BroadwayJ667 Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadwayJ667 Posted April 5, 2009 Author Share Posted April 5, 2009 sorry trying to fix for the jets to trade into the late top 10 it'll take a 2nd if you're curious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gang_green03 Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 Can you also put the values of next years picks? I'd rather them not trade up at all, even for Sanchez or possibly Crabtree (I think there's some what of a chance he falls to Jacksonville). I wouldn't freak out if they traded to the bottom of the top 10 for either since its not a ridiculous amount, but I'd much rather stick with Clemens/Ratliff than use a 1st and 2nd on Sanchez and I don't think Crabtree will be a #1 receiver so that's definitely not worth it either. Now if either fell to the teens, I'd consider it for a 3rd rounder or maybe a 3rd next year, although I'm generally not a fan of trading up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iceman88 Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 The draft value chart is extremely outdated and useless now that the top picks make so much ridiculous amounts of money. I'd much rather have a pick around 10 then the #1 pick where I'm spending over 50 mil with more than 35 guaranteed. Especially in a draft like this one with no real supreme talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish Jet Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 The draft value chart is extremely outdated and useless now that the top picks make so much ridiculous amounts of money. I'd much rather have a pick around 10 then the #1 pick where I'm spending over 50 mil with more than 35 guaranteed. Especially in a draft like this one with no real supreme talent. I agree with this however in drafts where there is a Peyton Manning type player available or a Carson Palmer, it's pretty darn valuable. I wouldn't want any part of it this year though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadwayJ667 Posted April 5, 2009 Author Share Posted April 5, 2009 Can you also put the values of next years picks? no one has that, on account that no one knows what picks they have. Teams know their value, sort of, most of it is blind faith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gang_green03 Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 no one has that, on account that no one knows what picks they have. Teams know their value, sort of, most of it is blind faith You're right that makes sense. For some reason I thought they had a general rule of what a next year 1st, 2nd, etc. was worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 You're right that makes sense. For some reason I thought they had a general rule of what a next year 1st, 2nd, etc. was worth. I think the general rule is they are worth a round later than face value. Fourth next year = fifth this year. It's obviously not as exact because you don't have any idea where in the round the team will be picking. The value chart is a nice exercise, but the figures are outdated and the value depends completely on how a team values the players available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 It is an outdated chart, but teams still adhere to it quite closely. No GM wants to be the one his local beat-writers point their finger out saying they got the short end of the stick in trade value. The last GM I remember virtually ignoring the chart & trading around a lot was Parcells when he first got here. And we got screwed badly when he did. Moved down from 1 to 6 for like a 3rd & a 4th or something. Then again from 6 to 8 for another 4th round pick. Then from the top of round 3 to the bottom of round 3 for another late round pick or two. I guess you can look it up, but it was something like that. Our net loss in "points" when the dust had settled was like the value of a high second round pick and worse talent on the board when our picks came up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aten Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 It is an outdated chart, but teams still adhere to it quite closely. If teams still adhere to it quite closely, how is it outdated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 If teams still adhere to it quite closely, how is it outdated? You are talking about semantics. This isn't a legal brief. Clearly I was inferring it SHOULD not be adhered to so closely. It SHOULD be outdated in the values it ascribes to the picks (most notably at the very top). Once you start to get into the mid & later rounds, it's generally fine. These values were created before the advent of the salary cap or free agency. If there's no salary cap, the bloated rookie salaries aren't hurtful to most teams' ability to sign other players. Further, with no FA, teams were able to draft a player & keep him forever if they wanted; the player had little to no leverage. So you could hold a late-bloomer almost indefinitely without risking him blooming late for someone else's team. But it continues to be used today & will continue to be used going forward until every GM can agree on a new chart that the media & public can see (for CYA reasons). And even those adjustments would be invalidated somewhat if/when a responsible rookie contract/salary slotting was in place. It is because of the ridiculous values at the very top that many teams neither want the top pick or two, nor are they able to trade out of that slot. The easy answer is to let your pick come & go & not bring your selection card up until the first handful of guys has come off the board, but there aren't too many GM's with the stones to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aten Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 You are talking about semantics. This isn't a legal brief. Clearly I was inferring it SHOULD not be adhered to so closely. It SHOULD be outdated in the values it ascribes to