Jump to content

What Compensation Is Realistic in a Trade Down


Rings
 Share

Recommended Posts

First off...this isn't a thread about whether or not you think the compensations is realistic or whether or not you would like to trade down or not, it's what would YOU do if we traded down and you had to make the selections at the new picks...no not use the new picks to move back up.

We have seen a ton of mocks that range from us getting hosed to getting teams entire drafts the next two years, the truth is obviously somewhere in the middle.  I went and looked at trades over the last few years to get a more realistic value on trade value.  I use the Rich Hill chart as it is holistically the most accurate with what happens during the draft over the last 7 years since I've been tracking every trade.  That said, top QBs being available skew everything, as does other positional scarcity, as well as team desperation (Pittsburgh trading up for Devin Bush after Shazier had that horrible injury).  I still haven't studied very far into prospects this year unfortunately, but I've always been more a draft theory kinda guy than a scout.  So I figured I'd do the math and figure out what's realistic and then I'd love to see what you guys come up with if we had these new picks.  So what I found:

Most trades in first round are almost spot on with Rich Hill's trade chart.  There were very few under pays but there were a few overpays and the common theme was...
1) If a top QB is available teams pay on average +171 points to move up.
2) If position is scarce and team was desperate they pay +41 to move up.

So, I know most people will not want to trade down this far, and that's fine.  I have a different theory than most and that's ok, I'm just curious what people here would do with these picks and how many holes we could fill over the next two years all stemming from one pick.  We've discussed who to take with the #4 pick a million times, but what if we made that pick into ten players instead?  Is this what I think will happen?  No.  But I think it would be awesome if it did.  So here it goes.

TRADE #1
ATL - DEN (ATL +174)

DEN Receives
1-4 (Takes a QB)

ATL Receives 
1-9, 3-71, 4-114, 2022 1st

TRADE #2
ATL - NE (ATL +175)

NE Receives 
1-9 (Take Final QB of top 5, likely Jones)

ATL Receives
1-15, 2-46, 3-96, 2022 2nd

TRADE #3
ATL - CLE (ATL +49)

CLE Receives
1-15 (Rumored they may want to move up for top CB available to help fix secondary, Greedy is still unknown, him and Ward both hurt a lot.  Also want to capitalize on window prior to having to pay Baker.)

ATL Receives
1-26, 2-59, 4-132, 2022 3rd

I think getting DEN 1st would be huge because I don't think they will be very good next year in that division even with a new QB, especially if it's one that needs to develop for a year.  So looking at only the first four rounds, here is what the differences would be:

Before
1-4
2-35
3-68
4-108

After
1-26
2-35
2-46
2-59
3-68
3-71
3-96
4-108
4-114
4-132

2022 1st (DEN)
2022 2nd (NE)
2022 3rd (CLE)

I think you could really rebuild a roster quickly with that type of capital, obviously that's if the teams are willing to move up for our spot, but the compensation is realistic based off of the past few years.  Curious to see what people would do with those picks and what our roster would look like after.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's more day 1 & 2 picks than we can afford. Even if we could work it out, that's the tactic that a rebuilding team would use and although I'm 100% in favor of a full rebuild, I don't think Fontenot pitched it to get Blank to hire him. I think TF and AS believe that coaching will cure most of our problems and picking in the top 4 will go a long way toward adding a quality starter to advance our prospects of success in 2021.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, FalconFanSince1969 said:

That denver trade is light imo. The jets traded #6, #37, #49 and a future 2nd to go from 6 to 3 for darnold. 

That's probably heavy, but I'd want at least 2, 3 and future 1st.

I agree, want 1st 2021 obviously, and 2 & 3 this year would be a must. I have always heard that you push picks into the future, they lose 1 round of value. I.e a team trading back into the 1st (mid to late) pretty much always cost them a 1 next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PointSwayzee said:

I agree, want 1st 2021 obviously, and 2 & 3 this year would be a must. I have always heard that you push picks into the future, they lose 1 round of value. I.e a team trading back into the 1st (mid to late) pretty much always cost them a 1 next year.

