Scenario: SF wants to move up

[1LoyalCowboyFan]

In this trade we give up more than what we get to make it happen
18+47=1330 to SF 31+34+93=1288 Dallas

31 Sylvester Williams DT
34 Jonathan Cyprien SS
80 Terron Armstead OT
93 Joseph Randle RB
114 Alvin Bailey OG
151 David Bass DE
185 Michael Williams TE

 

[TheRomoSexual]

I like the concept, but not necessarily the value. I'd rather either of the following scenarios...

18 for 31 and 61 (plus a lower round pick).

or

18 and 80 for 31 and 34.

 

[1LoyalCowboyFan]

I like the concept, but not necessarily the value. I'd rather either of the following scenarios...

18 for 31 and 61 (plus a lower round pick).

or

18 and 80 for 31 and 34.

I would've loved their 74 pick instead of 93 but don't see it happening. I think SF would be looking to lower amount of picks.

18 for 31,61, 194 does look more plausible. Makes more sense for them to lower their amount of later round picks.

 

[Biggems]

In this trade we give up more than what we get to make it happen
18+47=1330 to SF 31+34+93=1288 Dallas

31 Sylvester Williams DT
34 Jonathan Cyprien SS
80 Terron Armstead OT
93 Joseph Randle RB
114 Alvin Bailey OG
151 David Bass DE
185 Michael Williams TE

hell no. if they want to move up that desperately, we get more from them than that. They have a 14 picks and not a lot of holes to fill. If we are giving them our 1st and 2nd, we better get much more in return than what we did in your mock.

SF picks
1-31
2-34
2-61
3-74
3-93
4-128
4-131 (comp)
5-157
5-164
6-180
7-227
7-237
7-246 (comp)
7-252 (comp)

18 and 47 for 31, 34, 74, 227, 237

please redo your mock with my picks.....btw, I love your draft, except for Williams at TE. He is slower than I am, not a good sign.

31-
34-
74-
80-
93-
114-
151-
185-
227-
237-

 

[1LoyalCowboyFan]

hell no. if they want to move up that desperately, we get more from them than that. They have a 14 picks and not a lot of holes to fill. If we are giving them our 1st and 2nd, we better get much more in return than what we did in your mock.

SF picks
1-31
2-34
2-61
3-74
3-93
4-128
4-131 (comp)
5-157
5-164
6-180
7-227
7-237
7-246 (comp)
7-252 (comp)

18 and 47 for 31, 34, 74, 227, 237

please redo your mock with my picks.....btw, I love your draft, except for Williams at TE. He is slower than I am, not a good sign.

31-
34-
74-
80-
93-
114-
151-
185-
227-
237-

According to Calculator soup when we moved up for Claiborne this was the value of picks 14+45=1550 to 6=1600. Moving up we got better value. I think a lot of teams see the value of moving down in this draft more than previous years. I hope I'm wrong. I don't think a well run team would allow this trade. As for Williams, he can block and I miss that. If defense bites on play action after running ball wellI don't see why he wouldn't be open. Don't trust Hanna as much to block.

 

[Nightman]

I wouldn't give up 18 and 47 to get 31, 34 and 74. we don't seem to do well moving back that far. I would only give 18 and 80 for 31, 34 and 164. I know the values don't exactly work, but if they want Austin or Vaccaro and want to move up badly, make them pay for it.

 

[9darter]

Moving down 13 spots in the first round + moving up 13 spots in the second round = a low third rounder?

:stop:

 

[Biggems]

According to Calculator soup when we moved up for Claiborne this was the value of picks 14+45=1550 to 6=1600. Moving up we got better value. I think a lot of teams see the value of moving down in this draft more than previous years. I hope I'm wrong. I don't think a well run team would allow this trade. As for Williams, he can block and I miss that. If defense bites on play action after running ball wellI don't see why he wouldn't be open. Don't trust Hanna as much to block.

SF only loses by 52.6 points.........they are able to get the guy they covet in the 1st and add a quality pick in the 2nd with our pick......once again, they have very few holes and a ton of picks.....so they have the ability to give away a pick or two if it sweetens the pot to get them the spot they want in the draft.

SF has 14 picks, I see them walking out of the draft with no more than 10 picks, and to be honest, I see them really only taking 8-9......trading away the other picks to move up or even acquiring picks for the 2014 draft.

 

[Biggems]

comp picks have no point value, as you cannot use them in trades. SF has 3 comp picks, so that gives them 11 tradeable picks. Dallas has 6 tradeable picks.

The value of the 11 picks for SF is 1920.4. The value of the 6 picks for Dallas is 1634.4. The difference between the two is 286.0, or basically the 2nd round pick (61) that SF has (292).

