If the Cowboys Trade Out of the First...

[CowboyChris]

Which player at #27, do you think will be there that some team is going to just have to trade up for?

 

[USMarineVet]

Which player at #27, do you think will be there that some team is going to just have to trade up for?

Your guess is as good as mine. The draft evolves into so many different possibilities. In this scenario all you can do is hope there's a player another team covets enough to make your phone ring and give you a healthy return on your investment. So I would say in an ideal situation, you would hope that a lower echelon team who made a big push in free agency would pull the trigger in search of a player they consider the missing piece to making a playoff run.

 

[Risen Star]

Yes, it does ..in 2014...the the 2015 1st (again, in 2014) is worth less than a 2014 1st on draft day 2014.

Having Zack Martin one extra year was a good thing

But wait a minute. That pick that was used to draft Zack Martin? It was only worth a 2013 2nd round pick according to this theory. Had the Cowboys traded that pick the year before that would have been deemed getting proper value. That was the true value of the pick at that time. A year later and suddenly it becomes more valuable.

It's nonsense. Created with immediate need in mind. A 1st round pick is a 1st round pick and only the strength of that particular class and of course the position of the pick in the round will differentiate one from another.

And, btw, you don't get players an extra year. You have one chance to draft them. Their career is their career. I'm not sure where you're going with that.

 

[DFWJC]

Mhm.. Well, I see what you're getting at in terms of how pick value transfers from year to year. Of course the team giving up the pick is going to want to be compensated for parting with their pick in the first place. Higher draft round picks demand much larger compensation than lower first round picks due to the value drop off . Those in the Top 10 are basically considered "can't miss" candidates whereas as you go down the board things get a little more iffy. So based on your cut and dry round compensation for trading away a pick in a given round simply isn't true. There's a Trade Value Chart for that. Some teams have created their own.

I could have easily said a 2nd next year, or a 4th. The whole point of the debate was whether or not it would be wise to sacrifice a little this year to ensure we're in position to get a major piece for years to come. Namely Romo's replacement. If the FO feels that player isn't in the draft class; rinse and repeat. Find a trade partner and swap one of those 1sts for a 2017 1st and pick up the extra pick again next year. (I'll let you fill in the blank as to in what round we acquire it)

All in all, I think the disagreement is a matter of semantics. You were thinking in terms of compensation for the pick whereas I was misreading you into thinking that you flat out felt that a 1st this year is more valuable than a 1st next year. In terms of all things being equal. As if 1st round picks diminished from year to year.

Regardless, this is all about strategy and positioning ourselves to grab a top level QB in '16. We'd lose out on the potential big name for a year, but we'd be adding greatly to our depth in the interim.

Oh, I didn't disagree with(or at least I understand) the general idea of what your OP was all about.
Trade now for a shot at a future theoretical QB. And yes, the actual picks used are beside the point really in regards to the intent of the post...like you said.

Now given where the team is right now, I'm not even sure I'd do it anyway. But that's just me.

I think we finally have a legit shot in the next 1-3 years to go to a Super Bowl.
We can do that AND continue to build a team long term through the draft....and I'm a big advocate of steadily building to though he draft as we've been doing lately.

If the opportunity for a future franchise QB presents itself at some point, I'm not opposed to making a move to get him. I don't really see it happening this year--in part because I don't see that player. None of know really about next year...who will be there and when. But sometime in the near future, if it's there, we should take it the opportunity.

I don' really like trading current or future first rounders, but I guess if that player is staring us in the face 15 slots higher than we are in the first, at that point we could package a deal to with present and future picks to get him.
Long and shorter term this team needs plenty of help in plenty of positions, so I wouldn't give that up by completely losing this years 1st rounder.
Just my opinion

 

[DFWJC]

But wait a minute. That pick that was used to draft Zack Martin? It was only worth a 2013 2nd round pick according to this theory. Had the Cowboys traded that pick a year ago that would have been deemed getting proper value. That was the true value of the pick at that time. A year later and suddenly it becomes more valuable.

It's nonsense. Created with immediate need in mind. A 1st round pick is a 1st round pick and only the strength of that particular class and of course the position of the pick in the round will differentiate one from another.

And, btw, you don't get players an extra year. You have one chance to draft them. Their career is their career. I'm not sure where you're going with that.

