Current Trade Value Chart (Including comp picks)

Verdict

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,961
Reaction score
20,118
What is the most current trade value chart that includes compensatory picks?
 

AsthmaField

Outta bounds
Messages
26,326
Reaction score
43,954
I don't think this is very accurate
Yeah, that doesn’t seem right.

It is showing the cost for Dallas to move up from 10 to 4 as just an extra mid-6th round pick... or that Dallas could nearly move from 10th to first overall for just their second.
 

Verdict

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,961
Reaction score
20,118
I was looking at the trade up scenarios after rounds one and two. If we trade up, I would think that moving up would make the most sense with one of the third or fourth round picks.

The pick at the bottom of the 4th round is probably going to see a pretty significant drop off in talent. I could see is packaging it to move up with one of the earlier 3rd or 4th round picks.
 

Bigdog

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,689
Reaction score
11,339
Yeah, that doesn’t seem right.

It is showing the cost for Dallas to move up from 10 to 4 as just an extra mid-6th round pick... or that Dallas could nearly move from 10th to first overall for just their second.
What are we waiting for then? Let’s do it. Offer our 10 and and a 2nd for the 1. Let Lawrence and Dak compete and the better one gets to start, lol.
 

DanA

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,961
Reaction score
5,780
I think there is the standard chart which the draftek one Is pretty good and then the Harvard trade value chart which is apparently more accurate in terms of value but I think less reflective of trades that occur.
 

morasp

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,172
Reaction score
6,661
I was looking at the trade up scenarios after rounds one and two. If we trade up, I would think that moving up would make the most sense with one of the third or fourth round picks.

The pick at the bottom of the 4th round is probably going to see a pretty significant drop off in talent. I could see is packaging it to move up with one of the earlier 3rd or 4th round picks.
That's my preferred trade scenario, trade up from our third round comp pick to the middle of round three. There could be several players in the range with starter grades.
 

JeffInDC

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,970
Reaction score
3,112
So, according to the chart, Dallas would TRULY only need 10 & 114 to move to #4 - which means, Jerry & Stephen would offer 10, 44, 75, & 99. :facepalm:
 

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,035
Reaction score
10,803
There are two different sets of charts. There’s the one that says what the trade value of each slot is—that’s the traditional chart and what teams still seem to follow—and there are charts that try to determine the actual relative value of each slot in terms of the quality of player who comes out of that slot. That’s the Harvard chart and others.

Why aren’t the two the same? Good question, but they’re not. The traditional chart overvalues 1st rounders and undervalues others, 2nd rounders in particular. But that’s what teams use. I assume it’s because everyone thinks they’re smarter than they are and can identify winners from busts better than they actually can. It’s why trading down tends to be a much better idea than trading up.
 

J-man

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,520
Reaction score
2,195
There are two different sets of charts. There’s the one that says what the trade value of each slot is—that’s the traditional chart and what teams still seem to follow—and there are charts that try to determine the actual relative value of each slot in terms of the quality of player who comes out of that slot. That’s the Harvard chart and others.

Why aren’t the two the same? Good question, but they’re not. The traditional chart overvalues 1st rounders and undervalues others, 2nd rounders in particular. But that’s what teams use. I assume it’s because everyone thinks they’re smarter than they are and can identify winners from busts better than they actually can. It’s why trading down tends to be a much better idea than trading up.

I think it because of the perceived value of those rd 1 pick slots themselves, not necessarily the players. Teams tend to think that the rd 1 picks are far more valuable than rd 2 or 3 picks. It's almost a stigma of rd 1 talent, especially top half, is so great that giving up one of those spots is gonna cost ya.
 

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,035
Reaction score
10,803
I think it because of the perceived value of those rd 1 pick slots themselves, not necessarily the players. Teams tend to think that the rd 1 picks are far more valuable than rd 2 or 3 picks. It's almost a stigma of rd 1 talent, especially top half, is so great that giving up one of those spots is gonna cost ya.
Part of it's the QBs up there. Many teams chasing few QBs drives them up the board and drives up the cost to trade into those picks.

But apart from that, I think much of the "perceived value of those slots themselves," is that teams really think they can spot a sure thing. Historically, round 1 picks aren't that much more valuable than round 2 picks (more, yes, but not a ton more), because the draft is a crap shoot, but "football guys" don't really believe it--they haven't internalized it.

That said, there is a step change in value from the 1st to the 2nd round, which is the 5th-year option. That does make pick #32 quite a bit more valuable than pick #33, so charts should adjust for that. But the fact that the traditional trade value chart (and teams' behavior) hasn't changed in 30 years should be a big red flag that teams are not optimizing how they think about draft picks.
 

Verdict

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,961
Reaction score
20,118
You can get starters in rounds 3 and 4 but you have to let the board come to you to do it. It might be worth looking at moving up in round 3 or 4 every year depending on where the talent level drops off a cliff in the draft.
 
Top