I know this will never happen, but for poops and giggles, let's say it does.

Dallas sends 18, 47, 80, 114, 151, and 185 to SF.

SF sends 31, 34, 74, 93, 128, 157, 164, 180, 227, 237 to Dallas.

Dallas goes from 6 to 10 picks, allowing them to address several needs.

SF goes from 14 to 10 picks, moving up to grab their guy at 18, while also allowing themselves some picks to add depth.


like I said, this doesn't happen in real life, but it sure is fun to talk about.....and now with our new draft picks, what will our mock look like?

 

[JD_KaPow]

Using the draft value chart, we get:

18 + 47 = 1330
31 + 34 = 1160

The difference is 170, or pick 84. SF has 74 and 93. Since they're probably very motivated to move quantity for quality in this draft, I could see them giving 74 and the 50 points. Alternatively, they could give us 74 and we give 151, but I don't think we do that.

I like 18 for 31, 61 and 185 myself. (900 vs. 909.4)

 

[jobberone]

We would need to get basically two high picks or 31 and 34. Those are essentially two low first round picks plus whatever pick is needed to move the scale in Dallas's favor without injuring SF too much.

And Dallas would have to be ok with that number 31 pick as someone who can contribute significantly this year as well as the 34 pick which would either be a G, T, DT or S depending on the pick at 31. You cannot begin to project who will be there at 31 or even 34 although I think Cyprien will be at 34.

Risky. Best to move down no more than 4-5 picks in this draft considering the teams immediately behind us and the players they are likely to take.

 

[Hoofbite]

I think when proposing trades too many people are focused on making the numbers match up. All too often we see teams take less than "fair" value for their picks or give more than they should in order to move up. Atlanta is one team that did and Washington gave up a ton. I will say that both teams looked to have evaluated the player correctly. In that sense they knew what they were trading for and provided both players develop and remain healthy they probably won't regret making that decision because both look very promising.

Adam's blog has a ton of info on what teams have actually given up or accepted in return when trading in the draft. One person that follows his blog used the trades to calculate a new value chart that reflects actual trades using some statistical analysis and what not. I don't know what Adam thinks of the numbers because I can't recall him talking about it but I spotted it the other day and thought it was interesting. I'm not sure how much more proper they are at estimating the true value but I think they are relevant because it's based on what has actually been paid and not some set value from however long ago.

With the rookie wage scale, I've said the chart itself is probably outdated. Without the huge cap burden of missing on a top 5 pick, I think these picks are more valuable now. If you trade up and miss on a guy, not only did you trade picks but you sacrificed a lot of cap room to do so. Now you can at least recover for missed picks by using the cap space that the same pick would have eaten up just a couple years ago.

In addition, Dallas also goes by a different chart. Broaddus has talked about it a few times. Their values are different than the commonly cited charted and he's even posted certain values for individual picks at different times. At least he says that's where they are coming from. I actually tried to see how many numbers he would give out and didn't really get too far.

As for this trade, I don't really see the benefit. The difference between the type of player you could select at #18 is pretty significant compared to #31. The difference between #34 and #47 likely isn't nearly as big and I don't think a 3rd rounder makes up the gap. Dropping down half a round in the first round is big and I don't really see where Dallas gains much. The only real plus I see is that Dallas would be holding that #34 pick and if a QB falls far enough some team might be willing to trade a pick this year and a future first for the guy.

I wouldn't be opposed to trading with the 49ers but they'd going to have to come with an offer that has Dallas giving away less. I'm content with where Dallas is picking so they're going to have to pay the premium to get whichever player it is that they are coveting so badly.

I'd tell them #18 for #34, #61 and #74. The common chart would put the value in favor of Dallas by about a mid 3rd rounder but that's what I would tell them it would take. You want me to move down and take a significantly less promising player in the first round while getting a moderately better player in the 2nd plus a 3rd rounder and in return you move up and take a significantly more promising player in the first round using picks thats you pulled off other teams? They have the picks and need to burn a few. Burn them getting your prize in the first round or burn them by getting a couple guys after the first round in exchange for a handful of your mid-to-late round picks.

The chart on Adam's blog would put the values of each pick at.

#18 = 1368

For:

#34 = 800
#61 = 363
#74 = 256
Total: 1419

51 in favor of Dallas. In 2011, KC traded #21 to Cleveland for #27 and #70.

Cleveland Received
#21 = 1229

KC Recieved
#27 = 1003
#70 = 285
Total: 1288

Edge going to KC by 59 points or just a little more than what Dallas would get in such a trade with

Based on this KC/CLE trade, the value to cover the additional draft spots that SF would have to cover in moving up would be almost equivalent to the value of the #61 overall pick minus a little on the back end for the difference between #70 in the KC/CLE trade and #74 in the trade above.

