PFT: Teams Revise Draft Trade Chart

[HoosierCat]

From Florio...

TEAMS CIRCULATING NEW TRADE CHART

Posted by Mike Florio on April 15, 2008, 10:38 a.m.

A couple of weeks ago, we developed a revised trade chart for valuing draft picks. We’ve since caught wind of a new chart that has been developed by and among multiple teams, and that could be put in use as soon as this year.

The new chart can be seen right here.

In contrast to the current trade chart, the new chart has very different values for the picks in round one. At the top, the points are compressed. The first pick was worth 3,000; it’s now down to 2,000. However, the sixth pick is worth more under the new chart than it was under the prior version. Each remaining pick, from No. 7 to No. 32, is worth more as well, with the last pick in the round now worth 670, up from 590.

The only difference in round two is that the first pick in the round is worth 570 under the new chart. It previously had a value of 580. The values for all picks in rounds three through seven are unchanged.

The chart has been revised due to the dramatic increases in the contracts paid to the first few players selected in the draft. The financial investment required when exercising such a high pick necessarily has reduced the total value of these picks, necessitating a reduction in the total perceived trade value of the top selections.

The apparent reason for the 100-point gap between the bottom of round one and the top of round two is that the last player drafted in round one can be signed to a five-year deal. At the top of round two, the maximum duration is four years.

Under that theory, however, the difference between picks No. 16 and No. 17 should be more than 40 points, since the maximum contract length at the top half of round one is six years.

It remains to be seen whether the new chart becomes widely used by NFL teams. It’s clearly an improvement, however, over the outdated chart that was developed in the 1990s.

Here's the link to the new chart:

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/15/...ft-trade-chart/

Under this, our first and third could take us as high as the 4th pick...

[DesperateDerelict]

Under this, our first and third could take us as high as the 4th pick...

Very interesting! Conversely, dropping down just two spots nets us a 3rd, and only 6 spots a 2nd rounder.

I really don't understand the 100 point drop-off between the bottom of round 1 and the top of round 2. I would argue that, with the smaller signing bonuses, the top 10 picks in round 2 are the most coveted in the draft.

Thanks, Hoosier. I hope Mikey got the memo.

[Walrus]

This should enhance the ability of teams in the top 5 to make trades and gives us a better shot at trading up for Ellis or Dorsey but does it hurt the Bengals' ability to trade down from 9? Probably... And if you were hoping for a shot at Dallas' 2 first rounders can probably forget about that since both of those gain significant value on this chart.

[HairOnFire]

The apparent reason for the 100-point gap between the bottom of round one and the top of round two is that the last player drafted in round one can be signed to a five-year deal. At the top of round two, the maximum duration is four years.

I have a huge problem with this. Trading up from the 2nd round into the latter stages of the 1st is a fairly common tactic, not because of contract issues, but due to the desire to select the last of the so-called red-chip talent. Under this scenario teams attempting to do this would now pay a substantial penalty. For example, any team interested in a player projected for the very end of the round would now have to surrender the value of a very high 4th round pick to move up a single slot, from #33 to #32.

That's just ridiculous.

Or take this example. Under the old trade value chart the Bengals could have packaged their 2nd and 3rd round picks and moved up as high as the 27th slot in the 1st round. Under the new trade chart they realistically can't make a deal at all. Why? Because the new value leaves them 155 points short, and that's roughly the value of every remaining pick they could trade. So you've gone from a scenario where a 2nd and 3rd round pick moves a team into the latter stages of the 1st round to one where a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th are required.

[HoosierCat]

Trading up from the 2nd round into the latter stages of the 1st is a fairly common tactic, not because of contract issues, but due to the desire to select the last of the so-called red-chip talent. Under this scenario teams attempting to do this would now pay a substantial penalty.

Well, that would be the whole point, right? If you're looking to trade up to catch the last of the "red-chip" talent, you should expect to pay a premium.

[HairOnFire]

Well, that would be the whole point, right? If you're looking to trade up to catch the last of the "red-chip" talent, you should expect to pay a premium.

Ridiculous. You're defending a proposal that ignores the question of talent & rankings, and adds the trade cost of a high 4th round draft pick simply due to matters relating to contract length.

Consider the two examples I offered. In regards to the first, if you've convinced a team to trade out of the 33rd slot can you imagine any REALISTIC scenario that would prompt you to add a 4th round pick to your trade package simply to move up one slot? Or consider the second example, where the Bengals attempt to move from the 46th pick into the latter part of the 1st round. That type of move has always been common, and previously would cost the Bengals no more than a mid 3rd round pick. However, under the newly proposed trade chart the same move would now cost the Bengals five draft picks. Obviously, that's UNREALISTIC and if the new trade value chart were adopted as proposed would not only completely put an end to a fairly common trading tactic, but in a very practical sense would make the last 5-7 picks in the 1st round virtually impossible to trade down from. Conversely, the first 5 picks in the 2nd round would become even more coveted than they already are.

