Questions About Trade Down Value From SF

So there seems to be this belief that Dallas got fleeced in the trade down with SF. This conclusion seems widely accepted with fans and the media based on the trade value chart that Dallas itself invented in the 90s. If the chart say it, it must be true. Jerry Jones is a moron. Further proof that it was always all Jimmy (he made the chart after all). And Jerry is still a moron.

So just a couple of questions:

1. It seems to also be widely accepted that this draft was weak in sections 1-30 but there was a lot of quality in 30-100 relative to other recent drafts. That there was a lack of "impact players" in round 1 but there was good depth and value in rounds 2 and 3. Wouldn't this imply that the value of a first round pick this year would be worth less vs. a 2/3 than in "standard" years? Due to the particular composition of this draft the chart would overstate the value of a 1st round pick in a trade down?

2. Chart or no chart, the SF offer was the best one Dallas had for a trade down (everyone has to accept this at least). There is no ability to say to SF, "the chart says you have to give me 20 more points in value" and make it so. The choice was either stay at 18 and pick the player you want or take the best trade offer on the table. So would you rather have the pick they would have made at 18 (which, BTW may have been Frederick in any case) or both the picks at 30 and 74? That is the only alternative they had.

And if you are saying, "well SF low-balled Jerry because they know he's an idiot," see #1 above, and oh by the way, no other team was offering anything better. Something is only "worth" what you can sell it for, and the only relevant choice Dallas had was to stay at 18 or take the two picks in return. The "chart" is completely irrelevant, I don't know why everyone is so obsessed with it.

I would rather reach in the 1st round on a 1st rounder, then reach in the 1st round on a 2nd-3rd rounder which is what Frederick's value was.

Then, the answer is easy ... keep the #18 pick.

It's not like we were forced to trade out.

Jerry wanted to do it, and took less than full value. Why is that so hard to understand?

He had two choices:
1) keep the #18 pick and draft the BPA
2) trade it to whomever gave him the best value

He took #2 knowing that he didn't get full value for the #18 pick.

Time to move on.

It is true that a team trying to trade up has to give more than a team that wants to trade down in general. If only one team is biting, your leverage is limited.

If Frederick and Williams are both strong contributors, it was a good trade. If not, Frederick had BETTER be a more accomplished player than Floyd in the end, or this will be written on Jerry's tombstone.

Jimmy didn't invent the chart. The guy who actually did was interviewed about this and said it gets updated regularly.

Said it was a real weapon early on because Dallas had it and other teams did not but as people changed organizations everyone had a copy of the chart.

If Dallas stayed at 18 and picked Eric Reid I'd have really hated that move. Reid was a r2 guy.

I'd much rather have Frederick (also an r2 guy im my book) and Williams (a late 1st to me).

he is the real deal. would you rather have the two guys we got or would you rather have floyd who does'nt fit or scheme or reid. i think we are better off as a team with the two we got

Eddie;5073890 said:

Then, the answer is easy ... keep the #18 pick.

It's not like we were forced to trade out.

Jerry wanted to do it, and took less than full value. Why is that so hard to understand?

He had two choices:
1) keep the #18 pick and draft the BPA
2) trade it to whomever gave him the best value

He took #2 knowing that he didn't get full value for the #18 pick.

Time to move on.

Click to expand...

Exactly ^^^

Jerry wanted to get an O-Lineman in the first round because of the contract option for the sixth year for first rounder. If we have a keeper, it's a good move but everyone on this site seems to have 20/20 hindsight instead of looking at reality. Could we have gotten a better player at 31, definitely. As to the value of the trade, they had a better offer on the table but the other team pulled out so Jerry took SF's offer.

Eddie;5073890 said:

Then, the answer is easy ... keep the #18 pick.

It's not like we were forced to trade out.

Jerry wanted to do it, and took less than full value. Why is that so hard to understand?

He had two choices:
1) keep the #18 pick and draft the BPA
2) trade it to whomever gave him the best value

He took #2 knowing that he didn't get full value for the #18 pick.

Time to move on.

Click to expand...

Well, yes, that's part of my point-- the relevant question is who they would have picked at #18 vs what they actually picked at #30 and 74. All this discussion about Dallas being "fleeced" in a trade down and how it is an example of Jerry being a poor GM and stupid is completely off point-- it was in fact the best alternative they had-- the market spoke and that was the best offer for #18. There is a very real possibility that they would have picked the best OL available at 18 (who would have a chance to start) vs the "best value" who would be a backup

erod;5073896 said:

It is true that a team trying to trade up has to give more than a team that wants to trade down in general. If only one team is biting, your leverage is limited.