I'd tell them to take it or leave it. I wouldn't take a lesser deal to give an already stacked team a little more firepower when they'd most likely be one of the teams standing in the way during any potential playoff run.

This is what teams have paid recently to get "almost" as high up in the order as you want to.

This would leave Dallas with:

#34
#47
#61
#74
#80

That's 5 picks in the first 80. They could still find a starting quality Safety or OG at #34, possibly the other at #47 and the rest of the picks would go towards replenishing the depleted depth.

 

[Biggems]

I think when proposing trades too many people are focused on making the numbers match up. All too often we see teams take less than "fair" value for their picks or give more than they should in order to move up. Atlanta is one team that did and Washington gave up a ton. I will say that both teams looked to have evaluated the player correctly. In that sense they knew what they were trading for and provided both players develop and remain healthy they probably won't regret making that decision because both look very promising.

Adam's blog has a ton of info on what teams have actually given up or accepted in return when trading in the draft. One person that follows his blog used the trades to calculate a new value chart that reflects actual trades using some statistical analysis and what not. I don't know what Adam thinks of the numbers because I can't recall him talking about it but I spotted it the other day and thought it was interesting. I'm not sure how much more proper they are at estimating the true value but I think they are relevant because it's based on what has actually been paid and not some set value from however long ago.

With the rookie wage scale, I've said the chart itself is probably outdated. Without the huge cap burden of missing on a top 5 pick, I think these picks are more valuable now. If you trade up and miss on a guy, not only did you trade picks but you sacrificed a lot of cap room to do so. Now you can at least recover for missed picks by using the cap space that the same pick would have eaten up just a couple years ago.

In addition, Dallas also goes by a different chart. Broaddus has talked about it a few times. Their values are different than the commonly cited charted and he's even posted certain values for individual picks at different times. At least he says that's where they are coming from. I actually tried to see how many numbers he would give out and didn't really get too far.

As for this trade, I don't really see the benefit. The difference between the type of player you could select at #18 is pretty significant compared to #31. The difference between #34 and #47 likely isn't nearly as big and I don't think a 3rd rounder makes up the gap. Dropping down half a round in the first round is big and I don't really see where Dallas gains much. The only real plus I see is that Dallas would be holding that #34 pick and if a QB falls far enough some team might be willing to trade a pick this year and a future first for the guy.

I wouldn't be opposed to trading with the 49ers but they'd going to have to come with an offer that has Dallas giving away less. I'm content with where Dallas is picking so they're going to have to pay the premium to get whichever player it is that they are coveting so badly.

I'd tell them #18 for #34, #61 and #74. The common chart would put the value in favor of Dallas by about a mid 3rd rounder but that's what I would tell them it would take. You want me to move down and take a significantly less promising player in the first round while getting a moderately better player in the 2nd plus a 3rd rounder and in return you move up and take a significantly more promising player in the first round using picks thats you pulled off other teams? They have the picks and need to burn a few. Burn them getting your prize in the first round or burn them by getting a couple guys after the first round in exchange for a handful of your mid-to-late round picks.

The chart on Adam's blog would put the values of each pick at.

#18 = 1368

For:

#34 = 800
#61 = 363
#74 = 256
Total: 1419

51 in favor of Dallas. In 2011, KC traded #21 to Cleveland for #27 and #70.

Cleveland Received
#21 = 1229

KC Recieved
#27 = 1003
#70 = 285
Total: 1288

Edge going to KC by 59 points or just a little more than what Dallas would get in such a trade with

Based on this KC/CLE trade, the value to cover the additional draft spots that SF would have to cover in moving up would be almost equivalent to the value of the #61 overall pick minus a little on the back end for the difference between #70 in the KC/CLE trade and #74 in the trade above.

I'd tell them to take it or leave it. I wouldn't take a lesser deal to give an already stacked team a little more firepower when they'd most likely be one of the teams standing in the way during any potential playoff run.

This is what teams have paid recently to get "almost" as high up in the order as you want to.

This would leave Dallas with:

#34
#47
#61
#74
#80

That's 5 picks in the first 80. They could still find a starting quality Safety or OG at #34, possibly the other at #47 and the rest of the picks would go towards replenishing the depleted depth.

do you have a link to this new chart.....it looks a lot better to evaluate trades with than the one from drafttek.

 

[Hoofbite]

He hasn't updated anything there in a long time it looks.