[HoosierCat]

Well, that would be the whole point, right? If you're looking to trade up to catch the last of the "red-chip" talent, you should expect to pay a premium.

Ridiculous. You're defending a proposal that ignores the question of talent & rankings, and adds the trade cost of a high 4th round draft pick simply due to matters relating to contract length.

I don't know why the numbers do what they do, and Florio's specultion that it has to do with contract length is just that: speculation.

I was addressing your assertion that it was unreasonable to expect a team trading up for one of the last "red-chip" player to have to pay a premium to do so. Precisely because of that question of talent/rankings, it seems logical to me.

[HairOnFire]

I don't know why the numbers do what they do, and Florio's specultion that it has to do with contract length is just that: speculation.

If it were just speculation the trade chart Florio claims to have written and posted nearly a month ago...long before he claims to have "caught wind" of an actual NFL version...wouldn't have included the exact goofy 100-point gap between the 33rd and 32nd slots.

I was addressing your assertion that it was unreasonable to expect a team trading up for one of the last "red-chip" player to have to pay a premium to do so. Precisely because of that question of talent/rankings, it seems logical to me.

What's logical about a change that would cripple a teams ability to trade down from a late first round draft position OR one that would in reality would make the 33rd draft slot FAR more valuable than the 32nd?

[HoosierCat]

What's logical about a change that would cripple a teams ability to trade down from a late first round draft position OR one that would in reality would make the 33rd draft slot FAR more valuable than the 32nd?

You choose to view it as "crippling" a team in the first; I see it as putting a premium on trading back into the juiciest round in the draft and, as you yourself admit, the last chance at alleged above-average players. Even for the original team in the first round, the increase in value of picks at the bottom of the round also makes it easier for them to trade up. Some cripple. As for the difference between 32 and 33, if a break has to be made, that's the logical place to make it.

[DesperateDerelict]

...if the new trade value chart were adopted as proposed would not only completely put an end to a fairly common trading tactic, but in a very practical sense would make the last 5-7 picks in the 1st round virtually impossible to trade down from. Conversely, the first 5 picks in the 2nd round would become even more coveted than they already are.

Actually, that MAY be the whole idea. There were 3 teams that did it last year - Cleveland, San Fran, & Philly. Maybe they want to dissuade teams from doing this for some reason, or from trading NEXT YEAR's 1st rounder?!?.

The rest of the trades break out as before - a move down with Green Bay in the 2nd nets us a 3rd in both draft scenario's . . . so as long as a 1st rounder isn't involved, it's fairly similar.

That 100 point dropoff still bothers me. The reason stated doesn't work, 'cause under the current CBA a 4 year player is RFA and a fifth is UFA - giving MORE value to a 2nd. It seems they've arbitrarily decided that there will be 32 blue chip prospects per draft, which is ludicrous. Last year there were about 20, this year there are twice as many.

[HairOnFire]

You choose to view it as "crippling" a team in the first; I see it as putting a premium on trading back into the juiciest round in the draft and, as you yourself admit, the last chance at alleged above-average players.

If this results in a team having fewer options then I think it's fair to say it "cripples" them. And obviously, this new value chart limits a teams realistic odds of moving down from mid to late 1st round draft positions.

Even for the original team in the first round, the increase in value of picks at the bottom of the round also makes it easier for them to trade up. Some cripple.

Sorry, you're limiting a teams options. For example, San Diego GM AJ Smith has openly spoken about his desire to trade out of the 28th slot in the 1st round.....because he currently doesn't have 2nd or 3rd round draft picks. Previously he might have found a willing trade partner in Cincinnati, and should have netted 2nd and 3rd round picks in return for moving down 18 slots. Under the new scenario Cincy would have to cough up 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th round picks. That's unrealistic, and as a result San Diego can't do what they want to do.

So again, how aren't they crippled?

[HairOnFire]

...if the new trade value chart were adopted as proposed would not only completely put an end to a fairly common trading tactic, but in a very practical sense would make the last 5-7 picks in the 1st round virtually impossible to trade down from. Conversely, the first 5 picks in the 2nd round would become even more coveted than they already are.

Actually, that MAY be the whole idea. There were 3 teams that did it last year - Cleveland, San Fran, & Philly. Maybe they want to dissuade teams from doing this for some reason, or from trading NEXT YEAR's 1st rounder?!?

The only reason people are discussing a new trade value chart is to facilitate trades at the very top of the 1st round. So where's the logic in taking an additional needless step that cripples the chances teams at the end of the round can make comparable types of trades?

That 100 point dropoff still bothers me. The reason stated doesn't work, 'cause under the current CBA a 4 year player is RFA and a fifth is UFA - giving MORE value to a 2nd.

