Jerry did not get fleeced in a trade

[JD_KaPow]

What Giants got should be better, they were trading down from 20 to 11. The Eagles over payed Dallas to move up two spots to get who they wanted. But for Dallas, what they offered the Giants sucked golf balls through a garden hose. They offered some trash and a first rounder next year. How does that help the Cowboys this year?

If you just go by the chart, the Giants got a pretty good deal. If Dallas had done that exact trade, it would have been about dead even, though of course all of this depends on how you value future picks.

Strictly going by the chart and applying a round discount for future picks, the trade the Cowboys did nets them more value than the Bears trade would have. And clearly, the Cowboys preferred to get value this year than value for next year, which is fine. Getting the Bears' first-rounder next year is pretty tempting, though.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

What I don't understand is: why are you "pretty sure" we could have gotten more out of them when the history of trades is pretty crystal clear about what you can expect to get for a move like this, and it's not more.

I don't know why this is a mystery to you. I've pretty much explained it. But that's cool, I'll explain my reasoning, not that you do the same. You make statements and I guess they stand just because you make them, IDK.

But here goes, Philly didn't have to move up to get this guy but they did. They believed he was a must get. They believed that the Giants would take him and they couldn't have that so they moved up. If they believe that he is a must get, and there was just a report on that, that this is, in fact, how Philly saw him, then his value to that team is increased. The chart is no longer the measure because the value to Philly is increased. That, plus the fact that you are trading up into the top 10 of the 1st round. That carries it's own value as well. Lastly, they have more picks then they can use this year. I believe that we could have gotten them to give up more.

But I'm willing to listen. Show me this crystal clarity you speak of.

 

[Flamma]

If you just go by the chart, the Giants got a pretty good deal. If Dallas had done that exact trade, it would have been about dead even, though of course all of this depends on how you value future picks.

Strictly going by the chart and applying a round discount for future picks, the trade the Cowboys did nets them more value than the Bears trade would have. And clearly, the Cowboys preferred to get value this year than value for next year, which is fine. Getting the Bears' first-rounder next year is pretty tempting, though.

If I knew the Bears were going to go 4-12 next year, very tempting. But if they pick in the 20s? No so much. But you're right, the Cowboys clearly wanted some impact players this draft. Just like the Bears. Had the Bears went in a more traditional fashion and started with their 2nd round pick, maybe Jerry would have went along with it.

 

[TWOK11]

The trade itself might have been fine.

The trade the Giants got was better.

Why didn't they make the deal with the Bears?

Why didn't we draft Fields and entertain offers?

Those were better options, IMO.

Obviously they felt strongly enough about Parsons that they didn’t want to risk dropping that far and losing him.

And you don’t use a first round pick on a QB after giving Prescott a new contract.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

If I knew the Bears were going to go 4-12 next year, very tempting. But if they pick in the 20s? No so much. But you're right, the Cowboys clearly wanted some impact players this draft. Just like the Bears. Had the Bears went in a more traditional fashion and started with their 2nd round pick, maybe Jerry would have went along with it.

Additionally, here are a few factors to remember. 1. The Bears made the playoffs last year WITH Trubisky. 2. Rodgers wants out of Green Bay. 3. They have Detroit in their division. 4. The Vikings choke a lot. Therefore, if Rodgers stays in Green Bay, the Bears will probably manage a wild card spot, especially with their rookie QB being heads and shoulders above Trubisky. The only intradivision competition for a wildcard spot is Minnesota, and Cousins falls short when the pressure is on. So, you're probably getting about a 20 again or worse for the deal unless Chicago really collapses, which i doubt. That's not counting what would happen should Chicago WIN playoff games once in the playoffs. If Rodgers leaves, Chicago becomes the favourite to win that division. So, you're probably looking at 24 or worse.

 

[Cowpolk]

Yeah, so? That's not good for 2 years, it would be horrible if it were for 4.

It is also stats from the 1st 2 years he ever played LB and he still graded out as the best LB in the draft

 

[Flamma]

Additionally, here are a few factors to remember. 1. The Bears made the playoffs last year WITH Trubisky. 2. Rodgers wants out of Green Bay. 3. They have Detroit in their division. 4. The Vikings choke a lot. Therefore, if Rodgers stays in Green Bay, the Bears will probably manage a wild card spot, especially with their rookie QB being heads and shoulders above Trubisky. The only intradivision competition for a wildcard spot is Minnesota, and Cousins falls short when the pressure is on. So, you're probably getting about a 20 again or worse for the deal unless Chicago really collapses, which i doubt. That's not counting what would happen should Chicago WIN playoff games once in the playoffs. If Rodgers leaves, Chicago becomes the favourite to win that division. So, you're probably looking at 24 or worse.

That's why I brought it up. The Bears are way more likely to be north of 8-8 than south of it. Probably a playoff team.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

It is also stats from the 1st 2 years he ever played LB and he still graded out as the best LB in the draft

Graded out how? I don't think he's the best LB in this draft. I don't even think it's close. He might be the most athletic, maybe, but his production doesn't suggest he is the best LB in this draft.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

That's why I brought it up. The Bears are way more likely to be north of 8-8 than south of it. Probably a playoff team.

Yup! If it was Detroit, I'd be worried about the Giants getting that extra first rounder next year. However, the Bears are usually average or better. Almost never quite good enough to win the Super Bowl, but frequently relevant in playoff conversations. This season, I see the Bears going somewhere between 10-7 and 12-5. At worst, 9-8. Should be good for a playoff spot.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I don't know why this is a mystery to you. I've pretty much explained it. But that's cool, I'll explain my reasoning, not that you do the same. You make statements and I guess they stand just because you make them, IDK.

But here goes, Philly didn't have to move up to get this guy but they did. They believed he was a must get. They believed that the Giants would take him and they couldn't have that so they moved up. If they believe that he is a must get, and there was just a report on that, that this is, in fact, how Philly saw him, then his value to that team is increased. The chart is no longer the measure because the value to Philly is increased. That, plus the fact that you are trading up into the top 10 of the 1st round. That carries it's own value as well. Lastly, they have more picks then they can use this year. I believe that we could have gotten them to give up more.

But I'm willing to listen. Show me this crystal clarity you speak of.

1. Draft trades virtually always hew very closely to the JJ value chart. When players and/or future picks are involved, things get a little muddy, but otherwise it's just about always true.
2. Trading into the top 10 does not "carry its own value." There's not generally a premium to trade into the top 10, based on trade history. The top 1 or 2? Yes, but not 10.
3. The trade we got from Philly was already them giving up more: it was a clear win by the chart. They were in fact desperate to move up and they did in fact overpay.

I looked at all the trades up to picks in the 5-15 range since 2000. Virtually all hew close to the chart; in many cases, the team trading up underpays. I found one huge and one moderate overpay:
2017: Bills gave 12, 53 and 56 to move up to 7 for Josh Allen. That's a huge overpay, 25+%.
2011: Jags gave 16 and 49 to move up to 10 for Gabbert. About 8%.

The Cowboys got over a 5% overpay from the Eagles. If they had given us their second rounder, it would have been an 18% overpay. Nobody has traded anything close to that for a non-QB player in a long time, and there's only one single example of a team overpaying that much for a QB.

This is why I do not believe we "could have gotten them to give up more."

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

1. Draft trades virtually always hew very closely to the JJ value chart. When players and/or future picks are involved, things get a little muddy, but otherwise it's just about always true.
2. Trading into the top 10 does not "carry its own value." There's not generally a premium to trade into the top 10, based on trade history. The top 1 or 2? Yes, but not 10.
3. The trade we got from Philly was already them giving up more: it was a clear win by the chart. They were in fact desperate to move up and they did in fact overpay.

I looked at all the trades up to picks in the 5-15 range since 2000. Virtually all hew close to the chart; in many cases, the team trading up underpays. I found one huge and one moderate overpay:
2017: Bills gave 12, 53 and 56 to move up to 7 for Josh Allen. That's a huge overpay, 25+%.
2011: Jags gave 16 and 49 to move up to 10 for Gabbert. About 8%.

The Cowboys got over a 5% overpay from the Eagles. If they had given us their second rounder, it would have been an 18% overpay. Nobody has traded anything close to that for a non-QB player in a long time, and there's only one single example of a team overpaying that much for a QB.

This is why I do not believe we "could have gotten them to give up more."

Wow. Well, like I said, your story, you tell it.

 

[JD_KaPow]

If I knew the Bears were going to go 4-12 next year, very tempting. But if they pick in the 20s? No so much. But you're right, the Cowboys clearly wanted some impact players this draft. Just like the Bears. Had the Bears went in a more traditional fashion and started with their 2nd round pick, maybe Jerry would have went along with it.

I remember when we traded our first-rounder to the Bills in 2004 for a 2005 1st-rounder and everyone was like, "It's the Bills, it will be a top-ten pick," and then they went and had a winning record for the first time in years and the pick was around 20 (we used it for Marcus Spears). And then the same thing happened in 2007: we traded it to Cleveland (Brady Quinn), we were all psyched for a top-10 pick, and then Cleveland won 10 games for the first time in over a decade.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I remember when we traded our first-rounder to the Bills in 2004 for a 2005 1st-rounder and everyone was like, "It's the Bills, it will be a top-ten pick," and then they went and had a winning record for the first time in years and the pick was around 20 (we used it for Marcus Spears). And then the same thing happened in 2007: we traded it to Cleveland (Brady Quinn), we were all psyched for a top-10 pick, and then Cleveland won 10 games for the first time in over a decade.

But do you remember the Ricky Williams trade? I mean, that's just one trade that completely blows your entire theory.

 

[JD_KaPow]

But do you remember the Ricky Williams trade? I mean, that's just one trade that completely blows your entire theory.

Sure I remember it. It happened way back in 1999, it was ridiculed heavily at the time, and Ditka was a complete idiot as a GM. What theory do you think that blows? If you have to go back over 20 years to find the dumbest trades in NFL history--trades that were considered incredibly stupid at the time--to support your argument, you don't have much of an argument. The Eagles are not run by the dumbest management team in the history of the NFL.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Sure I remember it. It happened way back in 1999, it was ridiculed heavily at the time, and Ditka was a complete idiot as a GM. What theory do you think that blows? If you have to go back over 20 years to find the dumbest trades in NFL history--trades that were considered incredible stupid at the time--to support your argument, you don't have much of an argument. The Eagles are not run by the dumbest management team in the history of the NFL.

This sounds like a lot of excuses. The points chart is your thing. You said it drives trades and trades do not deviate greatly correct? Well, that one did and there are plenty of them. Your statement that it never happens is just wrong. Your statement that trading up into the top 10 holds no value is completely wrong and what's more, that can happen later in the draft, in different rounds, as well. That is driven by player grades and it always changes. How many guys actually carry a grade for the round they are going in, that drives price. Just so many things that you say that are completely wrong. I don't understand why.

But apparently now, the rules are changing. Now, it only applies to FOs who are not monumentally stupid right? Whats next? Better question for you, what does your FO charts say about our FO? I guess they don't make the cut so they can't get a deal that doesn't go by the Value Chart numbers? But too late, the trade they just made doesn't go by the numbers so what now?

 

[JD_KaPow]

This sounds like a lot of excuses. The points chart is your thing. You said it drives trades and trades do not deviate greatly correct? Well, that one did and there are plenty of them. Your statement that it never happens is just wrong. Your statement that trading up into the top 10 holds no value is completely wrong and what's more, that can happen later in the draft, in different rounds, as well. That is driven by player grades and it always changes. How many guys actually carry a grade for the round they are going in, that drives price. Just so many things that you say that are completely wrong. I don't understand why.

But apparently now, the rules are changing. Now, it only applies to FOs who are not monumentally stupid right? Whats next? Better question for you, what does your FO charts say about our FO? I guess they don't make the cut so they can't get a deal that doesn't go by the Value Chart numbers? But too late, the trade they just made doesn't go by the numbers so what now?

Wow, that's a lot of nonsense for one post. Can you find crazy trades that deviate? Yes, you can find a few; most of them are old. Others are for QBs. We're talking about a couple out of dozens and dozens. None of them tell you what you are *likely* to be able to get.

If you want to say, "hey, crazy trades have happened from time to time, and therefore, the Cowboys could have made a crazy trade in this particular instance," well, all I can say is I don't think that's a good argument. And all your other points come with zero supporting evidence, so they're not worth bothering with.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Wow, that's a lot of nonsense for one post. Can you find crazy trades that deviate? Yes, you can find a few; most of them are old. Others are for QBs. We're talking about a couple out of dozens and dozens. None of them tell you what you are *likely* to be able to get.