Here's the page though.

http://adamjt13.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2012-04-26T14:54:00-07:00&max-results=4

 

[TheRomoSexual]

I think when proposing trades too many people are focused on making the numbers match up. All too often we see teams take less than "fair" value for their picks or give more than they should in order to move up. Atlanta is one team that did and Washington gave up a ton. I will say that both teams looked to have evaluated the player correctly. In that sense they knew what they were trading for and provided both players develop and remain healthy they probably won't regret making that decision because both look very promising.

Adam's blog has a ton of info on what teams have actually given up or accepted in return when trading in the draft. One person that follows his blog used the trades to calculate a new value chart that reflects actual trades using some statistical analysis and what not. I don't know what Adam thinks of the numbers because I can't recall him talking about it but I spotted it the other day and thought it was interesting. I'm not sure how much more proper they are at estimating the true value but I think they are relevant because it's based on what has actually been paid and not some set value from however long ago.

With the rookie wage scale, I've said the chart itself is probably outdated. Without the huge cap burden of missing on a top 5 pick, I think these picks are more valuable now. If you trade up and miss on a guy, not only did you trade picks but you sacrificed a lot of cap room to do so. Now you can at least recover for missed picks by using the cap space that the same pick would have eaten up just a couple years ago.

In addition, Dallas also goes by a different chart. Broaddus has talked about it a few times. Their values are different than the commonly cited charted and he's even posted certain values for individual picks at different times. At least he says that's where they are coming from. I actually tried to see how many numbers he would give out and didn't really get too far.

As for this trade, I don't really see the benefit. The difference between the type of player you could select at #18 is pretty significant compared to #31. The difference between #34 and #47 likely isn't nearly as big and I don't think a 3rd rounder makes up the gap. Dropping down half a round in the first round is big and I don't really see where Dallas gains much. The only real plus I see is that Dallas would be holding that #34 pick and if a QB falls far enough some team might be willing to trade a pick this year and a future first for the guy.

I wouldn't be opposed to trading with the 49ers but they'd going to have to come with an offer that has Dallas giving away less. I'm content with where Dallas is picking so they're going to have to pay the premium to get whichever player it is that they are coveting so badly.

I'd tell them #18 for #34, #61 and #74. The common chart would put the value in favor of Dallas by about a mid 3rd rounder but that's what I would tell them it would take. You want me to move down and take a significantly less promising player in the first round while getting a moderately better player in the 2nd plus a 3rd rounder and in return you move up and take a significantly more promising player in the first round using picks thats you pulled off other teams? They have the picks and need to burn a few. Burn them getting your prize in the first round or burn them by getting a couple guys after the first round in exchange for a handful of your mid-to-late round picks.

The chart on Adam's blog would put the values of each pick at.

#18 = 1368

For:

#34 = 800
#61 = 363
#74 = 256
Total: 1419

51 in favor of Dallas. In 2011, KC traded #21 to Cleveland for #27 and #70.

Cleveland Received
#21 = 1229

KC Recieved
#27 = 1003
#70 = 285
Total: 1288

Edge going to KC by 59 points or just a little more than what Dallas would get in such a trade with

Based on this KC/CLE trade, the value to cover the additional draft spots that SF would have to cover in moving up would be almost equivalent to the value of the #61 overall pick minus a little on the back end for the difference between #70 in the KC/CLE trade and #74 in the trade above.

I'd tell them to take it or leave it. I wouldn't take a lesser deal to give an already stacked team a little more firepower when they'd most likely be one of the teams standing in the way during any potential playoff run.

This is what teams have paid recently to get "almost" as high up in the order as you want to.

This would leave Dallas with:

#34
#47
#61
#74
#80

That's 5 picks in the first 80. They could still find a starting quality Safety or OG at #34, possibly the other at #47 and the rest of the picks would go towards replenishing the depleted depth.

I'm sorry, but this post is fairly ridiculous. If you look at the trades last year (outside of the Top 5), they were all pretty in-line with the normal value chart. http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/games/draft-pick-value.php. As such, it's somewhat silly to criticize a mock because they didn't get incredible value for the trade down -- in the end, these mocks are for fun and are a mechanism by which fans can modify their existing mocks. No one is on the phone playing hardball with Harbaugh here.

 

[respectdatstar]

If we are moving back, they need to sweeten the deal.

 

[1LoyalCowboyFan]

Thank you all for your input it is much appreciated. I found it very informative. I will make another mock soon to reflect the above. At first it didn't seem as if we were giving away too much value but now I see different. I think it would be great to get 5 players in the top 80. I really hope SF sees someone they really love at #18.

 

[DFWJC]

I think when proposing trades too many people are focused on making the numbers match up. All too often we see teams take less than "fair" value for their picks or give more than they should in order to move up.
.

