AdamJT13 and the trade value chart

[Box_O_Rocks]

The trade value of NFL draft picks

Hours of fun for everyone!

 

[supafly]

Does anyone remember the specifics of the 1995 trade when we lost 3 spots? (trading a higher pick for a lower pick straight up)

I suppose if I weren't lazy I could just look it up

 

[patchick]

The trade value of NFL draft picks

Hours of fun for everyone!

Hmm...do you suppose there's enough data there to generate a new, evidence-based trade value chart?

I will so hate myself if I spend the next two days doing that. (My business partner will hate me even more.)

 

[Off The Grid]

Great Stuff, Box. That page has been in my Directory for a while, now. That guy did great work!!

 

[MaineMan]

Hmm...do you suppose there's enough data there to generate a new, evidence-based trade value chart?

I will so hate myself if I spend the next two days doing that. (My business partner will hate me even more.)

Not sure an "evidence-based" chart would really be all that different.

I've worked through AdamJT's list of trades-down from those involving the #1 overall to the #20 assigning values according to the standard value chart (and assuming the value of future picks to be the lowest for that round). What's emerged so far:

- Trading down out of the #1 and #3 has historically involved giving a steep discount, as much as 35%.
- Trades down from the top 5 (8 total) vary from the standard chart values by a median 13%.

- Trades down from picks #6-10 (14 total) varied from standard values by a median 7%. Six of those 14 trades varied by more than 10% and in five of those cases, the team trading UP paid a premium.

- Trades down from picks #11-15 (14 total) varied from standard values by a median 5%. Only three of those swaps varied by more than 10% and seven varied by less than 5%
- At this point, a trend begins to emerge in which the team trading down appears to be willing to accept a point value discount if the trade involves gaining 3 or more picks for the one.

- Trades down from picks #16-20 (20 total) varied from standard values by a median 7%. There are two "outliers" in this group in which teams paid 23% and 45% above chart value to move up to #19 from the mid-2nd round. Of the remaining 18 trades, nine were within 4% of chart values, equally split between positive and negative with "negative" meaning that the team trading down accepted a slight discount.

I'm guessing that the median variation from chart values will probably stay right around that 5%-7% range (and average out between positive/negative) for awhile but generally drift lower except for a possible spike near the end of round one/beginning of round two. I'd also guess that, after round three, the median variation is well under 3%, perhaps even under 1%.

 

[MaineMan]

Addendum:

None of the five trades down involving #17 went further down than the #21. The returned value for 950 ranged from 1058 to 891 with a median of 973. Four of the five trades picked up a 3rd rounder (#82 to #91) and two picked up an additional 7th.

 

[patchick]

Not sure an "evidence-based" chart would really be all that different.

I've worked through AdamJT's list of trades-down from those involving the #1 overall to the #20 assigning values according to the standard value chart (and assuming the value of future picks to be the lowest for that round). What's emerged so far:

- Trading down out of the #1 and #3 has historically involved giving a steep discount, as much as 35%.
- Trades down from the top 5 (8 total) vary from the standard chart values by a median 13%.

- Trades down from picks #6-10 (14 total) varied from standard values by a median 7%. Six of those 14 trades varied by more than 10% and in five of those cases, the team trading UP paid a premium.

- Trades down from picks #11-15 (14 total) varied from standard values by a median 5%. Only three of those swaps varied by more than 10% and seven varied by less than 5%
- At this point, a trend begins to emerge in which the team trading down appears to be willing to accept a point value discount if the trade involves gaining 3 or more picks for the one.

- Trades down from picks #16-20 (20 total) varied from standard values by a median 7%. There are two "outliers" in this group in which teams paid 23% and 45% above chart value to move up to #19 from the mid-2nd round. Of the remaining 18 trades, nine were within 4% of chart values, equally split between positive and negative with "negative" meaning that the team trading down accepted a slight discount.

I'm guessing that the median variation from chart values will probably stay right around that 5%-7% range (and average out between positive/negative) for awhile but generally drift lower except for a possible spike near the end of round one/beginning of round two. I'd also guess that, after round three, the median variation is well under 3%, perhaps even under 1%.

Bless you. It sounds like what we've all long suspected, that the very top of the first round is significantly overvalued in the chart because of the preposterous contracts. (My guess is that effect is even more pronounced in cases where there's no elite QB prospect involved.) But chart values remain a reasonable guide for most trades.

 

[townes]

The pick value chart needs to be revised to up the worth of the #33 pick, which imo is worth more than the first rounders just above it. Teams will be redoing their draft boards after the first and have all night to pine away for certain players they really want and they have all night to make a deal with the team holding that pick, likewise that team can work all of them against each other for the best possible deal. I would be shocked if the Patriots keep that pick, but if they do we can be sure that Belichik loves that player, because he will be turning down plenty of offers to move out of the spot.

 

[MaineMan]

The pick value chart needs to be revised to up the worth of the #33 pick, which imo is worth more than the first rounders just above it. Teams will be redoing their draft boards after the first and have all night to pine away for certain players they really want and they have all night to make a deal with the team holding that pick, likewise that team can work all of them against each other for the best possible deal. I would be shocked if the Patriots keep that pick, but if they do we can be sure that Belichik loves that player, because he will be turning down plenty of offers to move out of the spot.

