Trade Down Possibility

[#27TheDominator]

6 minutes ago, dcJet said:

Parcell's did it and screwed it up.  Gave up perennial Pro Bowler - Orlando Pace for a Farrior and pocket full of scrubs.

 

2 minutes ago, Dinamite said:

No "draft chart" for that trade either.  I think he traded down to 6 or 8 and only got back 3rd, 4th and maybe a 7th extra picks.

Nope.  He gave up HOF LT Orlando Pace for HOF LT Walter Jones + Dan Neill, Terry Day and Koy Detmer.  Then he traded HOF LT Walter Jones for Farrior and Leon Jones and Koy Detmer for Ronnie Dixon.  Letting that fat **** buy the groceries was a mistake.  Letting him do contracts was worse. 

[Dcat]

1 minute ago, #27TheDominator said:

I think that the value on the charts has changed over the years, in particular with the salary slotting.  The charts are not consistent.  I think somebody leaked a team's old one at one point, and others were made up by internet geeks based upon past trades and likelihood of success of certain picks.  I don't think many GMs blindly follow an internet draft chart.  They probably all have their own, but you aren't going to advertise yours and the value you place on a particular player you may be totally in love with  - say Brett Favre in the 2nd or Shell last year.  You are going to refer to whatever is public to get the best deal you can.

The one I have must be very old.  I use it for the JN Mock and the other great mock over at Hampur forum.  But it is o-l-d.  Even the font is archaic.  Would love to find me some new ones but google keeps giving me what appears to be the original.  And for pete's sake, now that comp picks can be traded, the classic chart is only good up to pick #96 (the 32nd pick of round 3), because there are like 10 or 11 comp picks between that and the beginning of round 4, so after pick #96, the chart should really be designed by pick number and not by round.  The number of comp picks per round is always different each year.  

[Dcat]

29 minutes ago, dcJet said:

And we cant forget this...

"2005 — Less fondly remembered was the tradedown a dozen years ago. The Jets sat at No. 26 after their 2004 playoff run and didn't like the neighborhood so much. Oakland was en route to moving on up to No. 23 for CB Fabian Washington. The Jets gave up their 1 and 7 for the Raiders' 2, which they used to pick K Mike Nugent, and two sixth-rounders, one of which they spent on RB Cedric Houston. Also included in the deal was veteran TE Doug Jolley, who stayed only for the '05 season."
 

Oh yes we CAN forget that.  Or at least try to.  One of the worst things any GM has ever done to us.  

[#27TheDominator]

4 minutes ago, Dcat said:

The one I have must be very old.  I use it for the JN Mock and the other great mock over at Hampur forum.  But it is o-l-d.  Even the font is archaic.  Would love to find me some new ones but google keeps giving me what appears to be the original.  And for pete's sake, now that comp picks can be traded, the classic chart is only good up to pick #96 (the 32nd pick of round 3), because there are like 10 or 11 comp picks between that and the beginning of round 4, so after pick #96, the chart should really be designed by pick number and not by round.  The number of comp picks per round is always different each year.  

Yeah.  Creatures of habit.  None of the JN mocks I have done had trades.  One thing, I think there are always 32 comp picks, but the rounds they are slotting into may change.  

[Dcat]

1 minute ago, #27TheDominator said:

Yeah.  Creatures of habit.  None of the JN mocks I have done had trades.  One thing, I think there are always 32 comp picks, but the rounds they are slotting into may change.  

that is correct.  That's why I said that the number of comp picks per round changes from year-to-year, but there are almost always 32 of them, and no more than that, IIRC.  

[detectivekimble]

3 minutes ago, Dcat said:

Oh yes we CAN forget that.  Or at least try to.  One of the worst things any GM has ever done to us.  Anyone defending Tanny and claiming that the accountant was a good GM need only to look at that deal and the players he picked from it to end any arguments once and for all.

That was Terry Bradway.

[section314]

3 minutes ago, Dcat said:

Oh yes we CAN forget that.  Or at least try to.  One of the worst things any GM has ever done to us.  Anyone defending Tanny and claiming that the accountant was a good GM need only to look at that deal and the players he picked from it to end any arguments once and for all.

You mean the year when we could have stayed put and drafted Heath Miller, whom Pittsburgh took a few picks later? 

[HessStation]

10 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

That's specifically why I didn't go there.

That's why these threads make me want to carve a sharp knife out of wood. 

[C Mart]

2 hours ago, Tinstar said:

It would take their whole draft to trade up from where they are to our ick and a 1st next year  .  Still Interested  ?

