TRADE-DOWN MATH (Reference)

[MaineMan]

It occurred to me that, in a practical sense, our list of potential partners for trading down from #28 and/or #33 may be fairly limited, IF we exclude using 2012 picks as currency.

I'm NOT trying to start any debate on that point. All I'm doing here is working out the math FOR YOU, for instances in which trades into 2012 are NOT involved.

I'm also not trying to start a debate on whether the Standard Value Chart (SVC) is a RULE or a "very loose guideline" (as per Dr. Venkman). Historically (back to 1995, at least), teams trading down often accept a "discount" equivalent to a mid-4th (55-75 points, or #110 - #120). OTOH, there are several instances in which the team trading down has received a premium (sometimes very large, but usually if the trade involves a future pick).

The exchanges listed here are very close to equivalent SVC, so there is some wiggle room. HOWEVER, even applying such a discount wouldn't decrease the "cost-prohibitive" lists by more than a team or two.

The "leaves" part at the end of each trade simply lists what the team trading up would have left for picks afterward. "Tradeable picks" simply means regular, non-compensatory picks.
-----------------------------------------------------------
VIABLE TRADE PARTNERS for #28 (660 SVC points)

** #29 BEARS - Why?

#31 STEELERS + #128 (4th) + #196 (6th) - leaves: #63, 95, 162, 231
#32 PACKERS + #129 (4th) + #163 (5th) - leaves: #64, 96, 131, 197, 204, 232

----- SECOND ROUND -------

#34 BILLS + #100 (4th) - leaves: #68, 122, 133, 169, 205, 244
#35 BENGALS + #101 (4th) + #206 (7th) - leaves: #66, 134, 167, 245
#36 BRONCOS + #67 (3rd) (for #28 + #92) - leaves: #46, (no 3rd), 92, 193, 246
#37 BROWNS + #102 (4th) + #137 (5th) - leaves: #70, (no 4th/5th) #168, #170, #247
#50 CHARGERS + #61, 183 (for #28 + #92) - leaves: #82, 89, 92, (no 4th/5th/6th), two 7ths

Leaves trade-up teams with no 2nd or 3rd (possibly cost-prohibitive):

#30 JETS + #161 (5th) + #207 (7th) - leaves: (no 2nd/3rd) #94, 126, 194
#38 CARDINALS + #69 (3rd) (for #28 + #92) - leaves: (no 2nd/3rd), #88, 92, 136, 171, 184, 248
#39 TITANS + #77 (3rd) + #109 (4th) (for #28 + #92) - leaves: (no 2nd/3rd), #92, 130, 142, 175, 211, 250
#40 COWBOYS + #71 (3rd), 110 (4th), 176, 179 (6ths) (for #28 + #92) - leaves (no 2nd/3rd), #92, 143, 219, 251
#42 TEXANS +73 (3rd) (for #28 + #125) - leaves: (no 2nd/3rd), #105, 125, 138, 178, 213, 253
#44 LIONS + #75 (3rd) (for #28 + #189) - leaves: (no 2nd/3rd), #107, 140, 189, 230
#45 49ERS + #76 (3rd) - leaves: (no 2nd/3rd), two 4ths, 5th, two 6ths, four 7ths (nine total)
#47 RAMS + #78, 145 - leaves: (no 2nd/3rd), #112, 180, 215
#49 JAGUARS + #80, 121 - leaves: (no 2nd/3rd), #114, 147, 182

Probably cost-prohibitive:

** BRONCOS #46 + #67 - leaving them with #36 (no 2nd/3rd/4th) and only two late picks
** RAIDERS - #48, 81, 113 - leaving them (no 2nd/3rd/4th) four late picks
** BUCCANEERS #51 + 84, 116, 151 - leaves: (no 2nd/3rd/4th), two 5ths, two 7ths

Certainly cost-prohibitive:

** #41 REDSKINS - impossible without 2012 pick
** #43 VIKINGS - cost remainder of tradeable 2011 picks

#52-#59 Not possible without a significant discount and/or using a 2012 pick:

GIANTS
COLTS
EAGLES
CHIEFS
SAINTS
SEAHAWKS
RAVENS
FALCONS
----------------
Trade partners for #33 continued with my next post in this thread.

