TRADE-DOWN MATH (Reference)

[Off The Grid]

Hah!! GREAT work, Brother Maine, per usual!! :rocker:

My thinking fell along those lines, though hardly with such detail: I've got us Trading Down #28 to the Lightning Bolts and #33 to the Miners ~ both on your Approved List!!

 

[mgteich]

Great work!
You might consider that we may very well traded down from 17. Trading to 27 or 29 will yield us a second from the falcons or the bears.

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

 

[Fencer]

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.

Abolishing the draft hurts parity, helps the highest paid rookies, hurts all players except the highest paid rookies, helps the most powerful agents, and hurts other agents.

That doesn't sound like much of a constituency for it happening.

 

[MaineMan]

Abolishing the draft hurts parity, helps the highest paid rookies, hurts all players except the highest paid rookies, helps the most powerful agents, and hurts other agents.

That doesn't sound like much of a constituency for it happening.

No draft would represent total unrestricted free agency for the players, which, while it may have been the ideal that the players' union originally sought way back when, is probably now only the extreme result of the "nuclear option" bargaining chip of pushing the court to find that the NFL is an illegal trust after all. I agree that no one really wants that outcome anymore. But it remains the foundation of the players' leverage.

To me, the CBA framework is essentially the players' agreeing to restrictions on their free agency, of which the draft is a part, in exchange for certain benefits. The owners (acting collectively), by agreeing to participate in the framework and to negotiate with the players as a Collective Bargaining Unit, allow the courts to say (more or less), " Well, you guys ARE acting as an anti-competitive trust wrt your employees, BUT, because you've negotiated an agreement with them and because some of your other effectively collusive practices are of benefit to them under that agreement, we'll declare "No harm; no foul."

The main benefit to the players, though not the sole benefit, was a certain percentage of the revenue pie as a way of guaranteeing overall compensation. Since the owners withdrew from the CBA in an effort to reduce the size of the players slice, the players want a compensatory reduction in the restrictions on their free agency (and/or other things such as extended health benefits for retired veterans).

However, until a new agreement is reached, the threat of the courts finding the owners in violation of anti-trust regulations remains. If it comes to that, the draft would go away. Seems like a very small chance that it would come to that, but there's still a chance as long as there's no agreement in place.

 

[WhiZa]

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

GIANTS
COLTS
EAGLES
CHIEFS
SAINTS
SEAHAWKS
RAVENS
FALCONS

I think you hit the nail on the head MaineMan!