If the Cowboys Trade Out of the First...

[Nirvana]

If the guy you are hoping for falls to 27, why trade away the pick? The board would dictate what to do.

 

[Nightman]

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.

Of course it's about the here and now. What value do you put on adding a1st round pick to a 12-4 team? Martin helped revamp the offense and in turn kept the D off the field and fresher longer.

In the long run adding the extra 3rd is nice, but considering the success rate of 3rd round picks, I would take the immediate impact. As others have said, not knowing the particulars changes everything to generalizations. Turning #27 into a top 5 next year would probably be worth it.

 

[DFWJC]

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.

Good to see examples. Thanks.
And there are some way more extreme than this. But it proves a plain and simple fact.....

In each case...and you'll find this without exception
Nobody trades away their current 1st rounder without getting more than just a future 1st rounder. They are not equal. Even if they only get an extra 3rd or 4th.
Present Value of an asset...simple math and economic...all else equal
The OP took that into account with his trade.

The Pats have done this for years with varying success. But they know you can get extra future picks if you trade away current year picks. it works both ways--trading forward or back in time, as long as the truth applies that present value is worth more (even if slightly) than future value. There is a premium in NFL GM's minds...and they pay for it..
The facts show it.

 

[arglebargle]

I think Ware was our pick and Spears was the one we got from them. Essentially we gave up Steven Jackson for Julius Jones and Marcus Spears.

Nope. Parcells is on record saying that, if pressed, he would have taken Kevin Jones out of the three. He rated all those backs as being about equal.

 

[Risen Star]

Good to see examples. Thanks.
And there are some way more extreme than this. But it proves a plain and simple fact.....

In each case...and you'll find this without exception
Nobody trades away their current 1st rounder without getting more than just a future 1st rounder. They are not equal. Even if they only get an extra 3rd or 4th.
Present Value of an asset...simple math and economic...all else equal
The OP took that into account with his trade.

The Pats have done this for years with varying success. But they know you can get extra future picks if you trade away current year picks. it works both ways--trading forward or back in time, as long as the truth applies that present value is worth more (even if slightly) than future value. There is a premium in NFL GM's minds...and they pay for it..
The facts show it.

All you've proven to me in this thread is you don't understand the NFL Draft. You treat it as an extension of free agency. The here and now trumps the future and value.

You constantly refer to all these NFL GMs that agree with you, yet you ignore my question. For every GM that is willing to part with a future 1st for a now 2nd, there's a GM that is willing to part with their now 2nd for a future 1st. Why is that? You told me all GMs agree with you.

Nobody said anything about trading a 1 for a 1. Why wait a year for the same pick? We're talking about the idiotic idea that draft picks lose value through the years. Something the needs crowd invented in their minds to justify drafting for immediate impact. This year's 2nd round pick is the same value as a 2016 1st rounder. The pick the Cowboys used to draft Zack Martin? That was only a 2013 2nd round value. The Cowboys could have gotten the same quality of player there, don't ya know? It's completely moronic. Anyone who believes the Cowboys will have the same quality pool of prospects to choose from in this year's 2nd round as they will next year in the 1st round doesn't know what they're talking about. I'd like to think they don't even really believe that. They just don't want to wait a year to collect on the trade.

I'll trade my 2nd rounder for a future 1st every year. I'll trade the 27th overall pick for a 3rd and a future 1st every year. There is no question I'm getting value. Now it's all about picking the right players.

 

[DFWJC]

All you've proven to me in this thread is you don't understand the NFL Draft. You treat it as an extension of free agency. The here and now trumps the future and value.

You constantly refer to all these NFL GMs that agree with you, yet you ignore my question. For every GM that is willing to part with a future 1st for a now 2nd, there's a GM that is willing to part with their now 2nd for a future 1st. Why is that? You told me all GMs agree with you.

.

I wasn't ignoring your question.
It works fine both ways
Hypothetically, a current 2nd for a future 1st or vice-versa. . If both sides think it's a fair trade (or close to fair), it proves the point that the current year 1st rounder (same slot) is considered to be worth more than the same pick one year later.
There can always be single year exceptions....I mean, what if a team has no cap room at all to even sign a current 1st rounder. They may be willing to take a bit less than normal to move that pick. That's abnormal though.