 

[MaineMan]

VIABLE TRADE PARTNERS FOR #33 (580 SVC points)

** #34 BILLS (Why?)

#35 BENGALS = + #134 (5th) - leaves them: 3rd, 4th, 6th, two 7ths
#36 BRONCOS = + #67 (for our #33 + #74) - leaves them: 2nd, 3rd, (no 4th/5th), 6th, 7th
#37 BROWNS = + #168 + #170 (both 6ths) - leaves: 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th
#38 CARDINALS = + #136 (5th) + #171 (6th) - leaves: 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th
#39 TITANS = + #109 (4th) - leaves: 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, two 7ths
#40 COWBOYS = + #110 (4th) + #219 (7th) - leaves: 3rd, 5th, two 6ths
#42 TEXANS = + #105 (4th) + #178 (6th) - leaves 3rd, 5th, two 7ths
#44 LIONS = + #75 (3rd) + #140 (5th) for #33 + #92 (3rd) - leaves: 3rd, 4th, 7th
#45 49ERS = + #108 (3rd) + #141 (5th), + #209 + #210 (7ths) - leaves: 3rd, two 6ths, two 7ths
#50 CHARGERS = + #82 - leaves 2nd, 3rd, 6th, two 7ths

Leaves the trade-up team no 2nd or 3rd (possibly cost prohibitive):

#47 RAMS = + #78 (for #33 + #125) - leaves: (no 3rd), two 4ths, 5th, 6th, 7th
#48 RAIDERS = + #81 (for #33, #159) - leaves: (no 3rd), 4th, two 5ths, 6th, 7th
#49 JAGUARS = + #80 (for #33, #189) - leaves: (no 3rd), two 4ths, 5th, 6th
#51 BUCCANEERS = + #84 + #135 (for #33, #189) - leaves: (no 3rd), 4th, two 5ths, 6th, two 7ths
#52 GIANTS = + #83 + #185+ #220 - leaves: (no 3rd), 4th, 6th, two 7ths
#54 EAGLES = + #85 + #120 - leaves: (no 3rd), 4th, two 5ths, 6th, three 7ths

Probably cost-prohibitive:

#43 VIKINGS = + #106 (4th) +#150 (5th) - leaves: (no 3rd/4th), 5th, 6th, three 7ths
#46 BRONCOS = + #46, #67, #193 (for #33, #92) - leaves 3rd, late 7th
#53 COLTS = + #87 + #119 - leaves: (no 3rd/4th), 5th, 6th, 7th
#56 SAINTS = + #72 - leaves: 3rd, (no 4th/5th/6th), two 7ths
#61 CHARGERS = + #82 + #89 (for #33, #125) - leaves: 4th, 6th, two 7ths


Certainly cost prohibitve (without involving a 2012 pick):

**REDSKINS - with no 3rd or 4th, they'd be trading the rest of their draft except for two 7ths
**CHIEFS - with no 5th, they'd be trading the rest of their draft except for a 6th and a 7th
**PANTHERS - would cost the rest of their tradeable 2011 picks + 2012 3rd
**SEAHAWKS - would cost the rest of their 2011 picks + 2012 4th
**RAVENS - cost the rest of the 2011 tradeable picks +2012 4th
**FALCONS - rest of their draft + 2012 4th
**BEARS - cost the rest of their draft except for #195 - 6th
**STEELERS - cost the rest of their draft
**PACKERS - cost the rest of their draft except for their comp 4th
**JETS - cost the rest of their draft + 2012 2nd
**DOLPHINS - cost the rest of their draft +2012 2nd

 

[jmt57]

Thanks for putting the time and effort into that, having it laid out like that really helps. It will be fun to go back to this after the draft and see not only what the Pats did, but what those other teams listed did as well.

I'm curious to see if traditional trade value charts will remain relatively accurate in this draft, and how trades in the 2011 draft will compare to picks traded the last couple of years. There seems to be little doubt that some type of rookie wage scale will be implemented; if teams are confident that is the case will early draft picks become more valuable? Will it result in more teams willing to trade for those early picks?

