An analysis of the 2009 draft trades

AdamJT13

Salary Cap Analyst
Messages
16,583
Reaction score
4,529
On my blog, I posted an analysis of the trades made during the draft, comparing the values teams got for trading down to the values teams normally get for trading down. I used another poster's value chart that he made using the list of draft trades from 1992 to 2008 that I posted.

2009 DRAFT

17 = 19, 191
19 = 21, 195
23 = 26, 162
26, 162 = 41, 73, 83
37 = next 1st
40, 164 = 47, 124, 199
43, 111 = next 1st
49 = 68, 105
51 = 75, 110
56 = 61, 165
64, 132 = 79, 84
65 = 76, 115, 228
73 = 232, next 2nd
85 = 91, 164
89 = next 2nd
91 = 137, 213, next 3rd
117 = 120, 229
123, 198 = 137, 141
141 = 156, 210
150 = 158, 221
164 = 222, next 5th
174 = 235, next 5th
202 = 216, next 6th
222 = next 6th
237 = next 7th



Here's a look at each trade and the historical values of the picks involved --


17 = 19, 191

The historical value of the 17th pick is 1,419 points. The 19th is worth 1,319, and the 191st is worth 16, for a total of 1,335. Cleveland took 84 points less than the expected value to trade down with Tampa Bay (roughly the value of the 118th or 119th pick).


19 = 21, 195

Again, Cleveland took less than the expected value to trade down, this time with Philadelphia. The 19th pick has a historical value of 1,319 points, the 21st pick is worth 1,229, and the 19th is worth 15, for a total of 1,244 points. Based on those values, Cleveland got 75 fewer points than expected.


23 = 26, 162

This time, it was New England that took less value than expected when it traded down to Baltimore's spot. The 23rd pick's historical value is 1,147 points, compared to a combined 1,068 points for the picks it received (1,037 for the 26th and 31 for the 162nd).


26, 162 = 41, 73, 83

New England traded down again, this time getting higher-than-expected value from Green Bay. For two picks with a combined value of 1,068 points, New England got three picks with a combined value of 1,111 points (646, 263 and 202, respectively).


40, 164 = 47, 124, 199

Oakland traded down with New England, getting less value than expected (665 and 30 points for a total of 695, compared to 540, 74 and 14 for a total of 628).


49 = 68, 105

This was another trade down for less than expected, with Chicago sending one pick with a historical value of 510 points to Seattle for two picks worth 416 (300 and 116, respectively).


51 = 75, 110

In 2001, Buffalo had the 51st pick and traded down with Denver, dropping seven spots to No. 58 and adding the 110th pick. This year, Dallas had the same original pick (No. 51) but had to drop 24 spots to get the same additional pick (No. 110). Historically, this was 481 points for 352 points (249 plus 103).


56 = 61, 165

Miami traded down with Indianapolis and got less-than-expected value, but not by much. The 56th pick has a historical value of 418 points, compared to 392 for the 61st (363) and 165th (29).


64, 132 = 79, 84

Pittsburgh got slightly better than the expected value for trading down with Denver. Pittsburgh gave up a combined 396 points (335 plus 61) and received 421 (224 plus 197).


65 = 76, 115, 228

Detroit traded the first pick of the draft's second day to the New York Jets for higher-than-expected value. The 65th pick has a historical value of 326 points, compared to a combined 341 for the three picks the Jets sent to Detroit (243, 91 and 7, respectively).


85 = 91, 164

The trade was about as equal as can be, considering that teams usually don't have two picks that add up to the precise value of the one pick for which they want to trade. In this case, Philadelphia traded No. 85, which is valued at 192 points, to the New York Giants for Nos. 91 (165) and 164 (30), which are worth a combined 195 points.


117 = 120, 229

This was another relatively equal trade, with Dallas trading 87 points to Tampa Bay for 88 points (81 plus 7).


123, 198 = 137, 141

Baltimore traded down with New England, getting 15 points more than expected. The 123rd pick is worth 75 and the 198th is worth 14 (89 total), compared to 54 points and 50 points (104 total) for the picks Baltimore received.


141 = 156, 210

Baltimore traded down again, this time getting relatively equal value from Denver. The 141st pick is worth 50 points, compared to a combined 46 points for the 156th (35) and 210th (11) picks.


