Draft Primer: Trading Picks
by Wonko on Apr 9, 2010 10:00 AM PDT
in NFL Draft
Email
PrintTrading draft picks is a big part of the NFL draft. A rebuilding team can trade back and pick up picks (like Cleveland did multiple times last year) and a team that feels that they need to get "their guy" can sacrifice their later picks to do it. One of the most well known ways to evaluate or mock trades is to use the famous Trade Value Chart. The original trade value chart was created by former Cowboys Head Coach Jimmy Johnson. Others have tweaked it and I prefer the one posted at WalterFootball.com that makes the top few picks more equal in value and adds value to second round picks. For more detail on this chart you can refer to WalterFootballs draftology articles on the subject (1; 2). Here's the chart copied from that website:
The important thing to keep in mind with this chart is context. You can't just do the math on a potential or actual trade and make a declaration about it. Last year, the Browns traded the #17 overall pick to the Buccaneers for the 19th pick and a 6th rounder. Well, according to the draft value chart the didn't get proper value. Then, they did it again by picking up a 6th rounder for trading that 19th pick to the Eagles for 21st overall. The context here is that the Browns knew which guy they wanted (Alex Mack) and figured they knew he'd be available later. They also needed to bring in players since they were (and still are) in rebuilding mode so they weren't comfortable staying put and drafting Mack. If you are in that situation, then getting any value for your pick and still getting the same guy is a decent deal.
One thing you may ask yourself: Why do we need a chart? The chart is important to help facilitate getting deals done. If each GM had wildly different ideas of what picks are worth then it'd be difficult to make trades. As I said at the start of this post, trades are important so there's an incentive to come to some sort of agreement on how to get those trades done. Not every GM will use the exact same chart or even keep a chart handy at the draft, but they definitely have some method that will help them come to agreements on deals. This is the closest approximation to those methods.
After the jump I'll take a look at past Chargers trades and breakdown the chart to look at potential trades in 2010.
The first thing to try and understand when talking about recent Charger draft day trades is the idea of the value of future draft picks. The picks in future drafts have historically been significantly discounted compared to their current draft brethren. IF we look at the 2008 "Hester" trade you have the Chargers acquiring the 69th pick in the draft (TVC value: 412 pts) from the New England Patriots for the 160th pick (64 pts) and their 2009 2nd round pick. The difference between the 5th rounder given up and the 3rd rounder acquired by the Chargers is 348 pts, which is the equivalent of approximately the 80th pick in the current draft. The pick ended up being the 47th overall pick (thank you 8-8 record) worth 610 pts at the time of the 2009 draft. That's a 43% discount that the Chargers gave the Patriots on that pick. Context is important here because the Chargers didn't have a 2nd, 3rd or 4th round pick in this draft so they discounted that 2009 pick in order to pick up another quality player in the draft before the 5th round. Of course, that pick was Jacob Hester so the quality of that pick in hindsight is very debatable.
In 2007, the Chargers made another trade involving a future draft pick. The Chargers acquired the 37th overall pick (710 pts) by dealing to the Chicago Bears the 62nd (468), 93rd (280), 167th (57) and their 2008 3rd round pick. Amazingly, that gave that future third round pick an effective value of -95 points. Oh, A.J. The context here was that the Chargers didn't have that many open spots on their roster and were willing to "throw away" picks in order to get acquire a future starting safety (Eric Weddle). It was also rumored that teams were just putting a very high premium on those high 2nd round picks that year and A.J. had a tough time finding a dance partner for that trade. At least Weddle turned out to be the starter they thought he would be.
The last time the Chargers trade down they acquired the 4th (2400) and 65th (444) overall picks in the 2004 draft as well as a future 1st round pick for the #1 overall pick (3000). Effectively, they got that 2005 12 overall pick for 336 points and it ended up being a pick worth 1600 points (79% discount).
In 2003, the Chargers didn't use any future draft picks and gave up 1200 points in the 19th overall pick for 1298 points in the 30th and 62nd overall picks. A slight discount, but basically a fair trade even if it did cost us a shot at Troy Polamalu for Sammy Davis and Terrence Kiel.
