Trade up possibilities

[stinkypete]

What i would like to do is Trade future picks for picks in this years draft for a few reasons

#1 This draft is better than next years likely
#2 Brady only has a few years left and 2015 draftees will likely not develop in time to help him.

That aside this is a deep draft and there are few guys I would trade up for cause the secondary talent is generally close to this drafts top talent

Exactly. Given the window this team has and the areas of strength on the current roster, I'd happily give up a 2015 1st or 2nd to move back into the top 50.

 

[VJCPatriot]

They weren't strong up the middle because everyone up the middle was injured.

Yup right on. Losing Wilfork, Mayo, and Kelly all in the same season was devastating. This team is usually good against the run. But it's hard to do that when your run defenders are gone. We were in scramble mode and actually overachieved if you think about it.

If we hadn't lost Talib to last minute freak injury and Gronk for the rest of the season, we might be talking about that Pats-Seahawks bowl game instead.

 

[cstjohn17]

I have to say, the Patriots have done such a great job in free agency that maybe a trade up is possible. It is going to be hard for rookies to make the team and it is always hard to stash players so maybe there is a chance to look beyond depth and really move the bar.

With a pretty good or very good set of players at every position are there any trade up potentials?

 

[varjao]

I have ruled out the trade down from my strategy, I think we already have a lot of players that are locks to make the 53 man roster and players from last draft that we have high hopes to improve, so as of now I would just pick the players in the current spots, maybe a trade can be made depending on how the draft unfolds but nothing insane.

 

[patchick]

I have ruled out the trade down from my strategy, I think we already have a lot of players that are locks to make the 53 man roster and players from last draft that we have high hopes to improve, so as of now I would just pick the players in the current spots, maybe a trade can be made depending on how the draft unfolds but nothing insane.

I could still easily see a trade down from 29, yielding ammo to make trades up from 62 & 93 possible.

As of this moment -- doubtless it will change tomorrow -- I see #29 as Ryan Shazier, Ra'Shede Hageman or trade down. Those two are the kind of rare athletes you don't pass up on, but after them comes a group of players I'd like to position myself for 2 of (assuming Shazier/Hageman didn't happen). Off the top of my head they include:

Austin Sefarian-Jenkins
Dominique Easley
Stephon Tuitt
Joel Bitonio
...and some others I'm too tired to remember. I expect all of the above to be gone by pick 62.

 

[mayoclinic]

The draft site misterelevant.com has an alternative trade value chart using a 100 point scale, based on an analysis of the trades that have actually occurred since the new CBA:

Draft Value Chart | Mr. Relevant

They note:

Over the past two seasons, there have been 50 trades of just purely draft picks (ie: picks that do not involve players). Of these 50 trades, only 16 have exceeded 2.20 points in differential (the cost of the very last 5th round pick). Of those 16 trades, 12 involved first round picks as teams are willing to pay a premium for players they believe are the elite members in the draft. Generally, a sweetener of approximately a 5th round pick is needed to beat out other teams negotiating for the same first round pick.

Using their chart, 29 (51.07 points) + 62 (23.14 points) totals 74.21 points, which is approximately the value of the #12 pick (74.98 points). 29 + 93 (11 points) totals 62.07 points, which is about the value of the #21 pick (61.88 points).

Note that in 2012 the Patriots trades #27 and #93 (totaling 64.59 points) to Cincinnati for #21 (61.88 points). They also traded #31 (48.68 points) and 126 (4.98 points, for a total of 53.66 points) to Denver for #25 (56.22 points). Given the desire of most teams to trade back in this draft, I'm guessing they could get to around the #12-13 pick by trading #29+62, and to around #20-21 by trading #29+93.

 

[Luxusdk]

But there are other teams i'll look more toward when in comes to tradeing up, miners could go into top10 ? or 15+20?