 

[patfanken]

Here's what I think. Teams have watched the Pats manipulate the draft like a puppet on a string for years. Now the Pats may have had mixed results with the picks, but they still can be credited with somehow seeming to have so many of them, when everyone else seems to have to survive with 6 or 7 - For example last season the thing that impressed me the most (besides the great haul of talent) was that, IIRC, the Pats started the draft off with one lower pick in the 1st round and 3 picks in the mid to late 2nd round and ZERO picks in the 3rd round.

When the dust had cleared at the end of the 2nd day,they managed to make a pick .still made a pick at the end of the first round (and what a pick it was), and they still took 3 players in the 2nd round, and somehow suddenly wound up with 2 picks in the 3rd round, one of which they turned in #33 in THIS draft.
|
Say what you want about the quality of the picks we got, but NO ONE in the league pulls sh!t like that off as consistently as the Patriots.

Unfortunately EVENTUALLY others are going to pick up on the strategies. Like the mediots are so fond of saying, this is a copy cat league. Three superbowls later (and a decade of success by teams like the Ravens and Steelers) and now MOST teams in the league are using a base 3-4, yet when the Pats started their run early in the decade there were one of only 3 teams using a base 3-4

Now what could this mean to the Pats. Well it could mean that they might find it tough finding willing trading partners, or they might find there is more competition from other teams willing to trade down as well. That's not good.

However for this year at least, I think the need for certain teams to find a QB late in the first or early in the 2nd will give the Pats a real chance to get a premium value from trading down from either the 28th or 33rd pick. By PREMIUM value I'd be looking for a minimum of plus 20 from the standard Value chart. I really think we can get that like of value, especially if there is a sudden run on QBs at the end or round one.

There have been 5 guys linked as 2nd tier QBs in this draft. They have all been talked about and mocked in the first round by various mockers. In all likelihood 3 will be taken after Gabbert and Newton in the first round, so even if the Pats don't get an offer for 28 that will leave just 2 potential guys for about 5 needy teams to compete for.

The ironic thing about all this is that this is a VERY bad year for QBs Some pretty legitimate personnel guys have stated that none of these guys are CLEAR first round QBs in a lot of years. Yet this draft might wind up being the biggest QB first round bonanza since 1983. The game has changes and odds are that 2 or 3 of these kids are going to wind up being good to great QBs in this QB driven league. The unknown is that 4 or 5 of them are going to wash out in a few years. I'd hate to have my job riding on figuring out who are the 2 guys who will get guys extensions and which 5 will get guys fired.

BOTTOM LINE - its all good for the Pats to make hay. (BTW in my ideal world the Pats trade down from 28 or 33 to regain some picks they lost trading up from 17 to get....... )

 

[mcsully]

Maineman, nice job on the information.. I found it interesting and will definitely look back after teh draft at this post. Should be interesting.

 

[patfanken]

Oh yeah, and ditto on what JMT57 said...great work

 

[Fencer]

Great work, although frankly I think it serves mainly to show that the Pats need to accept future draft picks in trade.

Also, I note a small complication -- your results will be affected by first-round trade-ups/trade-downs. To a first approximation, any team that trades up ahead of the Pats will be out of the running to trade up a second time, while their trading partner who traded down will have extra picks that now suffice to do a deal.

 

[MaineMan]

Thanks for putting the time and effort into that, having it laid out like that really helps. It will be fun to go back to this after the draft and see not only what the Pats did, but what those other teams listed did as well.

I'm curious to see if traditional trade value charts will remain relatively accurate in this draft, and how trades in the 2011 draft will compare to picks traded the last couple of years. There seems to be little doubt that some type of rookie wage scale will be implemented; if teams are confident that is the case will early draft picks become more valuable? Will it result in more teams willing to trade for those early picks?

I agree that it will be interesting to post-mortem 2011 trades. There was significant conformity to SVC in the trades executed from 1995-2010 in the first two rounds (where the bulk of the trades were). However, there are three significant differences this year.

One, as you mentioned, the possibility of a rookie scale (mainly affecting the first 10-15 picks). But,that may only happen if a CBA is signed before the draft. It's iffy that something that might make such a difference in the way teams handle their picks/trades would be implemented retroactively.

