Better Strategy: Building through Draft or through Free Agency?

[Megatron]

Assembling teams together is one of the most intriguing parts of sports to me. Who do you decide to keep? Who do you offer out your money to? Who do you let walk? Who do you trade? All of it fascinates me. In the 'Big 4' sports, there's two ways in which to build a team:

1. Through drafting, hoping your scouts can recognize talent that has potential and can succeed in the next level. The cheaper option, as well.
2. Through free agency, signing guys that have already proven themselves and hoping they can replicate their production during some of their 'prime' years. This is where the big money is dealt out.

There's some clear pros and cons to both sides of the argument as well:

Pros for Drafting:
-Cheaper
-Have the ability to sign them long term earlier
-Typically get them during their actual prime years (early to mid 20s)

Cons:
-Don't quite know what you're going to get
-Don't adapt to the game as well
-If you draft a bust or two you could set your team back even farther, depending on the position they play

Pros for Free Agency:
-Brings immediate excitement to fans
-Have a track record
-Are normally more helpful if your team feels it's only '1 player away' from contending

Cons:
-If there's a cap, you're bringing in a player that takes up room that could be potentially used on more, younger players (if the contract is big enough)
-If he busts, you have to live with the large contract (unless there's a clause stated otherwise). With drafting, if he busts, you can usually rid of them for cheap
-You aren't the only one competing for the man, so you may not get who you covet

As you can see, both sides are intriguing. Both ways have been proven that you can win (Drafting - Green Bay Packers, Tampa Bay Rays, OKC Thunder; FA - NY Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Miami Heat (making the Finals is still winning, people)) and lose (Drafting - Detroit Lions, KC Royals, Sacramento Kings; FA - Washington Redskins, Chicago Cubs, Dallas Cowboys) with their methods.

So I ask you, if you were a GM and started with a clean slate, would you rather build your team through Free Agency, or by drafting?

 

[PlayTheGame]

Well, I think it really all depends on your situation. If you have a completely brand new team, you have to go with the draft, because it will take a while for your team to be able to compete anyway- thus, a few key veterans may not make much of a difference. Building a fresh, young team and allowing them to develop, improve, and grow together in comraderie is the best movie in my opinion. It's sort of like the Colts this year- they almost have a clean slate with very few vets left, and many empty slots- they haven't really gone to the free agency well- instead, they're banking on the draft for the next few years and will look to improve over time and become a factor again in that fashion. However, if you have a team like the Packers or Patriots, an established team that is very close to being Superbowl-worthy, then I think you have to look to free agency to get that last "push" that you need. Chances are that a late 1st round player will not prove the difference to make your team an immediate Superbowl-worthy team. Thus, to get that last push, these late-round, winning teams must look to FA in my opinion in order to bolster their weak spots with a few key vets that could be the last missing links they may need for a Championship. Furthermore, working FA may be easier for these more successful teams anyway by nature, as I'm sure a championship contender is largely more enticing to a talented veteran looking to win now than a team that is in pure rebuilding mode and several years away from mattering.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

The answer is always to build through the draft and supplant holes left in your roster via free agency. Always. Fact is, most major sports function on some aspect of a salary cap, and as such drafting allows teams the greatest opportunity to not only bring young players up together (which builds chemistry), but at affordable prices.

Name me one team that's achieved long-term success by trying to buy a championship. Just one.

Don't worry... I'll wait.

 

[Big Sexy]

It all depends on the scenario. If you have a shitty team you basically have to build through the draft because you won't get enough free agents who want to play for you to make an impact. Usually the only way to get better through free agency is if you have a decent or good team trying to take the next step to be great. There are a few exceptions like Jerry Jones and the Cowboys and Daniel Schneider and the Redskins. Even when they are shitty they often try to build through free agency because they have the money to do so and they are big market teams with history.

This may be a cop put answer but to be honest it's best to use both if you want to be a successful team. If you did, however, have to focus on one side then I'd go with drafting. Not everyone has an unlimited spending budget like the Yankees and Red Sox. It's best to build the foundation of your team through the draft and then fill in the holes via free agency and trades.

 

[kapone21]

The answer is always to build through the draft and supplant holes left in your roster via free agency. Always. Fact is, most major sports function on some aspect of a salary cap, and as such drafting allows teams the greatest opportunity to not only bring young players up together (which builds chemistry), but at affordable prices.

I could not agree more with It's Damn Real! As a Greenbay Packer fan i have seen my team have success at both drafting and FA. I seen the modern free agency come to the NFL through Greenbay with the Reggie White lawsuit!

A few free agent signings for Greenbay
Reggie White
Charles Woodson
Frank Winters
Santana Dotson
Desmond Howard
Ryan Pickett
Andre Rison

A few drafts choices by Greenbay

Aaron Rodgers
Clay Mathews
B.J. Raji
Jermiceal Finley
Donald Driver
Mark Taucher
Chad Clifton

All are considered great pick ups by way of draft or FA.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

OK, OK... so I was told by quite a few of you that the Yankees would constitute a successful club that built itself through free agency. Admittedly, I know fuck all about baseball other than a couple of the names from the old 90's Braves championship team (the last time I actually cared about the sport, because I was playing it as a kid), so I'll have to concede that point to those of you who know better than me here, BUT I will say this:

It seems to me they are an exception, not the rule. Fact is, I can't think of a single team that's had success more often than not by continuing to buy the majority of it's team through the free agent market unless it's buying multiple pieces that all spent time playing together elsewhere, and even then, there's no guarantee the chemistry manifests itself again under new management/coaching/team philosophy, etc.

The point I was trying to illustrate is that it's most prudent for teams (especially those that operate with a league mandated salary cap) to develop young players an supplant holes on the roster with free agency, as opposed to doing it the other way around. It's usually a lot easier to find filler in free agency anyway, than it is to find the foundation for a franchise.