PatsFans.com - Mobile
PatsFans.com
Search

Carson Wentz traded to the Colts

2020 Patriots Season:
Upcoming Opponent:
Next Up: N/A

Current Patriots Twitter Feed:

captain stone

Hall of Fame Poster
You can’t criticize trading a second for Sanu because Brady wanted him and then turn around and criticize the patriots for not getting Brady weapons.
Brady wanted somebody, whether it be Mo' Snuze, Emmanuel Sanders, whoever...He also might've been talked into him by the Rutgers Mafia...


Of course they can - and will. How long have you been around here?
And deservedly so, too.
 

patfanken

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
No it isn’t.
Money devalues due to inflation. Otherwise a dollar today and a dollar in a year would be the same thing.

A football franchise is not an inflationary object.
The need to have players this year is no greater or less than the need to have players next year

if I can pick a 1st round talent next year, in the long run my franchise is better off than it I pick a 2nd round talent this year.
I don’t get the 2nd rounder for any longer, it’s not like I get an extra year of use out of him.
And yes there are desperate teams. And if I want your second round pick there is no value to you in getting my second round pick next year, it’s just a wash. So the desperate trader has to give more than equal value. Which is why normally you see a 2nd and maybe a 4 happen. But if its pick for pick the only thing I have to offer you better than my second is my first.

That doesn’t mean the value of this years pick is one round higher than next years. It means bad traders overpay in the rare case it ever even happens.
On the surface your "logic is correct, but I think on the whole too much weight is give to "first round picks". Most of the draft gurus tell us that there is usually 5-8 that can be labeled "game changers" in every draft. Guys that you not only predict with be instant starters, but IMPACT starters by year 2. Then there is another 5-10 guys who would be drafted with the expectation that they will be first year starters. After that say 15 guys, there will be about 25-30 guys who will all carry about the same grade. Some will be drafted in the first round and some in the 2nd.

The point being is that we put WAY too much importance on the term "first round pick" ESPECIALLY where we have pick in the last 20 years, because we have always been picking in that 3rd level of the draft talent even with our first picks. This year we FINALLY get a chance to get a 2nd level player.

BTW- this isn't to say there aren't busts at all the levels, I'm just saying when the "experts" put grades on these kids coming out of college THAT's just how they group them. And remember the same personnel guys who drafted Harry, where the same guys who signed JC Jackson as an UDFA. You just never know.
 

Ring 6

PatsFans.com Wall of Fame Member
On the surface your "logic is correct, but I think on the whole too much weight is give to "first round picks". Most of the draft gurus tell us that there is usually 5-8 that can be labeled "game changers" in every draft. Guys that you not only predict with be instant starters, but IMPACT starters by year 2. Then there is another 5-10 guys who would be drafted with the expectation that they will be first year starters. After that say 15 guys, there will be about 25-30 guys who will all carry about the same grade. Some will be drafted in the first round and some in the 2nd.

The point being is that we put WAY too much importance on the term "first round pick" ESPECIALLY where we have pick in the last 20 years, because we have always been picking in that 3rd level of the draft talent even with our first picks. This year we FINALLY get a chance to get a 2nd level player.

BTW- this isn't to say there aren't busts at all the levels, I'm just saying when the "experts" put grades on these kids coming out of college THAT's just how they group them. And remember the same personnel guys who drafted Harry, where the same guys who signed JC Jackson as an UDFA. You just never know.
My point really was a first round pick has the same value in 2016 as 2017 or 2020 of 2025.
Because you get a player of the same caliber and whether you have him for 5 years starting 2015 or 2025 it’s still the same thing. Trading a first rounder, whether it’s this year or next year has exactly the same impact, it’s just impacted a different time frame, in terms of the overall success of your franchise.
 

patsfanincleveland

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job
This isn't economics. Franchises are run by humans. Teams go all in even though it doesn't make long-term sense. And also these trades for future picks happen a lot.

Economics is also run by humans.

The big difference is you can always hold money......you can't hold draft picks.

This leads into what's actually the most important- cashflow timing.

People who trade forward will do so to see immediate returns. If you see a player that helps now, you see an immediate desirable return on investment

Likewise, trading back is cash conservation (you don't see viable investments) or you want to see cash flows in the future. (I want these additional picks in the future to overhaul the Oline in 2 years.)

Getting players now has other problems money doesn't have- You have to pay the guy from CAP and having him on the roster means someone else isn't on the roster.
 

upstater1

Pro Bowl Player
My point IS that it doesn’t make sense because it’s just not correct. A 1st is a first, it isn’t worth less because it’s next year, that perception is flawed.
When is the last time a 2 was traded for a 1 next year?
I didn't say that only 2nd rounders are constantly traded into the future. I wrote that draft picks are traded in every round for future picks in a higher round. It's common.

I don't think the thinking is flawed either f you have a good scouting team, and you've graded the relative strength of the draft.
 
Last edited:

upstater1

Pro Bowl Player
Economics is also run by humans.

The big difference is you can always hold money......you can't hold draft picks.

This leads into what's actually the most important- cashflow timing.

People who trade forward will do so to see immediate returns. If you see a player that helps now, you see an immediate desirable return on investment

Likewise, trading back is cash conservation (you don't see viable investments) or you want to see cash flows in the future. (I want these additional picks in the future to overhaul the Oline in 2 years.)

