I was interested in knowing what Book Value would be on the Bounty the RedSkins paid.
Explanation
~ "Book Value" is my term for The Draft Value Chart.
~ I have expanded this to include a 50% Discount ~ per year ~ for Deferred Picks.
~ I have further defined that by projecting most Deferred Picks to fall in the 16th spot.
~ Obviously, when it comes to Value, everything is subjective ~ a matter of opinion.
~ That most emphatically includes Book Value, itself.
~ The purpose of this is to compare the Market Value ~ what the Skins paid ~ to Book Value.
My Calculus
Book Value of #2 = 2600
***
Book Value of #6 = 1600
Book Value of 2013 1st = 1000 x 50% = 500
Book Value of 2014 1st = 1000 x 50% x 50% = 250
Book Value of #39 = 510
Package Book Value = 2860
Heh!! The Skins paid exactly a 10% Premium for RGIII, IF you buy my definition of Book Value!!
Notes
1 ~ 250 Points may seem ridiculous for the 2014 1st Rounder ~ especially for a team that was going to pick 6th in 2012 ~ but the history of trades ~ upon which the Draft Value Chart is based in the first place ~ makes it clear that, if they get reasonable Market Value, the Skins could trade the 2012 #70 ~ 240 Points ~ for a 2013 2nd Rounder from a pretty lousy team, with the reasonable expectation of turning that around, next year, for a pretty sweet 1st Rounder in 2014...so the math clearly holds up.
2 ~ It's interesting that virtually the entire Premium of this Trade ~ 260 Points ~ was the 2014 1st Rounder.
3 ~ It is certainly highly arguable whether or not it is appropriate to assign a "Mid Round" value to the Deferred Picks of 2013 and 2014. Personally, I think it makes perfect sense in most cases, due to the parity in this league, and I think it makes perfect sense in this case, because Coach Shanahan is entering his 3rd year of implementing his Schemes, and because the QB position should be dramatically improved over the disasters of the last two years...But one could easily make an Argument ~ and I'd be delighted to read them!! ~ that the RedSkins Picks should be accounted for at an even higher value, simply because the Skins have sucked for three straight years.
4 ~ This certainly has the potential to go down as a WaterShed Moment in trading Deferred Picks at their standard steep Discounts. The fact is, of course, that whether it pays to do so is a matter of opinion, one on which we seem to be more'r less evenly divided, hereabouts.
The biggest problem with this is that trading back from 3rd to 2nd to 1st, is a really hard trade. A pick that someone REALLY wants has to be there, and then they will be paying you a premium to get that player.
I would put a much higher value on the 1st from Washington in 2014 then a 3rd this year. Which ultimately surprises me about this trade, they only gave up 2 picks from this year. I would have thought that they would have started their negotiating with offering their entire draft this year.
That's a fair Argument.
But keep in mind that while I agree that the trade partner won't necessarily be there, there is NO question of the Value of the Picks, or of the Premium they cost when you trade Deferred Picks: It's 50%. THAT Market Value is long established.
Ergo: There's really no disputing that an early 2012 3rd Rounder IS worth a 2014 1st Rounder.
Would you rather have Washington's third rounder or first in 2014?
I could see a package book value closer to this.
Book Value of #2 = 2600
Book Value of #6 = 1600
Book Value of 2013 1st = 1000 x 70% = 700
Book Value of 2014 1st = 1000 x 70% x 70% = 490
Book Value of #39 = 510
Package Book Value = 3300
The Skins paid exactly a 26.9% Premium for RGIII
Otherwise, there's not much of a premium of a QB everyone is fighting over, to a LT or CB. In your chart you were putting allot of the premium of the trade into the value of the future picks, not the trade to get RG3.
Of course its all semantics :rocker:
Would you rather have Washington's third rounder or first in 2014?
You continue ~ inexplicably ~ to miss the point.
It doesn't matter what
I want.
The
Book Value and
The Draft Value Chart are about one thing:
approximating historical value.
My
stated point is that
The Market has historically determined them to be just about equal.
And that's my
only point, regarding those Picks.
Did it sink in
that time?
I could see a package book value closer to this.
Book Value of #2 = 2600
Book Value of #6 = 1600
Book Value of 2013 1st = 1000 x 70% = 700
Book Value of 2014 1st = 1000 x 70% x 70% = 490
Book Value of #39 = 510
Package Book Value = 3300
The Skins paid exactly a 26.9% Premium for RGIII
The problem is that you're just making stuff up to warp reality to your purpose.
And you're certainly entitled to do so.
But the historical record clearly shows that your numbers are
nonsense.
If you'd gone to the trouble of doing
your own homework on this ~ you know: actually adding some
value to the conversation?? ~ before coming on here and spinning numbers out of thin air for the sole purpose of attempting ~ and failing ~ to discredit the work of somebody ~ moi ~ who has
had the courtesy to do his own homework, you would
see that.
Otherwise, there's not much of a premium of a QB everyone is fighting over, to a LT or CB.
There's not much of a
Book Value Premium.
But as I clearly stated, earlier:
The point was to compare Market Value ~ what the Skins actually paid ~ to Book Value.
In your chart you were putting allot of the premium of the trade into the value of the future picks, not the trade to get RG3.
God only
knows what you were attempting to say, here.
Of course its all semantics
It's
not semantics.
It's the difference between doing your homework ~ as I did ~ and
failing to.
Nobody argued ~ or even hinted ~ that the
real Value of the Picks was a 10% Premium
or was not...I simply stated that there was a 10%
Book Value Premium, which, clearly, there is.
If you want to argue that the
real value of that Package was a 26.9% Premium, then you have a leg to stand on, because the
real value of the Package is 100%
subjective.
That would be an interesting conversation.
Why don't you share your opinion on
that, instead of starting a discussion by foolishly attacking my math, which ~ had you had the courtesy to do your research first ~ you would've realized was ~ to such extent as an approximation can ever be ~
correct?? :bricks:
