Now How About My Tampa Trade Idea?

[Brady'sButtBoy]

Early (just for fun) I speculated about the benefit of talking Tampa into giving us their two second round picks for our number 24 overall to gain four picks in the first two rounds. Given that the Welker deal goes through we'd now not have a seconder round at all. But pulling off the trade I propose would essentially mean we'd trade our number 24 for Welker and two second round picks - that strikes me as a pretty good deal, yes?

 

[Return of the Nizz]

Umm, wouldn't it be the #24 for Welker and ONE 2nd round pick?

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

huh? Tampa has two second round picks. We have the 24, 28 picks - our second rounder - number 60 - is gone for Welker. The initial idea was number 24 for both of Tampa's second rounders (35, 64) - that wouldn't really change. But instead of having the above mentioned four picks after trading with Tampa (28, 35, 60, 64), if we sign and trade for Welker we'd have number 28, 35, 64 plus Welker.

The advantage I see is that we still have three picks in the top two rounds. Without trading with Tampa, we pick 24 and 28 then not again until the end of round three. With so many medium value LB's and WR's, it strikes me that grabbing two second rounders will provide better value than one first rounder at 24. We'd still have number 28 in the first round and the difference in player quality from 24 to 28 is almost impossible to quantify unless a certain player you highly value slides down ala Wilfork. The trade would let us pick fourth and thirty second in the second round instead of having no second rounder but two in the late first.

 

[Water Boy]

Early (just for fun) I speculated about the benefit of talking Tampa into giving us their two second round picks...

I know your just tossing around hypotheticals - If I was the Pats I would entertain that trade, but I don't see what Tampa would have to gain in that deal. It's hard to think they could get more value out of the No 24 pick than they could by getting two very good players in round two. There will probably be very little drop-off between No. 24 and 35.

 

[cstjohn17]

Early (just for fun) I speculated about the benefit of talking Tampa into giving us their two second round picks for our number 24 overall to gain four picks in the first two rounds. Given that the Welker deal goes through we'd now not have a seconder round at all. But pulling off the trade I propose would essentially mean we'd trade our number 24 for Welker and two second round picks - that strikes me as a pretty good deal, yes?

I am no expert but our 24 pick is worth 740 points and Tampa's pick are worth:
550 for pick 35
270 for pick 64
= 820

This leaves a gap of 70 points or roughly the value of mid 4th rounder. No way Tampa makes the trade.

 

[Seneschal2]

Anyone in round two who wants our #24 will pay us their second-rounder and their #1 in '08. That '08 pick isn't as expensive as it seems. It's value depreciates over time.

But I would like to have a bunch of 2nds. We could get very creative. :singing:

 

[Return of the Nizz]

huh? Tampa has two second round picks. We have the 24, 28 picks - our second rounder - number 60 - is gone for Welker. The initial idea was number 24 for both of Tampa's second rounders (35, 64) - that wouldn't really change. But instead of having the above mentioned four picks after trading with Tampa (28, 35, 60, 64), if we sign and trade for Welker we'd have number 28, 35, 64 plus Welker.

The advantage I see is that we still have three picks in the top two rounds. Without trading with Tampa, we pick 24 and 28 then not again until the end of round three. With so many medium value LB's and WR's, it strikes me that grabbing two second rounders will provide better value than one first rounder at 24. We'd still have number 28 in the first round and the difference in player quality from 24 to 28 is almost impossible to quantify unless a certain player you highly value slides down ala Wilfork. The trade would let us pick fourth and thirty second in the second round instead of having no second rounder but two in the late first.

Yes, so we would be trading 24 and 60 for Welker and 2 2nds. You said we'd trade 24 for welker and 2 2nds which is clearly not the case. Maybe it is what you meant, but not what you wrote.