It's not nonsense in my mind....or pretty much all GMs in the league,
And I don't think it's short term thinking....though it does give value to having something now vs 1 year later. And btw, I don't personally think a current 2nd is worth a 1st next year, but that's how a lot trade valuing works. Maybe it's somewhere in between. It's certainly not this years 27th has the same value as next years..if you are speaking right now in this year. imo
I don't see it as short term thinking if it's part of a consistent building process. And the later the rounds, the less impact on average.

Say Todd Gurley is healthy this year and we think he'll be all-world. He's there at 27--we somehow we also know a guy just as good will be there next year at 27 (and we would have that pick)...so we trade this year's 27th for next year 27th straight up. We miss out on a Gurley-like player for one whole year with no extra compensation.
Lunacy..imo. And ...imo...basic economic and long-term foundation team building.

Like I said originally, we've always disagreed on this and it is no big deal.
We could go back and forth all day and get nowhere.

 

[Risen Star]

It's not nonsense in my mind....or pretty much all GMs in the league,

You keep bringing up all the GM's in the league. How do you know this? When you do see these trades made, isn't one of the teams thinking they're getting value by trading a 2nd now for a 1st later? You seem to have all the GMs on speed dial, so I'm asking.

And I don't think it's short term thinking....though it does give value to having something now vs 1 year later.

Which means it's short term thinking, but carry on....

And btw, I don't personally think a current 2nd is worth a 1st next year, but that's how a lot trade valuing works. Maybe it's somewhere in between. It's certainly not this years 27th has the same value as next years..if you are speaking right now in this year. imo

Let me blow your mind for you. Let's say next year's draft class will be clearly stronger than this year. In that case, next year's 1st is worth more than this year's. Even right now.

I don't see it as short term thinking if it's part of a consistent building process. And the later the rounds, the less impact on average.

Say Todd Gurley is healthy this year and we think he'll be all-world. He's there at 27--we somehow we also know a guy just as good will be there next year at 27 (and we would have that pick)...so we trade this year's 27th for next year 27th straight up. We miss out on a Gurley-like player for one whole year with no extra compensation.
Lunacy..imo. And ...imo...basic economic and long-term foundation team building.

Like I said originally, we've always disagreed on this and it is no big deal.
We could go back and forth all day and get nowhere.

Well Gurley is a bad comparison. He's a top 5 talent who would only be there because of injury. There may be a talent like that next year. What you have to look at is will the player you get in next year's draft at 27 be a better prospect on average than a guy you would draft in the 2nd round this year? The answer is yes, so the picks are not comparable, but because you are fixated on need and right now, you subscribe to this theory that can only make sense if you believe draft picks consistently lose value year by year.

For every team trading a future 1st for a 2nd there's a team agreeing to trade their 2nd for that future 1st. There's a reason. One team is fixated on need and giving up more value to address something right now. The other team is thinking long term and clearly getting the better end of the trade. All the need guys will praise them for it the following year when they have the extra pick. Because then that will be right now. Which is all they are capable of seeing.

 

[xwalker]

But wait a minute. That pick that was used to draft Zack Martin? It was only worth a 2013 2nd round pick according to this theory. Had the Cowboys traded that pick the year before that would have been deemed getting proper value. That was the true value of the pick at that time. A year later and suddenly it becomes more valuable.

It's nonsense. Created with immediate need in mind. A 1st round pick is a 1st round pick and only the strength of that particular class and of course the position of the pick in the round will differentiate one from another.

And, btw, you don't get players an extra year. You have one chance to draft them. Their career is their career. I'm not sure where you're going with that.

#27 in 2015 is not the same value as #27 in 2016 as of May 2015.

By that logic, #27 in 2099 is the same value.

 

[Risen Star]

#27 in 2015 is not the same value as #27 in 2016 as of May 2015.

By that logic, #27 in 2099 is the same value.

Yeah, I'm aware of that faulty line of thinking.

Using your incredible logic, the pick the Cowboys used to draft Zack Martin had a 2013 value of a 2nd round pick. Had they traded it then for a 2nd rounder, they would have gotten proper value out of the deal.

As much as you guys try, you'll never rationalize need and immediate impact in the NFL Draft. Not to anyone who truly understands the process.

