Yes, BB is unique in working the draft.

[plk]

I do have a reflection on the value of a draft pick transferred into a later year. I have not read the entire thread carefully, and if someone has already made this point, please just disregard this.

In some ways a draft pick is like money. We all know that it's better to have a sum of money now than the same sum of money at some point in the future.

Money, however, does not just disappear after four years, and the rights to a player do. I suggest that a draft pick is somewhat like having won (in some sort of lottery perhaps) the right to a free car for four years. You can start the four years now, or a year from now, or even two years. (Drafted players are, of course, not free, but they may well be less expensive than they would be on the open market.)

If you don't have a car, but need one, perhaps you start the four years now. If you have a car that will last for a year or two, perhaps you put off starting the four years for a year or two. You get the same four years in either case. If you can get paid to start the four years later, that is even better. And if you will get an even better car a year from now...

 

[MaineMan]

This is where that damned "inaccurate" and "unreliable" Draft Value Chart sorta comes in handy.

A late 3rd + a late 4th = a Mid 3rd.
#92 + #125 - #219 = 132pts + 47pts - 5 pts = 174pts = the #83

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

174pts x 2 [doubled for the delay) = 348pts = #55 (top ten finisher)

So, really, the Raiders could make the playoffs and we'd still be getting our "money's worth" out of that trade.

***

 

[plk]

This is where that damned "inaccurate" and "unreliable" Draft Value Chart sorta comes in handy.

If you are referring the other thread that you jumped into without reading, you really should read the thread because it is clear that you do not have a clue what I was actually saying about the Draft Value Chart.

 

[Fencer]

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

You suggested the appropriate discount rate was precisely 0%. I doubt you really mean that.

And, um, your disclaimer about that in a subsequent post still isn't totally clear.

 

[Oswlek]

You suggested the appropriate discount rate was precisely 0%. I doubt you really mean that.

No, I did not. In more traditional transaction where you push compensation out into the future there are a lot of concerns. Will the assets or currency lose value? Will production costs be different? Will the marketplace change in the interim, missing an opportunity?

In the NFL draft there is none of this. A 2nd round draft pick is just as valuable during 2012 draft as it was in 2011. Once you disregard the primary concern - present year job security - the remaining issues are if you worry that a draft might go away or if you partner up with too good of a team, pushing your return down a little. That's it.

As an economics major, I'm sure BB has thought about things in precisely this manner.

 

[Fencer]

No, I did not. In more traditional transaction where you push compensation out into the future there are a lot of concerns. Will the assets or currency lose value? Will production costs be different? Will the marketplace change in the interim, missing an opportunity?

In the NFL draft there is none of this. A 2nd round draft pick is just as valuable during 2012 draft as it was in 2011. Once you disregard the primary concern - present year job security - the remaining issues are if you worry that a draft might go away or if you partner up with too good of a team, pushing your return down a little. That's it.

As an economics major, I'm sure BB has thought about things in precisely this manner.

If you're arguing that the discount on future draft picks should be LESS than the conventional financial discount rate, that's an interesting and difficult discussion, in part because I have little idea how to estimate the "correct" discount rate in the real world (or for that matter in football).

However, there is always a possibility of rules changes that diminish the value of picks, or for that matter increase them. On the whole the league seems to be headed toward shorter rookie contracts, which would be a definite negative for pick value.

There also will be changes in the effectiveness of player evaluations. On the whole, they're probably heading up, but to the extent more players enter the draft younger, that probably led to an overall shift down in evaluation effectiveness. If everybody can evaluate better, the value of picks might actually go up.

And so on. Complicated stuff.

 

[Oswlek]

If you're arguing that the discount on future draft picks should be LESS than the conventional financial discount rate, that's an interesting and difficult discussion, in part because I have little idea how to estimate the "correct" discount rate in the real world (or for that matter in football).

However, there is always a possibility of rules changes that diminish the value of picks, or for that matter increase them. On the whole the league seems to be headed toward shorter rookie contracts, which would be a definite negative for pick value.

There also will be changes in the effectiveness of player evaluations. On the whole, they're probably heading up, but to the extent more players enter the draft younger, that probably led to an overall shift down in evaluation effectiveness. If everybody can evaluate better, the value of picks might actually go up.

And so on. Complicated stuff.

Gotcha.

And I'm not necessarily saying the cost to pull from the future, I'm saying that, BB's lack of concern about job security creates an arbitrage situation. The same way that, if you were able to somehow negate the impact of market, interest rate or inflation risks, it would create buying opportunities for you that others could get as much value out of.

 

[PatsVols]

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.

I agree completely that this years rookies will be hard pressed to make contributions to their teams. Injury problems, lack of playbook knowledge etc.. make them redshirt players or worse guys that take up roster spots but can't play effectively this year. BB will be happy to use the expanded roster spots for his best rooks and make the best use of his current players to compete for a championship this year. I assume Oakland will have a tougher schedule this year and will revert to the normal 5-11 like record. New Orleans should be good but BB has a knack of picking the team that will do badly and give him a good pick. If you look at the current payroll of the Pats there are no really big numbers except Brady and Mankins. Next years draft will be more affordable players that will get the full rookie experience instead of the Taylor Price rookie experience. Hech this years ookies would love to get as much time as Taylor Price got but they will probably get three weeks to prepare for the season and we all know that is going to be disasterous for all but a precious few. BB is ready for a shortened season.