Finally, let's get to some scenarios for this year's draft. I'll leave out future draft picks and let you guys speculate on those (although I think we'll need all the picks we can get over the next few years so use them wisely). To trade up in the first round the Chargers could use their 1st and 2nd round picks (worth a total of 1555 points) to trade up to #13 for a shot at someone they really like. If they really got crazy and added in their 3rd round pick (290 pts) then the 10th overall pick would be in their grasp. That trade would be Ditka-in-a-dreadlocks-wig crazy, but it's out there.
Maybe another more reasonable trade could be the Chargers 3rd round, 91st overall pick and 4th round, 126th overall pick (142 pts) traded for the 67th overall pick (428 pts). That trade seems reasonable if the Chargers either miss out on one of their needs in the 1st or 2nd round or they see a guy with value after covering their needs with those picks. Another reason could be that since the Chargers were expecting to draft late in the 2nd there might be some guys they heavily scouted for that spot that slip into the third round.
38 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The one thing I dont understand about the chart
The jump from pick 31 to 32 is twenty five points, and thats the same from pick 32 to 33.
But second round picks sign four year deals while first round picks sign five year deals. So it would seem the value of pick 33 should be significantly depressed compared with pick 32 because the guaranteed money is almost the same.
IMO
plus
with pick 32 you control their rights for one more year than pick 33. One year can make a big difference (See Merriman, Jackson, Floyd, and McNeill)
by Stephen (shaynes41) on Apr 9, 2010 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions
It Floyds case
It only came down to two games. Had he been active for only 2 more games his rookie season he would have been a UFA last year, instead of being a RFA this year.
IMO
Wha...?
"I aim to misbehave." - Mal Reynolds
Bolts From The Blue - Heavy with the facts, slightly less heavy with the opinions.
by Zach (maestro876) on Apr 9, 2010 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions
I wasn't aware
that service time requirements for free agency changed depending on which round a player was drafted in.
"I aim to misbehave." - Mal Reynolds
Bolts From The Blue - Heavy with the facts, slightly less heavy with the opinions.
by Zach (maestro876) on Apr 9, 2010 7:27 PM PDT up reply actions
It doesnt
But back in the day you would be a free agent after 4 seasons. If you sign a 5 year contract, as all 1st rounders do, that is one extra year on the typically affordable rookie contract.
by Stephen (shaynes41) on Apr 9, 2010 9:57 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
2nd rounder use to sign 5 year deals too
VJ draft class I think was the last year that it took place if I remember correctly.
IMO
Unless I missed something
The Chargers first (#28 = 875 pts) and second (40 = 680 pts) picks are worth a combined 1555 points, which could conceivably push a trade as high as 12 or 13 overall, assuming the addition of a late round pick either this year or next. Add in the Seahawks 3rd rounder next year and you could be looking at top 10.
"When they come for me I'll be sitting at my desk, with a gun in my hand wearing a bullet-proof vest, singing 'My, my, my, how the time does fly when you know you're going to die by the end of the night.'" - Catch 22
by John Gennaro on Apr 10, 2010 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions
3 picks for one?
In a draft that is as deep as this one, giving up 3 picks in the 1st three rounds just to get one stud doesn’t make sense unless you are a team that basically has all it’s bases covered and no holes to fill. I think the Chargers are a good team but I can’t believe they could afford to give up 3 players who should eventually become starters for 1 who will have to start because so much was spent on him.
I do think trading up to get a 2nd or 3rd round pick makes sense because of the depth of this draft but trading up to top ten seems too pricey.
I may be old but I... oh d*mn, I forgot what I was going to say.
by Cold_Old_Steelers_Fan on Apr 9, 2010 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Yep
No real reason to give up a late first and high second, and target a player in this draft. I would like the Chargers to trade up, but I want them to trade up into the 3rd, and try and land another pick in the top 100.
IMO
I just wanted to point out that the second rounder was worth more
than what was shown in the article. I agree that you shouldn’t put all your eggs in one basket, I just wanted to show it is “possible” to get to the top 10 in terms of draft value with 3 picks.
by riversformvp on Apr 10, 2010 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions
Cool
I wasnt intending to rebuke you, just spraying some words while I wait for the draft. Is it here yet?
