Teams Using a New Draft Pick Trade Chart

[slats]

http://www.patspulpit.com/2017/4/23/15398184/2017-nfl-draft-creating-a-brand-new-nfl-draft-value-trade-chart

2017 NFL Draft: Creating a brand new NFL Draft Value Trade Chart

33

It’s time to update the old model.

by Rich Hill@PP_Rich_Hill  Apr 23, 2017, 2:47pm EDT

•  TWEET
• 2017 NFL Draft will begin this on Thursday, April 27th and it’s time for an updated NFL Draft Value chart. There is an old chart floating around that is attributed to former Cowboys and Dolphins head coach Jimmy Johnson and teams consult some variation of the end result when conducting trades involving draft picks.

The chart predates the new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and it’s time to update the numbers based on actual trades that have taken place.

Since the 2012 NFL Draft- the first one after the new CBA- there have been 124 trades that involve only draft picks. Trades that involve a player- like the New England Patriots trading a sixth round pick to the Tennessee Titans for EDGE Akeem Ayers and a seventh round pick- are not factored into my calculations, but can be evaluated to understand the perceived value of the player.

Based on these pick-for-pick trades, I’ve created the following draft value chart to show how teams actually value draft picks.

Here are some takeaways.

 

Trades at the top of the draft are all ad hoc

Trying to create a table that includes picks at the top of the draft (ie: top five) doesn’t make sense because the value of the pick changes on a year-to-year basis. For example, the #1 pick when Andrew Luck was a prospect is worth a lot more than the #1 pick this year, with Myles Garrett as the top prospect.

 

Teams love their quarterbacks and drafts with good quarterback prospects see an increased value in picks at the top. So take the value of the top five picks on the chart as a baseline, and adjust the value accordingly when top prospects come out of college.

Future draft picks are valued one round earlier than the current year

In other words, a team could trade a fourth round pick in 2017 and reasonably expect to receive a 2018 third round pick on the market. A current fifth is worth a future fourth. No one really wants future seventh round picks because they hold almost no value.

 

This valuation of future picks is a representation of time value of money, which means that a draft pick now is worth more than the same draft pick in a future year.

Patriots have the second-worst trade under this new value chart

In the 2012 NFL Draft, the first year of this table, the Patriots sent the 62nd overall pick to the Green Bay Packers for the 90th and 163rd overall picks. The Patriots were desperate for more picks after trading up to acquire Chandler Jones and Dont’a Hightower. Per the value chart, the Patriots lost the equivalent of the 108th overall pick in draft value with this trade.

The Packers selected CB Casey Hayward, who was named to the All Pro team in 2016 for the San Diego Chargers. The Patriots drafted EDGE Jake Bequette, and traded down from 163rd (again with the Packers) to select ST Nate Ebner, CB Alfonzo Dennard, and WR Jeremy Ebert. Colts WR T.Y. Hilton was selected two picks after Bequette. Lions WR Marvin Jones was selected three picks after the 163rd overall the Patriots traded down from.

The only trade worse was the Cowboys sending the 18th pick in the 2013 NFL Draft to the San Francisco 49ers for the 31st and 74th overall picks. The Cowboys gave up the equivalent of the 103rd overall pick- but they left with All Pro center Travis Frederick and WR Terrance Williams, while the 49ers selected S Eric Reid, so the Cowboys won the scouting aspect.

Patriots also have the fifth-best trade under this value chart

In 2012, the Patriots sent the 31st and 126th overall picks to the Denver Broncos for the 25th overall pick in order to select LB Dont’a Hightower. The trade created value for the Patriots with the equivalence of the 127th overall pick. Hightower is one of the best linebackers in the league just signed an extension with New England.

There is a premium to trade back into the first round

The round of a draft pick in the second-through-seventh rounds doesn’t impact the value, unless dealing with future picks, because the difference between the 64th and 65th overall picks is negligible. There is more value in the 64th pick because it’s earlier, not because it comes in the second round.

First round picks, however, have a special fifth-year option that is not included in the contracts of second round picks, creating an actual difference in value. For this reason, teams can match equivalent values in a trade, but the outside team will have to pay an additional premium of roughly a 5th-6th round pick to get back into the first round.

This premium is not baked into the table because teams that trade within the first round don’t require this premium.

Trading down on day three and picking up veterans is the smart move

The Patriots have a habit of trading fifth or sixth round picks for proven veterans and a later draft pick. For example, they acquired LB Kyle Van Noy and a seventh round pick in exchange for a sixth round pick.

Why? Well, it’s a perfect arbitrage opportunity.

