Every year on this board, nearly as predictable as death and taxes, there is a debate about the comparative draft strategies of need v. BAP.
Free agency has a similar dynamic, albeit slightly different and easier-namely whether the team should sign player X? The usual answer is a reflexive "no," followed by screeds of the player being too old to be of use, etc.
But I wonder why the need vs. BAP discussion never comes into play for free agency.
At it's core, it's player acquisition-just like the draft.
The difference-especially now that the CBA has changed to include the rookie wage scale-is that free agents are typically far more expensive than rookies. They will have a far more reaching impact on the salary cap than draft picks, but they have the same roster impact as draft choices. For a team like the Jaguars trying to build from scratch, it's as important to get free agency right as it is the draft.
I would think that if a BAP approach to free agency were employed, the Jaguars would be more inclined to aggressively go after a CB early on, considering Aquib Talib, Alterraun Verner, Vontae Davis, and quite possibly Darelle Revis will be free agents. Those guys represent a stronger group than the guards, IMO-while the interior OL represents a much bigger need for the Jaguars.
So what do you think? Why the distinction in player acquisition philosophy? Is it a necessary distinction?
Since draft picks are younger and cheaper, it's better (in general) to get your star players with draft picks rather than through free agency. So that means you go BAP with your draft picks because that would give your draft picks the best chance to succeed. So I would use free agency to fill holes in the roster. That takes positional need out of the drafting equation, and allows you to draft BAP.
This is just speaking in general. There would be lots of exceptions to this.
Quote:Since draft picks are younger and cheaper, it's better (in general) to get your star players with draft picks rather than through free agency. So that means you go BAP with your draft picks because that would give your draft picks the best chance to succeed. So I would use free agency to fill holes in the roster. That takes positional need out of the drafting equation, and allows you to draft BAP.
This is just speaking in general. There would be lots of exceptions to this.
But wouldn't all of the draft rationales for BAP apply to free agency? Why would you allow a superior player to go to a competitor? Wouldn't taking the best players irrespective of need or position lead to a better roster over time?
I feel like Career Length is a much larger factor in the minds of Front Office folk when it comes to Free Agency. After all, you are getting a player who has already been through four seasons of NFL play and like the old saying goes; "nobody gets out of here alive."
It seems to me that teams will not allow themselves to view a Free Agent prospect solely in terms of "best talent out there" because they know that talent is going to have a significant price tag with long term ramifications. Would you like to have a top flight Defensive Back? Indeed I would, but would I like to have a player that I signed to a six year deal and I got him at year five of his career? That adds some complication to the choice now, doesn't it?
Free agents cost money and aren't offered in any advantageous order.
Free agency goes beyond acquiring talent. You have to factor in how much you can or are willing to pay for that talent.
Plus, in the draft you can luck out and find premium players in the late rounds. In free agency, you are going to pay out the rear for those guys.
Quote:I feel like Career Length is a much larger factor in the minds of Front Office folk when it comes to Free Agency. After all, you are getting a player who has already been through four seasons of NFL play and like the old saying goes; "nobody gets out of here alive."
It seems to me that teams will not allow themselves to view a Free Agent prospect solely in terms of "best talent out there" because they know that talent is going to have a significant price tag with long term ramifications. Would you like to have a top flight Defensive Back? Indeed I would, but would I like to have a player that I signed to a six year deal and I got him at year five of his career? That adds some complication to the choice now, doesn't it?
It adds some, but it doesn't fully address the issue of building the best possible team with the best possible players.
Taking your hypothetical at face value, a guy at year five of his career may still have another 5 years as a viable player at his position. Charles Woodson had several good years with Green Bay after an outstanding career in Oakland, and it's quite possible he would have outperformed any CB the Packers would have been able to draft during that time. Denver traded for Champ Bailey after he spent a few years in Washington, and he wound up being a great player for them. Gary Walker was outstanding for the Jaguars after spending his first four or five years with the Oilers.
Is age/years in the league another factor to consider? Sure. But ultimately, the question boils down to whether the player in question improves your team. If talent acquisition with the eye towards improving the team is the main consideration, to me, the philosophy of BAP vs. Need is also a consideration.
Quote:But wouldn't all of the draft rationales for BAP apply to free agency? Why would you allow a superior player to go to a competitor? Wouldn't taking the best players irrespective of need or position lead to a better roster over time?
I think the reason for building through the draft is that you want your best players to be young (have a long career in front of them). Free agents have four years of wear and tear and come at a high cost. So if you want to build your team primarily through the draft, then you want to get the very best players you can in the draft, and that means drafting best available player. In order to do that, you can't have significant holes on your roster, so you use free agency to fill holes and the draft to acquire maximum talent.