 

[xwalker]

Yeah, I'm aware of that faulty line of thinking.

Using your incredible logic, the pick the Cowboys used to draft Zack Martin had a 2013 value of a 2nd round pick. Had they traded it then for a 2nd rounder, they would have gotten proper value out of the deal.

As much as you guys try, you'll never rationalize need and immediate impact in the NFL Draft. Not to anyone who truly understands the process.

I didn't put an exact value on the picks, but they definitely don't have the exact same value.

The rule of thumb of next years pick being worth a round lower does not really apply when you get into the 1st round.

It generally makes sense that a 2016 3rd would be about equal to a 2015 4th and so on, but the value of 1st round picks ramps way up as you get higher in the 1st and there is no way to know where within the round the pick will end up being.

I think it would be rare for a team to give up a future 1st for a current 2nd straight up, but in the other rounds the rule of thumb is reasonable.

 

[Risen Star]

I didn't put an exact value on the picks, but they definitely don't have the exact same value.

The rule of thumb of next years pick being worth a round lower does not really apply when you get into the 1st round.

It generally makes sense that a 2016 3rd would be about equal to a 2015 4th and so on, but the value of 1st round picks ramps way up as you get higher in the 1st and there is no way to know where within the round the pick will end up being.

I think it would be rare for a team to give up a future 1st for a current 2nd straight up, but in the other rounds the rule of thumb is reasonable.

A future 1st for a current 2nd isn't a rare trade. It's happened many times over the years.

 

[xwalker]

A future 1st for a current 2nd isn't a rare trade. It's happened many times over the years.

Yes, I know it happens (Julius Jones / Stephen Jackson, etc..); however, I think it happens less under the current CBA.

 

[Leadbelly]

I'd do it. I don't love taking a RB in RD1 (and think the top 2 are gone anyway), don't trust OO's hip issues, and we've pushed RDE off a year (and hopefully longer).

I'd be just as happy with the day 2 guys as I would with most late first guys. Eddie Goldman vs Carl Davis...prefer Davis actually. Shaq Thompson vs Denzel Perryman or Eric Kendricks...kinda prefer Perryman. Preston Smith vs Xavier Cooper...Smith slightly. Kevin Johnson vs Q Rollins or Ronald Darby...even. Cameron Irving vs Laken Tomlinson or Josue Matias...Irving slightly. And RB, perfectly happy with Duke Johnson, Tevin Coleman, Jay Ajayi, or David Johnson.

For comparisons sake, past drafts with similar trades...

2005 -- Washington gave up a 2005 RD3 (#76-Karl Paymah), 2006 RD1 (#22-Manny Lawson), 2006 RD4 (#119-Brandon Marshall) to Denver for 2005 RD1 (#25-Jason Campbell).

2007 -- San Francisco traded a 2007 RD4 (#110-John Bowie), 2008 RD1 (#7-Sedrick Ellis) to New England for 2007 RD1 (#28-Joe Staley).

2011 -- New Orleans traded a 2011 RD2 (#56-Shane Vereen), 2012 RD1 (#27-Kevin Zeitler) to New England for 2011 RD1 (#28-Mark Ingram).


Across three picks in rounds 2-3 for '15, we could fill out two to three positions among 1DT, RB, CB, LB, LG or swing OT -- maybe Carl Davis, Tevin Coleman, and Ronald Darby. Or Duke Johnson, Denzel Perryman, Xavier Cooper. Or Quentin Rollins, Josue Matias, David Johnson. Or Jay Ajayi, Ben McKinney, Daryl Williams.

Roll the dice in '16. Maybe it's high enough where we're adding a difference maker like Robert Nkemdiche at LDE/3DT and a QB later in RD1 to bring up behind Romo. Maybe Gunner Kiel. Potentially great FS class next year too, though I'm hopeful Wilcox continues developing.

 

[USMarineVet]

The true "value" in all of this is having (2) 1st round picks in 2016. Combine that with our 7 regular picks, and for the sake of argument, 3 mid round compensatory picks (which can't be traded but DO afford us the luxury of being able to still pick in the round if we packaged together a deal to move up; albeit at the bottom of the round) Combine that with the extra 3 we would receive this year. We would still have 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 7, 7.

