Proven Veterans > Draft Picks/Prospects

Over the last few years of participating here, I have seen a lot of people suggest dumping this veteran or that one in order to gain draft picks. The rationale is that veterans cost too much and we could score big with a good draft pick. I have two things to say to that: One is we have lost several key veterans recently and our record has followed with a precipitous decline shortly thereafter. The second is that a draft pick can sometimes hit and sometimes miss. They are unproven PROSPECTS. You don't necessarily get a return on your investment. This happens across all positions and has happened to the people currently in charge of selecting draft picks. When you lose a proven veteran and insert a draft pick, that position goes from being adequately covered to a big question mark. Cant get around it, there will always be uncertainty with a draft pick.

It's always best to be in a position of having great vets so the rookies have to sit/develop to replace them. It's worked well for years for this team while we've had talent.

Now that we're lacking in talent, people are getting what they want and seeing rookies/young players contributing early. But it kinda sucks. It'd be nice to be deep and have a pipeline of talent waiting to step in.

Think about how many people have wanted Hampton, Starks, Foote, etc replaced for so long. And look at how that's worked out.

Of course you'd rather have proven commodities. Going with picks only works if you draft reasonably well. The Steelers have not.

the real issue for me is when do you stop pushing salary forward to keep vets who are not stars? You end up overpaying aging vets or eating toxic contracts. The Steelers must get better in this area if they want to reach sustainable success again.

Blah, blah, blah, blah! I think what is worse than that, is when people negatively comment on something and don't even have the decency to read what was posted.

[B][SIZE=4]I am only suggesting the trading of Ben Roethlisberger if the Steelers are bowled over with a Herschel Walker type of a return!![/SIZE][/B]

With this team being the 3rd highest over the cap next year, with them having to cut several key players as a result, Ben being on the back end of his prime (32), and this team having major holes on both sides of the ball, I think it is in the best interests of this team to at least shop him.

I know you guys are having a hard time with this but the Dallas Cowboys were 1-15 the year they traded Herschel Walker. The got 8 draft picks and 4 players from the Vikings. In 3 years they went from 1-15 to going on a 3 out of 4 year championship run.

[B][SIZE=4]If the Pittsburgh Steelers do not do something out of the norm, they are not going to see the playoffs for a long time. This time next year, they are going to be worse than they are now. They have some major cuts coming. [/SIZE][/B]

No team is going to give up ANYTHING CLOSE to what the Vikings foolishly gave up for Walker, or even what the Saints foolishly gave up to the Redskins to draft Ricky Williams. Neither of those teams sniffed a championship with Walker or Williams, and teams learn from others' blunders. So the compensation would not even be close to that. Why do you keep assuming that there is some mystery team out there willing to make that kind of deal these days? That's like saying "If I could trade my current job to be the talent scout for Victoria's Secret, I'd do it". Well sure, but when is that option realistically going to materialize? The Walker deal was pre-salary cap, it happened under entirely different game economics. Nothing close to that will ever happen again (and nothing close has happened since, the closest being the Ricky Williams and RGIII draft pick swaps --- certainly nothing including as many picks and players as the Walker deal). It's a pipe dream.

A more realistic look at how trades happen today, involving a starting QB, would be Matt Schaub. He cost the Texans merely a 2nd round pick a few years back. And he was a hot young prospect stuck on the Falcons depth chart, not a 32 year old with his best days behind him. Now that I think of it, the better analogy would probably be what the Patriots were able to bilk the Bills for when they traded Bledsoe --- a single first round pick, and that price probably was mitigated by the fact that they were trading him within the division. They probably would have gotten less if they had traded to a team outside the AFCE. With that in mind, if the Steelers traded Ben to Arizona or St Louis or Philly, my guess is they would be getting nothing more than a single first round pick somewhere in the 6-10 range, maybe even lower. No chance that is worth it.

^ This!!!!!

I don't mind the infusion of youth. The veterans get burned just as bad as the rookies. See the Terrelle Pryor run-depending on your view it was either Timmons, Woodley, or Clark or all the above. I don't hear Vince Williams or Shark getting blamed for that one. I say let them play, we may suffer some in other regards but you just might give an emerging leader that needed experience and battle scars.

[QUOTE=DrCalculus;581081]
A more realistic look at how trades happen today, involving a starting QB, would be Matt Schaub. He cost the Texans merely a 2nd round pick a few years back. [/QUOTE]
Not the case. The Falcons received two 2nd round choices, and also moved up in the first round by swapping first rounders with the Texans.

[QUOTE=steelblood;581073]Of course you'd rather have proven commodities. Going with picks only works if you draft reasonably well. The Steelers have not.

the real issue for me is when do you stop pushing salary forward to keep vets who are not stars? You end up overpaying aging vets or eating toxic contracts. The Steelers must get better in this area if they want to reach sustainable success again.[/QUOTE]
What if there weren't any adequate players available to replace the older proven, high quality starters on the team? What vets did the Steelers extend that are over paid?

[QUOTE=buccoray61;581083]^ This!!!!![/QUOTE]

But Dallas went 1-15... lol