View image on Twitter

 

 Follow

Rich Hill @PP_Rich_Hill

.@DeeepThreat anything after 5th round is a mess. Whole second round roughly equivalent. Exactly Belichick's style:

6:22 PM - 9 Jan 2015

•  
•  
•  
   22 Retweets
•  
•  
   55 likes

 

 

Despite the difference in valuation of a pick in rounds five-through-seven, there is no real difference in projected success of a player selected in the fifth, sixth, or seventh rounds; each pick is a lottery ticket. It is important to maintain the volume of lottery tickets, but a sixth round pick and a seventh round pick has roughly the same odds of success.

So the Patriots capitalize on a team’s perception that a sixth round pick is more valuable than a seventh round pick to acquire a veteran on a rookie contract and maintain their volume of lottery tickets.

Remember, the draft value chart does not care about how players perform once they’re in the NFL. The chart only cares about what teams are willing to pay for picks- and there’s a reward for teams smart enough to maneuver the draft board.

[slats]

Using this chart, Maccagnan got beat to the tune of a high fifth rounder total before factoring in trading a sixth this year for a fifth next year. Or, overall, pretty close to a wash. 

[dbatesman]

Very interesting stuff. I think some blogger (Chase Stuart maybe?) has worked out a system of his own. It'd be interesting to compare them, or to find out what chart teams actually use.

[Smashmouth]

when you get into the later rounds its a very different situation than the early trades. If a team really wants a player or a draft slot they will  pay more because it becomes a bidding war and in that case these tables and charts are not worth a sh*t. If Macc felt he saw some value in the 6 th round and gained some more picks then thats his call based on what he felt he could get. Chart or not chart Im sure he was not sweating those late round moves and I'm not sure why anyone should give a sh*t less because the later round players are always a crap shoot anyway in relation to how many actually stick on a pro roster or PS. Do we have to put everything under a damn microscope ? Lets see how the players do then give you're opinion on the draft

[Sperm Edwards]

2 minutes ago, slats said:

Using this chart, Maccagnan got beat to the tune of a high fifth rounder total before factoring in trading a sixth this year for a fifth next year. Or, overall, pretty close to a wash. 

Chart-wise, isn't trading a 2017 6th for a 2018 5th itself an even-swap wash? Points-wise that trade should neither add nor subtract from the aggregate right now.

If Dallas has a terrible year and ends up with high picks in every round, and if there are also significantly fewer compensatory picks in rounds 3-4 next year as well, then one could factor that in (at that time) as a slight net gain to offset.

[slats]

1 minute ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Chart-wise, isn't trading a 2017 6th for a 2018 5th itself an even-swap wash? Points-wise that trade should neither add nor subtract from the aggregate right now.

If Dallas has a terrible year and ends up with high picks in every round, and if there are also significantly fewer compensatory picks in rounds 3-4 next year as well, then one could factor that in (at that time) as a slight net gain to offset.

That's certainly their historic trade value, but a fifth next year should also theoretically be one round better than a sixth this year. To me, it adds value. Worst case, the numbers say he blew a high fifth overall, which is a little better than the fourth rounder being reported. 

[nycdan]

2 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Chart-wise, isn't trading a 2017 6th for a 2018 5th itself an even-swap wash? Points-wise that trade should neither add nor subtract from the aggregate right now.

If Dallas has a terrible year and ends up with high picks in every round, and if there are also significantly fewer compensatory picks in rounds 3-4 next year as well, then one could factor that in (at that time) as a slight net gain to offset.

There is but I'm not sure teams really believe that.  If you did, there is a clear strategy to long-term improvement that no team has taken advantage of (although the Patriots used to sort of do it).  If you trade a 2nd rounder this year for a 1st rounder next year, and continue to do the same in perpetuity, you would, at the cost of one 2nd rounder, have an infinite series of upgrades from 2nd to 1st round (where the value impact is highest).  You could apply this even more broadly and end up with a set of surplus picks in the top-3 rounds every year, assuming you could find appropriate trade partners every year. 

Frankly, if there isn't a 'must-have' player in your slot in any round, I would always trade up for next season's higher pick.  The reason most GMs don't actually do this, I believe, is because their job security is judged on the present.  That's why Belichick was probably fine doing it for a few years when he seemed to trade for future picks a few times over the mid-2000s.

[jamesr]

8 minutes ago, slats said:

That's certainly their historic trade value, but a fifth next year should also theoretically be one round better than a sixth this year. To me, it adds value. Worst case, the numbers say he blew a high fifth overall, which is a little better than the fourth rounder being reported. 