IMO
I don't see the Chargers packaging 28 and 40.
Frankly, the Bolts need all their draft picks this year. I could see them trading up by dropping a player or a later pick: I could see using a 2011 pick to maneuver up ahead of the 3-4 teams at 25 and 26, or at 36 and 38. Green Bay runs a 3-4, but they have their NT position locked up. If Williams is still there when they pick at #23, they might take 28 and next year’s third-rounder as a trade.
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the cheerleaders!
by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Apr 9, 2010 12:00 PM PDT reply actions
Or even maybe #40 and next year's 2nd.
Some teams dislike trading down too far in the first, so that’s less likely, but it would probably pay dividends for both teams if it netted the Chargers both the new #76 and Mathews.
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the cheerleaders!
by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Apr 9, 2010 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Id sign up for that
It would hurt because you should let your future picks marinate, but it wouldnt be bad for DWill. Our 1st and 3rd, and their 1st and 4th might work too.
IMO
I have a hard time seeing the value of trading up
for rounds 1 & 2 in this year’s draft anyway. This is a really deep draft in the positions the Chargers need. And the cost for trading up in round 1 is just ridiculous. There had better be someone you can’t live without if you are going to do that, and I just don’t see the Chargers in that position. They can get who they need at 28 & 40 and not have to give up anything extra. Like the article says about the Browns, they got their guy plus an extra pick by moving down even if by the chart they took the “lower” value. Why would the Chargers give up the extra pick if they can get their guy without the sacrifice?
Now I can see AJ pulling a trade to maybe pick something extra up in the 3 to 5 rounds, maybe even a late 2, (goodbye Sproles) but that’s about it.
I could see a small trade-up.
In both rounds, we draft right behind teams that might be looking to fill the same spots.
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the cheerleaders!
by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Apr 9, 2010 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions
The one thing I dont get
Is how it would make sense the chargers trade their 1st pick for the top 2 in the 3rd
I don't see the Chargers trading any picks this year
Late in the round picks have so little value that it is hard to move up much. I think AJ will be happy with having moved the 2nd rounder up and that will be it. There are lots of places to add depth (ILB, CB, OB, OT, DT, OLB, S) that the Chargers are likely going to keep all the picks they have. They’ve made their one move trade-wise and I think they’ll just take the 7 or 8 guys they’ve got coming
Remember they have 2 extra picks next year.
And they may want to trade one more RFA. But I agree that they probably won’t package this year’s picks into a trade-up: there are all sorts of studies to show that the various charts tend to overvalue early picks.
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the cheerleaders!
by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Apr 10, 2010 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Ok, fine, there’s one study.
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the cheerleaders!
by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Apr 10, 2010 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions
There's a study that attempts to show discounting future picks is stupid
But no one seems to believe that outside of maybe the Eagles and Pats.
IMO
Yeah, that would make sense to me.
But if you really want the guy, you really want the guy.
Of course, what this really says is “trade down.” Or “trade for an equal or greater number of picks unless you’re really sure about a player.” Or “use trades to maneuver, avoiding big deals.” Or some combination of the above.
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the cheerleaders!
by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Apr 10, 2010 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Or “work picks next year into your deals.” Duh.
But still, if we have 9+ picks next year, including two extras in the top 100, dropping a 3rd-round or later is totally fine: in fact, they probably want to package one of those mid-round picks anyway. You can only have so many new guys on your final 53 every year, after all (see Johnson, Gartrell). So yeah, if they get the value of a 4th-rounder for their 2011 3rd, it’s tactically a pretty good maneuver.
Also, the value of a pick next year is hard to gauge. In fact, this may facilitate such trades: as with the Broncos-Seahawks trade last year, the Broncos were willing to make the deal because they thought they would inherit a poor draft position, while the Seahawks probably figured that those stupid Donks were giving up a top-ten. The truth is in between, of course… but most teams will think they’ll do better than others will, no? That’s not more than conjecture with anecdote, but if I’m right, I’d imagine that the unknown 3rd rounder is easier to sell than it would be if the other team were looking at the probable number of that pick.
