Florio unveils new draft chart

[dryheat44]

Of course, Mike is a lawyer by trade, and a football fan and writer, but he does a decent job re-working the trade chart by taking into consideration the maximum length of the contract (notice the drop between 16 and 17, and from Round one to two).

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

 

[patchick]

I have to say, I think his chart is pretty much rubbish. For instance, what's with the huge gap between #32 and #33 (405 pts vs. 250)? Yes, you get the chance at an extra year. But according to Florio's valuation, you add two thirds to the value of pick #33 by adding the possibility of a 25% longer contract. That's vastly bigger than the jump from pick #17 to #16, and it makes the whole thing a total mess.

 

[signbabybrady]

I know contract length was one of the flaws to the old chart, but am I wrong in thinking that most people feel the chart is outdated because of rising salaries for top ten picks.

 

[patchick]

I know contract length was one of the flaws to the old chart, but am I wrong in thinking that most people feel the chart is outdated because of rising salaries for top ten picks.

Absolutely, the Jimmie Johnson chart is pretty much non-functional, but Florio's doesn't improve matters one bit. I posted my own attempt here last year, but in retrospect it was clearly too minor an adjustment. I'll see if I can dig it up, though.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Here's an important question in creating a new chart--are you trying to suggest how you thinks should be, or merely trying to validate what actually happens?

I'm not sure which one Florio is trying to do.

 

[PatsFan37]

I have to say, I think his chart is pretty much rubbish. For instance, what's with the huge gap between #32 and #33 (405 pts vs. 250)? Yes, you get the chance at an extra year. But according to Florio's valuation, you add two thirds to the value of pick #33 by adding the possibility of a 25% longer contract. That's vastly bigger than the jump from pick #17 to #16, and it makes the whole thing a total mess.

FWIW, he probably considers the extra year worth more than any previous year, considering the added experience, muscle, etc.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I think Florio's way off in his assessment - not that I defend the current Jimmy Johnson chart.

The old chart is innappropriately skewed to highly value the top picks - this one is inappropriately skewed towards lower ones. Somewhere in the middle of the two is what I'd say is fair.

Right now, under the Jimmy Johnson chart, a Pats trade of #7 is valued at slightly more than Dallas' #22 and #28.

I'd generally say they're near equal - maybe the Pats might need to throw in a late round pick to further acknowledge the high salary cost at #7 to Dallas.

But in many drafts - maybe even most (but not all) picking at #7 is exponentially better than picking at #28. This chart doesn't truly reflect that.

 

[patchick]

I think Florio's way off in his assessment - not that I defend the current Jimmy Johnson chart.

The old chart is innappropriately skewed to highly value the top picks - this one is inappropriately skewed towards lower ones. Somewhere in the middle of the two is what I'd say is fair.

Right now, under the Jimmy Johnson chart, a Pats trade of #7 is valued at slightly more than Dallas' #22 and #28.

I'd generally say they're near equal - maybe the Pats might need to throw in a late round pick to further acknowledge the high salary cost at #7 to Dallas.

But in many drafts - maybe even most (but not all) picking at #7 is exponentially better than picking at #28. This chart doesn't truly reflect that.

I agree with all of this, and I suspect I know part of the problem. By arbitrarily choosing to max out at an even 1000 points, he simply didn't leave himself enough room. The scale you use has an anchoring effect that biases your results.

 

[patchick]

FWIW, he probably considers the extra year worth more than any previous year, considering the added experience, muscle, etc.

The problem is that he isn't consistent with the different contract break points. By Florio's chart, when you move up from 4 to 5 years the 5th year is worth two-thirds of years 1-4 combined, but when you move from 5 to 6 years the 6th year is worth one-sixth of years 1-5 combined! That's just messed up.

It's also worth keeping in mind that many of the actual 1st-round contracts under the new CBA have been for less than the allotted maximum length, meaning that the contract break points may be a little overblown.

 

[IcyPatriot]

I think the current chart is fine and only needs 3 tweaks.
Pick 3 should be 2000 points.
Pick 2 should be 2200 points.
Pick 1 should be 2500 points.

There should be greater demand to trade into the top than there is now. It would make it easier to get the biggest stars in the bigger markets which benefits the entire league.

Also ... because the value's are closer teams would be less likely to tank the season bringing integrity back to the end of the season.

 

[patchick]

I think the current chart is fine and only needs 3 tweaks.
Pick 3 should be 2000 points.
Pick 2 should be 2200 points.
Pick 1 should be 2500 points.

There should be greater demand to trade into the top than there is now. It would make it easier to get the biggest stars in the bigger markets which benefits the entire league.

Also ... because the value's are closer teams would be less likely to tank the season bringing integrity back to the end of the season.

FBN, you have to keep in mind that the chart revisions are designed to be DE-scriptive, not PRE-scriptive. IOW, you can't expect a chart change to change teams' actual decision making. All we're trying to do is make the chart a more realistic reflection of current realities to help us as fans project trades, etc. (The way to achieve the benefits you're after is to fix the crazy rookie salary structure!)

 

[PatsFan37]

The problem is that he isn't consistent with the different contract break points. By Florio's chart, when you move up from 4 to 5 years the 5th year is worth two-thirds of years 1-4 combined, but when you move from 5 to 6 years the 6th year is worth one-sixth of years 1-5 combined! That's just messed up.

It's also worth keeping in mind that many of the actual 1st-round contracts under the new CBA have been for less than the allotted maximum length, meaning that the contract break points may be a little overblown.

Your last point is a good one. Whereas the CBA has a firm break point, the agents don't see it that way, and negotiations for that extra year get testy with players that are at the bottom of the range. So it doesn't warrant a sudden drop in value.

It almost seems like Florio rushed this one out without thinking about it hard enough. 1000 pts to start is a nice plan that breaks down, as you pointed out. He should have realized that and redone it.

 

[drpatriot]

I think that there is a bigger difference between picks 7 and 9 than a low fifth-round pick.