Stephen Jones is a terrible negotiator

[TheMarathonContinues]

They can also be future Hall of Famers... Like Jason Witten

Okay, but that was nearly 11 or 12 years ago. The odds of finding a HOF'er in those rounds are slim. The higher you get the better chance you have at finding a player. They could also very well be Jason Williams or Robert Brewster.

 

[Picksix]

But it does increase the odds of hitting on one. You throw enough stuff at the wall and see what sticks.

Yeah, I get that. There is that argument that having more chances means more chances to hit on someone. I guess it's just whether you prefer more of that shotgun approach vs. going after a specific target. Either way can be effective.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Wish we could kidnap Seattles GM and have him draft for us. Richard Sherman, kam, Byron maxwell, Bruce Irvin.

All of those guys were taken in the 4th round or LATER. And if you check their history. People talk about their hits but they have A LOT of misses.......and Bruce Irvin who was actually a 1st round pick is looking like one.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Yeah, I get that. There is that argument that having more chances means more chances to hit on someone. I guess it's just whether you prefer more of that shotgun approach vs. going after a specific target. Either way can be effective.

The thing about this approach though is that we took this approach in 2009. We had more chances to hit and failed on every single one of the picks. More doesn't equal more chances.

 

[Idgit]

I'd probably take Attaochu and Jackson over Lawrence...

Definitely. I'd have been pretty dang happy with Martin, Attaochu, and Jackson. And I don't even like OGs at the top of the draft.

 

[daveferr33]

The reason I believe the Cowboys have not received equivalent value in recent years is because in both instances I don't think they ever realistically considered walking away from the trade.

They went into last year wanting to pick up an extra late rounder. So they settled for a third.

This year, they went into the second day believing they absolutely needed to have Lawrence and did what they had to do to make that happen.

You typically end up on the short end of a deal when you want to make the deal more than your trading partner. I believe that was the case in both instances.

 

[wileedog]

The reason I believe the Cowboys have not received equivalent value in recent years is because in both instances I don't think they ever realistically considered walking away from the trade.

They went into last year wanting to pick up an extra late rounder. So they settled for a third.

This year, they went into the second day believing they absolutely needed to have Lawrence and did what they had to do to make that happen.

You typically end up on the short end of a deal when you want to make the deal more than your trading partner. I believe that was the case in both instances.

That is the MO of Jerry's entire trading career. He absolutely had to have Joey Galloway. And Roy Williams. He gets himself fixated to a point where he talks himself into overpaying because he believes it will be worth it no matter what.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

That is the MO of Jerry's entire trading career. He absolutely had to have Joey Galloway. And Roy Williams. He gets himself fixated to a point where he talks himself into overpaying because he believes it will be worth it no matter what.

Of course.

But that happens in virtually every trade that goes through. You almost always going to have one party that is more motivated than the other... And many times the terms of the trade reflects that. That's why the Patriots only gave up like a #4 for to get Randy Moss from the Raiders.

 

[Nightman]

The reason I believe the Cowboys have not received equivalent value in recent years is because in both instances I don't think they ever realistically considered walking away from the trade.

They went into last year wanting to pick up an extra late rounder. So they settled for a third.

This year, they went into the second day believing they absolutely needed to have Lawrence and did what they had to do to make that happen.

You typically end up on the short end of a deal when you want to make the deal more than your trading partner. I believe that was the case in both instances.

I don't think they bluffed CLE hard enough. CLE definitely needed Manziel and they called us on it. If Stephen was on the phone and said "listen, we are taking Manziel at 16 period," they probably would have caved. They had picked up extra picks and were pretty set on coming back up. I know you can't make them trade, but they didn't believe we would actually take Manziel and they were proved correct.

 

[AdamJT13]

“He was the last guy we really had in terms of the right-end spot,” Stephen Jones said. “We knew we might have to give up a little more than maybe the charts read out. That happens sometimes when you want a guy and we really wanted this guy. We didn’t want to lose him. We worked through the deal. We sweetened the pot a little bit and got the deal done.”


However there should be NO...again NO argument that we overpaid in trade value because the man who made the trade said we did. If you want to argue that we did not overpay forthe trade value...argue with the man who worked out the trade...Stephen Jones.

There can be an argument, though, because Stephen was referring to the trade charts (including the chart he uses). But those are just charts -- and the charts commonly used these days do not reflect the true value of the picks. If you look at trades made in recent years and what teams actually have paid to trade up, we did not overpay, regardless of what our own chart or anyone else's chart says.

