Revising the draft trade value chart?

[patchick]

It's a common complaint that the standard point-value chart for draft picks doesn't reflect the new contract-length provisions. So I started thinking...how should it look now? It's not as simple as a 6-year-max slot being 1.5 times as valuable as a 4-year-max at the same point in the draft. For one thing, the likelihood that a team would have ever demanded a long contract decreases the deeper you get into the draft. So, e.g., the ratio of a 6th-round pick to a 7th-rounder hasn't really changed at all. Plus many people think the familiar chart overvalues the top handful of picks to begin with.

Here's one pass at a revision. I've multiplied the top 16 (6-year) slots by a factor weighted to their rank. OP = old point value, NP = new, RANK = draft slot (#1, #2, etc.):
NP = OP + (.015 X RANK)

For picks 17-32
NP = OP X 1.1

All old values still hold for round 2 on.

The result is a slower drop in values to 16, a small cliff before 17-32, and another small cliff before 33.

I realize that probably reads like gibberish, but I think the resulting chart looks like an improvement:

 

[PATSNUTme]

Good work!

But it does mess up my "mother of all trades".
Well, the Rams are just going to have to take it.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Good work!

But it does mess up my "mother of all trades".

Care to share with the rest of the class, Box?

 

[sebman2112]

This screws up my 16 + 47 from GB for 24 + 28, so I don't like it

 

[patchick]

This screws up my 16 + 47 from GB for 24 + 28, so I don't like it

That was one of the first things that struck me! But of course, I've been beating the drum to trade down for a #2 this year and next, so I'm still good.

 

[SamBamsFan]

That was one of the first things that struck me! But of course, I've been beating the drum to trade down for a #2 this year and next, so I'm still good.

Actually this brings up a question that I've never seen answered (and I suppose that it is realistically on a team by team basis). Say your trading your #2 for next year. We'll call its value 400 if it was in this years draft. Obviously it has to be discounted as they won't get to use it for a year. Is there a standard ratio that anyone has heard about? (i.e 400 x .85 = 340 in present day value).

 

[AzPatsFan]

It is useful to have the two cliffs. You did not however compress the top ten or top 3-10 which are grossly too heavy. Teams will on occasion make a spectacualr trade up for a QB to the top. Picks 1, 2, &/or 3, need that exalted value, but there ought to be a general deflation thereafter. Either to the 15 cliff, or perhaps thru the balance of round one.

IOW...,
123,
cliff,
4-16,
cliff,
etc...

But it is a step in the right direction, IMO.

 

[Isaac]

Great topic. I would think that the long-term-minded Patriots would consider that 5th for a 1st rounder, which should be the player's most productive year, an enormous factor. Short-sighted teams likely don't care. Wonder if this could lead to some value trades for the Patriots at some point (like trying to get above pick 16 for a six-year deal).

 

[patchick]

It is useful to have the two cliffs. You did not however compress the top ten or top 3-10 which are grossly too heavy. Teams will on occasion make a spectacualr trade up for a QB to the top. Picks 1, 2, &/or 3, need that exalted value, but there ought to be a general deflation thereafter. Either to the 15 cliff, or perhaps thru the balance of round one.

IOW...,
123,
cliff,
4-16,
cliff,
etc...

Interesting! I actually did compress the top half of the round, it doesn't decline quite as quickly as on the standard chart. But the extra cliff is another story. Each draft probably does have its own slopes and cliffs near the very top, but I can't see introducing a set cliff after 2 or 3 picks. Look at this draft, where various mocks give the top 3 as different combinations of Johnson, Russell, Quinn, Peterson and Thomas.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Care to share with the rest of the class, Box?

I had posted "the mother of all trades" on the "new draft game" thread. Now, thanks to Patchick there isn't enough points. Might have to throw in M. Hill.