I still say Mcc should look to trade down a couple of times to acquire combination of some additional 2nd & 3rds...Like trade down to #12 & to KRLs idea down again to #17..Not sure what the trade chart says for those moves

[Dcat]

3 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Yeah.  Creatures of habit.  None of the JN mocks I have done had trades.  One thing, I think there are always 32 comp picks, but the rounds they are slotting into may change.  

Didn't we try to do trades one year here?  

Well Lithfan runs a great mock over at Hampur with trades and I look forward to it every season.  

I drew the clusterfck called "Washington Redskins" this year.  They have 10 picks and perhaps more to come if they indeed trade Cousins... so thank God trading is allowed over there.  A draft without McCloughan for them.. with Bruce Allen making the calls... won't end well for them.  He may have alcohol issues, but one thing for sure... McCloughan is one of the better talent evaluators in the NFL.  Way better than any talent evaluator that has ever set foot into the Jets front office, including Mac.  

[Dcat]

11 minutes ago, detectivekimble said:

That was Terry Bradway.

You are correct.  My bad.   That horrendous trade down and its aftermath was 2005, Bradway's final year as GM.  Tanny was just the contract guy at that point and he took over GM job in 2006.   But Tanny still sucked in putting together a good, no..,  a competent  group of scouts.

[#27TheDominator]

30 minutes ago, Dcat said:

Didn't we try to do trades one year here?  

Well Lithfan runs a great mock over at Hampur with trades and I look forward to it every season.  

I drew the clusterfck called "Washington Redskins" this year.  They have 10 picks and perhaps more to come if they indeed trade Cousins... so thank God trading is allowed over there.  A draft without McCloughan for them.. with Bruce Allen making the calls... won't end well for them.  He may have alcohol issues, but one thing for sure... McCloughan is one of the better talent evaluators in the NFL.  Way better than any talent evaluator that has ever set foot into the Jets front office, including Mac.  

We are all kissing up to McCloughan lately, but he is the one that picked Scherff.  If he didn't Mac wouldn't have his one great success. 

[choklits]

2 hours ago, Tinstar said:

That's the Jets perspective, I was wondering if you were still interested from a Washington Perspective .

It would take their #17 this year and their 1st round next year. That would be a fair trade based on the draft chart. And as a Jet fan I would do that in a minute

[Dcat]

2 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

We are all kissing up to McCloughan lately, but he is the one that picked Scherf.  If he didn't Mac wouldn't have his one great success. 

true, he did.  Scherf has talent but was drafted way too early.  Maybe he should blame it on the alcohol?  LOL.  Nevertheless, I think he is a far better evaluator than anything we've seen on the Jets.

[C Mart]

5 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

We are all kissing up to McCloughan lately, but he is the one that picked Scherf.  If he didn't Mac wouldn't have his one great success. 

Who was selected to the Pro Bowl as a starter and will be a 10+ yr starter and make multiple pro bowls if he stays healthy...Sign me up for that no matter the position

[PepPep]

2 hours ago, Tinstar said:

If the Jets stay at 6, they're probably taking either Watson or Trubisky . If they trade down, I think the apple of their eye is going to be a LT, whoever they like the best . 

I disagree. I truly, highly doubt the Jets will take a QB at 6. I just don't see it. I don't think Macc is anywhere close to giving up on Hack and I don't think he sees any of the QBs in this draft worth taking so high. Apart from the obvious fact that the Jets don't have a legit starting QB- like MANY teams in the NFL, this makes absolutely no sense, IMO.

You don;t draft a guy in the 2nd round that has all the tools but needs to be groomed and brought up slow just to turn around and draft a QB 6th overall the next season (before your 2nd round QB even gets a chance to see the field) who will also not NFL ready and will need time to develop.  

If there is a trade down, I think the Jets will go BPA- and there should be plenty to choose from, particularly at the CB and Pass Rusher positions. Sure, depending on how far they trade down a guy like Ramczyk sitting at the bottom of the first round could make perfect sense as a BPA pick and future LT. But odds are if the Jets move down, it will only be a few spots and they end up taking a pass rusher or a CB. JMHO.     

[Dcat]

1 minute ago, choklits said:

It would take their #17 this year and their 1st round next year. That would be a fair trade based on the draft chart. And as a Jet fan I would do that in a minute

sign me up

[Skeptable]

2 hours ago, Tinstar said:

It would take their whole draft to trade up from where they are to our ick and a 1st next year  .  Still Interested  ?

1st and second this year and 1st next year

[choklits]

1 hour ago, Gee Andrezzi said:

We need to just pick up Jamal Adams now at 6. What could be interesting is if we trade Sheldon and our extra 3rd rd pick for Cleveland's 12th overall?

Cleveland would never do it

[Skeptable]

1 hour ago, Beerfish said:

If it was wash and we were getting only picks for this year it would be in the range of their 1st, 2nd and 3rd for our 1st.  And that would be a bit of a deal for Wash.  Teams don;t usually like to blow all of their top picks in the draft so we would most likely looking at a pick from nest year and some picks this year. 

