%?

Champs value at hall of fame quality level: 120


If you are risk averse, you would want more than even value (even value is "risk neutral") for Champ to forgo the certainty that you already have a great player. If you are risk loving, well, then you shouldn't be a GM.

Edit: I forgot to mention that far less than 1% of all NFL starters ever make it to the hall of fame. When you consider the entire universe of drafted and undrafted players, the probability of drafting a hall of famer is so astronomically small that assigning value to them in that expected value equation above would have zero impact. Champ happens to be one of those players. You could use the best NFL scouts to draft 2 CB's in the next 50 drafts and you'd be extremely lucky to land a player as special as Champ. He's a once in a generation talent.

All thats great. Its a valiant attempt to make it seem less subjective but the problem with your analysis is that 50= average player is an arbitrary assignment of value. Youre basically implying that a high impact player is twice as good as an average player and in doing so you weight your formula in such a way that its skewed. Like I said, it was a valiant attempt.

[Npba900]

Hes in the fifth year of a seven year contract. He will be 30 years old in June. If we sign him to another deal, he will most likely not see the end of it. That deal, will be HUGE, to say the least.

Champ Bailey has displayed everything we could ask in a player in being a consumate professional football player in this org. He has lead with example.

But this is not a franchise quarterback. A live arm can keep an aging QB in the pocket for years to come, as they learn through experience how to play from the pocket, and letting smarts keep them standing on two feet rather than mobility.

If we do not have a dominant pass rush, Champ will not be worth the investment. If we do, he can play a good number of years more productively.

That being said, if we dont have a dominant pass rush before we resign him, I would suggest we trade him. That probably means........this upcoming offseason.........2009.

We would then allow his contract to enter the final years......you know.....the years that they begin holding out in. Make no mistake about it.....Champ is about the money.

Though we arent Ziggy Wilf of the Vikings, they had to borrow the money to sign Jared Allen.


Im a Champ Bailey fan. I love his play. He plays the run, pass both with heart and pride. He is a future HOFer.

But its a business thats about winning first.

Do we trade Champ next year for a mega deal the likes of Jared Allen?

Or do we keep him?

Is it smart to put mega money in a player thats in his twilight?

I know he has a number of productive years left, but waiting until his skills start to diminish is plain stupid, cause NFL GMs arent dumb. (except Millen)

Dam Warhorse, that is one hard decision to make! Great post by-the-way. I for one would like to see Champ and Shanahan do a re-work of Champs last two remaining years and spread the payments out over and additional 4 years versus over the next two years. I think that arrangement is more than fair for both sides.

Speaking of contracts and signing bonuses, the NFL is seriously looking at caping how much rookies can be paid with they sign their first NFL Contract. Believing that rookies need to prove themselves the first 4 years in the league before getting the big mega contract. This will free up money for teams to sign the proven veterans or 5th year player who may have two or three pro bowl appearances and are ready to sign their own mega deal. I like that idea. The NBA uses this format and seems to be working really well.

[Italianmobstr7]

Champ shouldn't go anywhere. He needs to retire a Bronco, and if he gets the biggest contract for a CB in the league, well then GOOD because he deserves it. He's been a model player, and citizen since he's been in Denver, and we couldn't ask for more from him. If we give qb's one less second to throw this year, Champ will have another OUTSTANDING year this year, and for years to come.

[Ziggy]

Dam Warhorse, that is one hard decision to make! Great post by-the-way. I for one would like to see Champ and Shanahan do a re-work of Champs last two remaining years and spread the payments out over and additional 4 years versus over the next two years. I think that arrangement is more than fair for both sides.

Speaking of contracts and signing bonuses, the NFL is seriously looking at caping how much rookies can be paid with they sign their first NFL Contract. Believing that rookies need to prove themselves the first 4 years in the league before getting the big mega contract. This will free up money for teams to sign the proven veterans or 5th year player who may have two or three pro bowl appearances and are ready to sign their own mega deal. I like that idea. The NBA uses this format and seems to be working really well.

If Champ does stay, he is going to command top money again, which I have no problem with. He's still one of the top 2 corners, if not the top one in the nfl. His earnings have been surpassed by other corners with a lot less talent, and Champ continues to play what he agreed to without holding out for more. He has honored his contract, even though he probably deserves more by today's market for corners. It's actually quite refreshing.

I also like the idea of the NFL using a rookie salary structure similar to the NBA's. These contracts are completely getting out of hand. Teams with top picks that miss on that pick are seriously salary cap crippled for 4-6 years. Let the players that have proven that they deserve to be paid get paid, and let the rookies settle for just being mere millionaires for signing thier name to a sheet of paper.

