Theoretical trade down discussion

[sonnyboy]

I've posted many times that it's my preferred approach, but I don't think I've ever started a thread to discuss the merits.

Let me start by saying it's not always the best move. My one rule of thumb in NFL team management and building is no rule at all. Flexibility is key.

Perfect example is that I prefer to not draft certain positions in the 1st round. S, TE, ILB, OL(especially interior) and more recently RB. These positions tend to be valued a little less by the league and quality players tend to slip. You can get quality players at those spots beyond the 1st round. You often find players who carry "1st rd grades" early on in the 2nd at those positions.

You also tend to find more verteran FA opportunities to acquire these players.

When you find a QB, DL, OLB(3-4), DE(4-3), WR, or CB availible in the 2nd rd with a consensus 1st rd grade, there's almost always a character or injury concern.

You also tend to find less verteran FA opportunities to acquire these players.


Well I was certainly willing to deviate from that theme in the 2011 draft with the selection of OT Smith. And I'm willing to deviate even more so this season with a potential selection of OG Decastro at 14.

Now I went and seriously digressed, but this also plays into my initial premise.

The higher your 1st round pick is, the more valuable it is in a possible trade down. That's the good news. The not so great news is that the higher(more valuable) your 1st round pick is, the greater your "need" to maximize that resource is........

I what I mean by maximizing the resource, is the near perfect fit of BPA filling greatest need. I believe OT Smith at pick 9 last year, pretty much did that.

The other "issue" as I see it with maximizing a higher 1st rd picks is that the "gap" between your ranked players tends to be larger as up go up the board. In theory, your gap between 1 and 2 will tend to be greater than 2 and 3, 3 and 4 and so on. So the gap for us between our 14th and 15th ranked players should certainly be greater than our 31st and 32nd.

So the odds are less that you have an opportunity to maximize the 14th pick, than would be say the 28th pick.
And any forgone value of passing on your 28th ranked player at pick 28, to select your 29th ranked player who fills a need...........

is far less than the forgone value of doing the same thing in the middle of round one.

So I would think the opportunity to trade down in an attempt to maximize the value of your 1st round pick, is more likely than having that opportunity to do it by selecting a player.

I have some more to say on this and how it more specifically relates to this team in 2012, but I'll see if the thread has any legs.........

 

[casmith07]

Trading down only makes sense to me if DeCastro is gone. Otherwise, your idea of max value/BPA is DeCastro at #14 this year.

 

[visionary]

i think this varies by draft

i do agree that some positions like RB, S, TE dont need to be taken in Rd 1 unless there is a true difference maker (like peterson, richardson, etc)

i personally like the idea of trading down to 20-24 range in this draft because

1) in that range we are likley to find very good players that fit our needs (Poe, Glenn, Hightower) and

2) we get an extra rd 2 pick

so a haul of

Poe
Osemele/Solitalu
Jayron Hosley

would be great and better than

decastro
minnifield

 

[jnday]

Trading down only makes sense to me if DeCastro is gone. Otherwise, your idea of max value/BPA is DeCastro at #14 this year.

I agree . If DeCastro is gone , trade back and try to pick up Glenn . Then you have an extra pick for a CB or pass rusher .

 

[CCBoy]

Trading down only makes sense to me if DeCastro is gone. Otherwise, your idea of max value/BPA is DeCastro at #14 this year.

If he were gone, I'd target a trade down, and then both Konz and Glenn in sights.

 

[sonnyboy]

Nice responses. Taking a quick work break to check in and offer a few more thoughts.

In addition to the other reasons for trading down more often than not(maximizing opportunity value of the selection)......

There's a few other reasons I favor the strategy.......


In this era of FA, I believe your better off having two teirs of players:

Tier A are established star types earning about 8 mil on average on their 2nd NFL contract. These obviously can be your own previous selections you've resigned and other teams players who hit the market.

10 of these players would take up 80 mil in cap space. That only leaves you 45 mil to pay the other 43 players that would fall into Tier B. Almost all those players need to be 1st contract players, age 26 or younger.

If you're consistently trading down year after year, you're consistently adding 2-4 extra selections, therefor increasing the number of good young prospects you bring in each season.

IF you do this well, you seldom if ever should get caught in the spot we are now in with Spencer. Making him a true Tier A highly compensated vet when he isn't really special.

You almost always have a younger option or two you can trust and let that slightly above average player get over paid by someone else.

 

[cowboy_ron]

Trading down only makes sense to me if DeCastro is gone. Otherwise, your idea of max value/BPA is DeCastro at #14 this year.

I agree

 

[CCBoy]

Nice responses. Taking a quick work break to check in and offer a few more thoughts.

In addition to the other reasons for trading down more often than not(maximizing opportunity value of the selection)......

There's a few other reasons I favor the strategy.......


In this era of FA, I believe your better off having two teirs of players:

Tier A are established star types earning about 8 mil on average on their 2nd NFL contract. These obviously can be your own previous selections you've resigned and other teams players who hit the market.

10 of these players would take up 80 mil in cap space. That only leaves you 45 mil to pay the other 43 players that would fall into Tier B. Almost all those players need to be 1st contract players, age 26 or younger.