Rams have alot of options, so does Browns. Bears / Vikings both are beleaved to get more picks ( trade Down ? )

Then you go Broncos WHO are all in - are we aswell?

 

[mayoclinic]

But there are other teams i'll look more toward when in comes to tradeing up, miners could go into top10 ? or 15+20?

Rams have alot of options, so does Browns. Bears / Vikings both are beleaved to get more picks ( trade Down ? )

Then you go Broncos WHO are all in - are we aswell?

I think it all depends on how much the Pats like some of the prospects who are available. In 2012 the Pats had the fewest draft picks that they had had in a long time (7 going into the draft), but still traded up twice. BB obviously valued Chandler Jones and Dont'a Hightower enough to make the move. It wasn't a question of "going all in", it was a question of player valuation.

It wouldn't shock me to see aggressive teams like the 49ers, Seahawks (who don't have a 3rd round pick due to the Percy Harvin trade) and Broncos trade up, if there's someone they really want. It also wouldn't surprise me to see teams like Chicago and Dallas trade back.

 

[Coach42]

Then who is worth jumping up to 12 or 21 for. We all know Donald is one but who else garners that type of consideration?

 

[mayoclinic]

Then who is worth jumping up to 12 or 21 for. We all know Donald is one but who else garners that type of consideration?

Donald, Anthony Barr and Eric Ebron are the 3 guys who come to mind. Any could be available in the 12-21 range. Clowney and Khalil Mack will be out of range. Donald is probably the only one I would consider trading 29+62 for, but I would consider all 3 if available in the 29+93 range.

 

[Coach42]

Donald, Anthony Barr and Eric Ebron are the 3 guys who come to mind. Any could be available in the 12-21 range. Clowney and Khalil Mack will be out of range. Donald is probably the only one I would consider trading 29+62 for, but I would consider all 3 if available in the 29+93 range.

I'm not completely sold on Ebron but I would love either of the other two suggestions. Mike Evans has me intrigued as well, although I can't see it happening.

 

[mayoclinic]

I'm not completely sold on Ebron but I would love either of the other two suggestions. Mike Evans has me intrigued as well, although I can't see it happening.

I'm not sold on Ebron either. I wouldn't go WR in the 1st round, much less trade up for one, but Evans will be long gone anyway.

 

[cstjohn17]

Looking at the needs and potential spots a rookie can start or upgrade the current roster, then subtracting positional groups that prevent players from playing all three downs (WR) I have narrowed it down to interior O Line and Safety. Since interior O Line is can be found later, Safety is left.

I would trade up for HaHa Clinton-Dix, this would provide an instant starter with probowl potential.

 

[zimmy]

Looking at the needs and potential spots a rookie can start or upgrade the current roster, then subtracting positional groups that prevent players from playing all three downs (WR) I have narrowed it down to interior O Line and Safety. Since interior O Line is can be found later, Safety is left.

I would trade up for HaHa Clinton-Dix, this would provide an instant starter with probowl potential.

I think you only trade up in one case: you see a guy who can be a difference maker in the league and where there is also a significant drop off in talent to other players in the draft. It also helps if you don't have many holes to fill and it is a major area of need.

I don't see many players in that bracket. Guys I think are difference makers are: Clowney, Mack, Donald, Watkins, Evans. I wouldn't trade up for a WR because I don't see the drop off being that huge between Watkins/Evans and the guys we could potentially get in rounds 1/2. It is too high to trade up for Mack/Clowney, and I don't see the gap between Donald and Easley as being as big as some others do.

I especially don't trade up for Clinton-Dix for 2 reasons: I think Jimmie Ward is just as good, and we already have McCourty in that role.

Mayo wants a trade up with 29 and 62 for Donald, and it's a valid opinion. I would rather try and trade down from 29 and then back up from 62 and pick up 2 of Easley, ASJ, Latimer or Attaochu (or Nix if he falls).

