Questions About Trade Down Value From SF

[DFWJC]

It is true that a team trying to trade up has to give more than a team that wants to trade down in general. If only one team is biting, your leverage is limited.

If Frederick and Williams are both strong contributors, it was a good trade. If not, Frederick had BETTER be a more accomplished player than Floyd in the end, or this will be written on Jerry's tombstone.

That's changed in the last three years, erod.
I think it used to be that way, maybe, but for sure it's not that way now.

Almost every trade, at least by that trade chart, in the last three years has favored the team trading up. Very few exceptions.

I agree that you value that trade based on the performance of Frederick and Williams anyway.

 

[AsthmaField]

I came to grips with the trade rather quickly and am happy with it because to me:

I would much, MUCH rather have Frederick and T Williams than Eifert, Reid, or Sherrif.

There wasn't a better offer available, so it was either take one of those guys or do what we did. As it turns out, I love the 2 guys we got a ton more than any 1 of those others.

 

[DFWJC]

That chart is only a guide and teams have their own updated charts anyway.
It's shocking how often trades come close to that chart anyway--almost always within 5%-10%.

Bottom line is fair value for a trade is what the market will allow.

More teams wanted to trade with SF for the 31st pick than wanted to trade with Dallas for the 18th.
SF had a clear advantage.
Neither team had to do the trade, but for whatever reason, Dallas felt more pressure to move down.

Hopefully, Frederick and Williams are solid players for us for many years and all is well.

 

[jterrell]

I came to grips with the trade rather quickly and am happy with it because to me:

I would much, MUCH rather have Frederick and T Williams than Eifert, Reid, or Sherrif.

There wasn't a better offer available, so it was either take one of those guys or do what we did. As it turns out, I love the 2 guys we got a ton more than any 1 of those others.

me too.
i flamed the trade at the time.

but in hindsight we got players i feel were both top 50 players at 31 and 74. i'll take that over one guy who was top 10 but only because it was a very soft draft at the top. i noted in discussion about players richardson was the dt i wanted because it fit what we needed more. seems dallas agreed.

i would not be mad at us for passing on the next russell maryland.

 

[slomoxn]

And if you are saying, "well SF low-balled Jerry because they know he's an idiot," see #1 above, and oh by the way, no other team was offering anything better. Something is only "worth" what you can sell it for, and the only relevant choice Dallas had was to stay at 18 or take the two picks in return. The "chart" is completely irrelevant, I don't know why everyone is so obsessed with it.


I don't know if that is why they lowballed the Cowboys, but Jerry is... Outside of that I am fine with the trade even though I did not understand it at the first. I still question it but since I work construction and don't want Jerry telling me how to pour concrete I'll do the staff at Valley Ranch the favor of not telling them how to draft football players. Even though I finish concrete better than they have drafted up until two drafts ago. Regardless I have to give a pass because last two years draft classes for Dallas have been stellar as far as I'm concerned and if this year builds upon those with young foundational talent I'm all for it.

 

[AsthmaField]

me too.
i flamed the trade at the time.

but in hindsight we got players i feel were both top 50 players at 31 and 74. i'll take that over one guy who was top 10 but only because it was a very soft draft at the top. i noted in discussion about players richardson was the dt i wanted because it fit what we needed more. seems dallas agreed.

i would not be mad at us for passing on the next russell maryland.

Agreed. Honestly, DT's like Floyd aren't that difficult to find. Richardson was my guy all the way... when he went (like I figured he would), I was disappointed.

 

[DFWJC]

I've come to terms with this trade and look forward to seeing the results.


My approach would have been either

1)

• Take Shariff Floyd at 18
• then if Fredercik or another Olinman I liked was not at 47, trade down and get 2 additonal 3rd rounders or at worst a 3rd and 4th.
• then load up!

or

2)

• Try to find a trade partner to get into the 20s and pick up a 4th and 5th.
• Grab Sly Williams in the 20s if there.
• Then use one the extra picks from the trade, if needed, to move up in the 2nd or 3rd to get a targeted Olineman.
• If none there in the 2nd, for sure trade down from there and get even more picks to use as chips to acquire targeted players. The 3rd and 4th round were awesome tins year
• then load up with the rest

I just thought that after the top 6 olineman were gone, for sure the two DTs were logical targets.

It didn't go down that way.
And after some recovery time, I'm fine with that.

 

[speedkilz88]

No, he didn't.

Mike McCoy, a former team owner in very small part and a long-time Jones business partner and Accountant by trade invented the chart at the request of Jerry.

