Count the Los Angeles Rams as likely proponents of the proposed rule change, put forth by the Cleveland Browns, that would allow clubs to trade draft picks five years into the future.
Rams team president took to social media on Wednesday to espouse the positives of the proposed rule change.
"Nothing creates more interest in the NFL than trades," Demoff . "This is why Cleveland's proposal to allow teams to trade picks up to 5 years out as opposed to 3 years out makes so much sense. More picks to trade = more trades = more interest and team-building options."
Of course, the Rams, who have famously picked once in the first round since 2016, would be a logical proponent of a rule allowing clubs to trade away more draft selections. It's in line with the fundamental team-building process that has brought Demoff, GM Les Snead and coach Sean McVay success.
It's easy for a successful franchise to see the value in expanding its market further. The issue is the, let's say, less well-run teams, and what trading away hordes of future picks could do for the long-term functionality. What happens when a GM on the hot seat goes all in, mortgages the future, and it ultimately fails? Will owners micromanage the football people in those instances, set a clear boundary, or take the risk? Does the NFL, which prides itself on the ability of teams to quickly go from bad to good, want the possibility that one of its teams could be handicapped long-term by a short-term decision?
Demoff pointed to the already risky contract moves that saddle teams with dead money they have to work around, to report the danger involved in extending the trading of draft picks.
"We are one week into the NFL league year and teams already have $1.1 billion of dead money on their books!" he . "I'm not sure allowing teams an extra two years of picks to trade is any more irresponsible in mortgaging the future."
It's a good point; however, getting around the salary cap is easier than replacing draft capital lost by a previous regime.
Demoff's right that trades bring the juice, and more is certainly better for a business that can be stodgy – while we're at it, doing away with compensatory picks would also have a net positive on trades. He's also correct that NFL teams are willing to take on millions of contractual risk each year, so why not add another element to the puzzle that would generate interest?
The question is whether there are enough owners who believe they need the current guardrails in place to ensure teams don't sink their own futures -- of course, there are several who are good at that even in the current system.
