Have teams stopped trading with BB?

[Mark Morse]

I like rookBoston's theory of a perpetual trading of the 2nd #1 pick, but are teams wising up to the Patriots Way? The refusal to pay the price for the #33 pick last week is an indication. BB wanted a 2011 #2 (mid round) and a 2012 2nd round pick, and no one would bite. All Access showed BB slamming the phone down on sevearl teams (Mike Reiss speculated the Niners were one of them).

 

[patfanken]

I like rookBoston's theory of a perpetual trading of the 2nd #1 pick, but are teams wising up to the Patriots Way? The refusal to pay the price for the #33 pick last week is an indication. BB wanted a 2011 #2 (mid round) and a 2012 2nd round pick, and no one would bite. All Access showed BB slamming the phone down on sevearl teams (Mike Reiss speculated the Niners were one of them).

I don't know he got a replacement first PLUS a mid round 2nd from NO, for a pick just 4 slots ahead. I think what BB was offering was a good deal. In fact I wouldn't have been happy if he had made that trade dropping 15-20 slots and only picking up a 2012 2nd. That's the kind of deal that only made sense if you were dropping 4 or 5 slots

Now that I know this, I'm happier that we didn't move the pick.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I like rookBoston's theory of a perpetual trading of the 2nd #1 pick, but are teams wising up to the Patriots Way? The refusal to pay the price for the #33 pick last week is an indication. BB wanted a 2011 #2 (mid round) and a 2012 2nd round pick, and no one would bite. All Access showed BB slamming the phone down on sevearl teams (Mike Reiss speculated the Niners were one of them).

No, it's not that they're wising up, it's just that normally BB doesn't charge a king's ransom for picks.

 

[patchick]

Umm...didn't he make a ton of trades? The one example cited to support the idea in the title of this thread -- the failure to trade #33 -- seems like exactly the opposite. We saw lots of teams wanted to trade with BB and him not accepting their offers.

 

[bucky]

I like rookBoston's theory of a perpetual trading of the 2nd #1 pick, but are teams wising up to the Patriots Way? The refusal to pay the price for the #33 pick last week is an indication. BB wanted a 2011 #2 (mid round) and a 2012 2nd round pick, and no one would bite. All Access showed BB slamming the phone down on sevearl teams (Mike Reiss speculated the Niners were one of them).

It's pretty obvious BB didn't want any more 3rd or 4th round picks in this year's draft. He seemed to have plenty of offers.

 

[randomk1]

I'm hoping the value offered wasn't worth giving up on Dowling,atleast in BB's mind.

And we did get a 1st / 2nd round pick as usual.

 

[Haley]

I think any team that decided "I'm not trading with coach XYZ under any circumstances" would only be shooting themselves in their own foot.

 

[townes]

Umm...didn't he make a ton of trades? The one example cited to support the idea in the title of this thread -- the failure to trade #33 -- seems like exactly the opposite. We saw lots of teams wanted to trade with BB and him not accepting their offers.

I agree, they wanted to make a deal but he stuck to his guns for the 2nd in 2012. Ironic in that was my prediction for one thing that would happen in the draft, trade the #33 for a 2nd this year and a 2nd next. I'm glad he stuck to his guns i wouldn't have wanted a 2nd this year and 3rd next, that pick was too valuable for that, better to take the player you really want than pass for a deal you don't want.

 

[dryheat44]

Curious, curious, premise.

No team that executed a trade with BB did so AFAIK with a gun to their head. I think that those team are generally happy with the trade. The Saints with Ingram, the Packers with Matthews, the Cowboys with Bryant.* They willingly paid BBs price to get "their" guy.

In fact, teams should be tripping over each other to talk to BB, since they know he's always willing to trade back if the price is right.

* I don't actually remember if those trades were directly with the Patriots. I'm pretty sure they were at least tangentially. Regardless, you get the point.

 

[Don Kipines]

There's probably some truth to it. He took a bad deal when he traded out of 60 and he had to pay more for his future #2 this time around. And I find it hard to believe that he didn't at least try to trade back from 73.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

There's probably some truth to it. He took a bad deal when he traded out of 60 and he had to pay more for his future #2 this time around. And I find it hard to believe that he didn't at least try to trade back from 73.