We can anticipate who's going to be there this year at 27, but no one knows for sure. You just have to let it play out. It's been discussed that the top players at our positions of need will be gone by 27. Maybe, maybe not. But in the right scenario, we could pull off a deal that would make us loaded for bear next year. Now the team has the flexibility to grab our next franchise QB. Maybe a stud DE or DT.

We can discuss the trade value of picks and which years they become applicable till hell freezes over. This is a two year plan. We can get a very serviceable RB in the mid rounds this year. We can get quality defensive backups. But imagine what McClay could engineer next year with a fist full of picks. (That is if he doesn't get plucked from us for a GM role somewhere else) I can see him going all Mad Scientist with that hand.

It's all about longevity folks. Moving from disaster to the promised land is never easy. Sacrifices have to be made. I say sacrifice now in this transition stage and pull in that big name (cheap) game changer next year so that we can continually draft BPA in a more cap-friendly world. If I get upset about this team I want it to be because of a playoff loss every year. Not because we didn't make the playoffs or because we're in dire straits financially for the foreseeable future. Good teams don't get many shots at blue chippers. We have to continue working the draft so that when it's time to resign the line or other positions of strength we have the assets to do so. To achieve this we have to create flexibility and maintain a lynch pin which allows us to make a move when the time is right, or trade back and wait for better choices to become available. Considering the youth and developmental factors of this team, it's not too far-fetched to argue that we can perpetually field a winning team "IF" we continue to work the draft well. Once we're in THAT position the need to reach for players negates itself. We've already taken care of that. We've thought about our future and the future is now. Now we just have to make sure we don't mess it up.

 

[Risen Star]

Which player at #27, do you think will be there that some team is going to just have to trade up for?

Probably nobody unless some team gets crazy about a QB. If Winston and Mariota go 1-2, that's a long wait until the next QB factors in.

 

[Risen Star]

The true "value" in all of this is having (2) 1st round picks in 2016. Combine that with our 7 regular picks, and for the sake of argument, 3 mid round compensatory picks (which can't be traded but DO afford us the luxury of being able to still pick in the round if we packaged together a deal to move up; albeit at the bottom of the round) Combine that with the extra 3 we would receive this year. We would still have 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 7, 7.

We can anticipate who's going to be there this year at 27, but no one knows for sure. You just have to let it play out. It's been discussed that the top players at our positions of need will be gone by 27. Maybe, maybe not. But in the right scenario, we could pull off a deal that would make us loaded for bear next year. Now the team has the flexibility to grab our next franchise QB. Maybe a stud DE or DT.

We can discuss the trade value of picks and which years they become applicable till hell freezes over. This is a two year plan. We can get a very serviceable RB in the mid rounds this year. We can get quality defensive backups. But imagine what McClay could engineer next year with a fist full of picks. (That is if he doesn't get plucked from us for a GM role somewhere else) I can see him going all Mad Scientist with that hand.

It's all about longevity folks. Moving from disaster to the promised land is never easy. Sacrifices have to be made. I say sacrifice now in this transition stage and pull in that big name (cheap) game changer next year so that we can continually draft BPA in a more cap-friendly world. If I get upset about this team I want it to be because of a playoff loss every year. Not because we didn't make the playoffs or because we're in dire straits financially for the foreseeable future. Good teams don't get many shots at blue chippers. We have to continue working the draft so that when it's time to resign the line or other positions of strength we have the assets to do so. To achieve this we have to create flexibility and maintain a lynch pin which allows us to make a move when the time is right, or trade back and wait for better choices to become available. Considering the youth and developmental factors of this team, it's not too far-fetched to argue that we can perpetually field a winning team "IF" we continue to work the draft well. Once we're in THAT position the need to reach for players negates itself. We've already taken care of that. We've thought about our future and the future is now. Now we just have to make sure we don't mess it up.

The bottom line is you're gaining a 3rd round pick over the two years and more than likely upgrading your 1st rounder, considering where we are slotted this year.

The people that would complain about the move would praise the following year's draft with the extra 1. It's all about the here and now to those folks.

Jerry's a for life GM with teflon job security. He should be thinking long term in the draft.

 

[USMarineVet]

I'd do it. I don't love taking a RB in RD1 (and think the top 2 are gone anyway), don't trust OO's hip issues, and we've pushed RDE off a year (and hopefully longer).