And if there is no CBA before the draft, another factor might be no UDFAs, at least not immediately. Every team fills out their 80-man camp rosters with those guys every year. If they may not be available, later round picks may actually have a bit of added value for many teams, possibly contributing to slightly larger discounts being required of teams seeking to trade down.

The third, of course, is the possibility (however small) of there being no 2012 draft. Teams seeking to trade up may need to offer a higher premium if their deal includes a 2012 pick.

 

[MaineMan]

Great work, although frankly I think it serves mainly to show that the Pats need to accept future draft picks in trade.

Also, I note a small complication -- your results will be affected by first-round trade-ups/trade-downs. To a first approximation, any team that trades up ahead of the Pats will be out of the running to trade up a second time, while their trading partner who traded down will have extra picks that now suffice to do a deal.

Well, of course. I would like to have done all the permutations, but I was already starting to spend way too much time mopping up the blood that was running out of my ears.

 

[the wrothbroughterer]

It occurred to me that, in a practical sense, our list of potential partners for trading down from #28 and/or #33 may be fairly limited, IF we exclude using 2012 picks as currency.

I'm NOT trying to start any debate on that point. All I'm doing here is working out the math FOR YOU, for instances in which trades into 2012 are NOT involved.

I'm also not trying to start a debate on whether the Standard Value Chart (SVC) is a RULE or a "very loose guideline" (as per Dr. Venkman). Historically (back to 1995, at least), teams trading down often accept a "discount" equivalent to a mid-4th (55-75 points, or #110 - #120). OTOH, there are several instances in which the team trading down has received a premium (sometimes very large, but usually if the trade involves a future pick).

The exchanges listed here are very close to equivalent SVC, so there is some wiggle room. HOWEVER, even applying such a discount wouldn't decrease the "cost-prohibitive" lists by more than a team or two.

The "leaves" part at the end of each trade simply lists what the team trading up would have left for picks afterward. "Tradeable picks" simply means regular, non-compensatory picks.
-----------------------------------------------------------
VIABLE TRADE PARTNERS for #28 (660 SVC points)

** #29 BEARS - Why?

#31 STEELERS + #128 (4th) + #196 (6th) - leaves: #63, 95, 162, 231
#32 PACKERS + #129 (4th) + #163 (5th) - leaves: #64, 96, 131, 197, 204, 232

----- SECOND ROUND -------

#34 BILLS + #100 (4th) - leaves: #68, 122, 133, 169, 205, 244
#35 BENGALS + #101 (4th) + #206 (7th) - leaves: #66, 134, 167, 245
#36 BRONCOS + #67 (3rd) (for #28 + #92) - leaves: #46, (no 3rd), 92, 193, 246
#37 BROWNS + #102 (4th) + #137 (5th) - leaves: #70, (no 4th/5th) #168, #170, #247
#50 CHARGERS + #61, 183 (for #28 + #92) - leaves: #82, 89, 92, (no 4th/5th/6th), two 7ths

Leaves trade-up teams with no 2nd or 3rd (possibly cost-prohibitive):

#30 JETS + #161 (5th) + #207 (7th) - leaves: (no 2nd/3rd) #94, 126, 194
#38 CARDINALS + #69 (3rd) (for #28 + #92) - leaves: (no 2nd/3rd), #88, 92, 136, 171, 184, 248
#39 TITANS + #77 (3rd) + #109 (4th) (for #28 + #92) - leaves: (no 2nd/3rd), #92, 130, 142, 175, 211, 250
#40 COWBOYS + #71 (3rd), 110 (4th), 176, 179 (6ths) (for #28 + #92) - leaves (no 2nd/3rd), #92, 143, 219, 251
#42 TEXANS +73 (3rd) (for #28 + #125) - leaves: (no 2nd/3rd), #105, 125, 138, 178, 213, 253
#44 LIONS + #75 (3rd) (for #28 + #189) - leaves: (no 2nd/3rd), #107, 140, 189, 230
#45 49ERS + #76 (3rd) - leaves: (no 2nd/3rd), two 4ths, 5th, two 6ths, four 7ths (nine total)
#47 RAMS + #78, 145 - leaves: (no 2nd/3rd), #112, 180, 215
#49 JAGUARS + #80, 121 - leaves: (no 2nd/3rd), #114, 147, 182