[topscribe]

If Champ does stay, he is going to command top money again, which I have no problem with. He's still one of the top 2 corners, if not the top one in the nfl. His earnings have been surpassed by other corners with a lot less talent, and Champ continues to play what he agreed to without holding out for more. He has honored his contract, even though he probably deserves more by today's market for corners. It's actually quite refreshing.

I also like the idea of the NFL using a rookie salary structure similar to the NBA's. These contracts are completely getting out of hand. Teams with top picks that miss on that pick are seriously salary cap crippled for 4-6 years. Let the players that have proven that they deserve to be paid get paid, and let the rookies settle for just being mere millionaires for signing thier name to a sheet of paper.

Agreed down the line. In fact, Shanny said as much, regarding your second
paragraph, in his press conference today.

Regarding Champ, he is still by himself as the class of the league at his
position. He got burned a couple times last year, yes, but I cannot think of
one other CB who would not have been burned more than that with the
Broncos' anemic pass rush.

-----

[Ziggy]

Agreed down the line. In fact, Shanny said as much, regarding your second
paragraph, in his press conference today.
Regarding Champ, he is still by himself as the class of the league at his
position. He got burned a couple times last year, yes, but I cannot think of
one other CB who would not have been burned more than that with the
Broncos' anemic pass rush.

-----


I missed the press conference. Anything else said worth mentioning?

[topscribe]

I missed the press conference. Anything else said worth mentioning?

Mainly the same ol' same ol'. Balance need with best available player.
Depending on who's there. That kind of stuff. Nothing earh-shaking.

There was a humorous moment, though. The idiots in the press had asked
Shanny the same question about four times, when he finally turned to the last
one and said, "You guys are kind of like some of my players. You dont hear
what I say."

I had to laugh over that one. :laugh:

-----

[Magnificent Seven]

Champ Bailey is turning 30? SO WHAT? He is sooo freaking good! Darrell Green was in his 30's and he was awesome! Bailey could be the next "Ageless Wonder!"

[r8rh8r]

All thats great. Its a valiant attempt to make it seem less subjective but the problem with your analysis is that 50= average player is an arbitrary assignment of value. Youre basically implying that a high impact player is twice as good as an average player and in doing so you weight your formula in such a way that its skewed. Like I said, it was a valiant attempt.

Of course its arbitrary; its a heuristic example designed to prove a point. I never argued that this was some kind of predictive model. That's why is says "think of it this way," smart guy.

[WARHORSE]

WARHORSE, you are a good poster in my opinion but what the hell were you thinking with this thread?

You want to trade Champ Bailey? Arguably the best cornerback to ever play? The leader of our defense (we have no other leaders since Al left)? I mean Champ Bailey makes up one half of our defense? The only way I would trade Champ Bailey is if I got half a defense in return.

Champ covers, playmakes, tackles, leads, provides experience and scares the other team in the process. How many guys in the league can do that to the level that Champ does it at?

Seriously, we shouldn't trade Champ unless we get a Madden type deal.

Read the whole post my man. Im no more for losing an impact player than the next man. But I placed specific situations that would dictate this scenario. I didnt say, WE SHOULD TRADE CHAMP NOW.

I said alot of what you said above in essence. But Champ declining with age on a team without a pass rush may.......or may not depending on your opinion and who you get..............be someone you look to move while he still has value.

Jason Taylor is a very good example. For all that he did two years ago, what did it gain the Miami franchise?

Nothing. Now theyre gonna try and trade him, and a third or fourth is all you'll get in return..............if that.

[RunYouOver]

You raise a very interesting point, but I'd like to see us hold on to him.:beer:

[topscribe]

Read the whole post my man. Im no more for losing an impact player than the next man. But I placed specific situations that would dictate this scenario. I didnt say, WE SHOULD TRADE CHAMP NOW.

I said alot of what you said above in essence. But Champ declining with age on a team without a pass rush may.......or may not depending on your opinion and who you get..............be someone you look to move while he still has value.

Jason Taylor is a very good example. For all that he did two years ago, what did it gain the Miami franchise?

Nothing. Now theyre gonna try and trade him, and a third or fourth is all you'll get in return..............if that.

You're assuming the Broncos are going to remain without a pass rush, which I don't believe.