Some say one round of value, some value them as if they won the super bowl so future 1st would be they had the 32nd pick and use that value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’d be a massive haul, but I don’t see that much movement happening for one team. 

If we can get 1,2,3 this year and 1 next year from Carolina or Denver, that puts us still in a spot to take a great defender, and get firepower later if we decide to try to move up to get a guy we love end of round one. 


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, FalconFanSince1969 said:

That denver trade is light imo. The jets traded #6, #37, #49 and a future 2nd to go from 6 to 3 for darnold. 

That's probably heavy, but I'd want at least 2, 3 and future 1st.

The Jets trade skewed the value way higher, that was like +270, but Jets needed a QB and were desperate.  Others were in the +97 to + 120 range so +171 is only that high because of that one trade.  So unless someone is very desperate (which Denver might be!) we won’t see that type value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, JayOzOne said:

That's more day 1 & 2 picks than we can afford. Even if we could work it out, that's the tactic that a rebuilding team would use and although I'm 100% in favor of a full rebuild, I don't think Fontenot pitched it to get Blank to hire him. I think TF and AS believe that coaching will cure most of our problems and picking in the top 4 will go a long way toward adding a quality starter to advance our prospects of success in 2021.

Honestly money wise it wouldn't cost us that much more, about 2.2 mil (5.98 vs 8.2), and majority of that will be negated when those picks push others contracts off the books.  There would be more next year when the other three picks dump in but the cap will go up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PointSwayzee said:

Yeah...I like the 2nd approach:).

That’s the one I normally go by as it seems to line up closer to what actually happens, but not always.  I’m sure some teams do their own thing as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the concept.  I probably wouldn't do the Cleveland trade and would still be positioned for a prime defender.

That would be a good combination of accruing picks and still getting top talent.

We could leave the 3rd round having taken S, CB, C/LG, RB, DE, TE potentially.  That should yield 6 players who you expect to contribute year 1.  If Denver drops their 2nd in there...then we have 3 picks in the top 40 or so...which is essentially 3 first round picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NWFALCON said:

With that many rookies, you’re not winning a ton of games. That’s one thing people fail to account for when looking at money. 

I mean, the alternative is you have the equivalent of practice squad guys starting or getting significant snaps.  Not winning many games in that scenario either.  I know there will be misses as you have in any draft, but it would give us better odds than UDFAs or guys we signed for basically vet minimums for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Rings said:

The Jets trade skewed the value way higher, that was like +270, but Jets needed a QB and were desperate.  Others were in the +97 to + 120 range so +171 is only that high because of that one trade.  So unless someone is very desperate (which Denver might be!) we won’t see that type value.

I saw an article about NE trading up with Cinci, and it had NE giving up a 1st this year, 2022 and 2023 to move up to 5 because of SF establishing the value for a QB and moving up 9. If NE came up for a QB to 5, that would be 10 spots and the value would be similar to the SF-Miami trade if for a QB. I thought the article was interesting at least. Doesn't mean it's right.

It also depends on the team. Someone trading up to us or a team like Detroit would probably require more immediate capital than future capital (those teams want a quicker turn around in the W column). Denver for instance had a good enough D to be considered on the cusp, so would be equally interested in future capital as immediate capital.

I also think the makeup of the skillset of the players in the draft dictates trade value. For instance, the top tier players in this year's draft are probably in the top 7 or 8 picks. Then you see a slight drop in talent level. It happens again later in the back half of the first round.

If you are the team trading back, you have to have an idea of those tiers and where the value declines slightly or drastically. A team will have target players and target ranges where they expect their targeted players to be. It's almost impossible to gauge value without talking teams specifically and distances of moving up or down. 

And I don't see us making 3 trades down in the first round. It would actually be a first in draft history. I don't think teams have as much of an affinity for moving up either as we speculate. That is costly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, celtiksage said:

I saw an article about NE trading up with Cinci, and it had NE giving up a 1st this year, 2022 and 2023 to move up to 5 because of SF establishing the value for a QB and moving up 9. If NE came up for a QB to 5, that would be 10 spots and the value would be similar to the SF-Miami trade if for a QB. I thought the article was interesting at least. Doesn't mean it's right.