Not only is my trade gone, but I'm being called Box!:enranged:

 

[patchick]

Actually this brings up a question that I've never seen answered (and I suppose that it is realistically on a team by team basis). Say your trading your #2 for next year. We'll call its value 400 if it was in this years draft. Obviously it has to be discounted as they won't get to use it for a year. Is there a standard ratio that anyone has heard about? (i.e 400 x .85 = 340 in present day value).

Hmm, you hear people say that you go up one round to account for the time factor, but of course the ratios between rounds vary. Then there's the X factor of where in the round the team will end up picking next year, which is a huge variable in rounds 1 & 2, minor in 6 & 7.

Here are the ratios between the values of the #16 picks in successive rounds, based on the revised chart:
1/2 = 2.95
2/3 = 2.21
3/4 = 2.71
4/5 = 2.06
5/6 = 1.62
6/7 = 2.56
Kinda weird, actually. But as a rule of thumb, it's fair to say the expected value of next year's pick should be at least twice this year's.

 

[patsfan55]

great job
but, it makes the diff b/w 15 and 16 much less than 16 to 17

 

[psychoPat]

It's a common complaint that the standard point-value chart for draft picks doesn't reflect the new contract-length provisions. So I started thinking...how should it look now? ....

I would cheerfully second any motion patchick makes.

But i think that any cerebral f/o
... say, one that can task Ernie Adams to fill in these blanks ...
prepares a unique - a custom - version of that chart
for each year,
reflecting that year's eligibles
for their own coaching system.
Especially, any of the (few) f/os that sponsor
their own, in-house, college scouting operation.

That is to say, i expect that the Patriots do not simply compile their renowned
horizontal and vertical boards.
I'd bet that they take the trouble to rank each of several hundred prospects ordinally.
Then, they would assign comparative values to each college player
... reflecting the team's needs,
and how well each youngster's blend of measurables and intangibles might fill those needs.

At that point, the team has created, in fact, its customized trade value chart.
When draft-day trade offers come in
or when Belioli sense a chance to initiate a favorable transaction,
THIS is the chart of values they will consult.
Not a chart that some old legacy GM made years ago
... or even patchick's update.

 

[JoePats]

The problem w/ the chart in general is that it doesn't take into effect deep and thin draft classes. It treats them all the same.

 

[patchick]

But i think that any cerebral f/o
... say, one that can task Ernie Adams to fill in these blanks ...
prepares a unique - a custom - version of that chart
for each year, reflecting that year's eligibles
for their own coaching system.[/COLOR]

The problem w/ the chart in general is that it doesn't take into effect deep and thin draft classes. It treats them all the same.

I totally agree with both these points. The whole point of trading picks, after all, is that certain slots will be worth more on one team's board than another. But I still think it's useful for us mere fans to have a recalibrated standard chart for projecting our little imaginary trades.

 

[dryheat44]

Just a fantastic undertaking, chickie. Thanks.

I agree the chart is outdated (and never useful beyond a "jumping off" point, but would never took on the task of updating it.

 

[DaBruinz]

Patchick, great work.

 

[DaBruinz]

Not only is my trade gone, but I'm being called Box!:enranged:

I can think of worse things that you have been called ... I think that you should take it as a COMPLIMENT.:rocker:

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I can think of worse things that you have been called ... I think that you should take it as a COMPLIMENT.:rocker:

Exactly, the character assassination aspect harms me to his gain! Nut is very lucky, I'm suprised people are being so generous handing him such a complement...I'd have expected him to be confused with another individual notorious for a three letter acronym.

 

[VJCPatriot]

It's a nice idea. I'll give it that. Higher picks do have a slightly higher value due to length of contract. HOWEVER Higher picks should also be DEvalued because of that same reason. That is teams have to pay the high picks more money (a significant portion of which is guaranteed)and are on the hook for a longer time. Thus they take an even bigger financial risk when the pick busts. Also the chart doesn't use nice round numbers. Which doesn't make it as convenient for calculating trades.