That's all I was saying after all of this.
That's why I said it's so basic.
Trading a current first for a future 1st and 3rd is not getting a "free" future 3rd. The cost of delaying that 1st rounder one year was a future 3rd round pick, it was not for free. it was said earlier it was for free...and that's where the one for one thing came up.
Also I said that although I see value in current picks over same slot future picks--in general--that does not mean the full round assumption (current 2nd for future 1st, for example) is some exact science. In fact, i think the full round applies better later in the draft. Just saying it would cost something....not a same pick swap just delayed one year.

So maybe we agree more than we think on this.

 

[Gaede]

I am cool with trading out, depending on who is available. Must start thinking about the future, and the possibility of a franchise QB in 2016 far outweighs pretty much anything we'll get at 27.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Why is pick 27 "for all intents and purposes a high 2nd rounder"? Why is not, I dunno, a low 1st rounder?

lol What?!

Oh stop.... You know what he means.

And... I am sure more than one coach and/or GM has said the same thing when drafting near that spot.


Some aren't happy unless they feign that they don't what you mean? Lol

 

[Risen Star]

Pick 27 could very well be a 2nd rounder for the Cowboys. Teams usually only have about 18-22 1st round grades. There's a chance the Cowboys won't have a 1st round graded player available when they pick. At that point they are in the 2nd round according to their scouting department.

 

[Risen Star]

I'm not enamored at all with this draft class and that 27th overall pick. I'd be extremely open to trading out of the round and acquiring extra picks, including a future pick.

 

[Risen Star]

I wasn't ignoring your question.
It works fine both ways.

Well, far be it from me to disagree with something underlined but when you trade away a future 1st for a now 2nd, you've lost value. The odds of you getting a better player with that 1st round pick over the 2nd round are clearly better. But you don't care about that because it isn't right now. Which is why your shortsighted thinking caused you to make a bad trade.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I agree with Risen here.

That late in the first round unless some talent you just couldn't live without happens to fall into your lap I'd absolutely be open to the idea of trading down and taking an extra 1st round pick next year.

Especially if it's from a terrible team that is likely to be picking in the top 10 picks. That wouldn't hurt my feelings in the least.

 

[Risen Star]

I agree with Risen here.

That late in the first round unless some talent you just couldn't live without happens to fall into your lap I'd absolutely be open to the idea of trading down and taking an extra 1st round pick next year.

Especially if it's from a terrible team that is likely to be picking in the top 10 picks. That wouldn't hurt my feelings in the least.

Now Nirvana's ultimately right. The scouting department will dictate what to do. If the Cowboys are picking in the 2nd round and somehow one of their 1st round graded players is there, it wouldn't make much sense to trade that pick for a 1st next year. Unless maybe you feel the team you're trading with is going to be bad this coming season and you can upgrade the pick.

This is why I LOVE the NFL Draft. It's my favorite sporting event on the planet and there isn't a close second. There are so many variables at play and nothing is right all the time. You can do the right thing and still have it turn out wrong.

 

[Nightman]

Well, far be it from me to disagree with something underlined but when you trade away a future 1st for a now 2nd, you've lost value. The odds of you getting a better player with that 1st round pick over the 2nd round are clearly better. But you don't care about that because it isn't right now. Which is why your shortsighted thinking caused you to make a bad trade.

You still ignore the value in adding a 1st rd pick to the roster, right now

That first round pick next year does nothing to make this year's team better

Next year it will be great having 2 firsts, but it is not always better

That 1st round pick could be the difference between making or advancing in the playoffs. Is that worth a 3rd round pick?

 

[Risen Star]

You still ignore the value in adding a 1st rd pick to the roster, right now

That first round pick next year does nothing to make this year's team better

Next year it will be great having 2 firsts, but it is not always better

That 1st round pick could be the difference between making or advancing in the playoffs. Is that worth a 3rd round pick?