Getting players now has other problems money doesn't have- You have to pay the guy from CAP and having him on the roster means someone else isn't on the roster.

The draft is a simple system. Economies are not. 99.9% of the people running economies (pols and economists) can't account for much of the system's operation, not even the people who write the algorithms upon much of them are based. The draft, by comparison, is incredibly simple.
 
Last edited:

1960Pats

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
My point really was a first round pick has the same value in 2016 as 2017 or 2020 of 2025.
Because you get a player of the same caliber and whether you have him for 5 years starting 2015 or 2025 it’s still the same thing. Trading a first rounder, whether it’s this year or next year has exactly the same impact, it’s just impacted a different time frame, in terms of the overall success of your franchise.
I don't see a difference either. Instead of having that player from 2020 to 2024 on a rookie contract you have him from 2021 to 2025.
What about a 1st in a year with a lower cap vs a 1st in a year with a much higher cap, which I think will be the case going forward? I would think that a 1st in a year with a much lower cap would take up more of the total cap space.
 

Ring 6

PatsFans.com Wall of Fame Member
I don't see a difference either. Instead of having that player from 2020 to 2024 on a rookie contract you have him from 2021 to 2025.
What about a 1st in a year with a lower cap vs a 1st in a year with a much higher cap, which I think will be the case going forward? I would think that a 1st in a year with a much lower cap would take up more of the total cap space.
Of course there are minor differences, but the point that delaying the pick a year gives it less overall value is wrong. It gives it sooner value that also ends sooner.
 

RIpats88

In the Starting Line-Up
a draft pick is a gamble. Its whether you want to gamble whether the player you draft is going to be a 1. solid starter, 2. Bust or 3. star. and realize you can control them for reasonable money before they get paid....or trade a pick for a player that you KNOW what they are now.

both can be risks. If the guy you draft ends up being a bust the pick was worthless. Or if the guy ends up being a star player or a solid contributer you could've had someone that you control giving you production thats higher than the price you pay.

the colts are betting that Wentz can be better than anyone they draft with a 3rd or 2nd round pick.

thats why its interesting to see how the Rams fare. They basically are saying we are going to win by trading our draft picks for high priced veterans we know what they are.
 

Sicilian

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal
My point really was a first round pick has the same value in 2016 as 2017 or 2020 of 2025.
Because you get a player of the same caliber and whether you have him for 5 years starting 2015 or 2025 it’s still the same thing. Trading a first rounder, whether it’s this year or next year has exactly the same impact, it’s just impacted a different time frame, in terms of the overall success of your franchise.

I think the logic behind that thinking is usually just about how teams might value it, and value is always subjective. If I'm a GM like Belichick, and I'm in a really secure position where I know I'm going to be around for a long time, then 100% a first is a first, no matter the year. If I'm a GM who needs results soon in order to keep my job? I value a 1st rounder this year MUCH higher than one next year, because I can't guarantee I'm even around to use it next year if my team doesn't improve THIS year. So it's definitely not a hard and fast rule, but I think that's why that "rule" was coined. In a league that only cares what you've done lately, I think most GM's are in the latter position.
 

Ring 6

PatsFans.com Wall of Fame Member
I think the logic behind that thinking is usually just about how teams might value it, and value is always subjective. If I'm a GM like Belichick, and I'm in a really secure position where I know I'm going to be around for a long time, then 100% a first is a first, no matter the year. If I'm a GM who needs results soon in order to keep my job? I value a 1st rounder this year MUCH higher than one next year, because I can't guarantee I'm even around to use it next year if my team doesn't improve THIS year. So it's definitely not a hard and fast rule, but I think that's why that "rule" was coined. In a league that only cares what you've done lately, I think most GM's are in the latter position.
It’s not really a debate of value it’s a debate of whether you want to give away a better asset in order to get a lesser one sooner.
Ultimately it’s a losing proposition but football like everything involves risk and paying more than something is worth because you think you really need it.
 

Biffins

In the Starting Line-Up
Such as?
17.5 and 24.5 aren’t massive cap hits for a qb. It’s what you have to pay, just a matter of whether he’s the right guy to do it with. Coupled with a 1st or high 2nd round qb draft choice, I think he’s be near the top of my reclamation projects.

$24.5m is not a massive hit for a QB? Tell that to BB. He offered Brady $22m for 1 yr and wouldn’t go to $25m. In that context $24.5m for Wentz is obscene.
 

JarOfMayo51

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
Wentz carries a huge risk for not only the coach and gm who hire him, but could also set a franchise back 2 or 3 years. Maybe even more.

He shot out of a cannon into this league and looked every bit a wrecking machine. Blew out the knee and he has spiraled downhill since. That was 3 years ago btw, if he hasn’t got his mojo back by now, than I’m not sure he never will. You never know though. Again though, the kind of move that coaches and front office people lose jobs over. Too much of a risk imo.

the Colts didnt have to give up all that much in compensation, so even if it didntr work out i dont think it would set them back hardly at all.. at least not any more than any other teams that haven't identified their franchise QB
 

Ring 6

PatsFans.com Wall of Fame Member
$24.5m is not a massive hit for a QB? Tell that to BB. He offered Brady $22m for 1 yr and wouldn’t go to $25m. In that context $24.5m for Wentz is obscene.
I’ll take let’s make things up and post them for 1000 Alex.
 

Top