Count the Los Angeles Rams as likely proponents of a proposed rule change proposed by the Cleveland Browns that would allow the clubs to trade draft picks five years into the future.
Rams team president Kevin Demoff took to social media Wednesday to embrace the positive side of the proposed rule change.
“Nothing generates more interest in the NFL than a trade,” Demoff wrote. “This is why Cleveland’s proposal to allow teams to trade for up to 5 years compared to 3 years makes so much sense. More picks to trade = more trades = more interest and opportunity to build a team.”
Of course, the Rams, who have famously had one first-round pick since 2016, would be a logical proponent of a rule that allows clubs to trade more draft picks. It’s consistent with the fundamental team-building process that has brought success to Demoff, GM Les Snead and coach Sean McVay.
It is easy for a successful franchise to see the value of expanding the market further. The issue is, shall we say, less well-run teams, and what trading a bunch of future picks could do for long-term viability. What happens when the GM in the hot seat goes all in, bets on the future, and it ultimately fails? Will the owners micromanage the football people in those cases, set clear boundaries or take the risk? Does the NFL, which prides itself on teams’ ability to go from bad to good quickly, want the possibility that one of its teams could be handicapped long-term by a short-term decision?
Demoff pointed to already risky contract moves that saddle teams with dead money they have to work around, to communicate the dangers of extending trades with draft picks.
“We’re one week into the NFL season and teams already have $1.1 billion in dead money on their books!” he wrote. “I’m not sure allowing teams two more years of picks to trade is any more irresponsible than betting on the future.”
That’s a good point; However, getting past the salary cap is easier than replacing funding lost by the previous administration.
Demoff’s right that business moves the juice, and more is certainly better for a company that can be tight-lipped – while we’re at it, eliminating compensatory preferences would also have a positive effect on business. He’s also right that NFL teams are willing to take on millions in contract risk each year, so why not add another piece to the puzzle that would generate interest?
The question is whether there are enough owners who feel they need the current defensive framework to ensure teams don’t sink their own futures – of course there are some who are good at that even in the current system.