I don't value one year any more than the next. Having an extra 1st round pick this year isn't more valuable to me than having an extra 1st next year.

And the 1st round pick this year did nothing to help last year's team. Why didn't we trade it away to help the cause? Or maybe you just can't see anything that's not right in front of your face.

 

[USMarineVet]

You still ignore the value in adding a 1st rd pick to the roster, right now

That first round pick next year does nothing to make this year's team better

Next year it will be great having 2 firsts, but it is not always better

That 1st round pick could be the difference between making or advancing in the playoffs. Is that worth a 3rd round pick?

Come on bk...

How can you deny that trading a 1st rounder for a next year's 1st AND adding a pick this year isn't worth it? Especially when you're sitting at the bottom of the 1st and have a better than 80% chance of improving on that pick as well? Not to mention you basically own the 1st round next year because of your ability to maneuver so many different ways with that extra 1st?

It's Mind Boggling not to agree with a move like that!

I've tried my best to turn the other cheek to what RS was saying before about needing immediate satisfaction but I can't anymore. Some of you really have to get out of this mindset.

Each and every time a team is willing to trade with you so that you can receive added value to that pick AND a bonus quality pick you'd be crazy not to take that. You're just pushing back a year to be in position to hold all the chips!

And again, 1st rounders rarely make a huge impact their first year. They learn. They contribute. But trust me when I say it's catastrophically unlikely that the player will be the difference between making the playoffs or not, as you stated.

Drafting football players is a cycle that never ends. When a team agrees to trade with you (for immediate need) and gives you extra picks, you're gonna win every time. The only thing that would effect this negatively is drafter poorly with those picks.

You do what's best for the team. Not what's best for the team THIS year.

 

[Floatyworm]

I wouldn't do it for just a 3rd this year...but if someone offered a 2nd this year...and a #1 next.....I couldn't fill out the trade card fast enough. 2016 draft is gonna be epic

anyway....good luck finding a trade partner.......no one is gonna want to make that kind of deal

 

[USMarineVet]

I wouldn't do it for just a 3rd this year...but if someone offered a 2nd this year...and a #1 next.....I couldn't fill out the trade card fast enough. 2016 draft is gonna be epic

anyway....good luck finding a trade partner.......no one is gonna want to make that kind of deal

It happens.. Just about every year it happens in some form or another with a team receiving and extra 1st. Whether that be through a player trade or a draft day trade. The Cleveland Browns are this year's representative.

But with the cap controlling how everyone does business now, you have to constantly try to find an angle to beat the system.

 

[Idgit]

You still ignore the value in adding a 1st rd pick to the roster, right now

That first round pick next year does nothing to make this year's team better

Next year it will be great having 2 firsts, but it is not always better

That 1st round pick could be the difference between making or advancing in the playoffs. Is that worth a 3rd round pick?

I think Risen's generally right here, overall, that a first round pick is worth exactly a first round pick. The only difference might be that some drafts are deeper than others at certain positions or with guys with legitimate first round value, but that's pretty variable.

Where the premium comes in for trading present value picks away is that GMs expect compensation for not immediately improving their teams. If they're going to forgo that roster benefit, they don't want to just break even, they want to come out ahead in the deal. And that happens mostly because this is a group of people who generally lack job security.

If not for that reason, though, it would make a lot of sense to appreciate your pick by letting it age for a year whenever the opportunity presents itself.

 

[Nightman]

I don't value one year any more than the next. Having an extra 1st round pick this year isn't more valuable to me than having an extra 1st next year.

And the 1st round pick this year did nothing to help last year's team. Why didn't we trade it away to help the cause? Or maybe you just can't see anything that's not right in front of your face.

I can see plenty and don't need the snotty remarks.

You are simply wrong if you don't think a 1st round pick can be a huge improvement to a roster and possible difference maker. It you don't then why would care about adding more picks at all. Sometimes a trade may be smart, other times taking a player this year will be better,

If you want to make the argument that USMarineVet is making that the don't contribute for at least a year, then that value is still being accounted for by getting the learning year out the way sooner.