FanNation - The Republic of Sport

Now a days, so much speculation is around teams with the first overall pick in their league's draft. What position do they take? Do they trade the pick? Do they take a less experienced player, and even is the player worth the money? As of late, that last question is probably the most important.

It is assumed in all professional sport drafts that the first player taken will be payed the most because he has the best chance to succeed at that level. So the horrific organization spends multi-millions of dollars on what they hope to be the next star in their league, knowing before that they probably need a lot more than 1 player to have a winning record the next season, or in the Lion's case, win a game. But team's still take the one player and if past history tells us anything, that's not at all the smart choice. In the NFL, since 1999, 8 Quarterbacks have been taken (which doesn't make sense because Quarterback's need weapons around them and if you finished in last place your team doesn't even have a pocket knife), 2 defensive ends, and 1 offensive tackle. Out of those 11 "stars of the future" we have the single season record holder for most times sacked, an injury prone QB, a DE who in 7 seasons only played 26 games due to injury, two of the biggest bust QB's of all time, and a guy who is in jail right now for dog fighting. To me that doesn't sound much like "the stars of the future." Why would you waste millions of dollars to take risks on guys like these, instead of just playing it safe and trading for players who you know can succeed in the NFL at your desired positions. Especially Quarterbacks, who cannot really improve or help your team if they have nobody to throw to.

Another pro sport with a bad 1st overall success rating is the NBA. The players drafted first overall usually do have better careers then in other sports because they can still do well, while their team is poor. In football, if you're a RB and you have no offensive line, you aren't going to get many touchdowns because you won't get out of the backfield. Where as in basketball, you can still shoot the lights out and get 30 points, as the rest of your team is ice cold and can't buy a bucket. Just look at Kevin Durant. Incredible numbers, yet his team had only 23 wins this season. Coincidence, I think not. It's more individual when it comes to stats then most sports. Nevertheless players in past years have found a way to fail in the NBA despite being picked #1. Since 2001, only 3 of the picks are all-stars and 2 of them rookie of the years. And in the last couple of years, nothing special other than Derrick Rose. When I name Greg Oden, Andrew Bogut, and Andrei Bargnani, "all-stars" don't really come to mind. Actually come to think of it, "starters" doesn't even come up in my head. Finally for the NBA, not one team (other than the Bulls this year) has made the playoffs the first year with their #1 overall pick, yet the players still had decent to good seasons. Just another way showing that individually players can succeed in the NBA, while teams can't. One player can be an all -star, but it takes multiple players to make a good team.

The MLB #1 overall draft picks to have success is probably the worst percentage of any sports. Since 1996, only 3 all-stars have been developed. Some of these players haven't even reached the majors yet and they were expected to be the next big things. Here's a stat, in 2007 out of the entire first round (64 players drafted) at the end of the 2008 season, only 1 inning of major league baseball was played. Almost knowing that the first round pick won't be seen on television for the next couple years and maybe won't even make it on the big stage, must mean something. Why would you take the incredible risk of paying an incredibly undeveloped player, instead of trading it away for someone actually in the MLB that has proven himself. Since 2002, only 4 of the FIRST OVERALL picks have made an appearance in the major leagues. Why take the risk?

The last few #1 overall picks in these three sports have proven that the risk verses reward factor is too great to bank an entire franchise on. In the NFL, why take a Quarterback when he has no offensive weapons around him and in David Carr's case, a line that couldn't block a muppet in a game. In the NBA, the players succeed because they are the only decent scorer on the team, yet the team still fails to win, where as if you traded for multiple players the team could succeed. Finally for the MLB, a minimum percentage even make the Major leagues, much less succeed in it, so why spend the money. Trade for proven players in your sport instead of taking the risk. Would you spend millions of dollars on someone that has a 50% chance of succeeding in your sport? You have 5 minutes to decide. You are on the clock.