You also need to factor in how many comp picks are awarded in each round .. each 3rd round comp essentially pushes the rest of the draft picks down in value, and so on.

[Sperm Edwards]

Just now, slats said:

That's certainly their historic trade value, but a fifth next year should also theoretically be one round better than a sixth this year. To me, it adds value. Worst case, the numbers say he blew a high fifth overall, which is a little better than the fourth rounder being reported. 

I'm just going by what the chart-creator said: in using this chart, a pick this year is equal to a pick a round higher the following year. Have to presume that to be generally accepted in NFL circles, otherwise nobody would ever make such trades. 

A "high 5th" vs a "low 4th" is really dependent upon the quantity of compensatory picks ahead of that acquired selection. For example, our 3rd round comp pick was at 107, yet any chart suggests that round 4 begins at pick 97, making our 3rd round comp pick "really" the 10th pick in round 4.

Mostly the distinction is dependent upon the author (does one want the pick to sound higher or lower?) Many/most of us do it, consciously or otherwise. A late 2nd round pick is often described as really beinis so low it's more like a 3rd round pick. A high 3rd round pick is likewise described as really being so high it's virtually the same as a low 2nd rounder. 

Neither re-labeling is really so wrong, but it is clearly done to make a selection sound higher or lower than it actually is, since we mentality group picks by rounds (or even by days now) rather than by tens/dozens of selections, except for the very top of the draft (e.g. top 5 / top 10 picks). 

[slats]

2 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I'm just going by what the chart-creator said: in using this chart, a pick this year is equal to a pick a round higher the following year. Have to presume that to be generally accepted in NFL circles, otherwise nobody would ever make such trades. 

A "high 5th" vs a "low 4th" is really dependent upon the quantity of compensatory picks ahead of that acquired selection. For example, our 3rd round comp pick was at 107, yet any chart suggests that round 4 begins at pick 97, making our 3rd round comp pick "really" the 10th pick in round 4.

Mostly the distinction is dependent upon the author (does one want the pick to sound higher or lower?) Many/most of us do it, consciously or otherwise. A late 2nd round pick is often described as really beinis so low it's more like a 3rd round pick. A high 3rd round pick is likewise described as really being so high it's virtually the same as a low 2nd rounder. 

Neither re-labeling is really so wrong, but it is clearly done to make a selection sound higher or lower than it actually is, since we mentality group picks by rounds (or even by days now) rather than by tens/dozens of selections, except for the very top of the draft (e.g. top 5 / top 10 picks). 

I called it a high fifth because this year, with the comp picks awarded in the third and fourth rounds, the total value that Maccagnan lost would've equaled a high fifth round pick. IMO, trading a sixth for a future fifth somewhat negates that differential, but I understand if you disagree. 

I found the article interesting, and a counter to the people jumping off bridges because Mac got taken in every trade he made this year. 

[Sperm Edwards]

19 minutes ago, nycdan said:

There is but I'm not sure teams really believe that.  If you did, there is a clear strategy to long-term improvement that no team has taken advantage of (although the Patriots used to sort of do it).  If you trade a 2nd rounder this year for a 1st rounder next year, and continue to do the same in perpetuity, you would, at the cost of one 2nd rounder, have an infinite series of upgrades from 2nd to 1st round (where the value impact is highest).  You could apply this even more broadly and end up with a set of surplus picks in the top-3 rounds every year, assuming you could find appropriate trade partners every year. 

Frankly, if there isn't a 'must-have' player in your slot in any round, I would always trade up for next season's higher pick.  The reason most GMs don't actually do this, I believe, is because their job security is judged on the present.  That's why Belichick was probably fine doing it for a few years when he seemed to trade for future picks a few times over the mid-2000s.

Agree 100%: it's primarily not as common because half the GMs (maybe more) know their job security isn't infinite. Those more secure, and those who have so many picks in the current draft, are going to be more willing to surrender a pick this year for a higher one next year. Those on shakier ground and/or those who already have fewer picks this year, are more likely to surrender a pick the following year.

A thin-ice GM (assuming he's the one calling the shots) isn't typically giving up this year's higher #1 for a lower #1, or a #2 this year for a #1 next year, since he may not be employed by that team a year later, and for the current season all he's immediately able to use is a lower pick (and theoretically, a worse player) while on thin ice.

Also I don't know how many really plan on picking up a selection the following year before the draft starts. I'd have to think it's pretty infrequent, unless maybe they start the draft with 9+ picks; that it's typically a spur of the moment thing while teams are simultaneously trying to reshuffle their own boards to trade up/down in the current draft, based on who's gone, who they already took, and what perceived needs are filled/unfilled. 

