Yes, BB is unique in working the draft.

[convertedpatsfan]

Great thread, lots of solid points, absolutely love it.

But that Raiders deal was truly bizarre. I'm glad we lucked into it, but not sure what Al was thinking. As others pointed out, these types of deals usually happen when a team falls in love with a player. But the Raiders traded well in advance before they even knew who would be available with the #3, let alone the #4.

BB must have the Raiders on speed dial on draft day.

 

[patchick]

How can butler and brace be busts they have not had enough time to prove their worth.

You know, you're right. In 2009 & 2010 alone, the Patriots made FIVE day-2 picks who to this point could fairly be considered disappointments relative to their draft position: Brace, Butler, Tate, Price and McKenzie.

FIVE iffy premium picks in two years, ouch!!! The Jets only have ONE such iffy pick in that period (Vlad Ducasse). Isn't it bizarre to think that fans have actually been praising the Pats for those two drafts? Let's break it down. While acknowledging that some of these guys have only been in the league for a year, I'm going to give some preliminary grades:

A Genuine stud, a steal at that point in the draft
B Solid pick, looks like a long-term contributor
C Below expectations so far, but there's hope
D Washout

PATRIOTS 2009 & 2010
Round 2
A Vollmer, Gronkowski
B Chung, Cunningham, Spikes
C Brace, Butler
Round 3
C Tate, Price
D McKenzie

JETS 2009 & 2010
Round 2
C Ducasse
Round 3
B Greene

Hmm.

The Patriots will inevitably lead the league in high-round busts, because they have so many more chances to miss. But they'll also have more hits and home runs. That's two years in a row they drafted guys in round 2 who were immediate studs and look like perennial pro-bowlers. That's incredible.

 

[borg]

Options.....Depth.....Depth....Options
Let's review ....

1) The climate of today's NFL and future uncertainties

With the labor situation up in the air over the last 2 seasons...and now coming to a head...front offices have had to manage looking forward ...especially regarding 3 issues

A....an 18 game season which would include roster expansion
B....limited offseason that has stifled free agent transactions and trade options
C....rookie contracts

Love or hate how BB has maneuvered through the drafts over the last couple years, it is pretty clear that BB has had his eye on the future. ...A...Though expansion of games appears to be now off the table, no other team has been ready to fill out an expanded roster with more quality depth....B...Having a near full roster under contract with the potential of a limited training camp has to be seen as an advantage over teams dependant on this years free agent pool....C....BB has multiple high picks that will cost fewer $$ than in the past.

2) What do Corey Dillon, Wes Welker, Randy Moss, and most recently Deon Branch have in common...purchased with surplus ammo. Yeah....that's right baby. Not saying he's gonna do it, but when he does....holy sh*t....he does it big...and he does it well.

So I repeat....Depth ....and....Options...........We Got Dat all day

 

[AzPatsFan]

People really underestimate this fact.

Like every team, the Pats have question marks at multiple position.

However, most teams have to rely on late draft picks, cheap free agents, and the like as their solution to many of their question marks. The Pats' solution to many of their question marks is a young player drafted in the first three rounds. Plus one or two end-of-career veterans at league minimum, invited for tryouts.

For example, the Pats and Jets both have uncertainity at the third wideout spot next year. The Pats probably go with either Tate or Price as their third receiver, while the Jets (assuming they are only able to keep one of Edwards or Holmes and lose Brad Smith) are going to rely on Cotch at number two and either Kerley (a fifth round pick), Turner (a waiver wire guy) or some as yet unsigned cheap veteran. Now Kerley or the cheap vet, either of whom is new to the Jets, could obviously be better than Tate or Price but my money is on the third round pick with system experience instead of the fifth round pick without it.

There I corrected it for you...

 

[Oswlek]

You know, you're right. In 2009 & 2010 alone, the Patriots made FIVE day-2 picks who to this point could fairly be considered disappointments relative to their draft position: Brace, Butler, Tate, Price and McKenzie.

FIVE iffy premium picks in two years, ouch!!! The Jets only have ONE such iffy pick in that period (Vlad Ducasse). Isn't it bizarre to think that fans have actually been praising the Pats for those two drafts? Let's break it down. While acknowledging that some of these guys have only been in the league for a year, I'm going to give some preliminary grades:

A Genuine stud, a steal at that point in the draft
B Solid pick, looks like a long-term contributor
C Below expectations so far, but there's hope
D Washout

PATRIOTS 2009 & 2010
Round 2
A Vollmer, Gronkowski
B Chung, Cunningham, Spikes
C Brace, Butler
Round 3
C Tate, Price
D McKenzie

JETS 2009 & 2010
Round 2
C Ducasse
Round 3
B Greene

Hmm.