I would rather take their first from next year... As it will probably be a pretty high pick

[Skeptable]

2 hours ago, Tinstar said:

If the Jets stay at 6, they're probably taking either Watson or Trubisky . If they trade down, I think the apple of their eye is going to be a LT, whoever they like the best . 

No way... Not a chance... They will not take a QB in the First... guaranteed 

[Gee Andrezzi]

1 minute ago, choklits said:

Cleveland would never do it

Why's that?

[shuler82]

You know, why not? That Julio Jones trade worked out so well for Cleveland. 

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/cleveland-browns-atlanta-falcons-julio-jones-phil-taylor-trent-richardson-2011-draft-day-trade-090215

 

[Skeptable]

50 minutes ago, Dcat said:

I don't have a viable alternative, but I've always wondered just how those values were created.  Were they created based on the data from past trades?  Or just some dude's arbitrary valuation?  Just curious and yes, I agree that there has to be some sort of valuation system, but how did they come up with  the idea, say for example, that moving up to #6 from #17, 11 spots in round 1, is worth more than the the other team's 2nd + 3rd rounders?  WHo set the numbers?  How were the values calculated when the chart was created (probably well before the days of free agency)?

There is a quite a few articles on how Jerry Jones helped create it... it basically started from 2-3rds equal a second rounder, which was the standard rule-of-thumb before the chart

[Skeptable]

42 minutes ago, dcJet said:

Parcell's did it and screwed it up.  Gave up perennial Pro Bowler - Orlando Pace for a Farrior and pocket full of scrubs.

Who was going to be a free agent and wasn't coming back without a huge paycheck

[Jetster]

5 minutes ago, Skeptable said:

No way... Not a chance... They will not take a QB in the First... guaranteed 

They better not especially since they'll be vying with the LA Rams for the top pick and will have their choice of QBs in 2018 if Hack shows nothing.

[Tinstar]

4 minutes ago, PepPep said:

I disagree. I truly, highly doubt the Jets will take a QB at 6. I just don't see it. I don't think Macc is anywhere close to giving up on Hack and I don't think he sees any of the QBs in this draft worth taking so high. Apart from the obvious fact that the Jets don't have a legit starting QB- like MANY teams in the NFL, this makes absolutely no sense, IMO.

You don;t draft a guy in the 2nd round that has all the tools but needs to be groomed and brought up slow just to turn around and draft a QB 6th overall the next season (before your 2nd round QB even gets a chance to see the field) who will also not NFL ready and will need time to develop.  

If there is a trade down, I think the Jets will go BPA- and there should be plenty to choose from, particularly at the CB and Pass Rusher positions. Sure, depending on how far they trade down a guy like Ramczyk sitting at the bottom of the first round could make perfect sense as a BPA pick and future LT. But odds are if the Jets move down, it will only be a few spots and they end up taking a pass rusher or a CB. JMHO.     

Where did this idea come from really  that if you draft a QB early this yr you can't draft 1 early next year ?  As it stands today, the Jets may not even know if they have a backup QB far less a Starting QB .  Every team needs at least 2 quality QBs and we don't even have 1 . Beyond that, when you find that QB, you need quality people to protect them from spending their careers recovering from injury. The Jets will do what they will do, but as for me, I take either the QB at 6 or trade down and take the Tackle. If I can't trade down and the Qbs are gone, I'm taking the OT .

Find it and protect it and if you can't find it, Build the wall so when you find it,  It can be protected .

[Tinstar]

10 minutes ago, Skeptable said:

1st and second this year and 1st next year

I want more this year .

[Skeptable]

Just now, Tinstar said:

I want more this year .

I don't

[slats]

46 minutes ago, Dcat said:

I don't have a viable alternative, but I've always wondered just how those values were created.  Were they created based on the data from past trades?  Or just some dude's arbitrary valuation?  Just curious and yes, I agree that there has to be some sort of valuation system, but how did they come up with  the idea, say for example, that moving up to #6 from #17, 11 spots in round 1, is worth more than the the other team's 2nd + 3rd rounders?  WHo set the numbers?  How were the values calculated when the chart was created (probably well before the days of free agency)?

 

This first time I ever saw a draft pick value chart, it was attributed to Jimmy Johnson. Have no idea if it was done scientifically (calculating stats, career length, number of pro bowls and HoF'ers for every selection, etc.), or more of a gut feeling thing. But like you say, it's always brought up and trades are always compared to it. 

