Could you see this trade happening?

[ctpatsfan77]

It was posted over on Football's Future.

It seems like it's at the limit of an acceptable trade:

NE trades 28
WAS trades 41 + 2012 1st

Would you make that trade?

 

[VJCPatriot]

It was posted over on Football's Future.

It seems like it's at the limit of an acceptable trade:

NE trades 28
WAS trades 41 + 2012 1st

Would you make that trade?

Sure. That is if Washington hasn't already pulled the trigger on Jake Locker at #10. They might just do it. They are desperate for a QB with McNabb obviously on the way out.

 

[NewFeep]

I would make that trade in less than a heartbeat.... Regardless of who they select in the 1st round.

 

[I Augustus]

It will not happen. The price for #28 is a fourth rounder this year and first round selection in 2012 ( Joe Stanley trade ).
However , I can see trading # 17 selection this year for a second round pick and first round choice in 2012 .
Jake Locker is a Redskin for # 41 & 1 rounder in 2012 . Go ahead and mortgage your future Dan Snyder.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Given the uncertainty around the 2012 draft I'd expect NE to holdout for a 3rd instead of a fourth (the Staley trade previously mentioned), with Washington "offering" a "second" I'd say they are "paying" the 2012 premium.

 

[crowell33]

It will not happen. The price for #28 is a fourth rounder this year and first round selection in 2012 ( Joe Stanley trade ).
However , I can see trading # 17 selection this year for a second round pick and first round choice in 2012 .
Jake Locker is a Redskin for # 41 & 1 rounder in 2012 . Go ahead and mortgage your future Dan Snyder.

I have to disagree. The league has warned teams to "trade for 2012 draft picks at your own risk". With the courts involved, the NFL is recognizing the remote possibility that the courts could throw out the draft in future years.
It is my understanding, due to this uncertainty, that a third round pick in the 2011 draft has the approximate value of a 1st rounder in 2012. Normally there is only a one round premium ( ie second rounder this season, traded for a first in 2012 ).

 

[DaBruinz]

While I realize that the league has warned teams to trade for 2012 picks at their own risk, lets be honest. No Judge is going to throw chaos into ALL 4 Pro leagues by saying that the draft is abolished. It's just not going to happen.

Now, that being said, who is Joe STANLEY??? If you mean Joe STALEY, that is a whole nother story..

 

[Peachhead]

Unless and until the CBA is worked out before the 2011 draft, and the draft for 2012 is 100% guaranteed to happen with no major changes I say absolutely no trades for future picks! Period!

It's incredibly unlikely that the current draft system would get scrapped, but any uncertainty whatsoever is too much for me.

 

[I Augustus]

My bad. I meant Joe STALEY , OT , drafted by 49ers in 2007.

 

[Off The Grid]

It was posted over on Football's Future.

It seems like it's at the limit of an acceptable trade:

NE trades 28
WAS trades 41 + 2012 1st

Would you make that trade?

OTG Book Value on the RedSkins pick is one of many that I'd assess ~ much as Coach Bill does, one of you gents mentioned ~ as being in the middle of the Round...So my math would be that the RedSkins 2012 1st Rounder = #16 = 1000 Points x 50% Discount = 500 Points.

#41's Book Value = 490 Points.

#28's Book Value = 660 Points.

So the proposed trade would be 500 + 490 = 990 Points for 660, so obviously whoever proposed that trade was hitting the Crack Pipe HARD.

Not even Dan Snyder is THAT stupid.

***

An equitable trade would be a Mid 3rd Rounder + their 2012 1st Rounder for #28.

But they don't have a 3rd Rounder.

 

[sbpatfan]

I would make that trade in a heart beat, it's definitely favored toward the Patriots. And if draft is ever abolished I'm done watching professional football.

 

[dryheat44]

While without the context of a CBA, amateur drafts are probably illegal, the alternative is for NFL teams to start recruiting NCAA players starting in their sophomore years, much like the colleges target HS kids, complete with illegal benefits etc.

I don't think anybody wants that outcome.

