Anyone still miss Seymour? Final results are in

[shmessy]

It was a bad trade that won't be overcome unless the team wins the Super Bowl.

Consistent comedic gold!!!

"Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you Deus Irae, who evidently slept through the years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008."

 

[shmessy]

The reality is that a 2011 first is worth a 2010 2nd. As we found out twice , a 2010 2nd was worth a 2009 3rd. That is what we got for Seymour. Perhaps folks will better understand this if we trade one of our 2nds (which were 2009 3rds) for another 2011 first or at least consider doing so.

Wow. Maybe, if BB signs an undrafted free agent this week to replace Welker's spot he can then brag that it is the equivalent of a 2018 1st rounder!

 

[emoney_33]

The reality is that a 2011 first is worth a 2010 2nd. As we found out twice , a 2010 2nd was worth a 2009 3rd. That is what we got for Seymour. Perhaps folks will better understand this if we trade one of our 2nds (which were 2009 3rds) for another 2011 first or at least consider doing so.

top-poster, exactly how are you trying to argue a 2011 1st rounder is worth a 2009 3rd rounder? When 2011 is here would you rather a 2009 3rd-rounder than a 1st-rounder?

If that were the case why don't as many of their future picks as possible right now and just stock up on 2010 picks, because the future value just goes down and down

The reality is that when you step out of the tiny world that is only 2009, a 2011 1st rounder is worth... well it's a 1st round draft pick! So for a guy who is managing not only the short term success but the long term goal of fielding a competitive team every year, the value is quite different.

Only in short-sighted analysis can you equate a current 3rd round pick to a future 1st round pick. The value to YOU may mean more in the present time, but the Patriots have a mission statement of being competitive year-in and year-out, you don't do that by overvaluing the present and undervaluing the future like many fans and outsiders tend to do.

 

[Patriots2001]

I will get back to you after the 2011 draft...!!!

 

[Tunescribe]

arent the most experience, most posted members around here, like you, the first ones to explain to all the simpletons around here that defensive stats don't matter one bit in the NFL.

I mean, that is the rearing of statements such as "Asante sucks - all those picks were from him poaching the underneath route with deep help" and "Wilfork is the best d-lineman in the league - its just this two gap defense prevents him from getting that many tackles" type of stuff.

Now I agree Sey had a bad season. But its from watching their games - not reading his box score. But he was also double teamed continuously over there - and he was only double teamed some of the time here.

There's really no other basis of comparison (sacks, tackles), unless someone has charted the number of times certain players are double-teamed and how the plays subsequently end up. Everything else is conjecture or anecdotal. The Seymour supporters here who felt BB made a mistake dealing him often have cited his eight sacks last year. I merely pointed out the obvious -- that our sack total exceeded last year's, and that Seymour did not excel with Oakland in a system designed to maximize his capabilities as a pass rusher.

 

[TruthSeeker]

If that kind of reasoning makes you feel better, then fine. The reality is that a 2011 first is worth a 2010 2nd. As we found out twice , a 2010 2nd was worth a 2009 3rd. That is what we got for Seymour. Perhaps folks will better understand this if we trade one of our 2nds (which were 2009 3rds) for another 2011 first or at least consider doing so.

The 2011 first won't be worth a 2010 second when you're looking back at it in 2012 or 2015. That's because a lot of people are willing to pay a time value for a pick. But, when the clock ticks down, that time value evaporates until it's worth zero. In other words, I don't hear people looking back 3 years and saying the the #36 pick in the draft in 2005 was as good a player as the #11 pick in 2006 even though that's what a trade may have been for.

This is also why BB evidently wanted a 2011 1st round pick instead of a 2010 1st round pick - because he realized that the time value was either minimal or non-existent (in the sense that it vanishes) and that there was potentially a significant advantage in drafting a (hopefully high) pick in the first round under the (hopefully) new draft rules.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

To me, and I watch the AFC West pretty closely, it's a certainty-the Raiders won't have a top 5 pick in 2011. Of course that's just my opinion. But consider this, the Jamarcus Russell era is over the Raiders. Dude was an albatross, the cause of many of the Raider defeats. They have a pretty darn good defense. They would have beat the Chargers in their first meeting if the Raiders had just about anyone else at QB rather than JM. Who knows how many games tehy would have won if they had kept Jeff Garcia. I'm thinking they win at least 6 games next year.

That's not a given. Al is nothing if not stubborn. It's just as likely the Tom Cable era is over and some other sucker is going to get the next shot at making Russell what Al envisioned him to be. Al will point to Tennessee and insist he sees the kind of progress that JaMarcus could yet make under the right coaching. He will throw anyone under the bus but himself...