150 = 158, 221

In another trade for almost equal values, Washington sent 40 points to Minnesota for a combined 43 points (34 plus 9).


37 = next 1st
43, 111 = next 1st


Based on trades from 1992 to 2008, a first-round pick in the next draft is worth 635 points, on average (equal to the value of the 41st or 42nd pick in the current draft). Seattle gave Denver a pick (No. 37) worth 729 points, and San Francisco gave Carolina two picks worth a combined 709 (608 plus 101). Both times, this year's picks yielded less value than expected.


73 = 232, next 2nd
89 = next 2nd


On average, a second-round pick in the next draft is worth 223 points (approximately the 79th pick). New England made both of these trades, getting less than expected from Jacksonville in the first trade (263 points for 223 plus 7) but more than expected from Tennessee in the second trade (178 for 223).


91 = 137, 213, next 3rd

A third-round pick in the next draft has an average value of 91 points, which is equal to the 115th pick. The Giants traded down with Seattle, giving up 165 points and getting back 155 (54 plus 10 plus 91) for a relatively equal trade.


164 = 222, next 5th
174 = 235, next 5th


Both of these were relatively equal trades. A fifth-round pick in the next draft is worth an average of 19 points, which is the value of picks No. 183-185. Carolina had the 164th pick (30 points) and traded down with Oakland, getting 27 points in return (8 plus 19). Detroit traded down from No. 174 (24 points), getting 25 points (6 plus 19) back from Denver.


202 = 216, next 6th
222 = next 6th


Historically, a sixth-round pick in the next draft has had an average value of eight points, which is the value of picks Nos. 222-227. Philadelphia traded No. 222 to Indianapolis in a trade for equal values. Carolina got a little more than expected by trading No. 202 to Oakland, giving up a pick worth 13 points and getting 18 points in return (10 plus eight).


237 = next 7th

This was the first known draft-day trade since at least 1992 that involved a seventh-round pick in the following draft and did not involve an active player. Miami sent Kansas City the fifth-to-last pick that could be traded (compensatory picks can't be traded) in exchange for a seventh-round pick next year. Unless Kansas City surprises almost everyone, Miami at least will get a higher seventh-round pick next year than it gave up this year.


Now here's a look at all 25 trades, with the historical point values traded by each team. The points traded by the team trading down are on the left side, the points dealt by the team trading up are on the right. A > symbol indicates that the team trading down lost value, a < symbol indicates that the team trading down gained value, a ~ symbol indicates that the trade was relatively equal, and a = symbol indicates a trade that was exactly equal.

1,419 > 1,335
1,319 > 1,244
1,147 > 1,068
1,068 < 1,111
729 > 635
709 > 635
695 > 628
510 > 416
481 > 352
418 > 392 (Trade down from pick No. 56)

396 < 421 (Trade down from pick No. 64)
326 < 341
263 > 230
192 ~ 195
178 < 223 (Trade down from pick No. 89)

165 ~ 155 (Trade down from pick No. 91)
87 ~ 88
89 < 104
50 ~ 46
40 ~ 43
30 ~ 27
24 ~ 25
13 < 18
8 = 8
6 > (next 7th)

From this chart, it's apparent that teams didn't value picks in the first two rounds nearly as much as usual. Nine of the first 10 trades down went for less than the historical value of the pick(s) involved. Through 10 trades, the average value lost was 9.9 percent. Starting with the last pick of the second round, picks started trading for higher or equal value than on average from 1992 to 2008. Of the final 15 trades, the team trading down got higher-than-normal value in return five times and equal or relatively equal value eight times. Only twice did a trade down yield less than would be expected. The average value gained in the final 15 trades, starting with the last pick of the second round, was 5.9 percent. These numbers confirm the reports that many teams believed that the 2009 draft was weak at the top but deep in talent.
 

speedkilz88

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,950
Reaction score
23,099
Any idea how much it would have taken to move up a few slots since many wanted to get Unger the last of the 2nd value guys?
 

AdamJT13

Salary Cap Analyst
Messages
16,583
Reaction score
4,529
speedkilz88;2759333 said:
Any idea how much it would have taken to move up a few slots since many wanted to get Unger the last of the 2nd value guys?