 

[patsfan-1982]

i think if washington calls the pats and offers that trade BB will get Major Wood lol

 

[bucky]

However , I can see trading # 17 selection this year for a second round pick and first round choice in 2012 .

If I recall correctly, this is nearly identical to the Ravens deal when they drafted Boller - Pats traded 19 for 41 and a future 1st. So 17 is a bit of a stretch given the labor uncertainty.

If you wanted to trade with the Skins and wanted their #1 pick, I'd think something like this - 17, 28 and 33 for 10, 41 and #1 in 2012. However, my preference would be to keep 33, give them 72, and take their 2nd rounder next year instead of 1st.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

It was posted over on Football's Future.

It seems like it's at the limit of an acceptable trade:

NE trades 28
WAS trades 41 + 2012 1st

Would you make that trade?

Yes I would do this trade in a heartbeat. Shades of the Kyle Boller trade all over again.

If BB wants to go back into the first round, for say Wilkerson, he has 3 seconds and 2 third to do so.

 

[MaineMan]

In the words of **** Cheney, "If there's even a 1% chance" of the 2012 draft being screwed up somehow, there's absolutely no way that I give up a current 1st for any 2012. Later, if various maneuverings within THIS draft leave us with a 3rd 3rd, I might consider letting THAT go for a 2012 2nd, but that would be a much lower risk proposition.

 

[patfanken]

Just an observation on the "draft chart" First there are many versions. Secondly it seems people take the values too seriously, like they were law. They are JUST one person's ESTIMATION of GENERAL value. The value of a pick is what one team places on it. Not some arbitrary piece of paper.

Even if it is HIGHLY unlikely that the draft will become obsolete in the next CBA, it STILL should mean that anyone willing to risk it, should get a premium for that risk. Just like having the #33 pick has some associated value....because its the first pick of a new day, it SHOULD carry an additional premium for teams that absolutely NEED to move up.

In other words, just because the "draft chart" says "this is the value", it doesn't mean it is.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Just an observation on the "draft chart" First there are many versions. Secondly it seems people take the values too seriously, like they were law. They are JUST one person's ESTIMATION of GENERAL value. The value of a pick is what one team places on it. Not some arbitrary piece of paper.

Even if it is HIGHLY unlikely that the draft will become obsolete in the next CBA, it STILL should mean that anyone willing to risk it, should get a premium for that risk. Just like having the #33 pick has some associated value....because its the first pick of a new day, it SHOULD carry an additional premium for teams that absolutely NEED to move up.

In other words, just because the "draft chart" says "this is the value", it doesn't mean it is.

True enough. When you hold a premium pick, and there's a player that teams value at that slot, then it gains a whole new value specific to the player. #33 itself isn't anything special taken out of context, but if a team desperate for a QB sees a Locker or a Mallet available there and thinks this guy could be their QB, well then it takes on a whole new value.

 

[Off The Grid]

Just an observation on the "draft chart" First there are many versions. Secondly it seems people take the values too seriously, like they were law. They are JUST one person's ESTIMATION of GENERAL value. The value of a pick is what one team places on it. Not some arbitrary piece of paper.

That's a classic Straw Man Argument, which is LESS than worthless, because it alleges falsehoods:

Exactly who have you seen act as if the Draft Value Chart was "law", as you put it?

Nobody in THIS Thread, thank you.

Perhaps you're not familiar with the term "Book Value", or the clear implications of employing it.

And the Draft Value Chart ~ which is far less mercurial than you pretend it is ~ has proven to be ~ time and time again ~ a very useful starting point and approximate for discussions of such trades, as has been discussed, before, and which was quite clearly the only manner in which I was employing it.

 

[Off The Grid]

In the words of **** Cheney, "If there's even a 1% chance" of the 2012 draft being screwed up somehow, there's absolutely no way that I give up a current 1st for any 2012. Later, if various maneuverings within THIS draft leave us with a 3rd 3rd, I might consider letting THAT go for a 2012 2nd, but that would be a much lower risk proposition.

Nicely put.

I, myself, would make ZERO Trade Backs.

.