 

[mgteich]

Let's make this really simply. We own a 2010 second taht we got from TENN for a 2009 3rd. What is the reasonable value in a 2011 draft pick that we should accept for this pick if we trade it during the 2010 draft?

============================
OK, so for you I am idiot to think that a 2011 1st rounder is worth a 2009 3rd rounder. As I said, I hope that Belichick trades one of the 2010 seconds for a 2011 first rounder. Then this will not be at all speculative. The 2009 third would have become a 2010 second and then a 2011 first. You simply don't understand the value equations associated with trading between years.
===========================
In this particular case, Belichick accepted a 2011 first. His bet is that Oakland's 1st will be a high first, hopefully in a year with a rookie cap. Belichick can make the same type of bet this year with one of our seconds, if he has a buyer. Belichick has done this many times before. As I recall, betting on SF to fail worked out very well.
============================
None of this changes the basic value equation that has been used for many years. In order to give up a 3rd in this draft, I should expect a 2nd in the next draft. If you want me to give up a 2nd, I would expect a first in return
===========================

top-poster, exactly how are you trying to argue a 2011 1st rounder is worth a 2009 3rd rounder? When 2011 is here would you rather a 2009 3rd-rounder than a 1st-rounder?

If that were the case why don't as many of their future picks as possible right now and just stock up on 2010 picks, because the future value just goes down and down

The reality is that when you step out of the tiny world that is only 2009, a 2011 1st rounder is worth... well it's a 1st round draft pick! So for a guy who is managing not only the short term success but the long term goal of fielding a competitive team every year, the value is quite different.

Only in short-sighted analysis can you equate a current 3rd round pick to a future 1st round pick. The value to YOU may mean more in the present time, but the Patriots have a mission statement of being competitive year-in and year-out, you don't do that by overvaluing the present and undervaluing the future like many fans and outsiders tend to do.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Does anybody know what draft position Tennessee and Jaxonville will be for the upcoming draft?

 

[emoney_33]

Let's make this really simply. We own a 2010 second taht we got from TENN for a 2009 3rd. What is the reasonable value in a 2011 draft pick that we should accept for this pick if we trade it during the 2010 draft?

Your value measurements are flawed at best. Once again you are taking the CURRENT year's value to another team. Other teams value a today pick over a tomorrow pick. When has BB ever traded next year's #1 for this year's #2. He is the one getting the value, not the other team who is giving away MORE in the future to get less in the PRESENT. This is pretty simple actually.

$500 is NOT worth more than $1000, but a lot of people would rather $500 today than $1000 next year. Doesn't mean it's the right, smart or higher value decision.

============================
OK, so for you I am idiot to think that a 2011 1st rounder is worth a 2009 3rd rounder. As I said, I hope that Belichick trades one of the 2010 seconds for a 2011 first rounder. Then this will not be at all speculative. The 2009 third would have become a 2010 second and then a 2011 first. You simply don't understand the value equations associated with trading between years.
===========================

You aren't understanding the concept of teams valuing immediate lower returns over future larger returns. It doesn't make those teams right, but it surely helps a team like the Patriots.

In this particular case, Belichick accepted a 2011 first. His bet is that Oakland's 1st will be a high first, hopefully in a year with a rookie cap. Belichick can make the same type of bet this year with one of our seconds, if he has a buyer. Belichick has done this many times before. As I recall, betting on SF to fail worked out very well.
============================

Yea, BB trades 2nd this year for 1st next year because HE VALUES the first next year more.

None of this changes the basic value equation that has been used for many years. In order to give up a 3rd in this draft, I should expect a 2nd in the next draft. If you want me to give up a 2nd, I would expect a first in return
===========================

You simply don't seem to get it. It's like interest, if you want something now and you don't have it you'll have to give up more in the future to get it. There's a time value associated with it that ONLY exists in the present. Once present is in the past that time value is nullified.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Your value measurements are flawed at best. Once again you are taking the CURRENT year's value to another team. Other teams value a today pick over a tomorrow pick. When has BB ever traded next year's #1 for this year's #2. He is the one getting the value, not the other team who is giving away MORE in the future to get less in the PRESENT. This is pretty simple actually.

$500 is NOT worth more than $1000, but a lot of people would rather $500 today than $1000 next year. Doesn't mean it's the right, smart or higher value decision.



You aren't understanding the concept of teams valuing immediate lower returns over future larger returns. It doesn't make those teams right, but it surely helps a team like the Patriots.




Yea, BB trades 2nd this year for 1st next year because HE VALUES the first next year more.