If you want to say, "hey, crazy trades have happened from time to time, and therefore, the Cowboys could have made a crazy trade in this particular instance," well, all I can say is I don't think that's a good argument. And all your other points come with zero supporting evidence, so they're not worth bothering with.

Is it. Because you asked me to give you an example, I gave you one. Then you said it was not a good example because of the FO. Then I told you that the trade we made yesterday didn't follow the chart and you say that it's nonsense. I think you are nonsense.

I mean, what kind of supporting evidence do you need? Pretty convenient to just say that there is no supporting evidence so you won't talk about them. I think you just don't want to admit that it's not all driven by the chart. But that's fine, I know that's BS but if that's what you want to believe, that's OK with me. I'll leave it to everybody else to reach their own conclusions.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Is it. Because you asked me to give you an example, I gave you one. Then you said it was not a good example because of the FO. Then I told you that the trade we made yesterday didn't follow the chart and you say that it's nonsense. I think you are nonsense.

I mean, what kind of supporting evidence do you need? Pretty convenient to just say that there is no supporting evidence so you won't talk about them. I think you just don't want to admit that it's not all driven by the chart. But that's fine, I know that's BS but if that's what you want to believe, that's OK with me. I'll leave it to everybody else to reach their own conclusions.

Huh? The trade we made yesterday did follow the chart. We got a bit of a premium, but it's well within the historical range (within 10% of chart value or so). But to the extent that the trade we made yesterday deviated from the chart, it did so in our favor.

Way back, I asked you to give an example of a similar trade where the team trading up paid what you think the Eagles should have traded. You came back with a couple famously bad trades from decades ago, trades that didn't even involve a team trading up for a pick in our range. If that's all you've got, then it's not very compelling. And it is all you've got. I looked at every trade into our range in the last 10+ years and found none that come close to what you think the we could have gotten from the Eagles, given that they weren't trading up for a QB.

I'm happy to let others draw their own conclusions from this discussion as well.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Huh? The trade we made yesterday did follow the chart. We got a bit of a premium, but it's well within the historical range (within 10% of chart value or so). But to the extent that the trade we made yesterday deviated from the chart, it did so in our favor.

Way back, I asked you to give an example of a similar trade where the team trading up paid what you think the Eagles should have traded. You came back with a couple famously bad trades from decades ago, trades that didn't even involve a team trading up for a pick in our range. If that's all you've got, then it's not very compelling. And it is all you've got. I looked at every trade into our range in the last 10+ years and found none that come close to what you think the we could have gotten from the Eagles, given that they weren't trading up for a QB.

I'm happy to let others draw their own conclusions from this discussion as well.

I've given you examples. I'll give you another one but of course, you will make an excuse.

Bears trade for Trubisky. Bears traded their 3rd overall, their 3rd rounder that year and the next years 3rd to get the 2nd overall pick to take Trubisky.

But now I guess it has to be exactly the picks we traded, is that it? Can you at least tell me how much more you are going to move the goal posts so I don't have to continue to go back and back to give you examples of things you should be looking up yourself?

 

[JD_KaPow]

I've given you examples. I'll give you another one but of course, you will make an excuse.

Bears trade for Trubisky. Bears traded their 3rd overall, their 3rd rounder that year and the next years 3rd to get the 2nd overall pick to take Trubisky.

Good lord, it's like you haven't read a word of this thread or ever seen the JJ trade chart.

Three things about that trade.

1. It was for a QB. I've already noted several times that trading up for a QB can sometimes drive an overpay.
2. It was to the #2 spot in the draft. I've already noted several times that teams will sometimes overpay to get to #1 or #2.
3. That trade matched the chart perfectly! The #2 pick is worth 2600 by the chart. To get it, the Bears gave #3 (2200), #67 (255), #111 (72), and their 3rd-rounder the next year (roughly worth 75 after discounting a round). That adds to, well I'll be damned, 2602 points.

Give you another one. Skinz trade for RG3. I believe they traded 6th over all and their 2nd round pick plus their 1st round picks for the next two years to get the 2nd overall pick in the draft and take RG3.

Too old?

Here we go again.

1. For a QB.
2. For the #2 pick.
3. The trade matched the chart reasonably well. Again, #2 is worth 2600. They gave #6 (1600), #39 (510), a 1st-rounder the next year (~400) and a 1st-rounder the year after that (~200). Overall, they paid a premium of about 4%, less than the premium the Eagles paid us.