Welcome to PatsFans.com

The new, new trade chart

Discussion in 'Patriots Draft Talk' started by mcsully, Apr 15, 2008.

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

    mcsully Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,042
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +4 / 3 / -0

  2. dryheat44

    dryheat44 Rookie

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

    #75 Jersey

    Last edited: Apr 15, 2008
  3. PonyExpress

    PonyExpress Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,658
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

    Awesome. Thanks for posting, DH.
  4. mcsully

    mcsully Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,042
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +4 / 3 / -0

  5. BradyToMoss

    BradyToMoss Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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.
  6. dryheat44

    dryheat44 Rookie

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

    #75 Jersey

    Last edited: Apr 15, 2008
  7. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,852
    Likes Received:
    27
    Ratings:
    +46 / 2 / -0

    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.
  8. mcsully

    mcsully Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,042
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +4 / 3 / -0

    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..
  9. ctpatsfan77

    ctpatsfan77 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

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

    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.
  10. PonyExpress

    PonyExpress Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,658
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

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

    BradyToMoss Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

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

    patchick Moderatrix Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    11,485
    Likes Received:
    246
    Ratings:
    +542 / 6 / -0

    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.
  13. PromisedLand

    PromisedLand Virtual Internet Person

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,372
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    True, but only if the #1 team is smarter than Al Davis... ;)
  14. SamBamsFan

    SamBamsFan Rookie

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

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

    VJCPatriot Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    12,347
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ratings:
    +46 / 1 / -4

    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.
  16. patsfan55

    patsfan55 Rookie

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

    #95 Jersey

    Re: New Draft Day Chart

    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
  17. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,852
    Likes Received:
    27
    Ratings:
    +46 / 2 / -0

    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!
  18. dryheat44

    dryheat44 Rookie

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

    #75 Jersey

    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.
  19. spacecrime

    spacecrime Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,329
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    Like last year? :D
  20. spacecrime

    spacecrime Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,329
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    Excellent point. I hadn't thought of it that way, but you're right.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>