Trading partners

[Box_O_Rocks]

For grins and giggles, I broke down the teams using the number of multiple picks they have (or may have using AdamJT13's comp forecast). I've classified them by Day 1 or Day 2 trading partners figuring multiples in rds 2-4 can move around on Day 1, and multiples in rds 4-6 can move around on Day 2, rd seven multiples were not factored in given their limited trade values.

Teams likely to be interested in moving up into round one where the Pats are the only club holding multiples are rebuilding clubs holding Day 1 trading tools. With the exception of the Colts and Saints, these are rebuilding clubs. Both the Colts and Saints are looking to remain competitive, but may not feel the same pressures to move for a player they like.

Day 1
49ers 2 3rds, 3 4ths
BILLS 2 3rds
BUCCANEERS 2 2nds
COLTS 2 3rds
DOLPHINS 2 2nds
FALCONS 2 2nds, 3 4ths
RAIDERS 2 4ths
SAINTS 3 3rds
STEELERS 2 4ths, 2 5ths
TITANS 2 4ths

Day 2 clubs aren't so much about rebuilding as they are targeting players they want. The extra day 2 picks just help grease the wheels.

Day 2
49ers 3 4ths
BENGALS 2 6ths
COLTS 2 5ths
COWBOYS 2 6ths
FALCONS 3 4ths
LIONS 4 5ths
RAIDERS 2 4ths, 2 5ths
RAVENS 2 5ths, 3 6ths
SEAHAWKS 2 6ths
STEELERS 2 4ths, 2 5ths
TITANS 2 4ths, 3 6ths

For those wondering, I realize any team can trade on any day and I consider the teams sitting at the top of round two to be good prospects to try a short move up to 24 or 28 for a dropping player they like. But after the Houston/Atlanta trade today I wanted to look at this "on paper" to better visualize who might have enough picks to feel comfortable dealing with the Pats if they wanted to move. The flip side of that is teams with fewer picks may be who the Pats target if they wanted to bundle picks and take fewer draft prospects this year.

 

[Seneschal2]

This is a valuable topic. Maybe a good idea to update and sticky it just before draft day.

I consider the teams sitting at the top of round two to be good prospects to try a short move up to 24 or 28 for a dropping player they like.

Exactly. Such a trade would represent extreme value, especially if someone the Pats are targeting is off the board. Not only would we gain an early 2nd-rounder this draft, but maybe even a day one pick for the '08 draft.

The flip side of that is teams with fewer picks may be who the Pats target if they wanted to bundle picks and take fewer draft prospects this year.

There are approx 8 teams missing picks. Chances are, some team will want to fill in their rounds.

Thanks for your effort.

 

[PATSNUTme]

This is a valuable topic. Maybe a good idea to update and sticky it just before draft day.

Exactly. Such a trade would represent extreme value, especially if someone the Pats are targeting is off the board. Not only would we gain an early 2nd-rounder this draft, but maybe even a day one pick for the '08 draft.

There are approx 8 teams missing picks. Chances are, some team will want to fill in their rounds.

Thanks for your effort.

I agree. But can Box handle another sticky?

I had a great multiple trade figured out this morning and now I forgot what it was.

 

[patchick]

I agree. But can Box handle another sticky?

OT but...I hate stickies. I mean, I get it, they're useful, I make them when requested, but...hate 'em.

One problem is that once a thread is stickified I automatically look past it as if it were an ad. So I end up paying less attention to the threads that are officially declared important.

 

[PATSNUTme]

OT but...I hate stickies. I mean, I get it, they're useful, I make them when requested, but...hate 'em.

One problem is that once a thread is stickified I automatically look past it as if it were an ad. So I end up paying less attention to the threads that are officially declared important.

That is very true. It's the lesser of two evils, I suppose. If an informational thread that can be useful as a reference doesn't get "stickied', it gets burried.

 

[Water Boy]

I think there is going to be a lot of movement in the draft this year.

 

[bosfan]

Am hoping we make a deal getting back a second and a day one pick next season.......

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

Brother, now that the Falcons have two 2nds, we have two theoretical trading partners for our no. 24, the other being Tampa. As discussed elsewhere, it makes sense that Atlanta could trade for our 24 then use it to move up to the top of the draft - maybe into Detroit's slot at no.3. Either way, I'd send our no. 24 for either team's (Falcons, Bucs) two second rounders straight off if they offered such a deal. Why? The talent after the top 10-15 players is very hard to differentiate. The guy that goes in most of the second round has just as much of a chance to be a quality player as the guys taken late in the first.

Think of DeMeco Ryans, Marcus McNeill, Devin Hester, Maurice Jones-Drew, Daniel Manning, etc., all 2nds from last year. And check out how spotty the second half of the first round was - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_NFL_Draft . It's early to assess anyone from last year as a bomb, but my point is that plenty of stars were taken later than no. 24 and by trading that pick for two 2nds we'd have three legitimate shots at finding a star instead of just two.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Brother, now that the Falcons have two 2nds, we have two theoretical trading partners for our no. 24, the other being Tampa. As discussed elsewhere, it makes sense that Atlanta could trade for our 24 then use it to move up to the top of the draft - maybe into Detroit's slot at no.3. Either way, I'd send our no. 24 for either team's (Falcons, Bucs) two second rounders straight off if they offered such a deal. Why? The talent after the top 10-15 players is very hard to differentiate. The guy that goes in most of the second round has just as much of a chance to be a quality player as the guys taken late in the first.

