Mailbag: trade down from 12 to add picks

[Flamma]

I agree, but disagree.

Attitudes will change towards moving up, meaning less offers over time.

This will cause a team wanting to move up to offer a first and 3rd, instead of a first and second.

"I'm willing to move up, but only at this price"

It goes both ways.

In your scenario, a team sitting at 12 could be completely uninterested in the players available and take the team trying to move ups offer even though it's less than past years prices

What I'm saying is, Dallas isn't calling anyone. They're waiting for the call. No team is going to call another team to move up and offer them less. Like if I called you and ask you if you'd like to trade back to my slot, then I offered you peanuts. You'd tell me to pound salt.

 

[FanofJerry]

There are too many teams who try to trade up each year for this to be true.

I get it.

But this is an analytics issue.

My opinion is that posters are correct around here, trading back is the smart thing to do and accumulate picks.

What happened once analytics validated going for it on 4th and 1? Every team started doing it.

Same will be done here. Giving up 2nd, 3rd or 4th round picks to move up is going to be seen as helping out other teams way too much. I suspect pricing will change accordingly.

But yes, no one can argue against teams wanting to move up every year. I'm focusing on pricing changing

 

[FanofJerry]

What I'm saying is, Dallas isn't calling anyone. They're waiting for the call. No team is going to call another team to move up and offer them less. Like if I called you and ask you if you'd like to trade back to my slot, then I offered you peanuts. You'd tell me to pound salt.

Cool, I'm saying the pricing will still change if the value of picks is seen to increase.

If everyone wants to play the numbers game and trade back, prices for picks should increase.

What is flawed about that?

Who cares if you try and move up and the pick holder refuses your offer. He can accept and take a player they might not value as a FRP or take your offer

If the pick holder values moving back over BPA, they can take a lesser offer or the BPA that they don't like

 

[Flamma]

Cool, I'm saying the pricing will still change if the value of picks is seen to increase.

If everyone wants to play the numbers game and trade back, prices for picks should increase.

What is flawed about that?

Who cares if you try and move up and the pick holder refuses your offer. He can accept and take a player they might not value as a FRP or take your offer

If the pick holder values moving back over BPA, they can take a lesser offer or the BPA that they don't like

I understand what you're trying to say, I just think it goes against the natural order of things. The team asking to trade up is the beggar. They don't set the price. They have no leverage. But they have every right to offer less to trade up. See how that works out.

 

[FanofJerry]

I understand what you're trying to say, I just think it goes against the natural order of things. The team asking to trade up is the beggar. They don't set the price. They have no leverage. But they have every right to offer less to trade up. See how that works out.

Yeah i get it.

You don't want to get what I'm saying.

Sure, the beggar wants their target. I'm saying prices can still increase for the seller.

Not every beggar is going to be vulnerable, especially in a highly production driven league for GMs.

If trading back is the new trend, prices should increase for sellers as picks are more considered more valuable now.

You're trying to condition me that it's in the sellers control and he is only going by an outdated value chart...and that sellers never budge and beggars always cave.

I provided a scenario where a seller might cave

 

[FanofJerry]

If giving another team $2 for $1 starts to be considered stupid for the team trying to move up...

Prices should move to $1.50 for $1.

It's not a hard concept. Beggars don't always cave and a new trend towards pick value could surface

You want me to say that it's only what the seller wants...and i say he can draft is unwanted player instead of taking a lesser haul to move back than previous years. The seller should be upset at market if he can't get previous pricing

 

[KingCorcoran]

That doesn't make any sense. All Dallas can do is let everyone know they are open to trading back. Then wait for a call. No one is going to ask Dallas to trade up and offer them less.

Every team is open to trading their first round pick if the offer is to their advantage.

 

[KingCorcoran]

There won't be any difference in the player they take at 12 and whoever they get from trading down.

Take the trade offer if you get one and get the extra pick.

What if it’s the Eagles wanting to move up? Or the Commanders? Do you do the deal?

