Pats trade 69 (3rd) to Chargers for 160 (5th), 2009 2nd

[Lloyd_Christmas]

I don't like this trade. We gave up a high 3rd round pick for a near-meaningless 5th rounder (how many of those ever make a team... especially one this good) for a 2nd rounder next year.

SD isn't a bad team... it is more likely to be a low 2nd rounder than it is a high one. So we basically delayed the pick to move up a handful of spots next year.

Just doesn't seem like that great of a deal.

 

[jeffbiologist]

There has been a standard for years that if you get a 5th this year its worth a 4th next year, 3rd in 2 yrs,etc...for the SAME position in the draft. SD will be good, so they will draft about 59 and we gave them 69. Doing the math 69-32(one round/yr)=37 not 59. That difference on the trade value chart would be 200 pts or 78th spot in the draft, the same mid third rd pick. They would have to finish in the same spot as SF did last year for our pick to be even. So we essentially GIVE THEM a 3rd rd pick for a 5th rd pick.....which makes no sense, especially to a rival who we will have to play in the playoffs.
Now there was a thread about ATL drafting Chevis Jackson in front of us in the 3rd rd...which may have caused this trade. They suggested we then jumped in front of them in the 5th costing us our 7th.....whatever. Bottom line is 5th and 7th rd picks dont make this team, 3rd rounders do. It sounds like they are dumping picks to me, leaving good value on the table figuring they dont need more players.

 

[Fencer]

I happen to be excited about the guy they got with the 5th rounder.

But it wasn't their finest negotiating moment.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

I happen to be excited about the guy they got with the 5th rounder.

But it wasn't their finest negotiating moment.

Now that we know that they were actually ready to pick Crable at #69, and were even on the phone with him when SD called with their offer of a 5th + a next-year 2nd, does that change people's opinion of this deal?

The Pats were so excited about this option to parlay one of their three 3rd's into a 2009 2nd that they hung up on Crable in order to do this, risking that they'd lose him even though he's a perfect fit. THAT's how big this deal was to them.

 

[Real World]

There has been a standard for years that if you get a 5th this year its worth a 4th next year, 3rd in 2 yrs,etc...for the SAME position in the draft. SD will be good, so they will draft about 59 and we gave them 69. Doing the math 69-32(one round/yr)=37 not 59. That difference on the trade value chart would be 200 pts or 78th spot in the draft, the same mid third rd pick. They would have to finish in the same spot as SF did last year for our pick to be even. So we essentially GIVE THEM a 3rd rd pick for a 5th rd pick.....which makes no sense, especially to a rival who we will have to play in the playoffs.
Now there was a thread about ATL drafting Chevis Jackson in front of us in the 3rd rd...which may have caused this trade. They suggested we then jumped in front of them in the 5th costing us our 7th.....whatever. Bottom line is 5th and 7th rd picks dont make this team, 3rd rounders do. It sounds like they are dumping picks to me, leaving good value on the table figuring they dont need more players.

I agree. Value wise, they didn't get enough. Unless they know SD is going to be 8-8 or worse next year. They must have had very few takers for their 3rd rounder, and sold low, figuring they didn't need three 3rds this year anyway.