You just cannot use free agency like you use the draft, because of salary cap considerations. Do I want the best player to go to a competitor? No, but on the other hand I am not willing to give Mario Williams a 100 million dollar contract, either.
Quote:Free agents cost money and aren't offered in any advantageous order.
Free agency goes beyond acquiring talent. You have to factor in how much you can or are willing to pay for that talent.
Plus, in the draft you can luck out and find premium players in the late rounds. In free agency, you are going to pay out the rear for those guys.
Free agents cost more money, which is all the more reason you need to get the signings right.
Without question, free agent acquisitions like Jimmy Smith, Keenan McCardell, Leon Searcy and Gary Walker helped the Jaguars trememdously.
Without question, free acquisitions like Bryce Paup, Hugh Douglas, and Jerry Porter hurt the Jaguars tremendously.
In terms of negative on field performance hurting the team, is there any distinction between an R Jay Soward and Jerry Porter, or Hugh Douglas and Derrick Harvey? Yes, there is the draft choice distinction, but there is also the financial cost, which is now tilted towards the free agent now.
Either way, the miss devastates the team.
Quote:I think the reason for building through the draft is that you want your best players to be young (have a long career in front of them). Free agents have four years of wear and tear and come at a high cost. So if you want to build your team primarily through the draft, then you want to get the very best players you can in the draft, and that means drafting best available player. In order to do that, you can't have significant holes on your roster, so you use free agency to fill holes and the draft to acquire maximum talent.
You just cannot use free agency like you use the draft, because of salary cap considerations. Do I want the best player to go to a competitor? No, but on the other hand I am not willing to give Mario Williams a 100 million dollar contract, either.
To be clear, I am not arguing against the proposition that the draft is the best way to build the team.
What I am questioning is why BAP vs. Need is only used in consideration for the draft, and not for free agents.
As to your closing statement, doesn't that presume the BAFA (Best Available Free Agent) is the most expensive?
Quote:It adds some, but it doesn't fully address the issue of building the best possible team with the best possible players.
Taking your hypothetical at face value, a guy at year five of his career may still have another 5 years as a viable player at his position. Charles Woodson had several good years with Green Bay after an outstanding career in Oakland, and it's quite possible he would have outperformed any CB the Packers would have been able to draft during that time. Denver traded for Champ Bailey after he spent a few years in Washington, and he wound up being a great player for them. Gary Walker was outstanding for the Jaguars after spending his first four or five years with the Oilers.
Is age/years in the league another factor to consider? Sure. But ultimately, the question boils down to whether the player in question improves your team. If talent acquisition with the eye towards improving the team is the main consideration, to me, the philosophy of BAP vs. Need is also a consideration.
I agree with you that the whole BAP vs. Need concept warrants consideration, and I think that if you can add talent to your team then by all means do so. But if the overall goal here is wins, then teams that are rarely involved in Free Agency that are regular Playoff participants have obviously found a method that works as well. It is possible to get to the Playoffs while letting top tier talent go to another team, just like it's possible to get to the Super Bowl without an elite Quarterback. To me, it goes back to the concept of 'it doesn't matter how you do it, just get it right."
Another aspect for Free Agency is the question of "how will this veteran player fit in with the organization?" Once players have accrued time in the League and have been rewarded with a large contract, it stands to reason that ego is now a factor. After all, what 20-something year old male who has just inked a contract for several million dollars does
not have an ego? How will that affect them and subsequently the rest of the team? How will the team react to someone getting a premium "Free Agency" contract? We can use the old line of "well, they're all professionals so they just need to suck it up and play" but that's disingenuous. There are hurdles for the organization to overcome when a Free Agent is signed. Is the organization prepared and capable of clearing those hurdles? If not, then they may be hurting themselves
despite adding talent to the roster.
The draft also allows you a much greater pool of people to chose from which allows you to target and develop the skill sets you deem more important.
Not all people flourish under the same system. Drafting allows you more flexibility and also allows for more mistakes. Miss on a draft pick and it may have only cost you a second day pick. Miss on a FA and could have wasted a chunk of your salary cap that may prevent you from keeping the guys you have drafted and developed who may also be a better fit.
Quote:The draft also allows you a much greater pool of people to chose from which allows you to target and develop the skill sets you deem more important.
Not all people flourish under the same system. Drafting allows you more flexibility and also allows for more mistakes. Miss on a draft pick and it may have only cost you a second day pick. Miss on a FA and could have wasted a chunk of your salary cap that may prevent you from keeping the guys you have drafted and developed who may also be a better fit.
Again, I'm not debating draft vs. Free Agency. I go on record now reiterating that the draft is more important for a variety of reasons.
My question is why aren't the philosophies of BAP vs. Need applied to free agency?
Quote: Free agents cost more money, which is all the more reason you need to get the signings right.