And Champ won't be declining for a while. Will he lose a half-step? Probably.
But, considering his full step was 4.29, he can afford to lose a half-step.
Moreover, as with all players (ala John Lynch), as they get older, they
become more skilled and cerebral. Sometimes an older, slower player is even
better than he was when he was younger and faster. Ty Law is a case in
point.

Champ is the best right now, and he will be among the best for a few years.
Elite CBs are about as common as foot-long cockroaches. The Broncos have
made some goofy moves in the past, that's for sure. But I find it hard to
believe they would be that stupid.

-----

[BANJOPICKER1]

Why oh why are we even thinking about this???Champ could play for 10 more years,who knows...With him on our D we have an edge..Lets leave it alone until he has a couple nasty bad years..Right now,,:defense::D
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BRONCOS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[lex]

Of course its arbitrary; its a heuristic example designed to prove a point. I never argued that this was some kind of predictive model. That's why is says "think of it this way," smart guy.

But I dont think of it that way. Youre rule of thumb holds little meaning since I dont weight it that way.

Another flaw is that your assessment is based on what Champ has done when the players or player we were to get out of it, while not great, could provide a more sustained level of service for a greater period of time than would Champ, who is sneaking up on 30. Your heuristic is based on a snapshot...but what about that snap shot in 3 years? And like I just said, it could result in 2 or more solid players as opposed to 1:1.

[r8rh8r]

But I dont think of it that way. Youre rule of thumb holds little meaning since I dont weight it that way.

Another flaw is that your assessment is based on what Champ has done when the players or player we were to get out of it, while not great, could provide a more sustained level of service for a greater period of time than would Champ, who is sneaking up on 30. Your heuristic is based on a snapshot...but what about that snap shot in 3 years? And like I just said, it could result in 2 or more solid players as opposed to 1:1.

The "could" part of that statement is some implied probability. The actual probability of drafting a 3-time pro bowler (based on a census of all players drafted the last 30 years) in round 1 is about 15% for all positions. Depending on which positions you take, this can be as high as 23% or as low as 11%. Let's assume the following:

You only take positions with a 23% chance of getting a 3-time pro bowler in round 1 (that position would be QB, which Denver doesn't need for a while but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here). Also note that there is an independence problem in this example because you have a better chance of getting a pro bowler with the 5th overall pick than the 30th. Assuming a team gives you the 5th overall pick, you cannot get the same pick again unless it is in a successive year (which adds a present value dimension to the analysis, further diminishing the expected value of the pick). Also, very few teams have access to the equivalent of two first round picks to trade. Far fewer have access to three. So even if it were a good deal, you'd be fortunate to find a suitor with all the needed picks. But giving you all of these fortuitous credits, lets see how it shakes out.

Here is the joint probability of selecting a pro bowler given that you receive one or many first round picks as compensation:

1 first round pick for Champ: 23% chance of getting a 3-time pro bowler.

2 first round picks for Champ: 41% chance of getting a one 3-time pro bowler. 3.6% chance of getting two 3-time pro bowlers.

3 first round picks for Champ: 60% chance of getting one 3-time pro bowler. 4.7% chance of getting two 3-time pro bowlers. .08% chance of getting three 3-time pro bowlers.

Given that Jared Allen, a 26-year-old defensive end who is elite at a position that only yields one 3-time pro bowler per 10 first round selections, was traded for a single first rounder (17th) and a pair of third rounders, you aren't going to get that kind of compensation for Champ.

Since you are having trouble comprehending my theoretical examples. I thought I'd put some real numbers to it. For three third rounders, I think you are debatably getting even value. For two first rounders, you're getting horrible value.

Is it possible that you strike gold with those two picks and draft a pair of franchise players? Yes. Is is probable? Absolutely not. Its possible that if you put your life savings on black on the roulette wheel you'll double your money (46% chance in fact). That doesn't make it any less stupid. With those kind of odds, an intelligent person will take the sure thing.

This is precisely why some players are literally "untradeable."

[r8rh8r]

But I dont think of it that way. Youre rule of thumb holds little meaning since I dont weight it that way.

Its not a "rule of thumb." Its a textbook expected value formula intended to demonstrate the theoretical value of a draft pick. Its purely heuristic. Those weights are completely arbitrary. Its the logic thats relevant.