 

[patfanken]

The year that really puts all of BB's skill was in 2010. IIRC correctly the Pats had one first round pick, 3 2nd round picks and ZERO 3rd round picks before the draft began. After it was all said and done, they had gotten the 2nd best rookie of the year in the first round, added 2 starters and a contributor in the 2nd, and STILL managed to create not one but TWO 3rd round picks out of nothing (one of which he turned around and got the #33 pick in the 2011)

Its one thing to trade picks, but in THAT draft we managed to pick the same numbers of players we had in each round we started with, and THEN "created" 2 third round picks. Now THAT is the magic of BB.

Someone a while back started a good thread on BB's "annuity" strategy. Maybe someone should find the link to it. I think it would be worth the re-read.

 

[PatsFanStnfrd]

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)

The Raiders really played hardball on the terms of this trade. Last year, the Pats obtained Carolina's second round pick (# 33 in 2011) for a late third round pick in 2010. This year, BB really wanted IN to the 2nd round 2012 badly enough that he gave up 2011 3rd & 4th. For Raiders, this was value they wanted.

For BB, he had to "overpay" to get what he wanted. It all depends which side is driving the trade.

 

[Metaphors]

The Raiders really played hardball on the terms of this trade. Last year, the Pats obtained Carolina's second round pick (# 33 in 2011) for a late third round pick in 2010. This year, BB really wanted IN to the 2nd round 2012 badly enough that he gave up 2011 3rd & 4th. For Raiders, this was value they wanted.

For BB, he had to "overpay" to get what he wanted. It all depends which side is driving the trade.

Belichick had to pay a premium for a variety of reasons:
- Pick #92 wasn't on the clock yet so the potential existed for the Raiders to miss out on guys they wanted.
- I doubt the Raiders initiated this trade. Since they were being courted, the Raiders held out for dinner AND dancing before saying yes.
- While I suspect the Raiders like their chances this year, the Carolina scenario (turning into a virtual 1st rounder) exists for Oakland next year.

The Raiders got 2 players (Barksdale and Taiwan Jones) that were linked to them pre-draft so I assume they are happy. If the Raiders blow next year, I think the Pats will really like who is available early on day 2 in 2012.

 

[Shelterdog]

Belichick had to pay a premium for a variety of reasons:
- Pick #92 wasn't on the clock yet so the potential existed for the Raiders to miss out on guys they wanted.
- I doubt the Raiders initiated this trade. Since they were being courted, the Raiders held out for dinner AND dancing before saying yes.
- While I suspect the Raiders like their chances this year, the Carolina scenario (turning into a virtual 1st rounder) exists for Oakland next year.

The Raiders got 2 players (Barksdale and Taiwan Jones) that were linked to them pre-draft so I assume they are happy. If the Raiders blow next year, I think the Pats will really like who is available early on day 2 in 2012.

Add this: he clearly thinks this year's draft sucks so he was willing to five up a bunch for a high chance of a high 2 next year.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Add this: he clearly thinks this year's draft sucks so he was willing to five up a bunch for a high chance of a high 2 next year.

Sucked so badly he picked five players in the first 75. . . .

 

[The Gr8est]

Belichick had to pay a premium for a variety of reasons:
- Pick #92 wasn't on the clock yet so the potential existed for the Raiders to miss out on guys they wanted.
- I doubt the Raiders initiated this trade. Since they were being courted, the Raiders held out for dinner AND dancing before saying yes.
- While I suspect the Raiders like their chances this year, the Carolina scenario (turning into a virtual 1st rounder) exists for Oakland next year.

The Raiders got 2 players (Barksdale and Taiwan Jones) that were linked to them pre-draft so I assume they are happy. If the Raiders blow next year, I think the Pats will really like who is available early on day 2 in 2012.

Acquiring picks like the Saints' #1 and Oakland's #2 in 2012 also provides the flexibility to manipulate the draft as BB sees fit.

To see the value in this you don't need to look any further than the Miami Dolphins who were lacking picks they had traded away. Read FinsFans to see how much Dolphins fans are kicking themselves over missing out on Ryan Mallett as well as having to trade up to get a badly needed RB in Daniel Thomas.

Anyone who advocates that BB empties the gun, kills the Golden Goose, and spends all of the draft picks at his disposal right now should keep this in mind.

The Pats got plenty of top young talent this year ( including four players who could be seen as legitimate 1st rounders in Solder, Dowling, Mallett, and Cannon), even if they didn't get all that they could. This philosophy pays off in the long run and there are many astute NFL fans of other teams who envy the Pats for being able to continually pull this off.

 

[Shelterdog]

Sucked so badly he picked five players in the first 75. . . .

Sure but they started with six picks in the top 75, moved down a bunch, and they tried pretty hard to dump the fifth pick (the Mallett pick) by using Lombardi to shop it before using it on a player who's unlikely to contribute in 2011.

