Proposed draft trade
by vikingfuture8816 on Mar 9, 2009 12:52 AM EDT
23 comments
Hey Patriots Fans, I had an idea for a draft trade proposal that I wanted your opinions on. As you can probably tell by the name I am a Vikings fan and I think they are in a position where they might trade down in the draft. I don't know how much you covet your 3 2nd round draft picks, but according to this chart the 34th(560pts) and 58th(320pts) picks that NE currently holds would be 100pts(560+320=880) more than the Vikings 22nd pick(780pts) which would be just before NE 1st round pick. The trade proposal goes like this:
NE gets:
1st round, 22nd pick over all
Vikings get:
2nd round 34th and 58th overall
NE would have 2 consecutive 1st round picks and still have the 2nd rounder from San Diego (47th overall). From what I understand, the Patriots would have the cap room for something like this and could get a top notch CB/LB with the first two picks and still get a good OL with the 2nd rounder.
At 22, the Vikings would have to reach for a C and the 1st round graded OT will most likely be gone by then. With the early 2nd rounder they could get a Mack or Unger and still get a good CB and OT with their other 2nd round picks.
Seems advantagous to both sides, but what do you think? Is that a move that your organization would make? Is it something the fans would go along with? Is there any animosity towards the Vikings that I am not aware of where there could never be a trade?
The views expressed in these FanPosts are not necessarily those of the writers or SBNation.
0 recs |
23 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Belichick
rarely swaps multiple lowers for a higher one, it’s usually the other way around. He would only do something like that if a player he really really liked was available at 22 and wouldn’t make it to 34.
"These players, a lot of other people didn't believe in them, but they believe in themselves. And that is all that matters."- Bill Belichick
by Mainiac on Mar 9, 2009 9:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
By your own calculations, it's greater value for the Vikings
So I tell you what — I’ll make that trade, but you have to throw in a conditional pick in next year’s draft. If Minnesota doesn’t pick in the top 15 of the first round, we get their first round pick; if their first round pick is in the top 15, we get their second and third round picks.
After all, by the same logic by which that value-per-pick chart is developed, a second rounder this year is roughly equal in value to a first rounder next year.
by RSNexile on Mar 9, 2009 11:11 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Well
The difference in value is 100pts, which according to the chart is the 4th pick in the 4th round. So I wouldn’t take the trade plus a conditional 1st rounder. Conditional 3rd or 4th for next year, but not a first.
by vikingfuture8816 on Mar 9, 2009 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But that's just it
The deal you proposed is uneven in favor of the Vikings. The Pats would be fools to make that deal. For our purposes, the team is far better off keeping the three second rounders this year — with the first two, we can probably still get first-round talent, and the third one will be good for depth at the very least. So if you wanted to make that deal, you have to give us something of significantly greater value, something that will make it worthwhile to sacrifice the immediate benefits of our current position for the lesser benefits of a late first-rounder.
by RSNexile on Mar 9, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just so I understand
In order for the deal to work for you, the Vikings would have to give up 2 1st round picks to get 2 2nd round picks? I understand that there is a 100pt difference, but 100pts on the value chart is nothing. Not only that, but the team that wants to trade up is the one that would have to “overpay” because they are the team moving up, there is more value in trading down than trying to underpay to move up.
Now if you want all the numbers to be perfect it could be the Vikings 1st and 4th rounder next year for 2 2nd this year, but again, I wasn’t coming here to play GM. Just wondering where Pats fans stand with their 3 2nd rounders, if there was an additonal player in the 1st they might look for, do you want to move up, or are you just happy with where you are at.
by vikingfuture8816 on Mar 9, 2009 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not quite
I’m saying that for the deal to work for me, the Vikings have to give us something more valuable that what we already have. What we already have are a late first rounder, two second rounders that will give us first round talent, and a second rounder that will give us depth at the very least. That combination, given the situated context in which our team finds itself, is a hell of a lot more valuable to us than two late first rounders and San Diego’s second rounder.
