The economics of trading a first-round pick for Brandin Cooks
Knowing then what you know now, which of these players would you have traded for Brandin Cooks when they were his age: Earl Thomas, Robert Quinn, Malcolm Jenkins, Michael Brockers, Star Lotulelei?
What if, in addition to trading the player, you also had to pay a tax of $4 million per year that would count against the salary cap?
Trading the No. 14 pick for Brandin Cooks might not sound as attractive if you look at it in that light. At least, if you look carefully.
In the last eight drafts, trading the No. 14 pick in the draft would have meant trading away an excellent chance at landing a solid starter, and an even or better-than-even chance at landing an All-Pro.
Pick 14 overall, 2009-16
2016: Karl Joseph, S, OAK
2015: DeVante Parker, WR, MIA
2014: Kyle Fuller, CB, CHI
2013: Star Lotulelei, DT, CAR
2012: Michael Brockers, DT, STL
2011: Robert Quinn, DE, STL
2010: Earl Thomas, S, SEA
2009: Malcolm Jenkins, S, NO
But wait, you say: The whole point of trading No. 14 for Cooks would be to eliminate that "chance" factor. After all, he's already shown himself to be a solid NFL starter, with All-Pro upside. Why take a chance on an unknown when you can get a guy who has already proven himself with the same draft pick?
Answer: Because it will cost more than the draft pick.
If the Eagles spend No. 14 on a rookie, here's what they'll pay him, per OverTheCap.com's projection for the rookie wage scale:
Year 1: $2.5 million
Year 2: $3.1 million
Year 3: $3.8 million
Year 4: $4.4 million
Year 5: $10 million option
Total, yrs 1-4: $13.8 million
Total, yrs 1-5: $23.8 million
If the Eagles were to spend No. 14 on Cooks and then sign him to a contract extension even at a below-market rate, here's what they'd end up paying over the same timespan:
Yr 1: $1.6 million
Yr 2: $8.5 million
Yr 3: $10.0 million
Yr 4: $10.0 million
Yr 5: $10.0 million
The economics matter, because money equals players in the NFL. By trading for Cooks, not only are you spending the No. 14 overall pick on a wide receiver, but you're also spending an additional $4 million per year in cap space in Years 1 through 4 of Cooks compared with Years 1 through 4 of Rookie TBD. That's $4 million less that you can spend on other players.
While it likely won't be enough to sign the equivalent of Cooks on the free-agent market, it would fund roughly a third of such a contract. Or it could get you a Darren Sproles- or Nigel Bradham-type versus staffing such a position with a replacement-level veteran or a later-round draft pick. It could be the difference between extending someone such as Bennie Logan and letting him walk.
If the Eagles had only one position to worry about, it might make sense for them to pay the premium for Cooks to eliminate the risk that they draft a dud at No. 14. But they have a whole roster to rebuild, and just like it wouldn't make sense to sacrifice multiple high draft picks for Cooks, it might not make sense to sacrifice a high draft pick and spending power.
Look at it another way: If the Eagles held onto No. 14 and ended up drafting an Earl Thomas-level player at cornerback and then spent $16 million over four years on the wide-receiver position in free agency, would they be a better team than if they had Cooks at wide receiver and a one-year stop gap at cornerback?
No doubt, there's an argument to be made for either side. But these kinds of moves are not a sustainable way to build a football roster, given its size.