If Frederick and Williams are both strong contributors, it was a good trade. If not, Frederick had BETTER be a more accomplished player than Floyd in the end, or this will be written on Jerry's tombstone.

Click to expand...

This is the bottom line
Time to see what they contribute

NextGenBoys;5073884 said:

I would rather reach in the 1st round on a 1st rounder, then reach in the 1st round on a 2nd-3rd rounder which is what Frederick's value was.

Click to expand...

That's would be a good point if: (1) if they didn't also get a second player (3rd rounder) so the relevant comparison is getting 1 player vs 2; and (2) they may have actually picked Frederick at 18 anyway because they would rather have a 1st rounder that has a chance to start vs the highest rated player that would be a backup in any case

blindzebra;5073926 said:

Click to expand...

A chart is wonderful, but it's like selling your house-- you can ask whatever you want (and it can be based on a wonderful chart of your own based on recent sales), but the only thing that matters is the offers you get. You wanna sell the house or keep it?

Tate;5073960 said:

A chart is wonderful, but it's like selling your house-- you can ask whatever you want (and it can be based on a wonderful chart of your own based on recent sales), but the only thing that matters is the offers you get. You wanna sell the house or keep it?

Click to expand...

Was not addressing to trade or not to trade, just pointing out that based on a non-arbitrary value chart Dallas was not fleeced.

jterrell;5073903 said:

Jimmy didn't invent the chart. The guy who actually did was interviewed about this and said it gets updated regularly.

Said it was a real weapon early on because Dallas had it and other teams did not but as people changed organizations everyone had a copy of the chart.

If Dallas stayed at 18 and picked Eric Reid I'd have really hated that move. Reid was a r2 guy.

I'd much rather have Frederick (also an r2 guy im my book) and Williams (a late 1st to me).

Click to expand...

Technically I believe Jimmy did "invent" the chart. He asked Bob Ackles I believe (who worked for Jimmy and Jerry) to research and come up with one.

Tate;5073942 said:

Well, yes, that's part of my point-- the relevant question is who they would have picked at #18 vs what they actually picked at #30 and 74. All this discussion about Dallas being "fleeced" in a trade down and how it is an example of Jerry being a poor GM and stupid is completely off point-- it was in fact the best alternative they had-- the market spoke and that was the best offer for #18. There is a very real possibility that they would have picked the best OL available at 18 (who would have a chance to start) vs the "best value" who would be a backup

Click to expand...

I tried to mock the alternative of not trading based on what we've heard and came up with

Eifert or Floyd or Reid at 18
Escobar if we took Floyd or Reid at 18, or Terrance Williams at 47

You could argue an OL at 47 but they said they didn't like Warford and the next guy they liked was Winters and was a developmental guard who was probably farther down on their board and I think they were trying to go BPA. So conceivably we wouldn't get OL help until later rounds.

They obviously wanted a top tight end and Eifert would have been a good value in the first, probably one of the 16 players we had with a first round grade and reportedly Marinelli and Kiffin didn't like Floyd and are happy with our DT depth.

Eddie;5073890 said:

Then, the answer is easy ... keep the #18 pick.

It's not like we were forced to trade out.

Jerry wanted to do it, and took less than full value. Why is that so hard to understand?

He had two choices:
1) keep the #18 pick and draft the BPA
2) trade it to whomever gave him the best value

He took #2 knowing that he didn't get full value for the #18 pick.

Time to move on.

Click to expand...

Glad you aren't the GM. We got two players very similar in value to the one "BPA" available at 18. The value of the trade chart is all relative. People would be happy if we got SF's 61 instead of 74, but we probably would've taken Williams anyways.

People are relying on a chart that's 30+ years old. It's no longer accurate.

Think of a given draft pick as an old baseball card. The "booK' may say it's worth x but it's really worth what someone will pay you for it and that changes by time and location.

Dallas got maximum value for the 18th pick, a pick in a better location in the round and an extra pick.

If Dallas would have received the 31st pick and a pick in the 50s, everyone would have lauded the trade but if Dallas' comments on their board are to be believed, they would have ended up with the same players.

As an example of the problem with the "chart", pick 32 is valuable much, much more valuable than pick 33 due to contract length. The chart doesn't reflect that because that wasn't a consideration during its invention.

I think that the trade chart is eventually going to correspond with the salary slotting for rookies in the new CBA.

speedkilz88;5074001 said:

Technically I believe Jimmy did "invent" the chart. He asked Bob Ackles I believe (who worked for Jimmy and Jerry) to research and come up with one.

Click to expand...

No, he didn't.

Mike McCoy, a former team owner in very small part and a long-time Jones business partner and Accountant by trade invented the chart at the request of Jerry.

Jimmy didn't need a chart to fleece people in trades.