Put it this way: we don’t need any specific player, so we have no need to trade up. We need talent, though, and we can get a lot more of it with the picks we have than we could with the picks we’d have if we made a deal like the one you’re proposing. So for the deal to be worth it, you have to offer a big premium for next year on top of what we’d get this year. Since I can’t think of a single player on the Vikings roster who offers that kind of value for us and who you’d consider adding to the deal, that means a high draft pick next year.
By the same token, the Vikings have a lot more needs they need to address — hence the appeal of the trade for you. But Belichick knows that at least as well as the rest of us, and he can use that for leverage. And contrary to the perception of the idiots who look at the Cassel/Vrabel deal and say he’s gone soft, Belichick absolutely would use that for leverage. So if we assume that the Vikings’ draft position will be around #20 next year, by the deal I suggested above, we’d get that pick. By the value chart, that’s 850 points of value, giving us a premium of 750 points. But as the conventional wisdom goes, a pick in this year’s draft is equivalent to a pick in next year’s draft one year later, so those 850 points become 380 points. Now subtract the 100 point advantage to you guys this year, and that’s a premium of 280 points. We come out ahead — you’d be giving us that delayed premium I talked about — but not by a huge amount. In fact, going back to the value chart, the difference is roughly equivalent to a late second round pick, and it’s in next year’s draft.
by RSNexile on Mar 9, 2009 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Still
not getting how your valuing future picks, but I definately get why you wouldn’t make the trade. Appreciate the clarification.
by vikingfuture8816 on Mar 9, 2009 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Check the chart -- step by step
1) The 20th pick in the first round is 850 points.
2) Conventional wisdom is that the value of a pick this year is equivalent to the pick a round earlier the next year. So a first rounder next year is worth a second rounder this year. (I don’t think that actually works for all cases, but I do think it’s about right for picks in the latter half of the first round.)
3) If next year’s first rounder is worth this year’s second rounder, then next year’s 20th overall pick is worth the same as this year’s 20th pick in the second round. Going back to the chart, the 20th pick in the second round is worth 380 points.
4) If we assume that the Vikings will be around 20th in the draft order next year, then under the terms of the counterproposal I made, the Pats would receive the 20th pick in next year’s draft.
5) If a second rounder this year is worth a first rounder next year, then the point value of the first round pick we receive next year is the value of the equivalent pick in the second round this year. If it’s the 20th pick in the draft next year, slide over on the chart to the 20th pick of the second round and that is the value right now of the 20th pick in next year’s draft. That’s 380 points. (That’s what items #3 and 4 were all about.)
6) The initial deal you proposed gave Minnesota a premium of 100 points. My counterproposal gives the Pats the added aforementioned pick, worth 380 points. That gives the Pats a premium of 280 points.
7) Going back to the chart, the 62nd pick in the draft is worth 284 points and the 63rd pick is worth 276 points. So a 280 point premium for the Pats is equivalent to a pick at the very end of the second round.
8) Since the value of what we would give up this year is greater than the value of what we would receive this year, the payoff — the premium equivalent to a late second round pick — comes next year.
So in the end, you get more value now, but we get more value later, and the overall difference is equivalent to a late second round pick.
by RSNexile on Mar 9, 2009 9:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think
what throws me off is the “conventional wisdom” part of it. I am not sure where that comes from. For instance, when the Eagles traded down into the second round last year, for the 1st rounder they gave up, they got a earlier 2nd round pick and a future (2009) first. But if the “conventional wisdom” is that a 2nd this year is worth a 1st next year, why would they have moved down for that price in the first place? Couldn’t they have just traded a 2nd rounder for a late future 1st instead? Thanks for the explanation though, the last line sums it up perfectly, but it still feels like giving up 2 firsts to get 2 seconds.
by vikingfuture8816 on Mar 9, 2009 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's the question of added value
Philly traded away the 19th overall pick (875 points on the chart) for the 43rd pick (470 points), which they then traded again, plus what could reasonably be expected at the time to be a mid- to late-teens pick in the first round this year (say, 850-1000 points). So why would Carolina give up that much just to get another first rounder?