It also depends on the team. Someone trading up to us or a team like Detroit would probably require more immediate capital than future capital (those teams want a quicker turn around in the W column). Denver for instance had a good enough D to be considered on the cusp, so would be equally interested in future capital as immediate capital.

I also think the makeup of the skillset of the players in the draft dictates trade value. For instance, the top tier players in this year's draft are probably in the top 7 or 8 picks. Then you see a slight drop in talent level. It happens again later in the back half of the first round.

If you are the team trading back, you have to have an idea of those tiers and where the value declines slightly or drastically. A team will have target players and target ranges where they expect their targeted players to be. It's almost impossible to gauge value without talking teams specifically and distances of moving up or down. 

And I don't see us making 3 trades down in the first round. It would actually be a first in draft history. I don't think teams have as much of an affinity for moving up either as we speculate. That is costly. 

Yup.  Demand will definitely skew and drive up price.  If multiple teams get in a bidding war it will skyrocket.  It’s like buying a house right now, people are paying way over asking pride because houses are in such high demand and people are bidding against each other.  We only need two people really to want that #4 pick to drive that price up.  It goes up even higher if Jets or SF magically pass on a QB and someone falls to us people didn’t think would be there.  I think waiting until draft day we will get a bigger haul as people will panic in the moment and be willing to spend more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Rings said:

First off...this isn't a thread about whether or not you think the compensations is realistic or whether or not you would like to trade down or not, it's what would YOU do if we traded down and you had to make the selections at the new picks.

People must have missed that first line of the thread, because that’s all it’s been so far lol.   We can debate all day long about what is fair or unfair value, I’m going of average over last few years to keep it as realistic and fair as possible.  Were there teams who got more?  Yes.  Were there teams that got less?  Yes.  Somewhere in-between is where the average is and what is likely the most realistic scenario for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rings said:

The Jets trade skewed the value way higher, that was like +270, but Jets needed a QB and were desperate.  Others were in the +97 to + 120 range so +171 is only that high because of that one trade.  So unless someone is very desperate (which Denver might be!) we won’t see that type value.

Difference is this class has no second tier QBs no viable 2nd round picks after the first 5 so desperation might actually be worse than normal. If you don't over pay big time your next option is Mills who is a third/4th round guy and seen as a project even as a back-up there is less viable options meaning more incentive to move up if you need a QB.  Supply and demand is very real especially in NFL drafts. This is why trade value charts aren't a good indicator because every draft board is different.  

Every draft is a different beast unto itself different posistions have different amounts of depth and teams have unique needs from year to year.  No two drafts are comparable in this a pick is worth so many points way.  It's a fun tool for mock drafts but is totally irrelevant in a real NFL teams GM office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, #84 said:

Difference is this class has no second tier QBs no viable 2nd round picks after the first 5 so desperation might actually be worse than normal. If you don't over pay big time your next option is Mills who is a third/4th round guy and seen as a project even as a back-up there is less viable options meaning more incentive to move up if you need a QB.  Supply and demand is very real especially in NFL drafts. This is why trade value charts aren't a good indicator because every draft board is different.  

Every draft is a different beast unto itself different posistions have different amounts of depth and teams have unique needs from year to year.  No two drafts are comparable in this a pick is worth so many points way.  It's a fun tool for mock drafts but is totally irrelevant in a real NFL teams GM office.

I think it’s a good baseline to use, but like you said and I referenced in the OP, it is greatly skewed by demand, primarily at the very top of the draft.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JayOzOne said:

That's more day 1 & 2 picks than we can afford. Even if we could work it out, that's the tactic that a rebuilding team would use and although I'm 100% in favor of a full rebuild, I don't think Fontenot pitched it to get Blank to hire him. I think TF and AS believe that coaching will cure most of our problems and picking in the top 4 will go a long way toward adding a quality starter to advance our prospects of success in 2021.

We could use many of the picks to move up and snag players that wouldn’t be there if we wait until next round. All picks we have can be traded including the compensatory ones. I’d love to have 3 picks at very top of round 2 which is deep in talent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...