Chicago accepted Nos. 68 and 105 when it traded down from that spot. If we had traded No. 69 and No. 101, the Bears would have gotten 420 points (historical values) instead of 416. But they would have had to have been OK with dropping down one extra spot before their next pick.

But essentially, we took Jason Williams and Stephen McGee instead of Max Unger.
 

mperfection

Active Member
Messages
980
Reaction score
229
AdamJT13;2759366 said:
Chicago accepted Nos. 68 and 105 when it traded down from that spot. If we had traded No. 69 and No. 101, the Bears would have gotten 420 points (historical values) instead of 416. But they would have had to have been OK with dropping down one extra spot before their next pick.

But essentially, we took Jason Williams and Stephen McGee instead of Max Unger.

It will be interesting to see what the comments will be like in 2 years when Williams and McGee are playing like studs.

This is no disrespect for Unger. I hope he has a successful career in the NFL. But I have not lost sleep over this trade at all!

Simply put, we got above average value with these two picks.
 

Paniolo22

Hawaiian Cowboy
Messages
3,936
Reaction score
355
If we moved down 3-4 spots, it would have cost a 3rd and 4th? I'm confused.
 

AdamJT13

Salary Cap Analyst
Messages
16,583
Reaction score
4,529
Paniolo22;2759387 said:
If we moved down 3-4 spots, it would have cost a 3rd and 4th? I'm confused.

To trade 69 and 101, I suppose, we would have had to work a three-way trade. Chicago evidently wanted to trade down more than two spots.

If we had found a trading partner directly from 51 up to get Unger, it probably would have taken No. 156.
 

theebs

Believe!!!!
Messages
27,462
Reaction score
9,207
good stuff dude, good luck with the blog.

I have a feeling people are going to be on it like crazy.
 

Hostile

The Duke
Messages
119,565
Reaction score
4,544
AdamJT13;2759366 said:
Chicago accepted Nos. 68 and 105 when it traded down from that spot. If we had traded No. 69 and No. 101, the Bears would have gotten 420 points (historical values) instead of 416. But they would have had to have been OK with dropping down one extra spot before their next pick.

But essentially, we took Jason Williams and Stephen McGee instead of Max Unger.
I actually think it would be Robert Brewster and Victor Butler.

We traded from 51 to 75 and 110.

Jason Williams was 69.
Stephen McGee was 101.

Robert Brewster was 75.
Victor Butler was 110.
 

AdamJT13

Salary Cap Analyst
Messages
16,583
Reaction score
4,529
Hostile;2759598 said:
I actually think it would be Robert Brewster and Victor Butler.

We traded from 51 to 75 and 110.

Jason Williams was 69.
Stephen McGee was 101.

Robert Brewster was 75.
Victor Butler was 110.

Brewster and Butler were what we got for the 51st pick alone. It would have to be Brewster, Butler and DeAngelo Smith (or Michael Hamlin) in order to trade up from 51 to get Unger. That's if Chicago or Denver would have wanted to trade down just a few spots.
 

Hostile

The Duke
Messages
119,565
Reaction score
4,544
AdamJT13;2759626 said:
Brewster and Butler were what we got for the 51st pick alone. It would have to be Brewster, Butler and DeAngelo Smith (or Michael Hamlin) in order to trade up from 51 to get Unger. That's if Chicago or Denver would have wanted to trade down just a few spots.
Oh okay, I got you. I misunderstood.
 

big dog cowboy

THE BIG DOG
Staff member
Messages
101,878
Reaction score
112,849
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Nice job Adam.

Seems this years draft was generally considered weaker than normal.
 

AdamJT13

Salary Cap Analyst
Messages
16,583
Reaction score
4,529
big dog cowboy;2759664 said:
Nice job Adam.

Seems this years draft was generally considered weaker than normal.

At least in the first two rounds. Starting with the last pick of the second round, picks started trading for more than usual, on average.
 

AdamJT13

Salary Cap Analyst
Messages
16,583
Reaction score
4,529
Apparently, The Associated Press reported one trade incorrectly. When Oakland traded down from No. 40 to No. 47, it didn't send the 164th pick to New England as part of that trade. But Oakland still got less value than would be expected, based on previous trades.
 
Top