The Patriots will inevitably lead the league in high-round busts, because they have so many more chances to miss. But they'll also have more hits and home runs. That's two years in a row they drafted guys in round 2 who were immediate studs and look like perennial pro-bowlers. That's incredible.

I know it really isn't your point, but Price actually surpassed my expectations by displaying some real flashes in the final Miami game last year. The only "surprise" or "disappointment" to me was that NE fans expected something other than a redshirt year.

 

[Shelterdog]

There I corrected it for you...

No problem. Sometimes they also go with one young guy, a mid career guy (Ninkovich/Greg Lewis/Alex Smith types) and an end of career veteran. Fortunately, however, the draft picks are crowding out the Shawn Springs and Joey Galloway types.

 

[patchick]

I know it really isn't your point, but Price actually surpassed my expectations by displaying some real flashes in the final Miami game last year. The only "surprise" or "disappointment" to me was that NE fans expected something other than a redshirt year.

Yeah, I was trying to be conservative. For instance, you could argue that Spikes being a day-1 starter at pick #62 pushes him toward A category. (Though I suppose you could also argue that not managing to keep his schlong off camera or his meds on the approved list pushes him down.)

 

[fester]

Great thread, lots of solid points, absolutely love it.

But that Raiders deal was truly bizarre. I'm glad we lucked into it, but not sure what Al was thinking. As others pointed out, these types of deals usually happen when a team falls in love with a player. But the Raiders traded well in advance before they even knew who would be available with the #3, let alone the #4.

BB must have the Raiders on speed dial on draft day.

I don't think it is that crazy for the Raiders if we allow the following assumptions to be true:

1) The Raiders need more NFL competent players than the Patriots (the Pats in this assumption are trying to fill in fairly narrow roles/needs, while the Raiders have a thinner layer of NFL competent or better talent on their roster).

2) Raider talent evaluation and draft projections had the Raiders specific talent cliff at or later than pick #125.

3) The Patriots are willing to take a significant discount for these picks (traditionally a current year third is worth next year's second straight up while the actual deal was a current third and fourth for next year's second and a current 7th... big discount from the traditional POV)

4) The price is worth the risk to attempt to grab two players the Raiders projected as being able to contribute to a fairly thin roster.

Make those assumptions and all of a sudden the trade makes a good deal of sense. The biggest assumption is that the Patriots and Raiders evaluate college players in a significantly different manner, thus leading to different grades and different projections of where the talent cliff lies. For the Pats it was at pick 72 with Ridley, as everyone after that is either a boom-bust exteranl factors causing it to be a risky pick (Mallett/Cannon) or a complete projection pick with the exception of the Marshall TE. For the Raiders, it was a bit later.

 

[mrscruff]

I don't think it is that crazy for the Raiders if we allow the following assumptions to be true:

1) The Raiders need more NFL competent players than the Patriots (the Pats in this assumption are trying to fill in fairly narrow roles/needs, while the Raiders have a thinner layer of NFL competent or better talent on their roster).

2) Raider talent evaluation and draft projections had the Raiders specific talent cliff at or later than pick #125.

3) The Patriots are willing to take a significant discount for these picks (traditionally a current year third is worth next year's second straight up while the actual deal was a current third and fourth for next year's second and a current 7th... big discount from the traditional POV)

4) The price is worth the risk to attempt to grab two players the Raiders projected as being able to contribute to a fairly thin roster.

Make those assumptions and all of a sudden the trade makes a good deal of sense. The biggest assumption is that the Patriots and Raiders evaluate college players in a significantly different manner, thus leading to different grades and different projections of where the talent cliff lies. For the Pats it was at pick 72 with Ridley, as everyone after that is either a boom-bust exteranl factors causing it to be a risky pick (Mallett/Cannon) or a complete projection pick with the exception of the Marshall TE. For the Raiders, it was a bit later.

Nicely put. It is nice to hear about trades from the "other" perspective.

