No one doubts Corey Dillon's talents, but there are issues to be dealt with if a team wants to make a deal for the veteran running back. Elsa/Getty Images

I see where Pittsburgh put star linebacker Jason Gildon on the market the other day and is seeking a second-round pick in return. Good luck.

Some in the Browns front office are said to be hopeful that deposed quarterback Tim Couch might bring a second-rounder in trade. Dream on.

And Cincinnati, wearing its best poker face, is trying to cajole somebody, anybody to fork over a No. 2 in exchange for disgruntled running back Corey Dillon. Get real.

People, people. Wake up and smell the stagnant trade winds. Nobody in the NFL these days is giving up much any more in the way of draft picks for established veteran players. Consider:

• David Boston, among the most talented but baggage-laden young receivers in the game, was just sent from San Diego to Miami for a lowly conditional sixth-rounder in 2005, and a player that the Dolphins didn't really want (cornerback Jamar Fletcher).

• The game-breaking Terrell Owens, who doesn't travel without a full set of jam-packed luggage himself, only brought a fifth-rounder and a steady, if unspectacular defensive end (Brandon Whiting) in trade.

• And the Bucs couldn't get anything in return for safety John Lynch, a onetime Pro Bowl perennial who many believe will be a Hall of Fame candidate some day, so they released him. Ditto for Carolina and former Pro Bowl left tackle Todd Steussie.

Let's face it, some mighty big names have been dangled so far this offseason, and not many have even vaguely interested a bevy of buyers. Why? Because trading draft picks for veteran players is a losing proposition in today's NFL, where the economic impact of any prospective deal is the primary, secondary, and ancillary concern.

"I think you've seen the best way to trade is player for player," Carolina general manager Marty Hurney said. "We've seen that more this year than in the past. Those kind of deals, like Clinton Portis for Champ Bailey, they kind of level the playing field financially. It just proves even more why it's harder to trade picks for veterans, because of the economic implications.

"Draft picks today are your currency, your life blood. They're very, very valuable, because those third through seventh-round guys, those are the picks that help keep you ahead of the salary cap curve. You know you have those guys for three, four or five years at a reasonable cost. Especially anybody after the first round. That's why drafting in the cap era is even more important."

In the NFL, Bailey for Portis was indeed as rare as a total eclipse of the sun. Two Pro Bowl players in their prime swapped for each other, with Denver getting a second-round pick from Washington in the process. To no one's great surprise, the deal was only possible because both players were unhappy with their contract situations.

And another relative blockbuster 1-for-1 trade is still a possibility. Yes, the Keyshawn Johnson-for-Joey Galloway trade has been talked about longer than the Star Wars missile defense system, but Tampa Bay and Dallas have yet to give up on the notion because it solves needs for both teams.

But try asking a team to give up a pick in the first four rounds of the draft in exchange for a well-paid veteran and it's usually a sure-fire way to end the conversation. Younger players on the way up, that's different. Quarterback Drew Henson was worth a third-rounder in 2005 to Dallas. Tennessee receiver Justin McCareins brought a No. 2 pick this year from the New York Jets. And Eagles quarterback A.J. Feeley prompted Miami to spend a conditional second in 2005.

The reasons for the hesitancy on the veteran trade front are fairly obvious:

• Everybody knows everybody's business in the NFL these days. There are no secrets any more. By Feb. 1, teams know which veterans are going to be out on the street come March, the victims of a cap cut, so there's very little impetus that drives the trade market.

"You can almost predict, with 97 percent accuracy, of who's going to get cut in March," said one veteran league personnel man. "In January we put together a list based on age, contract value and how the guy played that year. A guy like John Lynch, at his age [32], with his contract and his production last year, you just know they're not going to pay him.

"And the big roster bonuses that are payable in March just make the decisions easier for teams. If teams know you're going to cut the player, there's no leverage for a trade. Any player with at least four years in the league doesn't have to go through waivers, so he can sign with anybody he wants. So why would you give up a pick for him? You just take your best shot at him in free agency."

• Trading for veterans is also tricky because you're trading for that player's contract. In most cases, you need the agent and the player to agree to restructure that deal in order to make the trade work. Otherwise you're assuming the same set of cap numbers that the player's last team found unwieldy and unacceptable.

"If Pittsburgh doesn't want to pay Jason Gildon $5 million this year, why should I?" a league personnel man said. "Unless you get them to restructure before the deal is approved, you're not going to make that trade."

Said Hurney: "If the veteran only has a year or two left on his contract, teams are hesitant to trade a draft pick for a player in that position. Why pay a big cap number for a guy you might only have for a short time? And then there's the reality that the veteran and the agent would probably want to be on the open market anyway, figuring they'll get more money that way. The system is not conducive to making a deal for a veteran."

• But the most common sense reason for the lack of trades involving veterans is that in the cap era, as Hurney pointed out, draft picks equal cheap labor. Without enough of it being infused into your team's roster every year, the salary cap is going to grow top heavy and eventually come crashing down around you.

Washington, the team that everybody loves to pick on, is the prime example. The Redskins have pulled off another one of their annual free-agent shopping sprees, and have just two picks as they approach this year's draft. They've acquired a bunch of quality veterans, and the Joe Gibbs era is creating a flood of fresh hope. But Washington darn well better win that championship that Daniel Snyder so thirsts for in the next three years or so, because a stint in cap jail is almost certainly coming for the spend-happy Redskins.

That's where too many high-priced veterans and not enough lean and mean rookie deals will land you in 2004.

"When that rookie is good in his third year, he's still going to be playing for a minimum third-year deal, most likely," a league personnel man said. "And he might be a Pro Bowler. He might be Clinton Portis. So you hang onto those picks like gold. And if you trade them, you trade them on draft day to maneuver and get even more players, like New England can do with all those picks they have this year. But you don't give up the picks for veteran players."

Acquiring an expensive veteran and giving up a draft pick is actually a double whammy on the cap front, said an AFC club's general manager.

"Draft choices are your economic players," he said. "You can't give up both your resources and the chance to get another affordable player. You do that enough, and eventually you're in trouble. Those draft picks make you younger and cheaper, and you need to always be restocking your team with them."

That's why so many teams are stuck shopping so many high-priced veterans with so few bidders, and why the deals will continue to be few and far between. This isn't, after all, fantasy football. It's reality. And in the NFL, the reality is this: Trying to trade for big-name veterans is usually more trouble than its worth.

Don Banks covers pro football for SI.com.