Probably cost-prohibitive:

** BRONCOS #46 + #67 - leaving them with #36 (no 2nd/3rd/4th) and only two late picks
** RAIDERS - #48, 81, 113 - leaving them (no 2nd/3rd/4th) four late picks
** BUCCANEERS #51 + 84, 116, 151 - leaves: (no 2nd/3rd/4th), two 5ths, two 7ths

Certainly cost-prohibitive:

** #41 REDSKINS - impossible without 2012 pick
** #43 VIKINGS - cost remainder of tradeable 2011 picks

#52-#59 Not possible without a significant discount and/or using a 2012 pick:

GIANTS
COLTS
EAGLES
CHIEFS
SAINTS
SEAHAWKS
RAVENS
FALCONS
----------------
Trade partners for #33 continued with my next post in this thread.

Nice work. I was trying to make a reference like this for myself back in February but it became such a cluster**** that I gave up.

Pertaining to the bolded part, do you have a link to back that up? I believe you, it just seems odd to me that teams trading down routinely take a that large of a discount, even a discount at all really. To me, it seems as though trading a pick down puts you in a position of power, not a disadvantage.

Consider this: A team has a draft board set up for their first 2 rounds and have deemed 5 players worth of pick in those rounds. Players 1, 2, and 3 are 1st rounders with 4 and 5 only being 2nd rounders. Let's also assume that when they get to make their first selection, players 1, 2, and 3 are off the board. So the advantageous move for them is to move down because they would be over-paying for players 4 and 5. However, not knowing other teams draft boards means that there is no certainty that they will be able to take players 4 and 5 upon their next selection. Given that, shouldn't there be an incentive to trade down for a premium, i.e. a hedge against the potential loss of not getting any of your top players because you traded down?

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

 

[MaineMan]

Nice work. I was trying to make a reference like this for myself back in February but it became such a cluster**** that I gave up.

Pertaining to the bolded part, do you have a link to back that up? I believe you, it just seems odd to me that teams trading down routinely take a that large of a discount, even a discount at all really. To me, it seems as though trading a pick down puts you in a position of power, not a disadvantage.

Consider this: A team has a draft board set up for their first 2 rounds and have deemed 5 players worth of pick in those rounds. Players 1, 2, and 3 are 1st rounders with 4 and 5 only being 2nd rounders. Let's also assume that when they get to make their first selection, players 1, 2, and 3 are off the board. So the advantageous move for them is to move down because they would be over-paying for players 4 and 5. However, not knowing other teams draft boards means that there is no certainty that they will be able to take players 4 and 5 upon their next selection. Given that, shouldn't there be an incentive to trade down for a premium, i.e. a hedge against the potential loss of not getting any of your top players because you traded down?

Actually, I posted a thread awhile back in which I took the comprehensive trade history (1995-2010) compiled by AdamJT (of compensatory pick prediction fame) and converted the actual pick numbers involved to SVC. That (roughly) mid-4th "discount" is just the way it worked out. NOT for every trade, mind you, but where there was a discount, it averaged in that range, at least through the 1st two rounds (excluding the #1 overall pick).

 

[MaineMan]

He's a sailor, he's in New York; we get this guy laid, we won't have any trouble!

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

He's a sailor, he's in New York; we get this guy laid, we won't have any trouble!

Oh sure, where was your welcome wagon when I was on liberty? :snob:

 

[MaineMan]

Oh sure, where was your welcome wagon when I was on liberty? :snob:

Skinny-dipping in the Tidal Basin with Rep. Mills?

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Skinny-dipping in the Tidal Basin with Rep. Mills?

As long as you weren't interning for Barny Frank.

 

[MaineMan]

As long as you weren't interning for Barny Frank.

Nope. I was getting my BOHICA elsewhere, thanks.