[detectivekimble]

24 minutes ago, Dcat said:

You are correct.  My bad.   That horrendous trade down and its aftermath was 2005, Bradway's final year as GM.  Tanny was just the contract guy at that point and he took over GM job in 2006.   But Tanny still sucked in putting together a good, no..,  a competent  group of scouts.

Tannenbaum made some good trades.  Bradway was awful.

[Gas2No99]

1 hour ago, Dcat said:

I don't have a viable alternative, but I've always wondered just how those values were created.  Were they created based on the data from past trades?  Or just some dude's arbitrary valuation?  Just curious and yes, I agree that there has to be some sort of valuation system, but how did they come up with  the idea, say for example, that moving up to #6 from #17, 11 spots in round 1, is worth more than the the other team's 2nd + 3rd rounders?  WHo set the numbers?  How were the values calculated when the chart was created (probably well before the days of free agency)?

Mike McCoy:

In 1989 when Jones bought the Dallas Cowboys franchise, McCoy became a minority owner with a 5% stake in the team. In 1990, he was named team Vice-President.

In 1991 Jones and head coach Jimmy Johnson wanted to come up with a system to help them evaluate NFL draft trades quickly. McCoy invented a trade-value draft chart that assigned values to each draft pick and a numeric total for each deal. With the success of the Cowboys in the Nineties, the trade-value draft chart gained prominence in the NFL and now every team employs a version of it.

In 1996, he left the Cowboys to return to the oil and gas industry.

[PepPep]

1 minute ago, Tinstar said:

Where did this idea come from really  that if you draft a QB early this yr you can't draft 1 early next year ?  As it stands today, the Jets may not even know if they have a backup QB far less a Starting QB .  Every team needs at least 2 quality QBs and we don't even have 1 . Beyond that, when you find that QB, you need quality people to protect them from spending their careers recovering from injury. The Jets will do what they will do, but as for me, I take either the QB at 6 or trade down and take the Tackle. If I can't trade down and the Qbs are gone, I'm taking the OT .

Find it and protect it and if you can't find it, Build the wall so when you find it,  It can be protected .

I get all that. But if the value isn't there, then whats the point? If you are drafting a QB just to draft a QB b/c you don't have a QB, if you draft a LT just b/c you need a LT and both end up being JAGs because you reached, then you F yourself.

My point about taking a Qb again was not so much about there being some unwritten rule that you CAN'T do that. It was just that , in this circumstance, it doesn't really make sense. Not just b/c its a weak draft for QBs and whoever you take will be a ? and need time to develop. But b/c this is the time to see what Hack can do. You made an investment, the kid has immense upside, and you should give him a legitimate shot. Sure, you can take a QB at 6 and have the guys battle it out. I just don't agree with that idea, not in this particular situation as far as the available prospects and where the team is.

Just give Hack a legit shot this season and if he doesn't show improvement the Jets will most likely have a bad record and a shot at one of the very good QB prospects in next years draft. At that point, taking a QB high will make much more sense.  

Its fine for us to disagree on this. I don't want to hear how Hack sucks or you need to keep drafting QBs regardless until you get it right, or whatever. This is what I think and lets agree to disagree.       

[Gee Andrezzi]

15 minutes ago, Tinstar said:

Where did this idea come from really  that if you draft a QB early this yr you can't draft 1 early next year ?  As it stands today, the Jets may not even know if they have a backup QB far less a Starting QB .  Every team needs at least 2 quality QBs and we don't even have 1 . Beyond that, when you find that QB, you need quality people to protect them from spending their careers recovering from injury. The Jets will do what they will do, but as for me, I take either the QB at 6 or trade down and take the Tackle. If I can't trade down and the Qbs are gone, I'm taking the OT .

Find it and protect it and if you can't find it, Build the wall so when you find it,  It can be protected .

You're tripping.. I'm no fan of Hack, but you don't draft a QB in the 2nd round the year before, and then draft a QB at 6th overall, especially when all the QB's in this year's draft class are rated no better than a 2nd rounder.

Plus Hack has too much physical tools and unknown upside and potential to give up just yet a year after he didn't even play yet. The only true knock on Hack is his short throw accuracy and confidence that's something that can be corrected...not his footwork, having a weak arm or him being unathletic.

now by all means we should definitely draft a guy like brad Kaaya, or pat JR in the 3rd round but no point in risking everything for Watson at 6 when he's not rated no higher than a 2nd rounderr

[thshadow]

2 hours ago, peebag said:

Isn't it infinite?

If the trade only includes draft picks, and draft picks from arbitrarily far in the future can be traded, then it's (countably) infinite. (Unlike real numbers, which are uncountably infinite).

If you can only trade draft picks up to some number of years in the future (which I suspect is a league rule), then the number of trades is finite.  Though really really really large.

Also, adding existing players (or existing humans for that matter) doesn't change the above statements.