Great point.

Plus, the issue of contract length doesn't work on even the most basic level. In the example I just wrote about ...under the old trade value chart AJ Smith can not only turn one pick into two, but can also convert 5 years of contract length into 7 or 8.

[HoosierCat]

Sorry, you're limiting a teams options. For example, San Diego GM AJ Smith has openly spoken about his desire to trade out of the 28th slot in the 1st round.....because he currently doesn't have 2nd or 3rd round draft picks.

Because he traded them away, right? But it's the draft chart's fault he's "crippled?" Maybe you can make the case it hurts him this year -- if it's adopted -- but obviously beyond 2008 the consequences would be clear, and any GM who knowling trades away picks and then complains he can't trade down has only himself to blame.

[HoosierCat]

That 100 point dropoff still bothers me. The reason stated doesn't work, 'cause under the current CBA a 4 year player is RFA and a fifth is UFA - giving MORE value to a 2nd.

Great point.

Uh...no. A 3-year player whose rookie contract is up can be tendered as an RFA going into his fourth year; a player who completes four years is an UFA. But in any event you have it backwards. Read Florio's speculation again:

The apparent reason for the 100-point gap between the bottom of round one and the top of round two is that the last player drafted in round one can be signed to a five-year deal. At the top of round two, the maximum duration is four years.

The round one pick is arguably more valuable because you can sign the guy for longer and avoid the whole RFA issue. One you hit round 2, guys want four year deals max, and usually desire 3-year contracts so they can test the RFA waters.

[COB]

If the trade value chart revision is a response to the brutal cash outlay required to sign a top 4 pick, which I think it likely is, then this new version of the chart will be temporary.

The devaluation of these top picks will be reversed when, as will likely happen, the new labor agreement installs a framwork of "scale salary amounts" that will pretty much dictate what the top picks can sign for. The present system, in which high draft picks come to camp making more than almost every veteran on the team, is very clearly screwing up teams' cap management, their draft strategy, their team chemistry and leadership hierarchy, and probably a lot of other stuff I can't even think of. The only folks who benefit from the present system are agents, and from what I can tell they won't have a voice at the table when the Association and the League hammer out the new agreement.

The old chart will come back. And if they set the scale salary amounts low enough, the values for the top picks may have to be increased over the old chart.

That's the way it should be. Teams should want to maneuver and trade to get those top picks.

[HoosierCat]

If the trade value chart revision is a response to the brutal cash outlay required to sign a top 4 pick, which I think it likely is, then this new version of the chart will be temporary.

The devaluation of these top picks will be reversed when, as will likely happen, the new labor agreement installs a framwork of "scale salary amounts" that will pretty much dictate what the top picks can sign for. The present system, in which high draft picks come to camp making more than almost every veteran on the team, is very clearly screwing up teams' cap management, their draft strategy, their team chemistry and leadership hierarchy, and probably a lot of other stuff I can't even think of. The only folks who benefit from the present system are agents, and from what I can tell they won't have a voice at the table when the Association and the League hammer out the new agreement.

The old chart will come back. And if they set the scale salary amounts low enough, the values for the top picks may have to be increased over the old chart.

That's the way it should be. Teams should want to maneuver and trade to get those top picks.

I agree.

[HairOnFire]

Sorry, you're limiting a teams options. For example, San Diego GM AJ Smith has openly spoken about his desire to trade out of the 28th slot in the 1st round.....because he currently doesn't have 2nd or 3rd round draft picks.

Because he traded them away, right?

Yeah, he made trades. So what? That's what teams who draft in the latter half of the 1st round have always been able to do with ease. The changes you're supporting dramatically impacts that ability.

But it's the draft chart's fault he's "crippled?" Maybe you can make the case it hurts him this year -- if it's adopted -- but obviously beyond 2008 the consequences would be clear, and any GM who knowling trades away picks and then complains he can't trade down has only himself to blame.

It would negatively impact his teams ability to trade down this year and every year that follows if he finds himself drafting so late in the draft. And I doubt very much he feels has anything to feel blame for since one of the traded picks netted Chris Chambers, a player who immediately became the Chargers best WR. And btw, that trade was made long before the Chargers could know they're final draft position.

[HairOnFire]

Uh...no. A 3-year player whose rookie contract is up can be tendered as an RFA going into his fourth year; a player who completes four years is an UFA.

I call Blind Pig Rule. That being, if a guy like you keeps talking long enough you're bound to get SOMETHING correct. Plus, I should have known better than agreeing with Desperate Derelict about anything.

[HoosierCat]

Sorry, you're limiting a teams options. For example, San Diego GM AJ Smith has openly spoken about his desire to trade out of the 28th slot in the 1st round.....because he currently doesn't have 2nd or 3rd round draft picks.

