FFun With Trade Speculations (warning- may cause purists irritation)

[Brady'sButtBoy]

Say a team like Tampa, who have their eye a certain player and are desperate for an infusion of top quality talent, comes to Pats with an offer as their turn at 24 comes up and the Pats still see at least 5-6 guys they rate as 1st round talent still on the board. If you were BB at that moment would you trade #24 for Tampa's two second round picks (35 and 64, I believe)? Such a move would give our team FOUR players in the top 64 drafted. Talk about restocking the team! That's four expected starters added to a team with barely that many slots depending on the Samuel/Graham negotiations. Using Jimmy Jonhson's quantitative scale the deal probably favors Tampa but given BB/Pioli's track record with high round picks you have to figure at least three of the four would very soon be major contributors.

By time you get past the middle of the first round there is usually very little difference in the next 20-30 players. So we would pick 28 and 35 instead of 24 and 28, hardly a big difference, and in exchange get another 2nd rounder.

Would you pull the trigger?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Say a team like Tampa, who have their eye a certain player and are desperate for an infusion of top quality talent, comes to Pats with an offer as their turn at 24 comes up and the Pats still see at least 5-6 guys they rate as 1st round talent still on the board. If you were BB at that moment would you trade #24 for Tampa's two second round picks (35 and 64, I believe)? Such a move would give our team FOUR players in the top 64 drafted. Talk about restocking the team! That's four expected starters added to a team with barely that many slots depending on the Samuel/Graham negotiations. Using Jimmy Jonhson's quantitative scale the deal probably favors Tampa but given BB/Pioli's track record with high round picks you have to figure at least three would very soon be major contributors.

By time you get past the middle of the first round there is usually very little difference in the next 20-30 players. So we would pick 28 and 35 instead of 24 and 28, hardly a big difference, and in exchange get another 2nd rounder.

Would you pull the trigger?

I'm not going to answer the question, but I will just point one additional wrinkle you forgot: contract limits.

Picks 1-16: six-year limit
Picks 17-32: five-year limit
Picks 33+: four-year limit

That has to factor into any decision the Pats make re: trades, especially if they're going to trade out of the first round.

 

[Seneschal2]

If you were BB at that moment would you trade #24 for Tampa's two second round picks (35 and 64, I believe)?

No but close. Our #24 for their #1 next draft and their #35 this draft.

I'd never give up our #24 for less than a #1 somewhere. Rule of thumb is, the value of future picks depreciates. Therefore, our #24 is not equal to their #1 the following draft, hence their #35 also.

Of course in reality, it would depend on whether or not we're targetting a specific player...and can we get him at #28. Or, are the players we really wanted, off the board by #24. An on the clock decision for sure...

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

No but close. Our #24 for their #1 next draft and their #35 this draft.

I'd never give up our #24 for less than a #1 somewhere. Rule of thumb is, the value of future picks depreciates. Therefore, our #24 is not equal to their #1 the following draft, hence their #35 also.

Of course in reality, it would depend on whether or not we're targetting a specific player...and can we get him at #28. Or, are the players we really wanted, off the board by #24. An on the clock decision for sure...

That makes the most sense, but if the Pats did settle for two second round picks I wouldn't be upset with the players I like seeming to be better second and third round candidates.

 

[spacecrime]

By time you get past the middle of the first round there is usually very little difference in the next 20-30 players.

This doesn't make sense to me. There is a big difference between the players selected in the late teens/early 20's of the first round compared to the second round.

Trade back if you want, but don't pretend the same quality player will be around 30 picks later.

 

[Digger44]

The #24 is worth a total of 740 draft points.

The #35 is worth 550.

The #64 is worth 270.

That would be a gain of 30 draft points for that Pats. It would come down to who is avaiable at the #24. If someone on BB/SP board who is in the top 10 falls, then he would be the better deal. For example, Vince Wilfork. It was no doubt the right move to jump on him. It comes down to their draft board.

 

[dryheat44]

Re: Fun With Trade Speculations

This doesn't make sense to me. There is a big difference between the players selected in the late teens/early 20's of the first round compared to the second round.

Trade back if you want, but don't pretend the same quality player will be around 30 picks later.

I think he has a point. I'm not saying pick 17 and pick 64 are going to be equally good pro prospects, but typically after the first fifteen or so picks, opinions range wildly on who the next best players are. And teams needs start to shape the selections. I would say between the guys drafted from about 25 to 40 are all roughly equivalent, and it depends on the system, team needs, and gut feeling of the GM. Or, to put it more simply as Digger says, each team's draft board.

 

[patchick]

The #24 is worth a total of 740 draft points.

The #35 is worth 550.

The #64 is worth 270.

That would be a gain of 30 draft points for that Pats. It would come down to who is avaiable at the #24. If someone on BB/SP board who is in the top 10 falls, then he would be the better deal. For example, Vince Wilfork. It was no doubt the right move to jump on him. It comes down to their draft board.