[flgreen]

1 hour ago, slats said:

http://www.patspulpit.com/2017/4/23/15398184/2017-nfl-draft-creating-a-brand-new-nfl-draft-value-trade-chart

2017 NFL Draft: Creating a brand new NFL Draft Value Trade Chart

33

It’s time to update the old model.

by Rich Hill@PP_Rich_Hill  Apr 23, 2017, 2:47pm EDT

•  TWEET
• 2017 NFL Draft will begin this on Thursday, April 27th and it’s time for an updated NFL Draft Value chart. There is an old chart floating around that is attributed to former Cowboys and Dolphins head coach Jimmy Johnson and teams consult some variation of the end result when conducting trades involving draft picks.

The chart predates the new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and it’s time to update the numbers based on actual trades that have taken place.

Since the 2012 NFL Draft- the first one after the new CBA- there have been 124 trades that involve only draft picks. Trades that involve a player- like the New England Patriots trading a sixth round pick to the Tennessee Titans for EDGE Akeem Ayers and a seventh round pick- are not factored into my calculations, but can be evaluated to understand the perceived value of the player.

Based on these pick-for-pick trades, I’ve created the following draft value chart to show how teams actually value draft picks.

Here are some takeaways.

 

Trades at the top of the draft are all ad hoc

Trying to create a table that includes picks at the top of the draft (ie: top five) doesn’t make sense because the value of the pick changes on a year-to-year basis. For example, the #1 pick when Andrew Luck was a prospect is worth a lot more than the #1 pick this year, with Myles Garrett as the top prospect.

 

Teams love their quarterbacks and drafts with good quarterback prospects see an increased value in picks at the top. So take the value of the top five picks on the chart as a baseline, and adjust the value accordingly when top prospects come out of college.

Future draft picks are valued one round earlier than the current year

In other words, a team could trade a fourth round pick in 2017 and reasonably expect to receive a 2018 third round pick on the market. A current fifth is worth a future fourth. No one really wants future seventh round picks because they hold almost no value.

 

This valuation of future picks is a representation of time value of money, which means that a draft pick now is worth more than the same draft pick in a future year.

Patriots have the second-worst trade under this new value chart

In the 2012 NFL Draft, the first year of this table, the Patriots sent the 62nd overall pick to the Green Bay Packers for the 90th and 163rd overall picks. The Patriots were desperate for more picks after trading up to acquire Chandler Jones and Dont’a Hightower. Per the value chart, the Patriots lost the equivalent of the 108th overall pick in draft value with this trade.

The Packers selected CB Casey Hayward, who was named to the All Pro team in 2016 for the San Diego Chargers. The Patriots drafted EDGE Jake Bequette, and traded down from 163rd (again with the Packers) to select ST Nate Ebner, CB Alfonzo Dennard, and WR Jeremy Ebert. Colts WR T.Y. Hilton was selected two picks after Bequette. Lions WR Marvin Jones was selected three picks after the 163rd overall the Patriots traded down from.

The only trade worse was the Cowboys sending the 18th pick in the 2013 NFL Draft to the San Francisco 49ers for the 31st and 74th overall picks. The Cowboys gave up the equivalent of the 103rd overall pick- but they left with All Pro center Travis Frederick and WR Terrance Williams, while the 49ers selected S Eric Reid, so the Cowboys won the scouting aspect.

Patriots also have the fifth-best trade under this value chart

In 2012, the Patriots sent the 31st and 126th overall picks to the Denver Broncos for the 25th overall pick in order to select LB Dont’a Hightower. The trade created value for the Patriots with the equivalence of the 127th overall pick. Hightower is one of the best linebackers in the league just signed an extension with New England.

There is a premium to trade back into the first round

The round of a draft pick in the second-through-seventh rounds doesn’t impact the value, unless dealing with future picks, because the difference between the 64th and 65th overall picks is negligible. There is more value in the 64th pick because it’s earlier, not because it comes in the second round.

First round picks, however, have a special fifth-year option that is not included in the contracts of second round picks, creating an actual difference in value. For this reason, teams can match equivalent values in a trade, but the outside team will have to pay an additional premium of roughly a 5th-6th round pick to get back into the first round.

This premium is not baked into the table because teams that trade within the first round don’t require this premium.

Trading down on day three and picking up veterans is the smart move

The Patriots have a habit of trading fifth or sixth round picks for proven veterans and a later draft pick. For example, they acquired LB Kyle Van Noy and a seventh round pick in exchange for a sixth round pick.

Why? Well, it’s a perfect arbitrage opportunity.