Think of DeMeco Ryans, Marcus McNeill, Devin Hester, Maurice Jones-Drew, Daniel Manning, etc., all 2nds from last year. And check out how spotty the second half of the first round was - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_NFL_Draft . It's early to assess anyone from last year as a bomb, but my point is that plenty of stars were taken later than no. 24 and by trading that pick for two 2nds we'd have three legitimate shots at finding a star instead of just two.

I have a hard time projecting rebuilding teams, such as Atlanta and Tampa, using both second round selections in a trade. It would make more sense to use one selection and a combination of second day and 2008 picks so they don't have too large a hole in their draft. Especially if the talent/value ratio is so much better in the second as you suggest.

 

[everlong]

The other possibility is that a team with very few picks such as the Giants (only the first rounder at #20) could make a good trading partner. They might do a trade like Miami did with us a few years ago where we send them our 3rd this year for their 2nd next year. Trading from the bottom of the third this year to a team that could end up in the top half of the second next year is good value. Obviously we could also ship our 4th to them in a similar manner.

A trade like that would work especially well for us if we were to deal 24 or 28 for Atlanta or Tampa's two seconds (with other picks possibly to even it out).

 

[GoWesleyan]

I'd rather have someone go bump good threads than have a slew of stickies that, like Patchick said, I end up tuning out.

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

I have a hard time projecting rebuilding teams, such as Atlanta and Tampa, using both second round selections in a trade. It would make more sense to use one selection and a combination of second day and 2008 picks so they don't have too large a hole in their draft. Especially if the talent/value ratio is so much better in the second as you suggest.

You could look at "rebuilding" that way, or you could argue that such teams need stars as much or even more than depth. You can have a bunch of solid players but they won't win you a SB without a Brady, Dillon, Seymour, Bruschi, etc. Ironically, teams with less talent may not have the luxury of being very disciplined about their picks. When you're desperate for a leading man or two, you might need to take chances such as gambling you know the draft well enough that an extra 1st round pick will yield you a star, not just a contributor.

BTW, the draft pick value chart indicates that the Pats would have to throw in at least a fourth to even out the points value of swapping 24 for two seconds, especially Atlanta's because both picks are fairly high. I'd still do it - with all the talent on the Pats right now the odds are stacked against a 4th rounder making the team anyway.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

You could look at "rebuilding" that way, or you could argue that such teams need stars as much or even more than depth. You can have a bunch of solid players but they won't win you a SB without a Brady, Dillon, Seymour, Bruschi, etc. Ironically, teams with less talent may not have the luxury of being very disciplined about their picks. When you're desperate for a leading man or two, you might need to take chances such as gambling you know the draft well enough that an extra 1st round pick will yield you a star, not just a contributor.

BTW, the draft pick value chart indicates that the Pats would have to throw in at least a fourth to even out the points value of swapping 24 for two seconds, especially Atlanta's because both picks are fairly high. I'd still do it - with all the talent on the Pats right now the odds are stacked against a 4th rounder making the team anyway.

Certainly there are some profligate GMs who might choose that price, Tampa doesn't seem likely to follow that course and while McKay may do something like that at Atlanta, it doesn't seem likely for a late first prospect. Teams with less talent are the ones who should be the most disciplined with their picks, should being the operative word of course. The other negative aspect of fans looking at two seconds for a late first is the wishful thinking involved. As for giving a fourth to Atlanta, I'd rather have the fourth with the pool of players who seem to be pegged for the middle rounds.

 

[DaBruinz]

You could look at "rebuilding" that way, or you could argue that such teams need stars as much or even more than depth. You can have a bunch of solid players but they won't win you a SB without a Brady, Dillon, Seymour, Bruschi, etc. Ironically, teams with less talent may not have the luxury of being very disciplined about their picks. When you're desperate for a leading man or two, you might need to take chances such as gambling you know the draft well enough that an extra 1st round pick will yield you a star, not just a contributor.

BTW, the draft pick value chart indicates that the Pats would have to throw in at least a fourth to even out the points value of swapping 24 for two seconds, especially Atlanta's because both picks are fairly high. I'd still do it - with all the talent on the Pats right now the odds are stacked against a 4th rounder making the team anyway.

Except that the Draft Value chart is outdated due to the changes in the signing structure of rookie contracts.

 

[patchick]

Am hoping we make a deal getting back a second and a day one pick next season.......

Here's a scenario: Arizona misses out on Joe Thomas, goes defense, and Joe Staley makes it to #24. The Pats could very realistically threaten to take Staley themselves unless the Cardinals fork over at least #38 and next year's #2.

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

seems quite feasible, interesting scenario. I bet you're right about such a trade being a fluid draft day thing and not something done in advance.