If you're consistently trading down year after year, you're consistently adding 2-4 extra selections, therefor increasing the number of good young prospects you bring in each season.

IF you do this well, you seldom if ever should get caught in the spot we are now in with Spencer. Making him a true Tier A highly compensated vet when he isn't really special.

You almost always have a younger option or two you can trust and let that slightly above average player get over paid by someone else.

Good point, and it includes cap solvency at the same time...

 

[sonnyboy]

i think this varies by draft

i do agree that some positions like RB, S, TE dont need to be taken in Rd 1 unless there is a true difference maker (like peterson, richardson, etc)

i personally like the idea of trading down to 20-24 range in this draft because

1) in that range we are likley to find very good players that fit our needs (Poe, Glenn, Hightower) and

2) we get an extra rd 2 pick

so a haul of

Poe
Osemele/Solitalu
Jayron Hosley

would be great and better than

decastro
minnifield

Trading down to 24 could get us a 2nd and 3rd. Think about that for a second. That could be the 60th and 92nd selections.

So for dropping 10 spots in rd one, we could draft two more top 100 players.

Most teams will be selecting 3 of the top 100 rated college prospects, we could have 5!

And it's volume like this the better affords you the opportunity to stay true to your board with BPA.

 

[visionary]

Trading down to 24 could get us a 2nd and 3rd. Think about that for a second. That could be the 60th and 92nd selections.

So for dropping 10 spots in rd one, we could draft two more top 100 players.

Most teams will be selecting 3 of the top 100 rated college prospects, we could have 5!

And it's volume like this the better affords you the opportunity to stay true to your board with BPA.

i agree it would be great though we would need a willing partner

although i would not want to trade below Pittsburgh because i think they will take one of Poe or Hightower

 

[Verdict]

Trading down to 24 could get us a 2nd and 3rd. Think about that for a second. That could be the 60th and 92nd selections.

So for dropping 10 spots in rd one, we could draft two more top 100 players.

Most teams will be selecting 3 of the top 100 rated college prospects, we could have 5!

And it's volume like this the better affords you the opportunity to stay true to your board with BPA.

That sounds great in theory, and often times, it can work out well. However, I wouldn't replace Tyson Smith with two lower draft picks. Moreover in retrospect, it would probably been a better move to select Steven Jackson rather than trade down, like we when we took Julius Jones.

If DeCastro is on the board we should probably take him. If DeCastro is gone, then a trade down is probably an option. Those aren't rigid parameters, but generally make the most sense.

About the best that we could hope for would be for DeCastro to be there on the board at 14, and get the 15th slotted team and team slightly below that bidding for our spot at 14 for a player we don't want. Ideally, in a perfect world, we would trade down one slot to 15, draft DeCastro, get compensation for the trade down AND pay DeCastro less money for his draft slot.

 

[jnday]

If he were gone, I'd target a trade down, and then both Konz and Glenn in sights.

I have been thinking along those lines as well . That would be too good to be true .

 

[cowboy_ron]

I have been thinking along those lines as well . That would be too good to be true .

I'm with ya on that

 

[sonnyboy]

That sounds great in theory, and often times, it can work out well. However, I wouldn't replace Tyson Smith with two lower draft picks. Moreover in retrospect, it would probably been a better move to select Steven Jackson rather than trade down, like we when we took Julius Jones.

If DeCastro is on the board we should probably take him. If DeCastro is gone, then a trade down is probably an option. Those aren't rigid parameters, but generally make the most sense.

About the best that we could hope for would be for DeCastro to be there on the board at 14, and get the 15th slotted team and team slightly below that bidding for our spot at 14 for a player we don't want. Ideally, in a perfect world, we would trade down one slot to 15, draft DeCastro, get compensation for the trade down AND pay DeCastro less money for his draft slot.

Good thoughts and I agree on Smith. Especially since he's now our LT. That's the one OL spot I'd be willing to invest a top 10 draft pick.

And I believe DeCastro at 14 could be a great pick meeting both critical parameters for a pick to be great. Excellent value, huge need filled.


As far as trading down frequently as a longer term strategy. For me it would vary year to year given the situation with the team and of course how that particular draft is playing out.

Under my hypothetical management, the team would probably end up trading down twice, trading up once and staying put once in an average 4yr span.

I like trading up in many situations. See for me, the #1 key is maximizing the pick. Getting the BPA at a given slot, who fills a significant need. What better way to do that in the 1st Rd, than trading up?

It's the ultimately control situation. You're at 20, and the team with the 12th pick is on the clock. A player you love is availible and perhaps you had him rated 9th on your board.

That's a win, win, win. I'll give up maybe a 2nd and 5th for that play.


So over a longer 8-12 yr cycle, I'll end up selcting more players than the average team.

I'll also end up taking higher end 1st rd picks more often on my own terms. When all the stars are aligned and I see the absolute best odds of hitting big.

 

[AmishCowboy]

If he were gone, I'd target a trade down, and then both Konz and Glenn in sights.

Especially if we sign a CB in FA and resign Spencer, I would have no problem with this.