I'm happy with the draft but when you have seven picks in the top 92 and you only add four players (Vereen/Ridley/Dowling/Solder--anything Cannon or Smith contribue is gravey) who project to be active on game day this year, you don't like the available talent.

 

[Metaphors]

I'm happy with the draft but when you have seven picks in the top 92 and you only add four players (Vereen/Ridley/Dowling/Solder--anything Cannon or Smith contribue is gravey) who project to be active on game day this year, you don't like the available talent.

I don't think they were happy with the depth of this draft after about pick #75. The thinking seems the same for 2012 since they avoided acquiring any 3rd rounders next year like the plague.

As for only getting 4 gameday actives, maybe that is all they were targeting with the draft. I can count 34 sure thing players of the 45 from last year without including possible cuts (Sanders, Wilhite, Kaczur, TBC, Crumpler), inactives pushing for snaps (Price, Wendell, Love), special teams only guys or free agents. Counting the 4 new guys, that only leave 7 spots left for all those categories. There just isn't much room at the inn.

 

[Shelterdog]

I don't think they were happy with the depth of this draft after about pick #75. The thinking seems the same for 2012 since they avoided acquiring any 3rd rounders next year like the plague.

As for only getting 4 gameday actives, maybe that is all they were targeting with the draft. I can count 34 sure thing players of the 45 from last year without including possible cuts (Sanders, Wilhite, Kaczur, TBC, Crumpler), inactives pushing for snaps (Price, Wendell, Love), special teams only guys or free agents. Counting the 4 new guys, that only leave 7 spots left for all those categories. There just isn't much room at the inn.

It's pretty striking that they pick Mallett, are off the board for 64 picks, add a high risk player in Cannon who may not play this year, and then are off the board for another 23 picks before adding Smith. When you have all that ammunition and you pick one long shot between 75 and 158 you don't like the talent.

It looks to me like BB is betting that ok players who have been in the system (Tate/Price/S. Brown/Eric Moore/Ninkovich/Wendell/Ohrnberger/Edelman types) are going to be much better in 2011 than anything he could pick after about 60 in the draft.

 

[TealSox]

To see the value in this you don't need to look any further than the Miami Dolphins who were lacking picks they had traded away. Read FinsFans to see how much Dolphins fans are kicking themselves over missing out on Ryan Mallett as well as having to trade up to get a badly needed RB in Daniel Thomas.

I wonder if the Miami Dolphins truly had any interest in drafting Ryan Mallett. They traded their third round, fifth round and seventh round picks to get back into the second round. Then they used that pick to draft Daniel Thomas.

Maybe they thought Mallett would drop to the fourth round or they were prepared to go into 2011 with Henne at QB.

On the flip side, if Belichick was running things in Miami, he would had trade their first round pick, acquiring 2nd to 3rd round picks, forfeiting Pouncy and grabbing Mallett, a RB and an OL.

The Pats got plenty of top young talent this year ( including four players who could be seen as legitimate 1st rounders in Solder, Dowling, Mallett, and Cannon), even if they didn't get all that they could. This philosophy pays off in the long run and there are many astute NFL fans of other teams who envy the Pats for being able to continually pull this off.

If you told me, prior to the draft, that the Patriots picked Solder, Dowling, Mallett and Cannon with their first four picks and were able to acquire an additional first round pick in 2012, I would call that a success. Can't get too hung up with where they were drafted, can we?

 

[TealSox]

It's pretty striking that they pick Mallett, are off the board for 64 picks, add a high risk player in Cannon who may not play this year, and then are off the board for another 23 picks before adding Smith. When you have all that ammunition and you pick one long shot between 75 and 158 you don't like the talent.

It looks to me like BB is betting that ok players who have been in the system (Tate/Price/S. Brown/Eric Moore/Ninkovich/Wendell/Ohrnberger/Edelman types) are going to be much better in 2011 than anything he could pick after about 60 in the draft.

Betting or hoping?

I've been under the assumption that, given the lack of depth in the 2011 draft and player lock out, those players that would normally be worth taking a flyer on and working toward developing them were discounted. At the prospects of losing a player for a season due to unpreparedness or a prolonged lock out, why not draft falling prospects that play in positions that aren't immediate needs. The prerequisite would be that the team have no immediate needs to begin with.

 

[captain stone]

Belichick had to pay a premium for a variety of reasons:
- Pick #92 wasn't on the clock yet so the potential existed for the Raiders to miss out on guys they wanted.
- I doubt the Raiders initiated this trade. Since they were being courted, the Raiders held out for dinner AND dancing before saying yes.
- While I suspect the Raiders like their chances this year, the Carolina scenario (turning into a virtual 1st rounder) exists for Oakland next year.

The Raiders got 2 players (Barksdale and Taiwan Jones) that were linked to them pre-draft so I assume they are happy. If the Raiders blow next year, I think the Pats will really like who is available early on day 2 in 2012.

Bill should've insisted on the Faiders' 6th-rounder instead of their 7th-rounder.
If Weird Uncle Al refused, then Bill should've told him to F off.