First Round Trades According to Value Chart

[Nation]

http://img163.*************/img163/4315/screenshot20130426at122.png

We "lose" on points but we did gain a pick in the supposed "sweet spot" on the draft and we were far from the big loser on the night.

 

[AdamJT13]

According to the value chart based on actual trades made in recent years, every team that traded down in the first round lost value -- which tells you how weak the first round of this year's draft was.

 

[Hoofbite]

According to the value chart based on actual trades made in recent years, every team that traded down in the first round lost value -- which tells you how weak the first round of this year's draft was.

Adam, good to see you talking about this.

I ran across it about a month ago on your blog. Thought it was very interesting stuff. Have you gotten it current through the last few drafts?

 

[gimmesix]

According to the value chart based on actual trades made in recent years, every team that traded down in the first round lost value -- which tells you how weak the first round of this year's draft was.

Maybe that's why Stephen Jones said they've adjusted their chart.

 

[Galian Beast]

Maybe that's why Stephen Jones said they've adjusted their chart.

Well anyone with simple wits would understand that no chart is going to be the same year in and year out. It obviously depends on the depth of the draft, not just the value of the pick number.

By that understanding all 1st overall picks are equal in value... we know that isn't true.

 

[Idgit]

Well anyone with simple wits would understand that no chart is going to be the same year in and year out...

Well, this is fortunate. We've got a lot of people with simple wits here, so I imagine just about everyone will understand that, then. Whatever it was you were referring to.

 

[ljs44]

According to the value chart based on actual trades made in recent years, every team that traded down in the first round lost value -- which tells you how weak the first round of this year's draft was.

Great to hear adam again!!!

And where can I find his blog?????????

 

[DFWJC]

The last few years, the teams trading up in the upper 2/3 of the first round usually pay less.

But Dallas for sure should have gotten more than they did.

The St Louis/Atlanta trade was only 4 picks later and it looked like it was taken right off of the current standard chart....as was the New England/Minnesota trade a little later. Straight by the book actually.

The outliers were Dallas (to some degree, but not catastrophic) and then Oakland--who got blown out

The important question is why Jerry wiped out 15 months worth of scouting in 15 minutes by not taking Floyd--who they at least had in the top 15 and who Fisher claims was in the top 7 on Tom Cistowski's prospects....and quite possibly #7 on Dallas' board.

 

[9darter]

Maybe that's why Stephen Jones said they've adjusted their chart.

That's how I interpreted his comments. And he's right.

 

[Picksix]

Once Oakland made that first trade, and only got back a 2nd, it really reset the market. Guys on NFL Radio were commenting about how other teams that were looking to trade up were jumping for joy after that trade happened, becuase they knew they would most likely come out "on top." Of course, as has been said here, that point chart doesn't really apply anymore.

 

[Randy White]

According to the value chart based on actual trades made in recent years, every team that traded down in the first round lost value -- which tells you how weak the first round of this year's draft was.

THIS...


I will admit to being stunned at the lack of picks coming back to the Cowboys at first, but as I looked at the overall picture ( 2 guards going in the top 10 ) this draft was, basically, a middle to late 1st round potential talent at best.

That is, ALL of the players taken yesterday before the 18th or soon after, in most other drafts, would have been, at best, middle teen picks. Some wouldn't have been off the board.

 

[Randy White]

The outliers were Dallas (to some degree, but not catastrophic) and then Oakland--who got blown out.

Here's an interesting point when it comes to that particular situation:

The Cowboys themselves paid that same exact price for a much higher rated player last year in almost exactly the same move ( 14th to 6th ) and the criticism was that they paid too much.

 

[The Quest for Six]

Dallas got hosed on the trade, plain and simple and I couldn't care less what Steven says, he can talk himself into believing that but still doesn't make it true..Fredricks is a late second or third round pick at best.

and at 31, Dallas was trying to dump out of that spot and there were no takers....and rumors were Floyd was the seventh best player on their board.... dumb trade all the way round..

 

[jterrell]

Yesterday 2 first round trades (out of 5) were more than 3% away from that walterfootball trade value chart.

2 trades were plusses for the team moving down and 1 was a slight minus os less than 20 total points.

The outliers:

OAK gave up the booty to move down but had been expected of late to simply draft DJ Hayden at 3 they liked him so much. So they moved down to make the player they like less of a reach.

Dallas lost 80 points with a top 10 guy on the boards available. They simply didn't like the positional value and wanted an interior guy but didn't like Pugh enough at 18 to traded down taking less than chart value in return.

Dallas sacrificed chart value period. It may still work out just fine but the value was to stay at 18 and take Sharif Floyd.