The new, new trade chart

[mcsully]

New Draft Day Chart

There has been a lot of talk around the league about a new draft trade value chart.. Supposedly profootballtalk has the chart that is making its rounds..


http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/15/new-draft-trade-chart/

Pretty interesting stuff..

 

[dryheat44]

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/15/new-draft-trade-chart/

This one also comes from PFT, but this one isn't Florio's. Instead, it's reportedly being used by at least some NFL GMs. There's a significant drop between the first two rounds, but oddly enough, not between #16 and #17. We'll see if it catches on.

 

[PonyExpress]

Awesome. Thanks for posting, DH.

 

[mcsully]

Already posted


http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=81096

 

[BradyToMoss]

Thanks DHeat.....

Nice, a trade up with Atlanta would only cost us our Oakland pick. That might be worth thinking about for Gholston or CLong.

 

[dryheat44]

Already posted


http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=81096

Didn't mean to steal your thunder. I started typing than did some other things before I hit Submit. Caught in the lag.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Interesting - the #1 spot is discounted by 1000 points. The #7 for the Pats actually goes UP in points - so it wouldn't take anything near as much for the Pats or any other team to move into #1 if they so desired.

I'm a bit surprised they devalued #1 by so much - but everyone should take note that not only do they not discount draft picks from 6 on down - they actually inflate their value.

I'm not quite sure that's accurate but its an interesting take. Those that don't think there's "value" at #7 should know that these GMs don't think there's currently ENOUGH value at #7.

My approach was simpler - to take the existing trade chart and assign a discount fact to each pick, phasing it out around 12 or maybe 15.

i.e. the current #1 is discounted by 10% - 2-4 discounted by 9%, 4-6 discounted by 8% etc... until you begin getting down to a 1% discount allowing the later 1st round picks to retain the current value.

I think that's the best approach, though everyone can debate what the discounts should be for the top picks given the high salaries.

 

[mcsully]

Didn't mean to steal your thunder. I started typing than did some other things before I hit Submit. Caught in the lag.

hahah... I could careless.. Actually I usually see people say "dude its already posted.. WTF"... or something that is so negative..

Back to the topic at hand. I've been hearing/reading and seeing a lot of info about teams wanting a new value chart, especially with the top 7 picks costing so much in guaranteed money.. With this change, it would cost the pats only a 4th round pick to move ahead of the jets to grab someone.. And at the same time, if they wanted to move down to 10 (possible trade with New Orleans) pats coudl grab a #3..

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Re: New Draft Day Chart

FWIW, here are a couple of comparisons involving top 10 picks, going solely by the charts.

Original: #7 + #62 = New Orleans #10 + #40
"New": #7 + #62 = New Orleans #10 + #40

Original: #7 + #62 = Kansas City #5 + #105
"New": #7 + #94 = Kansas City #5 + 6th/7th-rounder

As Florio notes, there should be a larger gap between 16 and 17, though.

 

[PonyExpress]

Now it only takes the late 3rd to move up to #5 overall, if the pats want to do it.

 

[BradyToMoss]

Now it only takes the late 3rd to move up to #5 overall, if the pats want to do it.

It only takes our high 3rd to move up to the 3-hole.

 

[patchick]

Looks very reasonable. Though one thing that's struck me...should the ability of the #1 team to negotiate early with multiple players be taken into account more? It helps prevent holdouts, among other things.

 

[PromisedLand]

Looks very reasonable. Though one thing that's struck me...should the ability of the #1 team to negotiate early with multiple players be taken into account more? It helps prevent holdouts, among other things.

True, but only if the #1 team is smarter than Al Davis...

 

[SamBamsFan]

Thanks DHeat.....

Nice, a trade up with Atlanta would only cost us our Oakland pick. That might be worth thinking about for Gholston or CLong.

Atlanta is probably the least likely team to move from its top spot. I don't understand why posters keep bringing them up.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Dropping the value of the #1 pick more makes sense, considering what a burden to the cap the #1 overall contract will be. This chart is a little better than the old one. There should be some added value for the extra year of contract a top 16 pick can be signed to though.

 

[patsfan55]

Re: New Draft Day Chart

Original: #7 + #62 = Kansas City #5 + #105
"New": #7 + #94 = Kansas City #5 + 6th/7th-rounder

yeah i was just lookin at that
very interesting
i would personally do it in a heartbeat, as i feel at least one of c long or gholston will be there
of course belioli could be completely enamored with albert
and the thought of a nasty oline is starting to grow on me, but at the same time i would love to see what gholston could do in a Pats uni

 

[JoeSixPat]

I think its worth reiterating for those who have whinned so much about the lack of value at #7 given the "high salary" that the Patriots would have to pay...

Not only did whatever GMs who had input into this trade value chart feel there was good value at #7 currently - they felt there wasn't ENOUGH value attributed to #7!

 

[dryheat44]

I think its worth reiterating for those who have whinned so much about the lack of value at #7 given the "high salary" that the Patriots would have to pay...

Not only did whatever GMs who had input into this trade value chart feel there was good value at #7 currently - they felt there wasn't ENOUGH value attributed to #7!

That's value in relation to other picks....not cash! The GMs thought there wasn't enough trade value attributed to #7 as opposed to #1 (in fact, it was really a correction in the value of the top three picks). The fact is that to get guys under contract, it's going to cost as much as ever.

If it weren't for player agents, maybe the chart could be used as the basis of a sliding pay scale for rookies.

 

[spacecrime]

Looks very reasonable. Though one thing that's struck me...should the ability of the #1 team to negotiate early with multiple players be taken into account more? It helps prevent holdouts, among other things.

Like last year?

 

[spacecrime]

That's value in relation to other picks....not cash! The GMs thought there wasn't enough trade value attributed to #7 as opposed to #1 (in fact, it was really a correction in the value of the top three picks). The fact is that to get guys under contract, it's going to cost as much as ever.

Excellent point. I hadn't thought of it that way, but you're right.