Interesting analogy.
Let's extend it.
You have two sources of funds (as I extend this analogy), an asset account with valuable bonds that are not available for re-purchase at the same cost, and a more liquid monetary account with a substantial but limited amount of funds.
We have purchased 5-year, renewable, convertible term insurance from a life insurance company that is a risk to go bankrupt (so the policy would then have no value). You've paid a high price for it from one account (draft pick value--assets), but from another account (committed salary) you've saved money. that's HURTS.
One alternative would have been to buy a series of one-year policies from a company with a much higher likelihood of remaining solvent, that would cost nothing from your asset account, but would be more expensive from your committed salary perspective. A significant negative from this approach would be the variability of the prices of the year-to-year policies, and the possibility that some year the available policy would be likely to be worthless. That's the VETERAN 1-YEAR GUY
Another alternative was to go to a different firm and buy a different multi-year renewable, convertible term for no asset cost, but for the maximum committed salary cost. However, there aren't a lot of those policies and some of those may also prove to have no value (firm goes bankrupt). That's the VET MULTI-YEAR GUY
I don't know if this helps to understand the Eagles' decision, but it is another way to look at it.