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the cheerleaders!
by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Apr 10, 2010 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Im not saying that you shouldnt use a next years pick to get the guy you want
I just think that discounting next years picks routinely is a bad longterm strategy. Personally I would have no problem with the Chargers trading a next years 3rd, 7th, and a this years 4th for another pick in the top 100 if they get someone they want.
But in order to trade a next years pick you also have to take advantage of other teams and have some to move, which is the case this year. But if you always have extra picks by trading for a discounted future then you always have ammo to move up or down; thats the smart way to go about drafting it just take patience.
IMO
Agreed.
I’m talking about the San Diego Chargers in 2010. I’m not normally a fan of trading next year’s picks. But this is not a bad year for that kind of deal for this team. If a player they really want is around at #30-35, the Saints, Rams, Bucs or Lions might be tempted to trade down to #40 for a 2011 4th or 4th/5th.
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the cheerleaders!
by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Apr 10, 2010 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah I understand that all the picks arent needed
We would probably have 11 picks next year if we didnt trade any, the 7 originals, 2 via trade, and 2 comp. I would guess it would look like this
1st 1
2nd 2
3rd 2
4th 1
5th 1
6th 2
7th 2
Instead of using one of those 3rds this year to target someone, I would rather trade it in the 2011 draft for a 2012 2nd.
And then you could use the mid/late round picks in 2011 to leap frog up a couple spots if needed.
IMO
You also got to look at relative position.
We have a few more holes this year than we’ve had in recent years, and next year we’re probably going to lose quite a few studly players. I’d submit that locking down a few key players now has more value on this team than it would have had at any point since this last cycle of goodness began in ’04.
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the cheerleaders!
by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Apr 10, 2010 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions
*relative situation.
“Position” is equivocal in this context.
But in terms of position, this might also be a good year to maneuver up or down just a little bit in the early rounds. There are a number of 3-4 teams that pick right ahead of both our first two picks: a few places here or there could make the difference between getting the guy we want and having to settle.
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the cheerleaders!
by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Apr 10, 2010 10:04 PM PDT up reply actions
To sign or not to sign
Letting top players go with out getting equal value . I do not consider supplemental draft choices good value for a Merriman or a V. Jackson. Five A+ players this year and plus Gates next year. There is no way in hell SD can sign them all , at least two will have to go . The trick is to get value either by trading for draft choices or by trading to move up in the draft to get a targeted player . A good example of a NFL franchise that knows how to work the system would be the N.E. Patriots. Knowing that they would not be able to sign Wilfork, Brady, Seymour etc. they traded Seymour for a future number one. This year they have a first and two seconds. Next year a top ten pick from Oakland plus their own #1. This is how a franchise stays on top year in and year out. As for the Chargers I have a feeling this upcoming draft will be full of surprises. AJ will do something no one expects, lets hope he gets it right.
George D. Mckenzie
No one considers comp picks good value
But a comp pick is better than nothing. NE traded Seymor because it became apparent they werent going to the super bowl, but if they thought they could they would have kept him.
A third round comp pick and a super bowl opportunity is better than a first round pick. With that said I completely agree with you, acouple of our RFAs need to be traded for draft picks and or cheaper young players.
Gates and Big Mac are the two FAs I think should be prioritized to keep. Then either VJack or Floyd.
IMO
so.
what is it going to take to get spiller.
Gary Potter: Harness in the good energy, block out the bad. Harness. Energy. Block. Bad. It's like a carousel. You put the quarter in, you get on the horse, it goes up and down, and around. Circular, circle. Feel it. Go with the flow.
Happy Gilmore: Psycho.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bolts From The Blue
Related FanShots on Bolts From The Blue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
BFTB Apparel Store
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Ryan Tannehill won’t start right away, according to Dolphins’ owner
- Lions WR Titus Young barred from practice after starting fight with teammate
- Winslow move could be a costly one for Bucs in the short term
- Matthew Stafford spends $15,000 to win auction package, then gives it to a young fan’s family
- Tim Tebow allegedly asked Broadway actress to remove scantily clad Twitter photo