Without question, free agent acquisitions like Jimmy Smith, Keenan McCardell, Leon Searcy and Gary Walker helped the Jaguars trememdously.
Without question, free acquisitions like Bryce Paup, Hugh Douglas, and Jerry Porter hurt the Jaguars tremendously.
In terms of negative on field performance hurting the team, is there any distinction between an R Jay Soward and Jerry Porter, or Hugh Douglas and Derrick Harvey? Yes, there is the draft choice distinction, but there is also the financial cost, which is now tilted towards the free agent now.
Either way, the miss devastates the team.
High draft pick misses hurt the team, but if you are talking BAP in the FA market, any miss hurts because they will be a known quantity with a price tag to match.
Many of the FA successes for us weren't considered the BAP at the time.
If you really want to see BAP FA picking, just look what we did in 1999 to make our run. Hurt us for years.
Quote:Again, I'm not debating draft vs. Free Agency. I go on record now reiterating that the draft is more important for a variety of reasons.
My question is why aren't the philosophies of BAP vs. Need applied to free agency?
Cost is the biggest thing and the fact that if you go BAP in free agency, you could end up replacing a younger player that may develop to be better than that BAP FA. All you would be doing is building an older more expensive team. That doesn't promote long term success. That's why free agency is better used to fulfill needs.
It's all about the salary cap. Free agents cost a lot.
Throw away the salary cap and you could be the yankees and BAP the free agent market. Otherwise you have to be more selective than just BAP.
Quote:To be clear, I am not arguing against the proposition that the draft is the best way to build the team.
What I am questioning is why BAP vs. Need is only used in consideration for the draft, and not for free agents.
As to your closing statement, doesn't that presume the BAFA (Best Available Free Agent) is the most expensive?
Well, I told you already.
BAP is only used for the draft and not for free agency because BAP can cause you to have crippling holes in your roster that you have to fill, and therefore, you use the other tool, free agency, to fill the holes. If you use the BAP method with both free agency and the draft, you can often wind up with holes in your roster. Too many WRs, not enough LBs, for instance. Free agency is so expensive, you have to use it sparingly, not to load the team with talent, but to fill the holes in the roster and allow yourself the luxury of using BAP in the draft.
Is best available free agent the most expensive? Yes, in general.
Your question was about the general philosophy of team building. Of course you have to be flexible. If you see Keenan McCardell available in free agency, and you think he is seriously undervalued by your competitors, of course you go get him.
Also how would you define the "best" i n a FA market? Would BAP be long term impact or short term as far a free agents go? Would value be considered when determining best? Would it be best overall or just best fit?
In the draft BAP is all about future long term return.
I am a big draft fan, so I like to see the team built that way.
Free agency is a necessary evil for a rebuilding team. Nothing wrong with filling holes with players on the rise. Preferably those in their mid-20's and not likely to end up among the highest paid at their position. Gary Walker and Keenan are two great examples. So are Mike Peterson, Deon Grant, Reggie Hayward (pre-injury), Chris Naeole, Alan Ball. I would rather sign 6 guys at 3 million per than 3 guys at 6 million per.
I wanted to revisit this thread and the question it poses now that the fanbase has the past few days to observe the Jacksonville Front Office's approach.
From your perspective, has the team taken a "Need" or "BAP" approach? Has it been something else?
To me, it seems as if the team has layed out a very specific requirement on the roster and has targeted a player to fit that requirement. Need a pulling Guard? Sign Beadles. Need a backup to Marks and his Three-Technique, penetrating Defensive Tackle role? Sign Hood. Need a starter quality Running Back that can fit into a rotation? Sign Gerhart. Need a rotation guy for the Pass Rusher rotation? Sign Clemons.
It just comes across as a little more refined and defined approach than in the past where it felt like "we need a Wide Receiver and this guy plays Wide Receiver so let's sign this guy as a Wide Receiver."
Quote:I wanted to revisit this thread and the question it poses now that the fanbase has the past few days to observe the Jacksonville Front Office's approach.
From your perspective, has the team taken a "Need" or "BAP" approach? Has it been something else?
To me, it seems as if the team has layed out a very specific requirement on the roster and has targeted a player to fit that requirement. Need a pulling Guard? Sign Beadles. Need a backup to Marks and his Three-Technique, penetrating Defensive Tackle role? Sign Hood. Need a starter quality Running Back that can fit into a rotation? Sign Gerhart. Need a rotation guy for the Pass Rusher rotation? Sign Clemons.
It just comes across as a little more refined and defined approach than in the past where it felt like "we need a Wide Receiver and this guy plays Wide Receiver so let's sign this guy as a Wide Receiver."
I'll admit the signings by this regime do seem like they are a bit more structured. So yeah, I agree with the above.
Thats why the Emmanuael Sanders visit was a head scratcher. We don't really have a need for what he brings. Unless...