Time value of picks/trading picks

[Fencer]

1. If it really continues to be possible to trade picks into future years in return for a 50% annual premium in value (e.g. as measured by the trade value chart), then that is a good thing to do. Brady's "closing window" does not invalidate the strategy.

2. If this really is a particularly good draft, then it would be nice to get a particularly high premium for any such trade.

3. BB's negotiating strategy, whether on trades or on contracts, seems to be to declare an acceptable deal and stick to it. I.e., he's well toward the "firm price end of the "firm price"/"haggle" spectrum. Either orientation has its strengths and weaknesses; he has his. Accept it.

(I happen to share BB's orientation. Like BB, I'd guess I'm better than the other guy at game theory, but not necessarily better at reading people or at avoiding being read.)

4. None of the above precludes trading up. However ...

5. ... given the likelihood of being able to get a good return from trading a late first-rounder forward, BB might be reluctant to give such assets up until they're on the clock.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

I've always agreed with the strategy. Teams tend to overpay for trade-ups, especially when trading away future picks for picks now. I'll take the value any day given the shape our roster is in. We have needs that need addressed now but guess what so does every other team.

Plus given the nature of the NFL draft, it tends to be somewhat a crapshoot at a certain point, aside from having a higher pick and a chance to draft a Richard Seymour/Jarrod Mayo I'll gladly take the trade-downs.

 

[Dragda]

I don't really have a problem with the strategy, but it is sometimes frustrating when a player you like (as a fan) is still on the board and they trade. Then that player goes on to have a good career.

 

[voluntarysaftey]

I've got no problem for trading a pick this year for a pick one round lower this year and the same pick next year. To me a 1st round pick is just as valuable as the 1st round pick next year -- I don't really discount time in the way most teams do.

What does frustrate me about Bill is when he trades down 4 spots and picks up a 6th round pick -- the 6th round pick is unlikely to make the team, so I'd rather they stay put or even move up moving up involves trading a lower round pick this year.

 

[Kjmass1]

I think BB realizes that whenever he trades down, it is always to a team with a worse record than us since we are at the top of the league each year. If you can move up 15 spots in the first round just by trading to the Redskins, you take that every time.

 

[Ring 6]

Trading a 1 for a 2 and a 1 next year is really the only way we ever can get a high first rounder.

 

[Fencer]

Trading a 1 for a 2 and a 1 next year is really the only way we ever can get a high first rounder.

And Jerrod Mayo says Hi!

 

[Fencer]

I've seen the theory, which makes sense to me, that most general managers have adverse incentives, in that they need to Win Soon to keep their jobs. However, this is not true of BB.

Indeed, I would expect that Robert Kraft has made it very, very clear to BB just how supportive of long-term value maximization he is.

 

[Jimke]

Read Greg Bedard's post in this morning's Globe. It might change
your mind on trading down. Belichick picks up a lot of extra picks
but makes loads of mistakes in the 2nd and 3rd round.

He also sometimes overrules his own scouting staff. The scouts did not
recommend either Laurence Maroney or Chad Jackson. Josh McDaniel's
brother played a part in drafting these players.

 

[plk]

To me a 1st round pick is just as valuable as the 1st round pick next year

I agree. Since you get a draft pick for four years at rookie wage scale prices, and that is a large part of the value of a draft pick, it does not really matter whether the four years start this year or next year. And the team is being compensated, one way or another, for waiting. (I don't remember if the highest picks are still five years under the new contract.)

I don't really discount time in the way most teams do.

Draft picks are not money, and the discount model is a false analogy.

 

[plk]

Belichick picks up a lot of extra picks
but makes loads of mistakes in the 2nd and 3rd round.

That is absolutely true, but can you give an example of a general manager for whom it isn't true. How many general managers have done better than Belichick with those picks over a period of time?

You have to compare Belichick to what is possible in the real world as shown by what other general managers do, not by some absolute standard of always hitting on draft picks.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Read Greg Bedard's post in this morning's Globe. It might change
your mind on trading down. Belichick picks up a lot of extra picks
but makes loads of mistakes in the 2nd and 3rd round.

He also sometimes overrules his own scouting staff. The scouts did not
recommend either Laurence Maroney or Chad Jackson. Josh McDaniel's
brother played a part in drafting these players.

If BB is as analytical as we've read him to be post every season when he reviews performance, he should have recognized this unproductive behavior of his and taken steps to improve and correct these bad behaviors

 

[Ring 6]

Read Greg Bedard's post in this morning's Globe. It might change
your mind on trading down. Belichick picks up a lot of extra picks
but makes loads of mistakes in the 2nd and 3rd round.

He also sometimes overrules his own scouting staff. The scouts did not
recommend either Laurence Maroney or Chad Jackson. Josh McDaniel's
brother played a part in drafting these players.

