Drafting and Tanking (Football and Baseball)

 

Between 1981 and 2000, 79 Hall of Fame players have been selected in the NFL draft.  Let’s call it 80 when Tom Brady finally retires.  I used this timeframe because almost everyone who was drafted 22 years ago has been retired for 5 years and is now eligible.  A few more players may be inducted down the road, but I don’t believe it will raise the number much higher.  That averages out to an even 4 per draft with a high of 8 and two drafts in which no player was inducted.  Now, let’s break it down further.

Of those 80 Hall of Famers, 48 (60 %) were drafted in the first round.  32 (40%) were among the top 10 picks).  Just 7 were mid- first rounders while 9 were late first rounders.  The remaining 32 were drafted outside the first round and though I didn’t research, I would imagine that most of them were 2^nd or 3^rd rounders.  Therefore, yes you could say that there is an incentive to tank in the NFL.  It may be better in the long run to have a couple horrible seasons than be around .500 every year.  After all, the expected value of the 15^th overall pick is probably not much higher than the 30.^th    By contrast, the 5^th pick will be expected to be much better than the 14th.  Expecting a high draft choice to be a Hall of Famer is too much to ask.  However, a reasonable expectation is that he will have a prime window of several years in which he is among the 5 best at his position (All Star/Pro Bowl caliber).

Because of the importance of high draft choices, I am impressed when a franchise is able to remain a contender for more than about 7-8 consecutive years despite never drafting in the top 10 or even the top 20.  The San Francisco 49ers never lost more than 6 games between 1981-1998 while winning 5 Super Bowls and making the playoffs all but 2 years.  The Pittsburgh Steelers have been .500 or better every season since 2004.  Lastly, New England had a winning record every year from 2001-2019.  Very impressive.  In order to sustain that level of success, a Franchise Quarterback is a necessity.  However, it is not a guarantee.  Green Bay had a few lean years even with Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers.  Typically, these teams are able to find greater value in the 2^nd or 3^rd rounds and make wise free agent signings as well.  In some cases, they traded up in the draft and scored big as was the case with Jerry Rice and the 49ers. 

When it comes to Quarterbacks, it is increasingly difficult to get a Franchise player or even a successful starter much beyond early Round 2.  Nowadays, teams are desperate and may reach for 3^rd round talent.   You’ve got about a 50/50 chance of drafting a successful starter in the 1^st round, maybe a little less.  It’s a dilemma.  Some teams are willing to give up multiple first rounders for a veteran QB such as Russell Wilson or Matthew Stafford.  If it is a safe bet that you won’t have any losing seasons with him at the helm, that can be a good call especially when the next draft class is thin at the position.  Again, there won’t be many Hall of Famers drafted outside the Top 10. 

Some teams can hedge their bets by signing a player who was not a total bust but a bit of a disappointment with their original team while remaining open to drafting a new QB.  IMO, it’s too soon to write off the likes of Mitch Trubisky and Baker Mayfield just yet.  Alex Smith and Ryan Tannehill both thrived in new systems after shaky starts to their careers.  Bringing in the 2^nd coming of Ryan Leaf or JaMarcus Russell for anything more than a shot at 3^rd string is really not smart.  If a team has a need at QB or will have a need very soon, depending on who is available, trading up from say pick 16 to pick 8 could be a big win.  After some internal debate, Pittsburgh decided not to trade up for Roethlisberger but would take him if available at Pick 11.  They were very fortunate that at least 2 QB needy teams elected to pass.  In a head scratcher, Cleveland chose to roll with Tim Couch and Kelly Holcombe while Detroit stuck with a young Joey Harrington.  If you make a mistake on a high first round QB, it will set the franchise back 5 years and the coach will almost certainly be fired.     

Now, let’s look at baseball.  Within the same 1981-2000 timeframe, the 1^st overall pick produced just 2 Hall of Famers (Ken Griffey Jr. and Chipper Jones).  Alex Rodriguez would have made it 3 if not for the steroids.    Surprisingly, there were only TWO OTHER HOFers drafted in the top 10 in those years (Frank Thomas and Barry Larkin).  Edit:  Barry Bonds would make it 3.  Unless there is a consensus, once a decade type talent available, tanking for a high draft choice is NOT the answer.   It seems like you are just about as likely to get an All-Star caliber player in the mid-late first round as you are with the number 2 or 3 overall pick.  Pitchers are especially risky given the increasing rate of UCL injuries.  Tommy John surgery is usually successful but it’s hardly a guarantee.  Stockpile bats instead and trade for arms.    

In recent years, several quality mid-level free agents have gone unwanted and had to settle for low-ball one-year deals if that.  The thinking is that it is not worth it to sign a $10MM player to lift your team’s win total from 65 to 68.  I would disagree.  You can certainly strike gold on 3 mid-level free agents and end up getting more combined value than from one superstar.  Suppose a couple other prospects see unexpected break throughs.  It is certainly possible for that team to be a surprise contender.

I don’t know the full details of the new CBA agreement, but I don’t believe anything substantive was done about the tanking problem.  I have proposed having to go back ten spots in the draft for back-to-back 100 loss seasons.  Another idea that I liked better was to re-order the draft such that the team that just missed the playoffs gets the number 1 pick while the worst team gets pick number 20.  I don’t believe that would have much of an impact.  As stated above, a high draft pick does not have the same value in baseball as it does in football.  My new solution is to penalize tanking teams by cutting their stake in revenue sharing.  I’d keep the penalty threshold at back-to-back 100 loss seasons.  Any team can be hit with terrible luck once.  Consecutive years with bottom of the league payroll and 100+ losses?  No.  That is tanking.