Scenario: SF wants to move up

Discussion in 'Draft Zone' started by 1LoyalCowboyFan, Mar 31, 2013.

  1. Alexander

    Alexander What's it going to be then, eh?

    42,362 Messages
    29,717 Likes Received
    True but being able to pick up more choices should outweigh the one player they are targeting in a trade up if you do things the right way.

    Which reminds me, who are the Niners supposedly targeting to give up this bushel of choices?

    Tavon Austin is not likely to make it through the Rams or even Steelers for that matter.

    I think they may want to trade up as they have more choices than are likely to make the team and they are already giving some away, like they just did for Colt McCoy. But I just do not think Dallas is a legitimate trade partner unless there is another player they covet.
  2. bkight13

    bkight13 Capologist

    16,928 Messages
    12,384 Likes Received
    I hope it's MINN that wants to move up. They have 23 and 25 and a 18 for 25 and 83 would work.
  3. Alexander

    Alexander What's it going to be then, eh?

    42,362 Messages
    29,717 Likes Received
    That would be a pretty fair trade.

    But again, the only player I see people really wanting badly enough to move up would be Austin and he's not likely to make it to 18. If Minnesota wanted him bad enough, they could just move up to New Orleans' selection as I am sure they would like an additional choice since they lost their second round draft pick.
  4. kirkjrk

    kirkjrk Active Member

    905 Messages
    38 Likes Received

    Why not if Spencer doesn't sign an extension-

    Dallas 18 & 47 =1330 value + Spencer


    SF 31,34,61 &74=1672 value. Leaves SF over 342 points in the trade which is equal to a higher second round pick(#56). So we then give them Spencer and get our 2nd round value for him.

    Dallas winds up with picks 31,34,61,74,80,114,151,185 and gains valuable cap space with Spencer's departure.

    SF gets their coveted 18th pick plus a Pro Bowler and basically gives up 61st pick for him. Pretty even trade.

    To me if we trade back with SF it's imperative we get the 34th pick also. The player we get their will be a completely different value player than we could have picked up at 47th. I think it's also imperative to get an:lmao2:other pick between 34th and 80th. That's 46 players between our picks.
  5. Hoofbite

    Hoofbite Well-Known Member

    35,095 Messages
    4,367 Likes Received
    They can be in line with the chart. I didn't say the chart was completely irrelevant, just that's it's outdated. Largely because of the rookie scale.

    If however teams have traditionally paid more than the traditional chart suggests for the pick you possess you'd be a fool to sell yourself short simply because you want to remain slavish to any given chart.

    My main criticism with the mock was that Dallas would lose out on a better player and that the additional pick and jump in spots doesn't cover that. I don't think passing on a guy at #18 is justified by the trade.

    The chart that is based on previous trades has the OPs trade value right on part with the trade value from the traditional chart in terms of the value that is lost by Dallas in the deal. Dallas actually comes out giving up more according to both charts.

    Expecting incredible value? Not really, just expecting value that has historically been pulled for similar trades.
  6. Hoofbite

    Hoofbite Well-Known Member

    35,095 Messages
    4,367 Likes Received
    Dallas has their own chart. Broaddus has posted some actual values.

    According to Dallas' chart, #45 is worth 337 whereas the traditional chart holds a value of 450. This was in a reply to Bill Jones about the value of the pick. He also said that moving from #45 to #34 results in an increase in value of 157, placing the value of #34 at 490 going by Dallas' chart. This trade response was to a Dallas fan asking what it would take to move up. Dallas also had some pretty significant differences in the Top 10 picks.

    The traditional chart doesn't account for team-by-team variability. I doubt Dallas is the only team in the league to be working on a different scale.

    Matching up the trade values assumes that the teams are working on the same scale which isn't the case. What one team offers might be a bargain in their mind but the team they offer it to might think it's a great deal for them. According to both team's own charts they win. Broaddus had Dallas at a 5th round pick (at least) advantage according to Dallas' chart when they traded with St. Louis last year.

    Given a big enough difference in how Dallas values the 6th pick (or more appropriately, how they would seem to value it based on other picks around it), if a 5th rounder is all that separates the two packages, is it really so far out of the realm of possibility that St. Louis also had a point total in their favor?

    I don't think it's all that unreasonable to assume that a team would be willing to sacrifice the value of an extra late pick according to the traditional chart by moving up to grab a player they otherwise do not have a shot at. I also don't think it's unreasonable that there are probably times where a team would be declared the loser in a trade according to the traditional chart but their personal chart has them at an advantage.

    As someone else pointed out, these are all for fun.

    Trades being relatively balanced according to the traditional chart shouldn't really be a shocker because it's likely that this is the starting point for all charts. It was the starting point for the trade-fitted version but only to an extent that they fixed the value of the first overall pick to match the original.

Share This Page