View image on Twitter

 

 Follow

Rich Hill @PP_Rich_Hill

.@DeeepThreat anything after 5th round is a mess. Whole second round roughly equivalent. Exactly Belichick's style:

6:22 PM - 9 Jan 2015

•  
•  
•  
   22 Retweets
•  
•  
   55 likes

 

 

Despite the difference in valuation of a pick in rounds five-through-seven, there is no real difference in projected success of a player selected in the fifth, sixth, or seventh rounds; each pick is a lottery ticket. It is important to maintain the volume of lottery tickets, but a sixth round pick and a seventh round pick has roughly the same odds of success.

So the Patriots capitalize on a team’s perception that a sixth round pick is more valuable than a seventh round pick to acquire a veteran on a rookie contract and maintain their volume of lottery tickets.

Remember, the draft value chart does not care about how players perform once they’re in the NFL. The chart only cares about what teams are willing to pay for picks- and there’s a reward for teams smart enough to maneuver the draft board.

Thanks for posting this.  I read about it last year, and mentioned it in a tthread that teams aren't using the Johnson chart any more, and of course couldn't find the article about it.

[Sperm Edwards]

7 minutes ago, slats said:

I called it a high fifth because this year, with the comp picks awarded in the third and fourth rounds, the total value that Maccagnan lost would've equaled a high fifth round pick. IMO, trading a sixth for a future fifth somewhat negates that differential, but I understand if you disagree. 

I found the article interesting, and a counter to the people jumping off bridges because Mac got taken in every trade he made this year. 

I didn't say I disagreed. In reality, the difference between the very last picks of one (mid-later) round aren't so night & day from the very first picks of the following round. 

But say you're talking about roughly the 130th pick. Whether that's labeled as a low 4th or a high 5th, it's still (theoretically) the 130th-best prospect. For deep draft classes that's a valuable pick, but for some years there's a 90-95% chance it's worthless.

I don't think anyone's jumping off bridges (though I don't have access to bridge cameras from here). But if he lost the trade value of some 20 or 30 picks (whatever it was) it isn't something for him to brag about.

[nycdan]

8 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Agree 100%: it's primarily not as common because half the GMs (maybe more) know their job security isn't infinite. Those more secure, and those who have so many picks in the current draft, are going to be more willing to surrender a pick this year for a higher one next year. Those on shakier ground and/or those who already have fewer picks this year, are more likely to surrender a pick the following year.

A thin-ice GM (assuming he's the one calling the shots) isn't typically giving up this year's higher #1 for a lower #1, or a #2 this year for a #1 next year, since he may not be employed by that team a year later, and for the current season all he's immediately able to use is a lower pick (and theoretically, a worse player) while on thin ice.

Also I don't know how many really plan on picking up a selection the following year before the draft starts. I'd have to think it's pretty infrequent, unless maybe they start the draft with 9+ picks; that it's typically a spur of the moment thing while teams are simultaneously trying to reshuffle their own boards to trade up/down in the current draft, based on who's gone, who they already took, and what perceived needs are filled/unfilled. 

And this is where good teams can separate from bad teams.  When a GM is influenced by his own needs (job security) more than the team needs (long term success) you get what you would expect.  Lots of 8-8 and 9-7 seasons with a quick exit in the playoffs at best.  Team organizational structure is often set up to create exactly this short-term perspective year after year.  You could make the case that finding a good GM you can commit to long-term is about as important as finding a good QB so you can get that long perspective into the draft process.
 

[Sperm Edwards]

7 minutes ago, nycdan said:

And this is where good teams can separate from bad teams.  When a GM is influenced by his own needs (job security) more than the team needs (long term success) you get what you would expect.  Lots of 8-8 and 9-7 seasons with a quick exit in the playoffs at best.  Team organizational structure is often set up to create exactly this short-term perspective year after year.  You could make the case that finding a good GM you can commit to long-term is about as important as finding a good QB so you can get that long perspective into the draft process.
 

Yep. 

Like I said, an exception exists for those with a bunch of extra picks, whether they come from losing UFAs or from trading down earlier in the draft, since 9-10 rookies aren't reasonably expected to make the opening day roster.

Hey theoretically, if one had this discipline, start with trading a lowly 7th rounder today for a 6th a year from now, and keep track of which pick that is, to keep parlaying it into an eventual 1st round pick. Refuel it by annually bypassing one's current 7th (or late 6th) round pick in similar fashion. By year 7 we'd be in a perpetual cycle of having a pair of #1 picks lol. 

[Il Mostro]

So we should have traded our 2nd, 3rd, and 4th for an additional 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in 2018?  That would have been a ballsy move of Ditkaesque proportions.