I believe the fact that BB appeared to be advertising taking Mallet through Lombardi was a pretty clean indicator that he wanted to trade 73 or 74.

 

[rookBoston]

I actually do think that it takes a special player available for a team to be willing to give up what BB feels is "good value". Thus, trading up for Kyle Boller (suckers!), Clay Matthews, Mark Ingram (as mentioned), Dez Bryant, etc. Got to be something drawing them up the board.

Makes sense that the Niners wanted to move up to #33 for a QB-- maybe they wanted to move ahead of Cinci and Buffalo to be sure to get a QB. Well, they got one at #36 anyway... who knows if it's the one they wanted. If they really wanted Dalton over Kaepernick they should have made the trade, even if it was going to cost them a 2012 2nd. But, if I'm them at #36, I'm looking at Dalton, Kaepernick and Mallett and thinking if Buffalo and Cinco both take one, they still have a guy on the board. From that perspective, they really weren't in a bad situation at #36. So, if that's the case, was there really a market for the #33 pick?

Now, if Indy and/or Chicago had taken a QB at the bottom of the first, I bet SF would have paid BB's price.

 

[TheSolderKing]

what???



do u recall the NO trade


we made sum othr 1 I thought as well

 

[ctpatsfan77]

There's probably some truth to it. He took a bad deal when he traded out of 60 and he had to pay more for his future #2 this time around. And I find it hard to believe that he didn't at least try to trade back from 73.

To be fair, I think that was Al Davis actually recognizing that his team is likely to suck next year.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I believe the fact that BB appeared to be advertising taking Mallet through Lombardi was a pretty clean indicator that he wanted to trade 73 or 74.

Not so much that as "If you want Mallett, speak now or forever hold your peace."

 

[convertedpatsfan]

There's probably some truth to it. He took a bad deal when he traded out of 60 and he had to pay more for his future #2 this time around. And I find it hard to believe that he didn't at least try to trade back from 73.

The trade for 60 was a bit under value compared to the value chart, but bear in mind those are arbitrary numbers. If no one wants to deal, it doesn't matter what the trade chart says. The trade chart says 17, 28, and 33 would barely be 2/3 what the #1 pick would be worth, but I bet you Carolina would have taken that deal in a heartbeat, but that doesn't mean we were offering it.

My sense is all the players he thought were worth a second were gone and he had a 3rd round grade on a few guys so he traded back. If the value was there with the player pick (like at 33), he'd have made the pick instead of the trade.

As for overpaying for his future #2, bear in mind that they were the Patriots own picks, so late 3rd and 4ths (28th in each round). According to the draft value chart, that's only 180 points. Even if the Raiders win the Superbowl, that 2nd would be valued at 270 points, and if they don't make the play-offs, at least 380 points. You can discount what you want for a year's wait but it still is excellent value.

 

[Off The Grid]

Curious, curious, premise.

No team that executed a trade with BB did so AFAIK with a gun to their head.

I think that those team are generally happy with the trade.

The Saints with Ingram, the Packers with Matthews, the Cowboys with Bryant.* They willingly paid BBs price to get "their" guy.

In fact, teams should be tripping over each other to talk to BB, since they know he's always willing to trade back if the price is right.

* I don't actually remember if those trades were directly with the Patriots. I'm pretty sure they were at least tangentially. Regardless, you get the point.

It's a very strange premise, indeed.

We TOOLED the Saints.

I would also add that the Raiders are also pretty happy with Seymour.

As long as 31 GMs have less Job Security than Coach B, teams will continue to Trade Forward to seize their Binkies.

There's probably some truth to it. He took a bad deal when he traded out of 60 and he had to pay more for his future #2 this time around. And I find it hard to believe that he didn't at least try to trade back from 73.

1 ~ Yes, the Trade Down from #60 made me cringe, as The Trade Value Chart clearly suggests that a 3rd and a 4th Rounder for #60...

But as I've always sermonized: The Market Is What the Market Is. We can take it for granted that Coach B gets max value in every single trade, and if a 3rd and 5th was the best offer, than a 3rd and a 5th was, by definition, the REAL Value of #60 at that time.