[lex]

The "could" part of that statement is some implied probability. The actual probability of drafting a 3-time pro bowler (based on a census of all players drafted the last 30 years) in round 1 is about 15% for all positions. Depending on which positions you take, this can be as high as 23% or as low as 11%. Let's assume the following:

You only take positions with a 23% chance of getting a 3-time pro bowler in round 1 (that position would be QB, which Denver doesn't need for a while but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here). Also note that there is an independence problem in this example because you have a better chance of getting a pro bowler with the 5th overall pick than the 30th. Assuming a team gives you the 5th overall pick, you cannot get the same pick again unless it is in a successive year (which adds a present value dimension to the analysis, further diminishing the expected value of the pick). Also, very few teams have access to the equivalent of two first round picks to trade. Far fewer have access to three. So even if it were a good deal, you'd be fortunate to find a suitor with all the needed picks. But giving you all of these fortuitous credits, lets see how it shakes out.

Here is the joint probability of selecting a pro bowler given that you receive one or many first round picks as compensation:

1 first round pick for Champ: 23% chance of getting a 3-time pro bowler.

2 first round picks for Champ: 41% chance of getting a one 3-time pro bowler. 3.6% chance of getting two 3-time pro bowlers.

3 first round picks for Champ: 60% chance of getting one 3-time pro bowler. 4.7% chance of getting two 3-time pro bowlers. .08% chance of getting three 3-time pro bowlers.

Given that Jared Allen, a 26-year-old defensive end who is elite at a position that only yields one 3-time pro bowler per 10 first round selections, was traded for a single first rounder (17th) and a pair of third rounders, you aren't going to get that kind of compensation for Champ.

Since you are having trouble comprehending my theoretical examples. I thought I'd put some real numbers to it. For three third rounders, I think you are debatably getting even value. For two first rounders, you're getting horrible value.

Is it possible that you strike gold with those two picks and draft a pair of franchise players? Yes. Is is probable? Absolutely not. Its possible that if you put your life savings on black on the roulette wheel you'll double your money (46% chance in fact). That doesn't make it any less stupid. With those kind of odds, an intelligent person will take the sure thing.

This is precisely why some players are literally "untradeable."

This really doesnt counter anyting Ive said. Ive already poked holes in this thesis. At the outset Ive said many have the perception that a bird in the hand is worth more than one in the bush (or 2 or 3 in the bush). But there are problems with your argument and the general premise that people are too close to what Champ is now and arent willing to acknowledge a possible future decline...but thats just part of it.

[lex]

Its not a "rule of thumb." Its a textbook expected value formula intended to demonstrate the theoretical value of a draft pick. Its purely heuristic. Those weights are completely arbitrary. Its the logic thats relevant.

Whatever. The point is that its all driven by subjectivity, and if thats the case you dont really need a formula. Its not an empirical exercise as the presentation of the formula would suggest. The formula doesnt demonstrate the relationship of what youre trying to say as much as the ratio within the formula.

[r8rh8r]

This really doesnt counter anyting Ive said. Ive already poked holes in this thesis. At the outset Ive said many have the perception that a bird in the hand is worth more than one in the bush (or 2 or 3 in the bush). But there are problems with your argument and the general premise that people are too close to what Champ is now and arent willing to acknowledge a possible future decline...but thats just part of it.

I sure am glad its Shanahan and not you sitting at the draft table tomorrow.

[lex]

I sure am glad its Shanahan and not you sitting at the draft table tomorrow.


I feel the same way about you. Whats your point?

[r8rh8r]

Whatever. The point is that its all driven by subjectivity, and if thats the case you dont really need a formula. Its not an empirical exercise as the presentation of the formula would suggest. The formula doesnt demonstrate the relationship of what youre trying to say as much as the ratio within the formula.

Its not subjectivity, its census data. Observed census data by definition is empirical analysis. The entire insurance industry is predicated on this type of logic. They rely on these exact principles to make money. Guess what? They make a lot of money.

[lex]

Its not subjectivity, its census data. Observed census data by definition is empirical analysis. The entire insurance industry is predicated on this type of logic. They rely on these exact principles to make money. Guess what? They make a lot of money.

OK, Ill be sure to remember that when we're talking about insurance and not something that has a higher degree of subjectivity in assigning value.

[r8rh8r]

OK, Ill be sure to remember that when we're talking about insurance and not something that has a higher degree of subjectivity in assigning value.

Using data to make behavioral assumptions about the expected cost of people you are issuing insurance to is the exact same thing. Exactly. Its no less subjective.

[slim]

Nerd fight!!

[lex]

Using data to make behavioral assumptions about the expected cost of people you are issuing insurance to is the exact same thing. Exactly. Its no less subjective.


Its not the same thing.

[r8rh8r]

Nerd fight!!

I'm gonna gouge someone's eye out with my mechanical pencil if this continues.