the picks (most notably at the very top). No. The chart should stay the same. The rookie salary system should change. The fact that teams continue to adhere to the chart despite the obvious economic externalities is telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 No. The chart should stay the same. The rookie salary system should change. The fact that teams continue to adhere to the chart despite the obvious economic externalities is telling. The chart wouldn't be that bad if not for the rookie salary system. It still could be improved, I'm sure, but if you can get the #1 pick for reasonable dollars then it's not so ridiculous to have to pay up that much to get it. As it is, you have to give an arm and a leg and then some to get to the #1 slot. Then your reward is not merely that #1 pick, but the inability to also sign the type of talent in FA that you hope the #1 pick becomes. If we gave any available veteran player today's value of $35M guaranteed - the type of player that could garner that type of deal in FA - it would stand out as being insane & everyone would go nuts. Now imagine it was done and, in the first year of that contract, said FA plays like a rookie & in year two plays like a 1-year veteran. Ridiculous, yes? Yet it's already done every year with the #1 pick. And more than any other reason, that is why the chart is outdated. If you could sign the #1 pick for merely "good" FA money (which now is an insane $4-5M per year with most of it not guaranteed), I'd feel differently about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Can you also put the values of next years picks? According to Jimmy Johnson (he essentially created the chart), teams value next year's picks 1 of 2 ways: (1) the corresponding pick in the next round. That is, if the Bears traded next year's No. 1 for Cutler and have the 18th overall this year, then the 2010 1st rounder is worth what the 18th pick in this year's 2nd round would be (50th overall). This is based on the notion that the present value of a future pick is diminished by a round. or (2) the last pick in the corresponding round for this year's draft. That is, the Bears 2010 1st rounder is worth the 32nd pick in the 2009 draft. This is based on the notion that the next year's pick would be worth no more than the last pick in the round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aten Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 The chart wouldn't be that bad if not for the rookie salary system. It still could be improved, I'm sure, but if you can get the #1 pick for reasonable dollars then it's not so ridiculous to have to pay up that much to get it. As it is, you have to give an arm and a leg and then some to get to the #1 slot. Then your reward is not merely that #1 pick, but the inability to also sign the type of talent in FA that you hope the #1 pick becomes. If we gave any available veteran player today's value of $35M guaranteed - the type of player that could garner that type of deal in FA - it would stand out as being insane & everyone would go nuts. Now imagine it was done and, in the first year of that contract, said FA plays like a rookie & in year two plays like a 1-year veteran. Ridiculous, yes? Yet it's already done every year with the #1 pick. And more than any other reason, that is why the chart is outdated. If you could sign the #1 pick for merely "good" FA money (which now is an insane $4-5M per year with most of it not guaranteed), I'd feel differently about it. Look at it this way. The money is on the supply side. The team that trades up is getting its guy, whom it has identified as such inclusive of financial considerations, because otherwise the trade wouldn't be happening. The chart then dictates the demand. The relative value of picks doesn't really fluctuate with economic distortions because the chart is for the team trading down - specifically it prices the uncertainty the team incurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Look at it this way. The money is on the supply side. The team that trades up is getting its guy, whom it has identified as such inclusive of financial considerations, because otherwise the trade wouldn't be happening. The chart then dictates the demand. The relative value of picks doesn't really fluctuate with economic distortions because the chart is for the team trading down - specifically it prices the uncertainty the team incurs. I think the teams trading down from the very top would be more likely to get what they want if there were more suitors. I'd say there's a very good chance Detroit would want out of the #1 pick. A few years ago it was no secret San Fran wanted out of the top pick. No one wants it in years like this. And few want it in most years. It is very rare for someone to trade up the way the Giants did. If the bottom-ranked team takes a player #1 it should be because they want that pick, not because they're trapped into it. And it is not irrespective of financial considerations. It is precisely that reason that a team like Detroit this year or San Fran in '05 were in that unenviable situation. Someone may have traded up to get their pick of the litter even if the cost was high in draft picks. But as it stands, the cost is the draft picks plus the difference in contract terms from a player they'd select if they stood pat. That difference in contracts can be the difference between being able to afford a stud FA or prevent one of their own from hitting FA. A team trading up to the very top takes a hit on both the draft picks (or players) required to move up and then they get hit again with a gargantuan contract to a player who's never faced veteran NFL players before. The creation of a rookie cap would go a long way to closing that gap and give the crappiest teams the help they so sorely need -- the help that was the very intention of giving them the top pick in the draft in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.