2 ~ As for paying "more" for his future 2nd Rounder, he actually did not: #92 + #125 only amount to about a middle 3rd Rounder on the Chart, even if he could've extracted the same sort of premium for them that he'd paid in the above Trade Down with #60...And a middle 3rd Rounder for a Deferred 2nd Rounder is Even Steven. Furthermore, we all know that there's a VERY strong chance that that 2nd Rounder goes Top 40.

Don't forget, from The Evil That Bill Does how we traded #91 to these very same Raiders in 2007 ~ an AWFUL Draft Class!! ~ for a 7th Rounder ~ just like this year ~ and their 2008 3rd Rounder!!

We didn't even move up a round!!

And we STILL tooled'm!! :rocker:

 

[TealSox]

I actually do think that it takes a special player available for a team to be willing to give up what BB feels is "good value". Thus, trading up for Kyle Boller (suckers!), Clay Matthews, Mark Ingram (as mentioned), Dez Bryant, etc. Got to be something drawing them up the board.

Makes sense that the Niners wanted to move up to #33 for a QB-- maybe they wanted to move ahead of Cinci and Buffalo to be sure to get a QB. Well, they got one at #36 anyway... who knows if it's the one they wanted. If they really wanted Dalton over Kaepernick they should have made the trade, even if it was going to cost them a 2012 2nd. But, if I'm them at #36, I'm looking at Dalton, Kaepernick and Mallett and thinking if Buffalo and Cinco both take one, they still have a guy on the board. From that perspective, they really weren't in a bad situation at #36. So, if that's the case, was there really a market for the #33 pick?

Now, if Indy and/or Chicago had taken a QB at the bottom of the first, I bet SF would have paid BB's price.

Did the Patriots trade the Michael Oher pick to the Ravens, as well?

Ironically, things didn't work to the Patriots advantage despite all the pre-draft conversation of trading the 33rd pick for a QB. On top of the fact that there were three QBs sitting at the top of the second round, the Bills and Cardinals appear to have had no interesting in drafting a QB.... thus decreasing the demand for QBs.

Having Locker and Ponder go in the first round, probably had an immense impact on the lack of demand for the 33rd pick.

 

[jeffbiologist]

I think our trade with NO occured because of 2 idependant things:
1-Ingram was available, being the consensus #1 RB had higher value
2-NO is a good team, so their 2nd was low and their future 2nd should be lower.
That said, BB is now totally in LOVE with 2nd round picks. His insistence on a 2nd and future 2nd for #33 was not TEAM DEPENDANT and it should have been. A trade with SF dropping to #36 and a 2011 3rd would have been good value, holding out for a future 2nd cost us that extra 3rd, with 2 QBs going in those 4 picks we should have still been able to get Dowling AND a 3rd(what are the chances Buffalo would have picked Dowling??)...which we may or may not have been able to trade to another team for a future 2nd... Truth is there was not a single player with higher value at that point so no one wanted to overpay for the pick. But insistence on a 2nd cost us a pick, please tell me someone else can see this, ok.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

I think our trade with NO occured because of 2 idependant things:
1-Ingram was available, being the consensus #1 RB had higher value
2-NO is a good team, so their 2nd was low and their future 2nd should be lower.
That said, BB is now totally in LOVE with 2nd round picks. His insistence on a 2nd and future 2nd for #33 was not TEAM DEPENDANT and it should have been. A trade with SF dropping to #36 and a 2011 3rd would have been good value, holding out for a future 2nd cost us that extra 3rd, with 2 QBs going in those 4 picks we should have still been able to get Dowling AND a 3rd(what are the chances Buffalo would have picked Dowling??)...which we may or may not have been able to trade to another team for a future 2nd... Truth is there was not a single player with higher value at that point so no one wanted to overpay for the pick. But insistence on a 2nd cost us a pick, please tell me someone else can see this, ok.

It's really quite simple. BB thought Dowling at 33 was worth more than swaping 2nd's and a 3rd next year. To use the assumption that Dowling would be there when the Pats picked again makes for a pretty silly argument, which should be obvious to any "scientist".