The vast majority of the time, trades do match up fairly closely. By that, I mean within 5% or so.
That still leaves room to pay a premium--on a 1300 pt trade, thats 65 points of leeway.

The charts are surprisingly useful, and the best way to guess on a trade value is to match up the trades and not make assumptions about whether or not any party will overpay. It doesn't rule out the possiblity though.

 

[1LoyalCowboyFan]

I think when proposing trades too many people are focused on making the numbers match up. All too often we see teams take less than "fair" value for their picks or give more than they should in order to move up. Atlanta is one team that did and Washington gave up a ton. I will say that both teams looked to have evaluated the player correctly. In that sense they knew what they were trading for and provided both players develop and remain healthy they probably won't regret making that decision because both look very promising.

Adam's blog has a ton of info on what teams have actually given up or accepted in return when trading in the draft. One person that follows his blog used the trades to calculate a new value chart that reflects actual trades using some statistical analysis and what not. I don't know what Adam thinks of the numbers because I can't recall him talking about it but I spotted it the other day and thought it was interesting. I'm not sure how much more proper they are at estimating the true value but I think they are relevant because it's based on what has actually been paid and not some set value from however long ago.

With the rookie wage scale, I've said the chart itself is probably outdated. Without the huge cap burden of missing on a top 5 pick, I think these picks are more valuable now. If you trade up and miss on a guy, not only did you trade picks but you sacrificed a lot of cap room to do so. Now you can at least recover for missed picks by using the cap space that the same pick would have eaten up just a couple years ago.

In addition, Dallas also goes by a different chart. Broaddus has talked about it a few times. Their values are different than the commonly cited charted and he's even posted certain values for individual picks at different times. At least he says that's where they are coming from. I actually tried to see how many numbers he would give out and didn't really get too far.

As for this trade, I don't really see the benefit. The difference between the type of player you could select at #18 is pretty significant compared to #31. The difference between #34 and #47 likely isn't nearly as big and I don't think a 3rd rounder makes up the gap. Dropping down half a round in the first round is big and I don't really see where Dallas gains much. The only real plus I see is that Dallas would be holding that #34 pick and if a QB falls far enough some team might be willing to trade a pick this year and a future first for the guy.

I wouldn't be opposed to trading with the 49ers but they'd going to have to come with an offer that has Dallas giving away less. I'm content with where Dallas is picking so they're going to have to pay the premium to get whichever player it is that they are coveting so badly.

I'd tell them #18 for #34, #61 and #74. The common chart would put the value in favor of Dallas by about a mid 3rd rounder but that's what I would tell them it would take. You want me to move down and take a significantly less promising player in the first round while getting a moderately better player in the 2nd plus a 3rd rounder and in return you move up and take a significantly more promising player in the first round using picks thats you pulled off other teams? They have the picks and need to burn a few. Burn them getting your prize in the first round or burn them by getting a couple guys after the first round in exchange for a handful of your mid-to-late round picks.

The chart on Adam's blog would put the values of each pick at.

#18 = 1368

For:

#34 = 800
#61 = 363
#74 = 256
Total: 1419

51 in favor of Dallas. In 2011, KC traded #21 to Cleveland for #27 and #70.

Cleveland Received
#21 = 1229

KC Recieved
#27 = 1003
#70 = 285
Total: 1288

Edge going to KC by 59 points or just a little more than what Dallas would get in such a trade with

Based on this KC/CLE trade, the value to cover the additional draft spots that SF would have to cover in moving up would be almost equivalent to the value of the #61 overall pick minus a little on the back end for the difference between #70 in the KC/CLE trade and #74 in the trade above.

I'd tell them to take it or leave it. I wouldn't take a lesser deal to give an already stacked team a little more firepower when they'd most likely be one of the teams standing in the way during any potential playoff run.

This is what teams have paid recently to get "almost" as high up in the order as you want to.

This would leave Dallas with:

#34
#47
#61
#74
#80

That's 5 picks in the first 80. They could still find a starting quality Safety or OG at #34, possibly the other at #47 and the rest of the picks would go towards replenishing the depleted depth.

34 Cyprien S
47 Short DT
61 Watson OT
74 Franklin RB
80 Schwenke C
114 Bailey OG
151 Harper WR
185 Commings RB

 

[respectdatstar]

I'd tell them to take it or leave it. I wouldn't take a lesser deal to give an already stacked team a little more firepower when they'd most likely be one of the teams standing in the way during any potential playoff run.

Exactly. I didn't consider this before. We definitely shouldn't help out the defending NFC Champ when we are in the NFC.