I'd agree that it may be in some drafts (this one in particular) it's worth more, but just as likely not in others. But it's good to remember that this chart isn't anything official. It's merely a framework representing more or less average values over numerous drafts, so, just a starting point for negotiations of an actual transaction. I'm pretty sure that BB is going to get more than the chart value for it this year.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Hmm...do you suppose there's enough data there to generate a new, evidence-based trade value chart?

I will so hate myself if I spend the next two days doing that. (My business partner will hate me even more.)

 

[CanadianPat'sFan]

I must admit I did scroll down to the Ditka trade back in 1999. He made Al look sane with that one!!

 

[dryheat44]

The pick value chart needs to be revised to up the worth of the #33 pick, which imo is worth more than the first rounders just above it. .

I would disagree with that. In the last CBA, and almost certainly in the next agreement, first rounders can be signed cheaply for an extra year. That's huge. If I was a GM, I'd be trying to get the guy I want at #33 at #32 instead.

Early first rounders need to be weighed less, numbers 13-15 more, late first rounders more, and late second rounders more to take contract length into account.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

I was disheartened to see that he wasn't doing his comp pick projections this year, he is usually pretty spot on with them. I would guess that the comp picks will be announced during the owner's meetings this week, lets hope that good ole Ben Watson's ridiculous contract nets the Pats another pick!!!!

 

[Off The Grid]

I must admit I did scroll down to the Ditka trade back in 1999. He made Al look sane with that one!!

Heh!! Yeah: 8 for 1, including consecutive 1sts + 3rds!! What a CLOWN!!

The amazing thing, of course ~ they said this on the special ~ was that the Red Skins didn't parlay that trade into building a perennial contender!!

Of course: This is Dan Snyder we're talking about...

I've always found it stupefying that in the same off season that the RedSkins hijacked the Saints for 2 1st, 2 3rds, and 4 other picks for Ricky Williams, the Colts could only get the Rams to pony up a 2nd and a 5th for Marshall Faulk!!

 

[dryheat44]

I was disheartened to see that he wasn't doing his comp pick projections this year, he is usually pretty spot on with them. I would guess that the comp picks will be announced during the owner's meetings this week, lets hope that good ole Ben Watson's ridiculous contract nets the Pats another pick!!!!

With one qualifying loss and one qualifying gain, the Pats will probably get one late "net loss" pick. I think the best we could hope for is a sixth, and I expect it will probably be a 7th.

 

[Off The Grid]

With one qualifying loss and one qualifying gain, the Pats will probably get one late "net loss" pick. I think the best we could hope for is a sixth, and I expect it will probably be a 7th.

Yeah? I was hoping for a 5th, myself...

I was also hoping for one for the Patriots.

Yowza, Yowza.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

With one qualifying loss and one qualifying gain, the Pats will probably get one late "net loss" pick. I think the best we could hope for is a sixth, and I expect it will probably be a 7th.

When players lost = players gained, the best any team has ever done, according to AdamJT13, is a 7 after all the "regular" comp 7s but before the "supplementary" comp 7s (where they start at the top of the draft and work downward until they've awarded 32).

 

[WhiZa]

I like this analysis, I wish I thought about it myself. Now if someone could calculate all the averages for each pick and put that in a grid it make it that much better.

 

[borg]

I would disagree with that. In the last CBA, and almost certainly in the next agreement, first rounders can be signed cheaply for an extra year. That's huge. If I was a GM, I'd be trying to get the guy I want at #33 at #32 instead.

Early first rounders need to be weighed less, numbers 13-15 more, late first rounders more, and late second rounders more to take contract length into account.

Bingo!
Biggest media myth: #33 has so much extra value. Ridiculous. If #32 can be signed for an extra year, the value of #33 drops significantly. And this concept of "an extra night to digest the draft and reorganize and assess"....must be so confusing for teams that have had to make ONE whole pick. How can they possible see the draft clearly now that 32 players are gone.

But I will say that #28 has a ton of value because:
(especially if the target is a QB)

1) Patriots are a logical trading partner because they have already picked at #17 and possess multiple early round picks
2) Patriots have history of trading premium draft assets and have been willing to accept deferred compensation
3) Patriots have QB security while 1/3 of the draft seeks upgrade. BB can take comfort in not losing a desired player to a QB needy team
4) Extra year of contract control, especially important when 2nd tiered QBs likely need longer learning curve
5) Drafting a franchise QB in the back half of the 1st round can be very cost effective

No wonder reports of BB willing to deal #28 are floating out their...this is a sweet spot.

 

[dryheat44]

Bingo!
No wonder reports of BB willing to deal #28 are floating out their...this is a sweet spot.

Yep. A team like Arizona, which needs to take Von Miller at #5, would probably want to get back into the first to grab a Ponder, Mallett, Locker, Koepernick, etc. They also have pick #36, so it becomes a great swap for New England, who now pick twice within the first 4 picks of the second, or have some flexibilty to trade down again to the mid-2nd range.

My dream scenario (assuming rules are in place by the draft - which is a long shot) would be to have Mankins sign his tender and ship him and #28 to Arizona for Fitzgerald and #36. AZ is in desparate need for CBs, so we could throw in Butler or Wilhite, and if they insisted on a WR coming back in the deal, I'd be OK in giving them Tate as well to make this happen.