Trading down and getting more 2nd and 3rds has allowed the team to stay at the top of the league, when like everyone else, they miss on a lot of them.
When you trade down to get more picks, and end up with more players but a higher % of misses, you won.

Why is it surprising to you that the person with the ultimate decision will make decisions that some subordinates disagree with?
Your understanding of the impact of McDaniels asking his brothers opinion on a player he coached is not real clear.

 

[IllegalContact]

Trading down and getting more 2nd and 3rds has allowed the team to stay at the top of the league, when like everyone else, they miss on a lot of them.
When you trade down to get more picks, and end up with more players but a higher % of misses, you won.

Why is it surprising to you that the person with the ultimate decision will make decisions that some subordinates disagree with?
Your understanding of the impact of McDaniels asking his brothers opinion on a player he coached is not real clear.

The trading down is not why the pats stay on top.....Brady is. If the pats had to out on Hoyer last year, they would have likely won 3 or 4 games.

Trading down has been a relative disaster for the defense. The idea gives you more darts, but the targets are much smaller.

 

[JoeSixPat]

1. If it really continues to be possible to trade picks into future years in return for a 50% annual premium in value (e.g. as measured by the trade value chart), then that is a good thing to do. Brady's "closing window" does not invalidate the strategy.

2. If this really is a particularly good draft, then it would be nice to get a particularly high premium for any such trade.

3. BB's negotiating strategy, whether on trades or on contracts, seems to be to declare an acceptable deal and stick to it. I.e., he's well toward the "firm price end of the "firm price"/"haggle" spectrum. Either orientation has its strengths and weaknesses; he has his. Accept it.

(I happen to share BB's orientation. Like BB, I'd guess I'm better than the other guy at game theory, but not necessarily better at reading people or at avoiding being read.)

4. None of the above precludes trading up. However ...

5. ... given the likelihood of being able to get a good return from trading a late first-rounder forward, BB might be reluctant to give such assets up until they're on the clock.

This is a bit of an oversimplification of many different levels, but does show the different layers that go into such strategies.

The old and now outdated draft value chart doesn't yet reflect the increased value of top picks with relatively low salaries, at least compared to the old system. As such value of those top picks will shift.

Everything else is determined by a complex matrix of what type of a draft it is this year, what next year's draft is predicted to look like, how a trading partner team might do if trading for a future draft pick, etc. etc.

Most important is the question of how bad a team wants the player they're trading for.

But from Belichick's standpoint there's also no downside til waiting til they're on the clock to make any trade.

I do know one thing - if there's anyone that Belichick wants in the draft, he has the ammunition to get them. Not every GM can say that - but that is precisely what power Belichick attempts to provide himself with when he's making numerous future moves.

So don't be surprised if he uses that power to move up in the draft, if indeed there's a player that he really wants.

 

[Ring 6]

The trading down is not why the pats stay on top.....Brady is. If the pats had to out on Hoyer last year, they would have likely won 3 or 4 games.

Trading down has been a relative disaster for the defense. The idea gives you more darts, but the targets are much smaller.

I dont agree. You don't stay on top for this long because of one guy, and the year Brady was out were were 11-5.

 

[IllegalContact]

I dont agree. You don't stay on top for this long because of one guy, and the year Brady was out were were 11-5.

That team was vastly different from this one. Even with Matt cassel, this team would not have been 11-5.

But I digress......thte bottom line is that the trading down is not why this team has stayed good over this time. How many big hits have there been with a traded down pick? Gronk?

 

[Jimke]

Trading down and getting more 2nd and 3rds has allowed the team to stay at the top of the league, when like everyone else, they miss on a lot of them.
When you trade down to get more picks, and end up with more players but a higher % of misses, you won.

Why is it surprising to you that the person with the ultimate decision will make decisions that some subordinates disagree with?
Your understanding of the impact of McDaniels asking his brothers opinion on a player he coached is not real clear.

From the first three rounds from 2006-2009, only four of 14 draftees are still with the team. One of the four is Ron Brace. To me this is a pretty
poor drafting record. Belichick is better at signing middle tier free agents.

 

[Ring 6]

That team was vastly different from this one. Even with Matt cassel, this team would not have been 11-5.

But I digress......thte bottom line is that the trading down is not why this team has stayed good over this time. How many big hits have there been with a traded down pick? Gronk?

Trading down is part of the personel strategy that has produced the results.

Saying the team can't win without Brady and dismissing the year they did as 'different' is disingenuous.

 

[Deus Irae]

From the first three rounds from 2006-2009, only four of 14 draftees are still with the team. One of the four is Ron Brace. To me this is a pretty
poor drafting record. Belichick is better at signing middle tier free agents.

I think it's fair to say that BB went into a personnel slump during those years, and to say that it involved more than just the draft. I don't think it's fair to say that BB is a poor drafter over all.