Because he traded them away, right?

Yeah, he made trades. So what? That's what teams who draft in the latter half of the 1st round have always been able to do with ease. The changes you're supporting dramatically impacts that ability.

The ability to have their cake and eat it too? Yeah...my heart bleeds.

[HairOnFire]

If the trade value chart revision is a response to the brutal cash outlay required to sign a top 4 pick, which I think it likely is, then this new version of the chart will be temporary.

The devaluation of these top picks will be reversed when, as will likely happen, the new labor agreement installs a framwork of "scale salary amounts" that will pretty much dictate what the top picks can sign for. The present system, in which high draft picks come to camp making more than almost every veteran on the team, is very clearly screwing up teams' cap management, their draft strategy, their team chemistry and leadership hierarchy, and probably a lot of other stuff I can't even think of. The only folks who benefit from the present system are agents, and from what I can tell they won't have a voice at the table when the Association and the League hammer out the new agreement.

The old chart will come back. And if they set the scale salary amounts low enough, the values for the top picks may have to be increased over the old chart.

That's the way it should be. Teams should want to maneuver and trade to get those top picks.

I agree.

There's been no argument on those points. The whole premise for updating the trade value chart rests on a desire to better facilitate trading opportunities for teams drafting in the Top Ten of the 1st round. Where I and others have a problem rests soley on the 100-point bump in value between the 32nd and 33rd picks....a bump equal to the 100th pick in the draft, a very high 4th round pick. And because the value for late round picks is set so low they offer very little help in satisfying that bump.

[HairOnFire]

Sorry, you're limiting a teams options. For example, San Diego GM AJ Smith has openly spoken about his desire to trade out of the 28th slot in the 1st round.....because he currently doesn't have 2nd or 3rd round draft picks.

Because he traded them away, right?

Yeah, he made trades. So what? That's what teams who draft in the latter half of the 1st round have always been able to do with ease. The changes you're supporting dramatically impacts that ability.

The ability to have their cake and eat it too? Yeah...my heart bleeds.

It's not a case of having your cake and eating it too. It's a case of not being limited to just one move. Many teams who surrender draft choices in trades attempt to make additional moves that lessens the impact of the lost picks. Smith wouldn't be the first.

Frankly, the whole idea that NFL GM's are going to adopt a new trade value chart that cripples their ability to make trades is ridiculous, and exactly the type of story that Mike Florio is known to write....and then offer a series of disclaimers for after the rumor or proposal is criticized. And how convenient does it seem when, in this example, the idea was intellectually orphaned by Florio's claim that "we got wind of something" from sources or teams that are never named?

[HoosierCat]

Frankly, the whole idea that NFL GM's are going to adopt a new trade value chart that cripples their ability to make trades is ridiculous,

I agree, which is why I can't take your complaint seriously. Far from crippling a team low in the first, it makes it easier for them to jump up higher.

[HairOnFire]

Frankly, the whole idea that NFL GM's are going to adopt a new trade value chart that cripples their ability to make trades is ridiculous,

I agree, which is why I can't take your complaint seriously. Far from crippling a team low in the first, it makes it easier for them to jump up higher.

Does your car have a reverse gear?

Has your dumb ass only taken the up escalator?

Do you never walk down a flight of stairs?

If perchance you walked into a room that had only one door....would you be doomed to stay in that room your entire life? And what if there was no television?

If you swallow, and I'm certain you do...have you never spit?

I have to wonder.

Hmmmmmm. (See, I told you. Blatant wondering.)

Because most people understand the obvious benefit that comes with having as many options as possible.

Up, down.

Forward, back.

Yet somehow, much like a mindless Lemming, you can only see the benefit of one direction.

So into the sea you march.

[HoosierCat]

Because most people understand the obvious benefit that comes with having as many options as possible.

And some people also understand that some options are more attractive than others.

If the up escalator gets you to the luxury box and the down escalator gets you to the club level, some people might think might think making the latter tougher and the former easier is worth the trade-off.

If going forward makes it easier to drive than going in reverse, some people might think it makes sense to have five gears to get ahead versus only one to go back.

If going up the stairs gets you laid by the hot chick and going down the stairs only lets you watch the hot chick on TV, some people might think making it easier to go up than down makes some amount of sense.

Many options are good. But that does not make all of them equal. And nothing in the proposed trade chart removes any options. It just changes the price tag.

[DesperateDerelict]

That 100 point dropoff still bothers me. The reason stated doesn't work, 'cause under the current CBA a 4 year player is RFA and a fifth is UFA - giving MORE value to a 2nd.

Great point.

Uh...no. A 3-year player whose rookie contract is up can be tendered as an RFA going into his fourth year; a player who completes four years is an UFA. But in any event you have it backwards. Read Florio's speculation again:

Ooooooops...........sorry