Looking back, Wilfork has to be the easiest, most predictable Pats draft pick ever--the perfect confluence of value and need. Most of us were screaming his name when the Pats were on the clock. The interesting thing is that there aren't a lot of super-obvious blue chippers at the Pats' need positions this year (short of a Calvin Johnson). Who is currently rated in the #5-15 range who would be a slam dunk choice? Maybe one of the safeties, Landry or Nelson? That's such a deep position this year that it still could be worth waiting.

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Fun With Trade Speculations

We have a good number of picks for this year already. I would prefer to trade #24 for a 2nd or 3rd round pick and a #1 next year. Do it with a playoff team that expects to be good next year and hope they fall like teams often do.

Raise the stakes and do it with The Jest

 

[Ochmed Jones]

Dallas might be a good trading partner for a 2008 1st rounder. With Parcells leaving Owens staying, the potential for a Philly size implosion is huge, especially if Romo regresses.

 

[makoute]

Dallas might be a good trading partner for a 2008 1st rounder. With Parcells leaving Owens staying, the potential for a Philly size implosion is huge, especially if Romo regresses.

Unfortunately they play in the NFC

 

[patsox23]

I would prefer the #1 next year, but I'd do that deal proposed initially - for the two 2nd rounders - in a heartbeat, ESPECIALLY given the parameters set forth in the original post: if the Pats had several players they had in mind for #24.

 

[Seneschal2]

That makes the most sense, but if the Pats did settle for two second round picks I wouldn't be upset with the players I like seeming to be better second and third round candidates.

The talent level from #28 right up to our R2 pick is impressive.

Also, I've never really had any issues with BB's drafts or decisions. Something about those three trophies that keeps me confident.

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

In answering my own question a bit here, I'll say I believe this team needs a couple of big-impact playmakers more than it needs the solid contributors I mention to start the thread.

One smash and gash safety that can run like Bob Hayes would nearly revolutionize on our D, let alone one power stud LB who can run to the ball and crush anything in his wake ala Bruschi from three years ago, or Harry Carson in his prime.

Or a Boldin type WR who just takes over the field as a rookie, one like him would mean more to this team right now than four Matt Lights or Eugene Wilsons.

I'm not saying trade way up (that just won't happen with BB and the Pats, especially after hearing Kraft's recent comments about the distinctive value drafting late in round one) but I'd be willing to send one first and our second rounder to move up four or five spots to nab a powerstud. That would leave us with another 1st round pick so we'd get a potential superstar and another 1st round starter while taking the normal number of picks in the first two rounds.

So what do you think - go for the chance on a team changing superstar and lose our second round pick or stick with the four guys in the first two rounds trade idea. Which would help us the most....?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

In answering my own question a bit here, I'll say I believe this team needs a couple of big-impact playmakers more than it needs the solid contributors I mention to start the thread.

One smash and gash safety that can run like Bob Hayes would nearly revolutionize on our D, let alone one power stud LB who can run to the ball and crush anything in his wake ala Bruschi from three years ago, or Harry Carson in his prime.

Or a Boldin type WR who just takes over the field as a rookie, one like him would mean more to this team right now than four Matt Lights or Eugene Wilsons.

I'm not saying trade way up (that just won't happen with BB and the Pats, especially after hearing Kraft's recent comments about the distinctive value drafting late in round one) but I'd be willing to send one first and our second rounder to move up four or five spots to nab a powerstud. That would leave us with another 1st round pick so we'd get a potential superstar and another 1st round starter while taking the normal number of picks in the first two rounds.

So what do you think - go for the chance on a team changing superstar and lose our second round pick or stick with the four guys in the first two rounds trade idea. Which would help us the most....?

Quite simply, from everything the FO has done the last six years, I'm fairly convinced they believe that two A- players > one A+ player.

 

[Water Boy]

So what do you think - go for the chance on a team changing superstar and lose our second round pick or stick with the four guys in the first two rounds trade idea. Which would help us the most....?

If I was GM, the two players I would be willing trade a No. 2 for to move up in the first round are ILB Patrick Willis and S Reggie Nelson. I'd do this in a heartbeat.

If these players were of the board too early, I would be in favor of trading our No. 24 for two 2nd rounders, because with picks 24 and 28, we may be put in a position of reaching a little bit for players at positions of need (like Siler or Griffen) that may not necessarily grade out as first rounders.

 

[Digger44]

Who is currently rated in the #5-15 range who would be a slam dunk choice? Maybe one of the safeties, Landry or Nelson? That's such a deep position this year that it still could be worth waiting.

It is a very fair question and tough to answer. On draft day did anybody expect Wilfork to drop that far? I say no. We may not know until it happens. I can picture a few guys freefalling. 1. Ted Ginn JR. Some mocks have hin in the low 20s right now when he was top 15 a couple of weeks ago. The infusion of underclassmen has made him drop. 2. Dwayne Jarrett. I am not big on him, but he is all over the place in mocks.

The variable that is the toughest is the BB/SP draft board. Nobody has any clue as to what it looks like. Hence Logan Mankins, Ben Watson, etc...