 

[dryheat44]

Exactly. Given the window this team has and the areas of strength on the current roster, I'd happily give up a 2015 1st or 2nd to move back into the top 50.

I think I must be the only one who doesn't see this closing window. On Brady's career, sure, but why the move to "all-in"? Why are we assuming the Pats will be done as a Super Bowl contender Post-Brady? That's not the way Belichick has constructed this team.

IMO, the surest way to go from contender to chumps after Brady is to go "all-in". I would rather not spend 3-5 years on a serious re-build for a slightly better chance to win this year and next. That's just bad management. BB built a dynasty precisely by NOT making unsound moves for short term success. Not intentionally anyway.

 

[cstjohn17]

I am on the opposite side of the fence, tomorrow is hard to predict. All teams go through cycles , the NFL provides the best chance of rapidly rebuilding but in all scenarios a top quality QB is needed to win.

I would trade one more Super Bowl for 5 straight losing seasons. Championships are forever.

Just my opinion.

I think I must be the only one who doesn't see this closing window. On Brady's career, sure, but why the move to "all-in"? Why are we assuming the Pats will be done as a Super Bowl contender Post-Brady? That's not the way Belichick has constructed this team.

IMO, the surest way to go from contender to chumps after Brady is to go "all-in". I would rather not spend 3-5 years on a serious re-build for a slightly better chance to win this year and next. That's just bad management. BB built a dynasty precisely by NOT making unsound moves for short term success. Not intentionally anyway.

 

[jr_3421]

How ironic. 2 very different strategies present themselves

1. In a very deep draft, trading down offers more picks to add talented players in rounds they might not have lasted to in other years

2. Because there will be so many teams looking to trade down for all the reasons given in #1, one might not have to give up as much to move up.

"Verrrry INTERESTING" (for those old enough to remember Arte Johnson. )

I think that we also have to look at where we are in the in the draft. At #29 we are right in front of the Texans at 33 who very likely could be looking for a QB. I think there will be a lot of QB needy teams who passed on one early in the 1st round and want to jump in front of the Texans to grab their QB.

So in theory, it may seem like we would have more partners to trade up with because it's a deep draft, but because it looks like a lot of these QBs could slide, I think we will have multiple teams trying to get us to trade down.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I think you only trade up in one case: you see a guy who can be a difference maker in the league and where there is also a significant drop off in talent to other players in the draft. It also helps if you don't have many holes to fill and it is a major area of need.

FWIW, Belichick doesn't seem to view it that way. His MO on trade-ups appears to be that he's willing to trade up if he believes that the player he wants isn't going to make it to his next pick, and has fallen to the point that he already represents good value at the higher pick (i.e., BB won't trade up to #20 just to grab a player he has ranked as #24). It should also be clear that BB has to feel that player is the highest-ranked player left on his board.

 

[dryheat44]

I am on the opposite side of the fence, tomorrow is hard to predict. All teams go through cycles , the NFL provides the best chance of rapidly rebuilding but in all scenarios a top quality QB is needed to win.

I would trade one more Super Bowl for 5 straight losing seasons. Championships are forever.

Just my opinion.

I'm right there with you. Guarantee me a Super Bowl this season, and I'm willing to suck for the next 5 years.

Unfortunately, going all-in guarantees you nothing except a disappearing of future assets.

 

[AzPatsFan]

If you want to win you had best plug the holes in the interior Offensive line. You can't win with Brady on IR.

The Pats got to two AFCCGs and a Super Bowl with much worse Defenses than they now possess, without any additions in 2011 and 2012. But the interior OL is Old, 32->33, 31->32 and 29. with only Mankins with any great ability, backed up by nothing but scrubs. Ominously, Brady was sacked 40 times this past season, a number that would be three years worth at other times.

FIX the damn line!

Stop wishing for a Gronk or Chandler Jones. The draft is barren of them, but has plenty of very talented interior Offensive linemen. Pick up a couple; and convert one to C and the other to RG.