Pats offering #23 & #47 to Jax @ #8 According to Peter King

[BradyBranch39]

What about trading up today to get to #8 only to trade back down tomorrow?

Say this trade goes down and we have the #8 pick by tonight. If say Sanchez falls past Seattle and Cleveland (which is possible) he should be there at #8. We now hold the pick that you could call the hot spot of the draft. What could we get from Washington if we traded back down to 13? Probably next years 2nd rounder from them and we are still in good position to get solid player at 13. Malcolm Jenkins should be there, Ayers and Maualuga possibly. Any thoughts?

Of course this is only if Curry and Crabtree are off the board, if they are availalble im not trading the pick

Yeah, this is mentioned in this thread and certainly possible.

 

[JFK]

This makes me ponder about the Cassel trade. Couldn't they get an 8-10 for him?

 

[mayoclinic]

This was my initial thought as well. Let's not overlook the Denver/McDaniels factor at #12. If BB covets a defensive player and rates him as highly elite, odds are McD already knows this. So if BB thinks the Donkeys might be taking his 3-4 guy, he'd have to significantly leapfrog Denver at 12, hence looking at 8/9.

The pick might not be Rey, but I would not be surprised if this move to get up to 8/9 isn't motivated by the fact that BB knows the 3-4 defensive stud he wants is being eyed by Denver as well.

So if Denver is wanting Mauluaga at 12 and BB knows it, and he is the #1 LB on the board for NE by a clear mile, then it makes sense to move up to 8/9 to draft him.

That's a big if. Many would question taking Maualuga at #23, since it's not at all clear he's a 3 down backer. Mike Lombardi has him falling out of the 1st round. I don't think that will happen, but I think that trading up to 8-9 for Maualuga is a huge reach.

I think that Jacksonville turned down the Pat's offer because they have hopes that Mark Sanchez will drop to #8, and that will put them in the driver's seat to be a power broker. If Sanchez goes before #7, I expect the Jags to call NE back in a hurry, and possibly even take a bit less than #23 + 89, especially if NE has an indication that GB might deal.

Peter King things Stafford to Detroit will get done. That means that Aaron Curry either goes #3 to KC, #4 to Seattle, #5 to Cleveland, or falls to #8. I'd say it's 50-50.

My dream:

8 - Aaron Curry, ILB
23 - Connor Barwin, OLB
58 - William Moore, SS (possibly using #124 to trade up)

If Moore reverts to anything resembling his 2007 form, we would be in amazing shape. Trade #89 for a 2010 2nd round pick, take the best available OL with 97, and draft for depth after that. There is some nice depth that should be available with 170, 199, 207 and 234. Wow.

 

[Rob0729]

What about trading up today to get to #8 only to trade back down tomorrow?

Say this trade goes down and we have the #8 pick by tonight. If say Sanchez falls past Seattle and Cleveland (which is possible) he should be there at #8. We now hold the pick that you could call the hot spot of the draft. What could we get from Washington if we traded back down to 13? Probably next years 2nd rounder from them and we are still in good position to get solid player at 13. Malcolm Jenkins should be there, Ayers and Maualuga possibly. Any thoughts?

Of course this is only if Curry and Crabtree are off the board, if they are availalble im not trading the pick

You can't trade up today as a strategy to trade down tomorrow because the 8th pick will be the Sanchez pick. Either Seattle will take him or someone one could trade up to the 7th pickto take Sanchez. That might be a good plan B if you do trade up for someone specific and they are selected before 8 and Sanchez is on the board at 8. I wouldn't suggest doing that as a plan A though.

 

[Rob0729]

My dream:

8 - Aaron Curry, ILB
23 - Connor Barwin, OLB
58 - William Moore, SS (possibly using #124 to trade up)

I assume you mea Barwin at 34. Because I can't see a scenario where the Pats move up to 8 without giving up the 23rd pick.

 

[mayoclinic]

I assume you mea Barwin at 34. Because I can't see a scenario where the Pats move up to 8 without giving up the 23rd pick.

Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks for the correction.

 

[BradyBranch39]

If Detroit can't sign Stafford and decides they want to move down, Curry has said he would take less $$ to be the #1 pick. Little enough for us to move up to 1 from 8? Probably not, but just sayin'...

 

[borg]

Sounds like BB is messing with Buffalo. They need a tackle, so why not make it known that he (BB) wants to jump a couple of slots ahead of Buffalo. Force Buffalo to pay the cost of trading up, take the tackle that Buffalo also wanted, or control the slot for another team to deal with the Pats for said tackle. If you can't mess with the Jets on draft day, then mess with the other NY team.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Sounds like BB is messing with Buffalo. They need a tackle, so why not make it known that he (BB) wants to jump a couple of slots ahead of Buffalo. Force Buffalo to pay the cost of trading up, take the tackle that Buffalo also wanted, or control the slot for another team to deal with the Pats for said tackle. If you can't mess with the Jets on draft day, then mess with the other NY team.

Bill said on Wednesday, you don't trade up for a slot, you trade up for a player. He also said the higher up (I assume he means on his board and not say Kipers...) a player is rated the better the talent.

 

[Synovia]

But if there is no one they want at 8 and they can't find a trade partner to trade down, what good would the surplus value get you? If the Pats have to draft a guy at 8 that they wouldn't normally select at 8 and don't think is worth the contract compensation he will get at 8, what good is that?

You can ALWAYS trade down, just not for chart value. If nobody fell to 8, they could trade down to 15th and a 5th, and still have come out on top overall. If they get 8 for less than its "worth" they can give it up for less than its "worth", and still be ok. Not a lot of downside. They could even just sit and wait till 12 or 13, and then pick without losing anything.


