Pony, first off, way impressive amount of work to bring this to the masses.
Secondly the "actual value of player when drafted" comment (Wesleyan,) doesn't come into play for me. That's a question of the usefulness/accuracy of the commonly held idea of the trade value chart(s), which are similar though not identical team-to-team. So if you can get better value trading down two spots, in terms of how you think your "actual value" will pan out, you do it, thereby smoothing out the irregular nature of any given draft class. So we're measuring what a team has produced, given the spots they had to work with (over which the teams do have influence) - seems legit.
Thirdly I did this big analysis of how hard it was to mate these two charts, one curved and one straight line, and only then realized you Occam's-razored it, and just stuck the players where they WOULD be drafted, rather than tried to come up with some fancy system to mate the charts. Looks right to me.
Then I lost my first attempt to edit that analysis, so any misled by my earlier version of this post, fahgeddaboutit.
Thanks for the hard work, Pony.
PFnV