You simply don't seem to get it. It's like interest, if you want something now and you don't have it you'll have to give up more in the future to get it. There's a time value associated with it that ONLY exists in the present. Once present is in the past that time value is nullified.

I'm shocked. I actually agree with everything you said.

I'd add that what also BB and other teams do, most notably Philly is that they look at how a pick's particular value is aligned with their own draft board/player grades. As an example, in the 2010 draft, they only see 31 players w/ true 1st round grades, and they project that 32nd player as a mid-2nd rounder, they'll dump the pick as opposed to "overpaying".

Trying to say a 2012 1st equals a 2010 3rd is a stretch IMO, simply based on the value of the player and the pick.

My .02$

 

[mgteich]

OK, I misunderstood. belichick always gets a better deal. Everyone else is run by idiots. Believe that if you wish. To understand, you will need to consider trade other than those involving the patriots.

If you do not understand that a 2009 3rd is worth more than a 2010 3rd from the same team, then I cannot help you understand.

And I suppose you would lend someone $100 today and expect to receiver the same $100 back nexst year. Quite a businessman you are! The question is NOT whether there is a time value of picks. There clearly is. The question is what the magnitude of that value. Historically, for all teams, this has been a bit less than a full draft level.

We are discussing a "fair" deal. Of course, none of this applies to Belichick who always gets a better deal from other teams since he is so much better at dealing. It is strange that nayone would trade with him at all.

Your value measurements are flawed at best. Once again you are taking the CURRENT year's value to another team. Other teams value a today pick over a tomorrow pick. When has BB ever traded next year's #1 for this year's #2. He is the one getting the value, not the other team who is giving away MORE in the future to get less in the PRESENT. This is pretty simple actually.

$500 is NOT worth more than $1000, but a lot of people would rather $500 today than $1000 next year. Doesn't mean it's the right, smart or higher value decision.



You aren't understanding the concept of teams valuing immediate lower returns over future larger returns. It doesn't make those teams right, but it surely helps a team like the Patriots.




Yea, BB trades 2nd this year for 1st next year because HE VALUES the first next year more.



You simply don't seem to get it. It's like interest, if you want something now and you don't have it you'll have to give up more in the future to get it. There's a time value associated with it that ONLY exists in the present. Once present is in the past that time value is nullified.

 

[emoney_33]

OK, I misunderstood. belichick always gets a better deal. Everyone else is run by idiots. Believe that if you wish. To understand, you will need to consider trade other than those involving the patriots.

If you do not understand that a 2009 3rd is worth more than a 2010 3rd from the same team, then I cannot help you understand.

In 2010 that 3rd rounder is worth as much as the 3rd rounder in 2009 was worth in 2009. Time moves, and thus time added value changes. Value is based on your goal. The Patriots goal is to compete each and every year. The fact that you can't grasp this is troublesome.

And I suppose you would lend someone $100 today and expect to receiver the same $100 back nexst year. Quite a businessman you are! The question is NOT whether there is a time value of picks. There clearly is. The question is what the magnitude of that value. Historically, for all teams, this has been a bit less than a full draft level.

I would lend you $100 today and get back $100 tomorrow, that's equal value. However I can PROFIT by your desire of getting that $100 today, since I know you will value future money less than current money and charge you interest. I am the one profiting, I am the one making out on the deal by being patient. You get your fix today while I get the better value tomorrow. Is this a hard concept? It's not that $110 tomorrow is worth equal to $100 today, it's that your PERSONAL time adjusted value for $100 today is more important than the $110 tomorrow.

We are discussing a "fair" deal. Of course, none of this applies to Belichick who always gets a better deal from other teams since he is so much better at dealing. It is strange that nayone would trade with him at all.

A "fair" deal simply means that each part values it similarly. There is no grand overall objective measurement of value. Each team and each individual has their own measurement of value. And each team agreeing to any trade makes it a "fair" deal. That does not mean the two sides are blindly equivalent.

You simply struggle in grasping the fact that a pick TODAY is only more valuable to a team TODAY. As well as many other factors, like draft board and scouting etc...

Unless you miss out on something today that can't be made up for tomorrow, then once tomorrow arrives that value changes. You would not in 2009 trade a first rounder to go back in time and get a 3rd rounder in 2007. Time changes, and you simply don't want to accept that because it goes against your argument.

 

[emoney_33]

OK, I misunderstood. belichick always gets a better deal.

Do you believe that when you take out a loan you are getting the better deal? I'm pretty sure we all know the Bank is getting the better deal.

(Even though you personally determine it to be "fair" because of your present desires that the loan allows you to obtain)

 

[Zeus]

OK, I misunderstood. belichick always gets a better deal. Everyone else is run by idiots. Believe that if you wish. To understand, you will need to consider trade other than those involving the patriots.