Here’s how it works for Carolina: slide that first rounder this year over to the corresponding value for the second round (because they traded away the next year’s pick) and it’s worth an expected 380-420 points (though it ended up being a late first rounder instead of a mid-round pick). So they didn’t give up very much in order to pick a very good offensive tackle who was worth more than what they had to give up to get him, but that’s only true if you treat this year’s first round pick as equivalent to a second rounder last year. And you do that because with that second rounder last year, you could have picked up a player to fill a need, and that player would now have some experience and know your system and be better prepared to contribute this year than a rookie.
So how does it work for Philadelphia? They sacrificed value last year in the hope that Carolina would actually end up turning over a mid-first round pick this year. If Carolina had ended up, say, 18th in the draft order, then treat this year’s added first rounder as equivalent to the 18th pick in the second round last year — 400 points. And you treat it that way because the Eagles could have used their pick last year to fill a need, and whichever player they picked would now have a year of experience and know their system well. Whoever they pick up this year with the added pick doesn’t have any experience in the NFL and doesn’t know their system, so he’ll have some catching up to do. In short, the Eagles were gambling that the Panthers wouldn’t improve much so that they’d get equal value in return for what they gave up. Unfortunately for them, Carolina improved a great deal, so the return on their investment is less than what they were hoping to get — 660 points, which I suggest prorating to 300 points under the “second this year = first next year” doctrine, given when the trade was made. Now, the pick is currently worth 660 points, and the Eagles can parlay that into more than just the low first rounder they ended up getting in the deal if they make another trade. But as it stands right now, they’re a big loser in that deal.
In any case, consult your chart and you’ll see that across rounds, most picks are worth slightly less than half of the similarly positioned pick in the previous round. When you delay filling a need by trading a pick this year for a pick next year, you’re effectively sacrificing a year of development for a player who could have helped you this year and more next year in the hope that whatever you can pick up next year will be even more valuable. I would argue that with the exception of the first 15 or so picks in draft, that means you have to treat the value of any future pick you gain from such a trade as being half of what it would be if you got to exercise it this year. And that puts the value of the future at roughly what you’d get one round later in the draft this year. In fact, given the advantage of getting a player now and having him develop, I think that actually overvalues future picks.
by RSNexile on Mar 9, 2009 10:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks
to those who have been participating. Seems to run 50-50 so not a lot of support. Curious as to what the Pats were thinking about draft movement and if you were in the market to move up or if you like where you’re at.
by vikingfuture8816 on Mar 9, 2009 2:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
How about this trade from a Broncos fan....
First of all….I don’t think you guys should do this proposed trade with the Vikes. How about this one….
We give you our #12 first rounder in exchange for your 1st rounder (#23) and your 2nd rounder (#58?). You would get Cushing or Maualuga to complement Mayo, or go for Moreno or even an OT. Anyway, what do you think?
by swg777 on Mar 9, 2009 4:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Of course
because those two picks you give up are 120pts less than pick #12 (meaning you would pay less than the market value for it). If the Broncos were smart, they would get another draft pick (the second to last pick in the 3rd is worth 120pts) out of the deal. I guess the question then becomes, do you want one 1st and two 2nds or two 1sts and one 2nd?
by vikingfuture8816 on Mar 9, 2009 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are right...
I check the chart and the Broncos would be better to trade our #12 for the Pats #23 and their #47. That would be fair, according to the value chart thingy
by swg777 on Mar 9, 2009 6:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's a more important consideration
At #12, we’d be guaranteed the impact linebacker we’d want to pair with Mayo. By #22, there’s a very high likelihood Cushing, Maualuga, and Matthews are already gone. I suppose we could then take Laurinaitis, but I suspect there’s a great chance he’ll be available at #23 and a fair chance we could take him at #34 anyway, so what’s the advantage of trading up?