Jimmy didn't need a chart to fleece people in trades.

So Jerry invented it? If your boss came up with the idea and tells you to research and compile the chart he invented it not you. But I believe Jimmy would argue that it was his idea for McCoy to research and compile the chart.

I guess schools need to start teaching that it was Clarence Madison Dally that invented the light bulb, not Thomas Edison.

 

[Beast_from_East]

People are relying on a chart that's 30+ years old. It's no longer accurate.

Think of a given draft pick as an old baseball card. The "booK' may say it's worth x but it's really worth what someone will pay you for it and that changes by time and location.

Dallas got maximum value for the 18th pick, a pick in a better location in the round and an extra pick.

If Dallas would have received the 31st pick and a pick in the 50s, everyone would have lauded the trade but if Dallas' comments on their board are to be believed, they would have ended up with the same players.

As an example of the problem with the "chart", pick 32 is valuable much, much more valuable than pick 33 due to contract length. The chart doesn't reflect that because that wasn't a consideration during its invention.

Then how did the Rams (drafting after us) move down 7 spots and get a 3rd and a 6th when we dropped from 18 to 31 and only got a 3rd?

Apparently the chart the Rams were using rated picks higher than the chart we are using, so its not a matter of everybody has a new chart and the fans have an old chart.

Clearly, if a team behind you trades down fewer spots and gets more compensation than you got............somebody got fleeced.



EDIT^^^^^Rowan on Talking Cowboys was making this point, forgot to give credit in original post.

 

[Dodger12]

Jerry traded a 3rd round pick to move from #27 to #24 for Dez in 2010. Three drafts later, he took a third to go from 18 to 31. Jerry got fleeced and he knows but someone mentioned that the difference in money from 18 to 31 is something like 1.5 million. Maybe that has something to do with it as well.

Either way, we took less than market value for the trade down. That has nothing to do with whether or not Frederick will be a good player but there's no denying we didn't get enough compensation for the pick. I can't understand why people just can't accept this (and still like the draft).

 

[Beast_from_East]

Jerry traded a 3rd round pick to move from #27 to #24 for Dez in 2010. Three drafts later, he took a third to go from 18 to 31. Jerry got fleeced and he knows but someone mentioned that the difference in money from 18 to 31 is something like 1.5 million. Maybe that has something to do with it as well.

Either way, we took less than market value for the trade down. That has nothing to do with whether or not Frederick will be a good player but there's no denying we didn't get enough compensation for the pick. I can't understand why people just can't accept this (and still like the draft).

On talking Cowboys, both Rowan and Brodas basically said we got the short end of the stick. Mickey just kinda sat there quietly and didn't say anything, clearly he thinks we got took as well and just didn't want to call the team out since he is such a homer.


So if the guys sitting in a room at Valley Ranch all think we got took, and they get their paychecks from the Cowboys, pretty safe bet even the Cowboys think they got took (even though they are publicly denying it).

 

[DFWJC]

Then how did the Rams (drafting after us) move down 7 spots and get a 3rd and a 6th when we dropped from 18 to 31 and only got a 3rd?

Apparently the chart the Rams were using rated picks higher than the chart we are using, so its not a matter of everybody has a new chart and the fans have an old chart.

Clearly, if a team behind you trades down fewer spots and gets more compensation than you got............somebody got fleeced.



EDIT^^^^^Rowan on Talking Cowboys was making this point, forgot to give credit in original post.

I know this was not for me but let me clear it up for you....and Rowan on Talking Cowbys

The 3rd round pick that Dallas got was at 74 (Value = 220)

The 3rd and 6th Atlanta got were at 92 and 198 (Value = 132+12= 144)

Dallas got much more than Atlanta did.

However, your claim that Atlanta got a better deal (based on a chart) may be right though, since they only dropped 7 spots.

St Louis gave up 780 and Atlanta gave up 744.
Dallas gave up 900 and SF gave up 820.

So both teams trading up got better chart value...which is the norm these days.

btw, I notice the one team that traded down that got even value in this draft was, of course, new England. figures


In the end, Dallas wanted a much higher 3rd rounder if they were going to drop down, so they dropped down further and got the 74th instead of the 92nd (plus a throw-in 6th)

 

[Picksix]

Jerry traded a 3rd round pick to move from #27 to #24 for Dez in 2010. Three drafts later, he took a third to go from 18 to 31. Jerry got fleeced and he knows but someone mentioned that the difference in money from 18 to 31 is something like 1.5 million. Maybe that has something to do with it as well.