With reference to point 3) bear in mind that the third and fourth round picks (#92 & #125) were both fairly late in their respective rounds which helps to add perspective to the trade.

For arguments sake if we go by the Draft Trade chart #92 (132) and #125 (47) net a total of 179 points which is commensurate with the number 78 pick (roughly) which is equivalent to a mid third round pick. Seems a fairly reasonable trade since I personally expected #73 or #74 to be traded into next year.

The Armanti Edwards trade with the Panthers could not have panned out any better but the dominoes don't always fall so perfect every year. Still, we can hope for a high pick in 2012 from the Raiders especially since they got rid of their coach who I thought had made them pretty competitive. Let's hope someone in their division stands up to them this year round!

 

[SunnyDenmark]

With reference to point 3) bear in mind that the third and fourth round picks (#92 & #125) were both fairly late in their respective rounds which helps to add perspective to the trade.

For arguments sake if we go by the Draft Trade chart #92 (132) and #125 (47) net a total of 179 points which is commensurate with the number 78 pick (roughly) which is equivalent to a mid third round pick. Seems a fairly reasonable trade since I personally expected #73 or #74 to be traded into next year.

To continue your analysis, combining those 2 picks into one mid-3rd rounder this year (draft value chart), then trading it to next years Raiders 2nd rounder seem like at LEAST a fair value as if Raiders don't make the playoffs , then they will pick lowest at 50 (as playoff teams pick 21-32 in each round). As it is usualy a one round bump up for next years pick, the mid third round for (at worst assuming no Raiders playoffs) a mid-second seems like a fairly safe bet.

Obviously, it has the possiblility of being higher; if they are not a middle of the pack team but hopefully they pull a Carolina and are one of the top 5 worst teams. Could happen as they are losing 'Namni and Bush & Gallery are FA's.

Even moreso, with this season of limited / no OTA's - the value to a team of THIS YEARS rookies VS. next years rookies is clearly a winner for next years crop. Even more increasing the value of pushing draft picks into next year.

Last but not least, much has been made about the rookies and the missing of OTA's /chalkboard time and coaching up by the incommunicado coaches. What no one has mentioned is the lack of a professional weight training program and nutrition on these rookies. These are 20-23 year old kids who really need to further develop their physique to be able to compete against the vets at the pro level. We usually see the rookies adding (5-15 pounds?) of muscle during their first year while increasing their flexability, endurance and speed due to a NFL professional training and diet regiment.

Not only will this further leave them at a disadvantage against vets in TC & during the regular season - I can only imagine that it will commensurately also increase the likelyhood and degree of injury as well. Rookies will be at a huge disadvantage this year and with that in mind - the trading (far in advance of the clock) with the Raiders seems to make more and more sense.

 

[Fencer]

BB has found an arbitrage and is working the hell out of it.

The consensus is that a pick tomorrow is worth a round less than a pick today, with it being analogous to currency inflation.

But that analogy is flawed. Since the year lost is subsequently gained on the backend of the rookie contract, the purchasing power remains the same. All that is sacrificed is the potential quality of this year's squad, which is a tough pill to swallow for someone trying to prove their worth to ownership and fans.

As long as you have the job security to view the 2014 Patriots as important as the 2011 Patriots it is like free currency.

If you rephrased that to be more accurate, it wouldn't undermine your main point. (SOME non-zero discount rate would probably be appropriate; it's just that what most teams use is way too high.)

It's the classical conflict between short-term bias on the part of managers who want to be rewarded (and indeed keep their jobs) and the long-term interest of the organization.

 

[Fencer]

To take one particularly clear example, in the trade above BB is collecting interest, in advance, of the #56 pick for the loan for one year of a first-round pick. It seems to me, that it is quite good interest.

To a first approximation, he got over 50% interest PAID IN ADVANCE.

That's like doubling your money in a year -- I give you ($1.00 - $.50) now, and you give me $1.00 a year from now.

 

[Oswlek]

If you rephrased that to be more accurate, it wouldn't undermine your main point. (SOME non-zero discount rate would probably be appropriate; it's just that what most teams use is way too high.)

It's the classical conflict between short-term bias on the part of managers who want to be rewarded (and indeed keep their jobs) and the long-term interest of the organization.

I'm not sure how it is either inaccurate or undermining of its point.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

3) The Patriots are willing to take a significant discount for these picks (traditionally a current year third is worth next year's second straight up while the actual deal was a current third and fourth for next year's second and a current 7th... big discount from the traditional POV)

It's not really a discount per se.