by RSNexile on Mar 9, 2009 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
maybe
Cushing is probably gone, but Maualuga might still be there and so might Matthews. If you are looking for a list of players I think the Pats might take at 22/23:
LB- Maualuga/Matthews/Laurinaitis/Maybin/English
CB- Darius Butler/DJ Moore/Alphonso Smith
OT-Oher/Smith/Beatty/Britton
TE-Pettigrew
RB-Moreno/McCoy/Brown
Not sure of needs for Pats outside of getting younger at LB and shoring up their secondary, but I think you could pick any two you like there and they could be at 22/23. I am sure that list will get shorter in the next month, but doesn’t look so bad now.
by vikingfuture8816 on Mar 9, 2009 9:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maualuga and Matthews might still be there at #22. But there’s a pretty good chance they won’t be. At #12, the Pats would be able to take either, and there’s a decent chance they could get Cushing then if they prefer him. That’s what makes the #12 so much more appealing.
As for the rest, there isn’t much added value at all in this regard for the Pats to get #22 when they have #23 because anyone available at #22 when the Vikings pick is probably going to be available at #23. The Pats need to get younger at LB and shore up their secondary, you’re absolutely right about that, but if the Vikings were to take one of the three CBs you list, chances are pretty good at least one of the others will still be available if that’s what Belichick decides he wants, and there just isn’t enough difference between the three to make it worth worrying about one spot in the draft. If Maualuga and Matthews are both gone when it’s the Pats’ turn — or even if they’re not gone — we might take Maybin if he’s still available. RB isn’t a position of big enough need to warrant a first round pick this year, given that we just signed Fred Taylor. I’m not convinced Pettigrew is really worth a first rounder for anyone, and he certainly isn’t for the Pats, though he may be worth looking at if he’s still around at #34, though I tend to think the Pats could do nearly as well with one of the other TEs at #58 or in the third round. And while the O-line could definitely use some depth, the position of biggest need there is backup to Stephen Neal, the right guard, who will be a free agent next offseason. We’re not going to use a first rounder to pick a guy we want to be a backup guard this year, not when we have bigger needs at LB and CB.
Smart money says the Pats take one of the CBs, Maualuga, Matthews, Maybin, or English at #23, and if by some fluke they’re all gone, they’ll take Sintim or trade the pick. It’s possible they’ll take Laurinaitis, but I really think they’d only do so if they feel based on the first 20 picks that he’s the only LB they’ll be able to get who could play immediately and there’s no chance he’d slide to the second round. But if they take a CB at #23 and Laurinaitis is still around at #34, I think he’ll get a close look.
by RSNexile on Mar 9, 2009 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maualuga may fall to us at 23 anyways.
Knowshon would be there too.
by noro on Mar 9, 2009 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
how about
we don’t do anything with our picks. at 23, i’m thinking conner barwin the DE/OLB. if he’s not there, than either clay mathews or English. What are my solid opinions is that the 3 2nd rounders, I’m thinking the pats are going to get donald brown RB, darius butler CB, and max unger C/everything else on the O-line. Basically i’m thinking they are going to draft a RB, CB, WR, and/or Safety. I’m actually thinking they’ll get an O-Lineman in the 3rd round.
I’ll respond to your opinions about my opinion.
by patriotguy on Mar 10, 2009 3:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
cost matters too
Regarding the Broncos trade, what is the normal average salary for a #12 overall versus a #23+#47? Unless there was someone they were just dying to get, I don’t think the Pats would move up if it meant a significant increase in salary. It’s not their style. It’s why they wanted no part of KC’s #3 overall pick (even if they could have gotten it). It’s way too much money—and too much guaranteed money—to spend on one person who hasn’t proven they can do anything at the NFL level. Now I’m not sure what the drop-off is in salary once you get to #12. But that definitely plays a factor here. With as many needs as the Pats have (LB, CB, OL for sure), I suspect they are pretty sure they will be able to get what they want with the pics they already have.
by JohnPaul on Mar 10, 2009 4:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Media requests: Please email patspulpit at gmail.com
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