Either way, we took less than market value for the trade down. That has nothing to do with whether or not Frederick will be a good player but there's no denying we didn't get enough compensation for the pick. I can't understand why people just can't accept this (and still like the draft).

He gave up a 4th to move up to get Dez. He gave up the 3rd to move up in the 2nd to get Lee.

We didn't take less than market value to trade down. We took what the market allowed. Last year, we traded up from 14 to 6 and only gave up a second. In the past, it would have cost more. Miami moved up from 12 to 3 this year and only gave up a 2nd. The market has changed. This year's was a buyer's market.

 

[Picksix]

I would rather reach in the 1st round on a 1st rounder, then reach in the 1st round on a 2nd-3rd rounder which is what Frederick's value was.

Says who? A bunch of media analysts. They look at some tape and statistics. They're not in the interviews at the combine, or at the teams' facilities. They're not part of the individual work outs that teams do with players. The Cowboys had him in the 20's. Sorry, but they're ranking means more than yours, or Kiper's, or McShay's, or Mayock's, or anybody that's not in an NFL front office.

 

[DFWJC]

He gave up a 4th to move up to get Dez. He gave up the 3rd to move up in the 2nd to get Lee.

We didn't take less than market value to trade down. We took what the market allowed. Last year, we traded up from 14 to 6 and only gave up a second. In the past, it would have cost more. Miami moved up from 12 to 3 this year and only gave up a 2nd. The market has changed. This year's was a buyer's market.

Yeah. It has cost less lately to move up.
But Dallas' trade last year was very close to exactly even value.
Dallas' 14th and 45th for St Louis' 6th, so...
1100+450 =1550 for 1600...or within 3%

The Oakland/Miami trade this year can almost get thrown out it was so out of whack. Most lobsided trade I've ever seen that did not include players.

 

[Beast_from_East]

I know this was not for me but let me clear it up for you.

The 3rd round pick that Dallas got was at 74 (Value = 220)

The 3rd and 6th Atlanta got were at 92 and 198 (Value = 132+12= 144)

Dallas got much more than Atlanta did.

However, your claim that Atlanta got a better deal (based on a chart) may be right though, since they only dropped 7 spots.

St Louis gave up 780 and Atlanta gave up 744.
Dallas gave up 900 and SF gave up 820.

So both teams trading up got better chart value...which is the norm these days.

btw, I notice the one team that traded down that got even value in this draft was, of course, new England. figures


In the end, Dallas wanted a much higher 3rd rounder if they were going to drop down, so they dropped down further and got the 74th instead of the 92nd (plus a throw-in 6th)

Thanks for the info bro.....................I think it just comes down to the fact that Dallas knew they were giving value but figured it wasn't a big enough issue to cancel the deal.


What I don't get is Steven saying that they "won" the trade using some mythical chart nobody has ever seen. Like you said, the Pats are the only team that got equal value in a trade down.

Why cant the team just be honest and say "this was the best deal on the table and even though we gave some value, in the big scheme of things it didn't matter enough to cancel the deal."

I think fans would be a lot more understanding saying something like this than trying to save face by saying you "won" the trade.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you accept that

1) the talent at the top of the draft is thin, and
2) after that talent drop off, the talent levels and is consistent through the top 75 to 100

then there are logical extensions to that. Specifically that

1) picks at the top of the draft will be worth less, and
2) the values for picks up to 75 to 100 will be worth more.

or even more specifically

1) pick 18 will be worth less than normal, and
2) pick 74 will be worth more than normal.

 

[DFWJC]

If you accept that

1) the talent at the top of the draft is thin, and
2) after that talent drop off, the talent levels and is consistent through the top 75 to 100

then there are logical extensions to that. Specifically that

1) picks at the top of the draft will be worth less, and
2) the values for picks up to 75 to 100 will be worth more.

or even more specifically

1) pick 18 will be worth less than normal, and
2) pick 74 will be worth more than normal.

Yep.

I think you just described the real-time market in the 1st round of the 2013 Draft

 

[Kristen82]

Yeah. It has cost less lately to move up.
But Dallas' trade last year was very close to exactly even value.
Dallas' 14th and 45th for St Louis' 6th, so...
1100+450 =1550 for 1600...or within 3%

The Oakland/Miami trade this year can almost get thrown out it was so out of whack. Most lobsided trade I've ever seen that did not include players.

I thought teams consider those charts outdated and don't use them anymore.

 

[DFWJC]

I thought teams consider those charts outdated and don't use them anymore.

Yeah. I heard that heretoo.
Amazing how almost all of them come with 5-10% or less of the chart.
Funny how that works.!