 

[DW Toys]

VIABLE TRADE PARTNERS FOR #33 (580 SVC points)

** #34 BILLS (Why?)

#35 BENGALS = + #134 (5th) - leaves them: 3rd, 4th, 6th, two 7ths
#36 BRONCOS = + #67 (for our #33 + #74) - leaves them: 2nd, 3rd, (no 4th/5th), 6th, 7th
#37 BROWNS = + #168 + #170 (both 6ths) - leaves: 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th
#38 CARDINALS = + #136 (5th) + #171 (6th) - leaves: 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th
#39 TITANS = + #109 (4th) - leaves: 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, two 7ths
#40 COWBOYS = + #110 (4th) + #219 (7th) - leaves: 3rd, 5th, two 6ths
#42 TEXANS = + #105 (4th) + #178 (6th) - leaves 3rd, 5th, two 7ths
#44 LIONS = + #75 (3rd) + #140 (5th) for #33 + #92 (3rd) - leaves: 3rd, 4th, 7th
#45 49ERS = + #108 (3rd) + #141 (5th), + #209 + #210 (7ths) - leaves: 3rd, two 6ths, two 7ths
#50 CHARGERS = + #82 - leaves 2nd, 3rd, 6th, two 7ths

Leaves the trade-up team no 2nd or 3rd (possibly cost prohibitive):

#47 RAMS = + #78 (for #33 + #125) - leaves: (no 3rd), two 4ths, 5th, 6th, 7th
#48 RAIDERS = + #81 (for #33, #159) - leaves: (no 3rd), 4th, two 5ths, 6th, 7th
#49 JAGUARS = + #80 (for #33, #189) - leaves: (no 3rd), two 4ths, 5th, 6th
#51 BUCCANEERS = + #84 + #135 (for #33, #189) - leaves: (no 3rd), 4th, two 5ths, 6th, two 7ths
#52 GIANTS = + #83 + #185+ #220 - leaves: (no 3rd), 4th, 6th, two 7ths
#54 EAGLES = + #85 + #120 - leaves: (no 3rd), 4th, two 5ths, 6th, three 7ths

Probably cost-prohibitive:

#43 VIKINGS = + #106 (4th) +#150 (5th) - leaves: (no 3rd/4th), 5th, 6th, three 7ths
#46 BRONCOS = + #46, #67, #193 (for #33, #92) - leaves 3rd, late 7th
#53 COLTS = + #87 + #119 - leaves: (no 3rd/4th), 5th, 6th, 7th
#56 SAINTS = + #72 - leaves: 3rd, (no 4th/5th/6th), two 7ths
#61 CHARGERS = + #82 + #89 (for #33, #125) - leaves: 4th, 6th, two 7ths


Certainly cost prohibitve (without involving a 2012 pick):

**REDSKINS - with no 3rd or 4th, they'd be trading the rest of their draft except for two 7ths
**CHIEFS - with no 5th, they'd be trading the rest of their draft except for a 6th and a 7th
**PANTHERS - would cost the rest of their tradeable 2011 picks + 2012 3rd
**SEAHAWKS - would cost the rest of their 2011 picks + 2012 4th
**RAVENS - cost the rest of the 2011 tradeable picks +2012 4th
**FALCONS - rest of their draft + 2012 4th
**BEARS - cost the rest of their draft except for #195 - 6th
**STEELERS - cost the rest of their draft
**PACKERS - cost the rest of their draft except for their comp 4th
**JETS - cost the rest of their draft + 2012 2nd
**DOLPHINS - cost the rest of their draft +2012 2nd

Thank you for your effort.
DW Toys

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Here's what I think. Teams have watched the Pats manipulate the draft like a puppet on a string for years.

 

[DW Toys]

Great work, although frankly I think it serves mainly to show that the Pats need to accept future draft picks in trade.

Also, I note a small complication -- your results will be affected by first-round trade-ups/trade-downs. To a first approximation, any team that trades up ahead of the Pats will be out of the running to trade up a second time, while their trading partner who traded down will have extra picks that now suffice to do a deal.

Fencer Cousin,
I think BB is too smart for that this year. This new CBA has caused this Draft to be completely different. How would you feel if the NFLPA wins and Kessler has his way of no Draft? It could happen!
BB needs to cash in his chips in 2011, never mind this crap about trading into 2012 when the Draft will surely happen before the new CBA this year and BB can be caught with his "rippa-rappa" in his hands
Don't be a sucker Bill....cash out. There are 31 other clubs hoping you will get caught trading out so they have the last laugh!
The league has warned all Teams including you......say, didn't.....
DW Toys.