It's like basing the value of something off a price guide while ignoring how much people have actually paid for it. If a vintage car model is listed at $35,000 in a book but consistently sells for $45,000, is it worth $35,000 or $45,000? I'd say it's worth $45,000, because that's what people are paying for it. If some player's rookie card books at $200 but consistently sells for only $75, I'd say it's worth $75, not $200.

Did we "give up a little more than maybe the charts read out," as Stephen says? Yes, but only because "the charts" don't accurately reflect what teams have been paying for picks in that part of the draft in recent years. We actually paid a little less than what other teams have typically paid, on average, to make similar moves in recent years.

 

[MapleLeaf]

There can be an argument, though, because Stephen was referring to the trade charts (including the chart he uses). But those are just charts -- and the charts commonly used these days do not reflect the true value of the picks. If you look at trades made in recent years and what teams actually have paid to trade up, we did not overpay, regardless of what our own chart or anyone else's chart says.

It's like basing the value of something off a price guide while ignoring how much people have actually paid for it. If a vintage car model is listed at $35,000 in a book but consistently sells for $45,000, is it worth $35,000 or $45,000? I'd say it's worth $45,000, because that's what people are paying for it. If some player's rookie card books at $200 but consistently sells for only $75, I'd say it's worth $75, not $200.

Did we "give up a little more than maybe the charts read out," as Stephen says? Yes, but only because "the charts" don't accurately reflect what teams have been paying for picks in that part of the draft in recent years. We actually paid a little less than what other teams have typically paid, on average, to make similar moves in recent years.

Something tells me trade charts have to be updated to reflect the current market value established these past few years.

The media gets riled up over trade value charts and points differential. As a fan it is hard to understand who's opinion carries any weight when it comes to value charts.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There can be an argument, though, because Stephen was referring to the trade charts (including the chart he uses). But those are just charts -- and the charts commonly used these days do not reflect the true value of the picks. If you look at trades made in recent years and what teams actually have paid to trade up, we did not overpay, regardless of what our own chart or anyone else's chart says.

It's like basing the value of something off a price guide while ignoring how much people have actually paid for it. If a vintage car model is listed at $35,000 in a book but consistently sells for $45,000, is it worth $35,000 or $45,000? I'd say it's worth $45,000, because that's what people are paying for it. If some player's rookie card books at $200 but consistently sells for only $75, I'd say it's worth $75, not $200.

Did we "give up a little more than maybe the charts read out," as Stephen says? Yes, but only because "the charts" don't accurately reflect what teams have been paying for picks in that part of the draft in recent years. We actually paid a little less than what other teams have typically paid, on average, to make similar moves in recent years.

That portion of the draft is a sellers market. You have teams making and accepting offers on those first few picks all thursday night. At the end of the day the market sets the price but worth can be determined however you as the buyer would like.

If you establish worth based on actual on field production out of the pick then that is one thing. The problem is you have the draft schedule pushing cost as all that extra time pushes demand higher. In our case, a bidding war broke out. I would bet a dollar to a doughnut that if you were to go back and look at those previous trades of picks 33 through 40 you would see similar scenarios as teams stew over their draft boards and remaining needs that evening. AT least in the time since they isolated the first round to one day. I am not sure when that was.

I just hope Lawrence is worth it.

 

[TheDallasDon]

Ealy + Brooks >>> Lawrence

No question about it. Both Ealy and Brooks would be starting/contributing. Lawrence is a good player, but he can't play two positions at once.

Sorry ... this just proves my point about getting fleeced.

I dont make many predictions but Kony will never be a good player IMO

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I dont make many predictions but Kony will never be a good player IMO

He was an underachiever in college. So you're going to give him a wad of cash and expect him to max out his athletic potential in the pros?

Seem like a tough row to hoe.

 

[morasp]

I don't think they bluffed CLE hard enough. CLE definitely needed Manziel and they called us on it. If Stephen was on the phone and said "listen, we are taking Manziel at 16 period," they probably would have caved. They had picked up extra picks and were pretty set on coming back up. I know you can't make them trade, but they didn't believe we would actually take Manziel and they were proved correct.

Absolutely. I was thinking at the time Jimmy Johnson would have gotten that trade.

 

[coogrfan]

So you're telling me it's a perpetual cycle of futility.

have no franchise-wide philosophy or cap discipline -> switch to a new scheme w/out the proper personnel -> fail measurably -> cut players due to lack of cap discipline -> have holes everywhere -> give up resources to draft a position of desperate need -> continue to have holes and lack of depth due to lack of picks -> get destroyed by teams like San Fran who have 5 picks on day two -> finish 8-8 again -> have a conversation with Larry Lacewell -> abruptly switch courses again -> rinse and repeat

Depressing, but brutally accurate.