maineman209
Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2017
- Messages
- 9,642
- Reaction score
- 20,258
IDK. The 2012 draft was the first under the rookie wage scale and the 5th-year option rule. I can find only five trades since then that match the "bottom of the 1st to the top of the 2nd" pattern:
In 2012, TBY traded #36 + #101 (636 points) for #31 +#126 (646 points).
... TBY "underpaid" by 10 points (1.5%)
In 2013, Minny traded #52 + #83 + #102 + #229 (648 points) for #29 (640 points).
... Minny "overpaid" by 8 points (1.3%)
In 2014, Minny traded the #40 + #108 (578 points) for the #32 (590 points).
... Minny underpaid by 12 points (2%)
No matching trade in 2015.
In 2016, SFO traded #37 + #105 + #178 (634 points) for the #28 + #249 (661 points)
... SFO underpaid by 27 points (4.1%)
Then, in 2017, SFO traded #34 + #111 (632 points) for #31 (600 points).
... SFO overpaid by 32 points (5.3%)
Matching trades from prior to the rookie wage scale/5th-year option era follow the same pattern - "discounts" or "premiums" of between 1% & 5% relative to the standard value chart, varying one way or the other sort of randomly.
It doesn't seem to matter at all what round the "buyer's" picks come from, as long as the point value on the exchange falls within range. "Discounts" & "premiums" more likely vary according to who the buyers and sellers are and their individual situations and relationships.
Only last year's "premium" paid by SFO to SEA (a division rival) seems to be a situation in which an early 4th was paid when a late-4th/early 5th would have balanced more closely (assuming that SFO even had one to give).
In my example, I specifically picked the Giants because they had picks that, added together, came within 4 points (0.6%) of an exactly even exchange. Not every team has the picks to be able to do that (and/or might not be willing to trade with BB... e.g., Indy).