I'd be just as happy with the day 2 guys as I would with most late first guys. Eddie Goldman vs Carl Davis...prefer Davis actually. Shaq Thompson vs Denzel Perryman or Eric Kendricks...kinda prefer Perryman. Preston Smith vs Xavier Cooper...Smith slightly. Kevin Johnson vs Q Rollins or Ronald Darby...even. Cameron Irving vs Laken Tomlinson or Josue Matias...Irving slightly. And RB, perfectly happy with Duke Johnson, Tevin Coleman, Jay Ajayi, or David Johnson.

For comparisons sake, past drafts with similar trades...

2005 -- Washington gave up a 2005 RD3 (#76-Karl Paymah), 2006 RD1 (#22-Manny Lawson), 2006 RD4 (#119-Brandon Marshall) to Denver for 2005 RD1 (#25-Jason Campbell).

2007 -- San Francisco traded a 2007 RD4 (#110-John Bowie), 2008 RD1 (#7-Sedrick Ellis) to New England for 2007 RD1 (#28-Joe Staley).

2011 -- New Orleans traded a 2011 RD2 (#56-Shane Vereen), 2012 RD1 (#27-Kevin Zeitler) to New England for 2011 RD1 (#28-Mark Ingram).


Across three picks in rounds 2-3 for '15, we could fill out two to three positions among 1DT, RB, CB, LB, LG or swing OT -- maybe Carl Davis, Tevin Coleman, and Ronald Darby. Or Duke Johnson, Denzel Perryman, Xavier Cooper. Or Quentin Rollins, Josue Matias, David Johnson. Or Jay Ajayi, Ben McKinney, Daryl Williams.

Roll the dice in '16. Maybe it's high enough where we're adding a difference maker like Robert Nkemdiche at LDE/3DT and a QB later in RD1 to bring up behind Romo. Maybe Gunner Kiel. Potentially great FS class next year too, though I'm hopeful Wilcox continues developing.

I'd have hit Like twice Leadbelly. But it wouldn't let me.

 

[USMarineVet]

The bottom line is you're gaining a 3rd round pick over the two years and more than likely upgrading your 1st rounder, considering where we are slotted this year.

The people that would complain about the move would praise the following year's draft with the extra 1. It's all about the here and now to those folks.

Jerry's a for life GM with teflon job security. He should be thinking long term in the draft.

I'm with ya RS.. That's exactly how I'm looking at it.

 

[USMarineVet]

Once you get in a position to spread these contracts out so that you limit the amount of holes you have to fill on a yearly basis, it's easy peasy japanesy. Drafting depth and allocating your cap resources deservedly all of a sudden has just become a whole lot easier.

 

[USMarineVet]

I didn't put an exact value on the picks, but they definitely don't have the exact same value.

The rule of thumb of next years pick being worth a round lower does not really apply when you get into the 1st round.

It generally makes sense that a 2016 3rd would be about equal to a 2015 4th and so on, but the value of 1st round picks ramps way up as you get higher in the 1st and there is no way to know where within the round the pick will end up being.

I think it would be rare for a team to give up a future 1st for a current 2nd straight up, but in the other rounds the rule of thumb is reasonable.

True.. But with (2) 1st rounders and a bevy of picks behind them, you certainly have the firepower to pick your own kind of poison. You now have the means to trade up, stand pat and select 2 if the value is there or trade back, reacquiring a 1st for the next year (2017), while still maintaining a 1st and acquiring an additional 3, 4 or 5 (whatever the case may be) for the 2016 draft. It all comes down to who's there. Don't pick for the sake of picking. Put yourself in a position to strike when the iron is hot. Point being, regardless of where the additional 2016 1st slates out, you're maintaining flexibility and I apologize for overusing the word. But that's the simple fact of the matter. Flexibility grants you the opportunity to grab who you want or continuing to pile up draft picks.

 

[CowboyChris]

Probably nobody unless some team gets crazy about a QB. If Winston and Mariota go 1-2, that's a long wait until the next QB factors in.

that would be the more likely scenario, if a team wanted to trade back into the late 1st rounder to steal a qb, but i dont see anything after Winston and Mariotta that would merit that kind've move. But i would certainly entertain the idea of trading our 1st rounder.