 

[FanofJerry]

Every team is open to trading their first round pick if the offer is to their advantage.

Ok...without over complicating...

Are you taking the BPA you don't like or moving back at a lower price than previous years.

 

[Flamma]

Every team is open to trading their first round pick if the offer is to their advantage.

Yes, of course. A team wanting to trade up has to make it worth it for the other team to trade back.

 

[FanofJerry]

Yes, of course. A team wanting to trade up has to make it worth it for the other team to

Must the internet always have an MO of attempting gaslighting?

You're side stepping if market conditions change.

Your trying to suggest the person in control will never take less than previous years....ever.

You don't want to discuss scenarios reasonably.

Pretty sad.

 

[Flamma]

Must the internet always have an MO of attempting gaslighting?

You're side stepping if market conditions change.

Your trying to suggest the person in control will never take less than previous years....ever.

You don't want to discuss scenarios reasonably.

Pretty sad.

Because I don't think it's a legit scenario. If a team wants to trade up successfully, they have to make it worth it for the other team to trade back. Or else they won't do it. Could the team do it while being undercompensated? Of course they could. But in their head, they think it's worth trading back. But rarely does the team trading back want it more than the team trading up. I don't see that becoming a trend.

 

[KingCorcoran]

Ok...without over complicating...

Are you taking the BPA you don't like or moving back at a lower price than previous years.

BPA. If you’re picking 12th of 32 you’re not very good. You can’t afford to finesse it.

 

[FanofJerry]

I look forward to see how analytics treats this situation.

 

[conner01]

great read and I love the analysis of the top 100 picks.

Honestly, i would be happy if they traded back a bit and picked up another top 100 pick, and then used some of their lower end picks to get another top 100. If they could walk away with 5 players in the top 100 that would be huge for the team.

They have to look at this as a two year project so they dont need "bodies" they need quality bodies...much rather have fewer picks of quality players than a huge volume of dart throws.

Good plan. The odds of a player in the 6, 7 rounds ever making an impact are slim. 7th is lower odds than an UDFA. But we need an impact player in the first. I think the quality is likely to be at WR. But if you can move back a couple spit, still get your guy it’s a no brainer

 

[jaythecowboy]

Because I don't think it's a legit scenario. If a team wants to trade up successfully, they have to make it worth it for the other team to trade back. Or else they won't do it. Could the team do it while being undercompensated? Of course they could. But in their head, they think it's worth trading back. But rarely does the team trading back want it more than the team trading up. I don't see that becoming a trend.

I think it would manifest as teams not wanting to trade up. Not that teams would call with pitiful offers—they just won’t call at all. In a lot of these conversations people talk as if Dallas can make a team give them a certain amount to get their pick. It will always be a negotiation regardless of what the chart says.

 

[FanofJerry]

I think it would manifest as teams not wanting to trade up. Not that teams would call with pitiful offers—they just won’t call at all. In a lot of these conversations people talk as if Dallas can make a team give them a certain amount to get their pick. It will always be a negotiation regardless of what the chart says.

Exactly. Less trades unless owners loosen the belt.

But it's all a lame conditioning attempt for theft.

Something has to change if $2 for a $1 is seen as too expensive in the future.

I'm all for less trades. Take the phones out of the trade room if owners are gonna be unreasonable.

 

[big dog cowboy]

What if it’s the Eagles wanting to move up? Or the Commanders? Do you do the deal?

Yes. I'm fine taking their draft picks.

 

[FanofJerry]

Yes. I'm fine taking their draft picks.

Which is exactly why sentiments towards giving away picks to move up should change the value of the picks and cause less trades

This should be an analytics issue that I see no way of not changing opinions around the league.

You can claim every team has known this for a while, but they knew about 4th and 1 and didn't change until analytics came along.

There should be less trades unless it's a sure fire WR or defender. QB crap shoot is stupid.

 

[FanofJerry]

Teams are going to go conservative and take on a "I'm not willing to get excited and desperate to move up and give another team picks"

1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th round pick values should increase