If you do not understand that a 2009 3rd is worth more than a 2010 3rd from the same team, then I cannot help you understand.

And I suppose you would lend someone $100 today and expect to receiver the same $100 back nexst year. Quite a businessman you are! The question is NOT whether there is a time value of picks. There clearly is. The question is what the magnitude of that value. Historically, for all teams, this has been a bit less than a full draft level.

We are discussing a "fair" deal. Of course, none of this applies to Belichick who always gets a better deal from other teams since he is so much better at dealing. It is strange that nayone would trade with him at all.

A team that has an immediate need (or has fallen in love with a particular player still on the draft board) is sometimes willing to give up a future higher round pick. Conversely, a team that may be a bit deeper in terms of talent and draft picks can realize a higher value (earlier pick) by deferring to the next year. The Lions can't do this because their needs are more immediate. The Patriots and the Eagles can because they have talent and have already stockpiled picks.

I don't think your value proposition extends across multiple years because the deals tend to be situation specific. The Patriots may have preferred a 2011 pick from the Raiders due to the labor situation or due to the fact that they already have multiple second round picks in 2010.

It's not about BB always being right. But the Patriots have taken a longer term view in the hopes that they can remain competitive over a longer time horizon.

 

[mgteich]

When a transaction is made at market prices with perfect information, no one gets the better deal. I hate to be pedantic, but our entire society is based on this principle.

Do you believe that when you take out a loan you are getting the better deal? I'm pretty sure we all know the Bank is getting the better deal.

(Even though you personally determine it to be "fair" because of your present desires that the loan allows you to obtain)

 

[MassPats38]

At this point I am not sure whose side I am jumping in on. First, there is a draft pick value chart that represents current value. A high first is obviously worth far more than a low pick. This is spelled out in an article published at Yale on the subject. That article also includes on page 14 has the "discount" theory advanced by the author applicable to future picks.

The problem with the Oakland pick is where it ultimately end up (did Belichick gamble on a high or low probability outcome in where Oakland finishes the year prior - I think his gamble is a safe one given Oakland's last 7 years with 4 or so wins and no major changes). Also, if you discount one future pick, you have to discount all future picks in determining value. If you apply a 174% discount rate to a future pick, you apply it to the number on the current value chart.

 

[mgteich]

I agree with all your statements except the undocumented implication that belichick preferred a 2011 first to a 2010 first. I never have believed that.

While you are correct with your multi-year analysis, we can have the "proof" this year if Belichick has the option to trade the JAX or TENN 2nd for a 2011 first.

A team that has an immediate need (or has fallen in love with a particular player still on the draft board) is sometimes willing to give up a future higher round pick. Conversely, a team that may be a bit deeper in terms of talent and draft picks can realize a higher value (earlier pick) by deferring to the next year. The Lions can't do this because their needs are more immediate. The Patriots and the Eagles can because they have talent and have already stockpiled picks.

I don't think your value proposition extends across multiple years because the deals tend to be situation specific. The Patriots may have preferred a 2011 pick from the Raiders due to the labor situation or due to the fact that they already have multiple second round picks in 2010.

It's not about BB always being right. But the Patriots have taken a longer term view in the hopes that they can remain competitive over a longer time horizon.

 

[emoney_33]

When a transaction is made at market prices with perfect information, no one gets the better deal. I hate to be pedantic, but our entire society is based on this principle.

OK don't answer the question. The NFL does not follow a free market model. There is also almost never a perfect equilibrium state in our society, so you can throw out your economic theories.

Seymour in 2009 to the Raiders was as valuable to them as their 2011 first round pick was to the Patriots. You were never discussing value to each team, you were discussing general overall value of a 3rd round pick vs. a 1st round pick in 2 years.

Your argument was extremely flawed to begin with.

 

[aluminum seats]

To me, and I watch the AFC West pretty closely, it's a certainty-the Raiders won't have a top 5 pick in 2011. Of course that's just my opinion. But consider this, the Jamarcus Russell era is over the Raiders. Dude was an albatross, the cause of many of the Raider defeats. They have a pretty darn good defense. They would have beat the Chargers in their first meeting if the Raiders had just about anyone else at QB rather than JM. Who knows how many games tehy would have won if they had kept Jeff Garcia. I'm thinking they win at least 6 games next year.

Eh. Sounds like a familiar song. I think it's gonna be years to until the Raiders pull themselves out of this--or rather, whenever Davis goes away. I'd say it's a lock they win between 4 and 6 next year, and that'll be top 10 at least.