Welcome to PatsFans.com

Revising the draft trade value chart?

Discussion in 'Patriots Draft Talk' started by patchick, Mar 22, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. patchick

    patchick Moderatrix Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    11,484
    Likes Received:
    245
    Ratings:
    +541 / 6 / -0

    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:

    [​IMG]
  2. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,209
    Likes Received:
    61
    Ratings:
    +97 / 2 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Good work!

    But it does mess up my "mother of all trades".:(
    Well, the Rams are just going to have to take it.
  3. ctpatsfan77

    ctpatsfan77 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,401
    Likes Received:
    110
    Ratings:
    +180 / 4 / -5

    Care to share with the rest of the class, Box? :)
  4. sebman2112

    sebman2112 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,535
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

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

    patchick Moderatrix Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    11,484
    Likes Received:
    245
    Ratings:
    +541 / 6 / -0

    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. :)
  6. SamBamsFan

    SamBamsFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,165
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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).
  7. AzPatsFan

    AzPatsFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    5,994
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +133 / 10 / -8

    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.
  8. Isaac

    Isaac Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    749
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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).
  9. patchick

    patchick Moderatrix Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    11,484
    Likes Received:
    245
    Ratings:
    +541 / 6 / -0

    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.
  10. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,209
    Likes Received:
    61
    Ratings:
    +97 / 2 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    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:
  11. patchick

    patchick Moderatrix Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    11,484
    Likes Received:
    245
    Ratings:
    +541 / 6 / -0

    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.
  12. patsfan55

    patsfan55 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,673
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

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

    psychoPat Role Player PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,776
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

  14. JoePats

    JoePats Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    2,145
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    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.
  15. patchick

    patchick Moderatrix Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    11,484
    Likes Received:
    245
    Ratings:
    +541 / 6 / -0

    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. :)
  16. dryheat44

    dryheat44 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,369
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ratings:
    +78 / 2 / -0

    #75 Jersey

    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.
  17. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,059
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +207 / 16 / -38

    #50 Jersey

    Patchick, great work.
  18. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,059
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +207 / 16 / -38

    #50 Jersey

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

    Box_O_Rocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    Messages:
    20,550
    Likes Received:
    25
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -0

    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.
  20. VJCPatriot

    VJCPatriot Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    12,344
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ratings:
    +46 / 1 / -4

    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. :cool: Which doesn't make it as convenient for calculating trades.
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2007
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>