2010 1st round pick acquisition options?

[Isaac]

I'd love to see the Patriots come out of this draft with an extra 2010 first round pick--I'm wondering how that is most likely to happen.

Of course they could probably trade #23 for a 2010 1st and something else (maybe a 2009 3rd or 4th or, even better, a 2010 3rd)--but that seems unlikely because they will probably want a first round pick this year. Maybe that's just my shortsightedness, but I have a hard time seeing this one.

So, my questions for the board are:
1) how common/likely is it to trade picks such as #34, #47, and #58 for a future 1st rounder?
2) what else, if anything, would likely be included in such trades?

Maybe I can see a team trading for #34 straight up for a 2010 1st rounder. I don't see how #47 or #58 would be worth a future first rounder, even in combination. It's such a risk for the other team, I have a hard time imagining other teams accepting second round picks for an undetermined future 1st and I don't recall such trades in the past.

 

[mgteich]

It is very possible. We could add a 4th or 6th or 7th as a sweetener.

 

[Isaac]

It is very possible. We could add a 4th or 6th or 7th as a sweetener.

What is?...

 

[mgteich]

The OP's question was whether it was possible to trade up from this year's second round to next year's first. I indicated that it is certainly possible. I also indicated that we could use our later tradeables as a sweetener to such a deal.

Just BTW, I want to use ALL of our picks in the first five rounds in this draft, either as picks or as part of trades. I see no reason to trade out of the draft that the organization has been looking for for years. This is the time to sign up inexpensive backups and potential future starters,

What is?...

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I'd love to see the Patriots come out of this draft with an extra 2010 first round pick--I'm wondering how that is most likely to happen.

Of course they could probably trade #23 for a 2010 1st and something else (maybe a 2009 3rd or 4th or, even better, a 2010 3rd)--but that seems unlikely because they will probably want a first round pick this year. Maybe that's just my shortsightedness, but I have a hard time seeing this one.

So, my questions for the board are:
1) how common/likely is it to trade picks such as #34, #47, and #58 for a future 1st rounder?
2) what else, if anything, would likely be included in such trades?

Maybe I can see a team trading for #34 straight up for a 2010 1st rounder. I don't see how #47 or #58 would be worth a future first rounder, even in combination. It's such a risk for the other team, I have a hard time imagining other teams accepting second round picks for an undetermined future 1st and I don't recall such trades in the past.

Rule of thumb: a future pick of equivalent value is one round earlier, e.g. in 2008 NE traded Oakland's #69 for SD's 2009 2nd - which became #47; in 2007 NE traded #28 to SF for their 2007 4th Rd pick (#110 if I recall - Moss) and their 2008 1st round pick (which became #7). #47 should technically be worth a 2010 1st, though NE may be asked to throw in their 6th. #58 will likely not get a 2010 1st, but it could be combined with #89 to get one.

 

[JoeShmoe]

I can very easily see us trading this years 1st to someone like the Bucs for next years 1st. Indeed Im almost expecting it

That still gives us 3 x 2nd rounders in a deep draft to go for say Barwin, Chung/Delmas

Then get a LT in 2010 - where we'll probably be picking at 28-32 if we dont get someone elses !

 

[Isaac]

Rule of thumb: a future pick of equivalent value is one round earlier, e.g. in 2008 NE traded Oakland's #69 for SD's 2009 2nd - which became #47; in 2007 NE traded #28 to SF for their 2007 4th Rd pick (#110 if I recall - Moss) and their 2008 1st round pick (which became #7). #47 should technically be worth a 2010 1st, though NE may be asked to throw in their 6th. #58 will likely not get a 2010 1st, but it could be combined with #89 to get one.

Well I will counter that there is one exception to this Rule of Thumb--you can't trade a second for a future first. I highly doubt that #47 and a 6 gets you a 1st, nor #58 and #89. I would prefer to be wrong, but in my recollection such deals don't happen. Does anyone have any examples to the contrary?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Well I will counter that there is one exception to this Rule of Thumb--you can't trade a second for a future first. I highly doubt that #47 and a 6 gets you a 1st, nor #58 and #89. I would prefer to be wrong, but in my recollection such deals don't happen. Does anyone have any examples to the contrary?

Ahem.

San Francisco traded pick #42 in 2007 to the Indianapolis Mannings, who used it to pick Tony Ugoh. In exchange, Indianapolis gave up its #4 in 2007 and its #1 in 2008.

 

[Isaac]

Ahem.

San Francisco traded pick #42 in 2007 to the Indianapolis Mannings, who used it to pick Tony Ugoh. In exchange, Indianapolis gave up its #4 in 2007 and its #1 in 2008.

Ah yes, thank you! I had forgotten about that one. Perhaps teams that are realistically confident that their future #1 will be in the 20s would be willing to make such a trade.

Nonetheless I would say that such trades are very rare, although not unprecedented.

 

[stinkypete]

In 2007 the Niners traded their second round pick (#42) to Indy for a fourth round pick and a 2008 first. The Colts went on to draft Tony Ugoh.

I think trading #23 is the best route to getting a 2010 first. All the players that I think could be the most likely targets (Sintim, Barwin, Harvin, Delmas, Britton, Chung) grade out as early second round type players.

 

[patsox23]

I would be pretty surprised if the Patriots DON'T trade one of the 2nd rounders for a future #1. HOWEVER, I will be pi$$ed if the one they trade is the #34 overall. The second pick in the 2nd round - especially with this draft class - is essentially a 1st round pick with a 2nd round price-tag. Make your first two picks, then consider dealing one of the remaining two second rounders.

 

[Isaac]

...
Nonetheless I would say that such trades are very rare, although not unprecedented.

I did a little research (perhaps should have done that first) and this 49ers to Indy 2007 trade is the only trade since at least 2000 in which a team has received a future first without trading a first or a player (i.e. by trading 2nds). This is an extremely rare occurrence!

Those that are posting on this board that we can just trade a 2009 second for a 2010 first, as if this is part of the "Rule of Thumb", aren't considering history. Again I'd love to see this happen, it's just extremely unlikely.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I did a little research (perhaps should have done that first) and this 49ers to Indy 2007 trade is the only trade since at least 2000 in which a team has received a future first without trading a first or a player (i.e. by trading 2nds). This is an extremely rare occurrence!

Those that are posting on this board that we can just trade a 2009 second for a 2010 first, as if this is part of the "Rule of Thumb", aren't considering history. Again I'd love to see this happen, it's just extremely unlikely.

Agreed, it is unlikely, just as the idea of trading out of round one with NE's only first is unlikely. I can't predict where the Pats will trade ahead, I like this draft class too much to want to bank another 2010 - yet I do want to bank one or more. Tough choice to make - I also find myself wanting a couple more 6th/7th round picks, not so much for the numbers, but as preemptive grabs for some interesting late round/UDFA prospects.