If you think about it, the idea is "one round earlier." So, in theory, if you're planning to trade away, say, #48 next year, you should be getting something around #80 back in return.

I can't really blame Uncle Al for realizing that only getting #92 back wasn't exactly fair.

 

[Off The Grid]

It's not really a discount per se.

If you think about it, the idea is "one round earlier." So, in theory, if you're planning to trade away, say, #48 next year, you should be getting something around #80 back in return.

I can't really blame Uncle Al for realizing that only getting #92 back wasn't exactly fair.

One'd have to be ******ed to think that we discounted our Picks on that trade.

A late 3rd + a late 4th = a Mid 3rd.

A Mid 3rd for a Deferred Mid/Low 2nd isn't discounting the 3rd in the LEAST.

***

In 2007, we actually traded a 3rd FOR A THIRD to Oakland ~ with a 7th thrown in.

And it was a damned good deal for us.

Bubba needs to do'is homework.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I don't think it is that crazy for the Raiders if we allow the following assumptions to be true:

1) The Raiders need more NFL competent players than the Patriots (the Pats in this assumption are trying to fill in fairly narrow roles/needs, while the Raiders have a thinner layer of NFL competent or better talent on their roster).

2) Raider talent evaluation and draft projections had the Raiders specific talent cliff at or later than pick #125.

3) The Patriots are willing to take a significant discount for these picks (traditionally a current year third is worth next year's second straight up while the actual deal was a current third and fourth for next year's second and a current 7th... big discount from the traditional POV)

4) The price is worth the risk to attempt to grab two players the Raiders projected as being able to contribute to a fairly thin roster.

Make those assumptions and all of a sudden the trade makes a good deal of sense. The biggest assumption is that the Patriots and Raiders evaluate college players in a significantly different manner, thus leading to different grades and different projections of where the talent cliff lies. For the Pats it was at pick 72 with Ridley, as everyone after that is either a boom-bust exteranl factors causing it to be a risky pick (Mallett/Cannon) or a complete projection pick with the exception of the Marshall TE. For the Raiders, it was a bit later.

Some really good points. And as Al has proven in the past, even at the top of the draft, he's more than willing to gamble on boom/bust guys. Your post makes a lot of sense, although they did spend the 4th on a RB when they're already got a bunch of guys there (though Bush is a potential UFA depending on CBA, and 3 other RBs are FAs in 2012).

On point 3 though, I'd also factor in that they were the Pats picks, thus very late in the round. One could almost count them as holding similar value to an early 4th/5th for what could be an early 2nd next year, so I wouldn't consider it discounted at all and I'm thrilled we did it.

 

[Off The Grid]

One'd have to be ******ed to think that we discounted our Picks on that trade.

Gah. That was an harsh, over-caffeinated reaction.

My apologies to any offended parties.

But the common misconception ~ held by intelligent people ~ that the Trade Back with the Raiders reaped a PENNY less than the usual Premium, much less actually involved issuing a Discount...is demonstrably False.

 

[Off The Grid]

To a first approximation, he got over 50% interest PAID IN ADVANCE.

That's like doubling your money in a year -- I give you ($1.00 - $.50) now, and you give me $1.00 a year from now.

Nicely put!! 100% Interest!! Double your money in one year!! :rocker:

Of course, as I've been postulating for a while, that's actually the usual Interest Rate.

#89 ~ 145 Points ~ for #33 ~ 580 Points ~ was actually exactly 300% Interest!!! :rocker:

 

[mrscruff]

Some of you might be interested in looking here:

Overview of the Patriots Draft Philosophies & Strategy « How The Pats Draft

 

[Oswlek]

If you rephrased that to be more accurate, it wouldn't undermine your main point. (SOME non-zero discount rate would probably be appropriate; it's just that what most teams use is way too high.)

It's the classical conflict between short-term bias on the part of managers who want to be rewarded (and indeed keep their jobs) and the long-term interest of the organization.

Rereading, I think you misunderstood my post. I never said that no premium should be awarded for the privaledge of making your selection a year early. I said that there was no deflationary effect on the picks themselves - same number of years, same quality of available players, etc.

BB just happens to have more job security than most so he is able to take advantage of the hefty trade cost. Pricing anamolies like those are precisely what an arbitrage is.