Now, the upside, is they trade for 8, gaining 200 points of "chart value" and then someone like the Vikings say "OMG, WE NEED SANCHEZ", then you make out like a bandit.


Generally taking a small risk for the chance of huge upside is a good thing.

 

[The Hurricane]

You can't trade up today as a strategy to trade down tomorrow because the 8th pick will be the Sanchez pick. Either Seattle will take him or someone one could trade up to the 7th pickto take Sanchez. That might be a good plan B if you do trade up for someone specific and they are selected before 8 and Sanchez is on the board at 8. I wouldn't suggest doing that as a plan A though.

The conspiracy theory makes a LOT of sense. 49ers have basically telegraphed that they are going Sanchez all the way if he is around, so for a team looking to trade up their goal is to leapfrog San Fransisco at #10. If we trade for the #8 pick, we either force the jest to trade up to #7 costing them a boatload more money and costing them more draftpicks OR we can make sure the jest don't get Sanchez by trading back with San Fransisco to pick 10. Jest probably STILL need to trade up in that scenario to guarantee josh freeman because the Broncos might reach for him once Sanchez is off the board. Meanwhile there is a dearth of good players in that range so we get the added bonus of picking up raji or jackson or an OT that will have an immediate impact for our team. Absolute worst case we get Jenkins or Maualuga.

 

[Synovia]

Bill said on Wednesday, you don't trade up for a slot, you trade up for a player. .

Yes, but he was also talking bout zero sum value trades, not a trade where you're gaining value.

 

[mayoclinic]

Bill said on Wednesday, you don't trade up for a slot, you trade up for a player. He also said the higher up (I assume he means on his board and not say Kipers...) a player is rated the better the talent.

BB also said on Wednesday that he is one of the few people comfortable on trading picks in advance of the draft without knowing that a specific player will be available: "I think at this point in time it’s a lot of preliminary conversations. You talk to a team, see whether they are interested in talking to you, whichever way it goes. Are they interested in moving a certain pick and/or are you interested in moving a certain pick? You’re just trying to get some parameters. Some teams are at a certain point in the draft where they say they don’t want to move. Well, then you know on draft day that if you were interested in moving to that spot, that’s probably not as good of an option as [it would be to deal with] other teams that tell you they would love to consider something if the one or two guys they are looking for aren’t there. Well, great if it comes to that point and you are looking to move to that position then that’s the team you would contact. So, it’s more along those lines. If you look at the number of pre-draft draft choice trades – not player for draft choice, but straight draft choice trades – you won’t find very many of them. Probably the last one would be when Jimmy Johnson and I made one in 1992 or 1993, a couple days before the draft. Teams don’t like to do it. I am personally comfortable doing it, but most teams don’t like to do it."

Bill Belichick pre-draft transcript - Reiss' Pieces - Boston.com

I think BB is doing exactlty what he explained - he's exploring possible trade partners in advance to decide if there is interest. If they would be willing to trade now, I think he would be willing to do it. If not, he's opened channels and done some homework to figure out who may be likely trade partners tomorrow. With only 10 minutes per draft spot, there's not a lot of time to explore options if you haven't laid the groundwork in advance.

If Jax were willing to trade, I think BB would do it. Look at it this way:

1. Detroit will almost certainly take Matt Stafford #1, and have a deal in place (if not signed) later today.
2. That leaves 3 OTs (Jason Smith, Eugene Monroe, and Andre Smith), 1 LB (Aaron Curry), 1 DT (BJ Raji), 1 DE (Tyson Jackson), 1 WR (Michael Crabtree) and 1 QB (Mark Sanchez) likely to go in the next 8 picks. I'm willing to bet that BB would be happy with any of the OT's, Curry, Raji, and possibly Crabtree or Jackson. And if Sanchez fell to 8 he would be in a position to broker a trade with Denver or Washington to 12 or 13. So I think his risk is minimal.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Yes, but he was also talking bout zero sum value trades, not a trade where you're gaining value.

There is really no value in the spot. The value is in the player. If 7 thru 20 represent similar value the very most you stand to gain is first dibs on that talent pool in exchange for the right to tie that player up for 6 years albeit at a substantially higher price contract wise.

I think be meant what he said and said what he meant.

 

[bakes781]

But at #8 the Pats are pretty much guarantees to have at least 2-3 of the following players available:

1. Aaron Curry - 10% chance he goes #1 to Detroit, 50% chance he goes between #3 and #5, and about a 40% chance he falls to #8.

Where do you come up with this stuff? lol

Stop!

Do you HONESTLY think all the GM's who've known they were picking in the top 5 let alone top 8 just realized now that "OMG Curry doesn't rush the passer, we can't take him this high"? He's been considered the safest pick from DAY ONE. He's the highest rated player by BOTH Mayock and Kiper.

Aaron Curry will NOT get past the Seattle Seahawks at #4.

 

[billdog3484]

If you look at the draft value table, #23 and #47 will only

buy the #12 draft pick.

thats if teams are so dumb they only make trades based on a silly, arbitrarily put together chart that makes no sense

 

[alvinnf]

Jackson or Ayers, that would be my guess.

 

[billdog3484]

You can't trade up today as a strategy to trade down tomorrow because the 8th pick will be the Sanchez pick. Either Seattle will take him or someone one could trade up to the 7th pickto take Sanchez. That might be a good plan B if you do trade up for someone specific and they are selected before 8 and Sanchez is on the board at 8. I wouldn't suggest doing that as a plan A though.

Yes you can and its brilliant. if he slides you get HUGE bang on your buck. if not you select a player you covet

 

[billdog3484]

If we trade up my guess is Andre Smith

 

[bakes781]

thats if teams are so dumb they only make trades based on a silly, arbitrarily put together chart that makes no sense

you got a better idea?