PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Will Pioli trade down?


FringeNC
01-11-2009, 09:40 AM
Really interesting article

For best values, see below (http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2007/04/22/for_best_values_see_below/)

By Mike Reiss, Globe Staff | April 22, 2007

"We have two No. 1 picks in the most economical part of the draft. The best value for high-quality players, if you pick right, is the second half of the first round." -- Robert Kraft, Jan. 21, 2007

The words serve as a reminder on team-building in today's NFL. Long gone are the days when it simply was about the X and the O. The $ is now a crucial part of the equation as well.

The Patriots are a solid example of realizing that value, making a nice living in the back half of the 32-pick first round in recent years. The team will look to continue its success with the 24th and 28th selections in next weekend's NFL draft.

Since coach Bill Belichick and vice president of player personnel Scott Pioli teamed up to run the Patriots' football operation in 2000, players picked in the second half of the first round include tight ends Daniel Graham (21st in 2002) and Benjamin Watson (32d in 2004), nose tackle Vince Wilfork (21st in 2004), offensive lineman Logan Mankins (32d in 2005), and running back Laurence Maroney (21st in 2006).

While all have been significant parts of the Patriots' on-field success, their contributions go beyond the stat sheet. Check the team's balance sheet, as all have played under salary-cap-friendly contracts.

To fully understand the value, it helps to make a comparison to top draft choices.

Take Maroney as an example. After joining the Patriots last season, he signed a five-year contract worth a total of $8.735 million, which was a pre-slotted deal for the 21st pick. Meanwhile, the top overall selection in the draft last year, defensive end Mario Williams, landed a six-year, $54 million contract from the Texans, with $26.5 million guaranteed.

Williams was likely rated the superior player by most NFL teams, although those looking through an economic lens might assess both contracts and determine that Maroney offers greater value, with significantly less risk.

This leads to some not-often-asked questions:

Because the NFL assigns the team with the worst record the top overall selection in the draft, is that pick truly a reward, based on the lucrative contract that an unproven player receives -- and the high risk the team assumes?

And, closer to home, are the Patriots better off picking in the bottom half of the first round based on the economic reward and their sharp scouting in that area?

Scholarly approach
Richard H. Thaler, a professor of economics at the Graduate School of Business at the University of Chicago, thought of the idea after the 1999 NFL draft. That was the year the New Orleans Saints traded all of their draft picks, and two selections in 2000, to select running back Ricky Williams with the fifth overall choice.
Thaler's initial instinct was that the move couldn't be rational, and that the NFL draft would be a fun topic for an investigation of economic principles.

So in April 2005, along with Cade Massey, who is now a professor at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business, Thaler completed a 59-page paper on market efficiency and rationality. The results caught the attention of some NFL teams -- "they seemed to agree with our analysis," Thaler said -- and reinforced Patriots owner Robert Kraft's words on the value of lower first-round draft choices.

"What we found was that teams seem to put a very high value on picking early," Thaler explained. "We infer that from the fact that if you look at trades, early-round picks are really valuable. There is also the draft chart, which originated with the Cowboys and Jimmy Johnson, and what the chart says is that you could trade the first pick for roughly the last four picks of the first round. That tells you that teams think picking first is really valuable.

"But the first guy picked is very unlikely to be worth more than four guys you could pick at the end of the first round. Because of the structure of the rookie salary cap, those guys will cost about the same as the first guy. What we do is a systematical evaluation to see if that conjecture of ours is right, and what we find, which is complete heresy, is that those picks the Patriots have appear to be, to us, worth more than the Raiders' first-round pick.

"Kraft's intuition is right because you don't have to pay them so much."

But what about the chance to land a franchise player like Peyton Manning with the top overall pick, as the Colts did in 1998?

Wouldn't he be considered more valuable than the final four first-round draft choices that year -- offensive lineman Victor Riley, cornerback R.W. McQuarters, running back John Avery, and receiver Marcus Nash -- three of whom are out of the NFL?

Thaler agreed that Manning is the most productive first pick in recent memory, but he also offered a reminder that the cost of paying the top pick can restrict a team from spending money on other players. In addition, he pointed out that the player selected after Manning was quarterback Ryan Leaf, a bust.

"The most common mistake that fans can make," said Thaler, "is to say, 'The reason why those early picks are so important is that you can get a franchise player.' There are very few franchise players."

Bests and busts
An evaluation of No. 1 overall picks from 1993-2006 -- which covers the salary cap era -- supports Thaler's point. Of quarterbacks Drew Bledsoe (1993), Manning (1998), Tim Couch (1999), Michael Vick (2001), David Carr (2002), Carson Palmer (2003), Eli Manning (2004), and Alex Smith (2005), defensive linemen Dan Wilkinson (1994), Courtney Brown (2000), and Williams (2006), running back Ki-Jana Carter (1995), receiver Keyshawn Johnson (1996), and offensive tackle Orlando Pace (1997), who are the true franchise players?
Manning, Palmer, and Pace would probably top most lists, while the busts would be Couch, Carr, and Carter. And those who fall into the bust category can significantly dent a team's salary cap. Such is the case with Carr, who signed a seven-year, $46.75 million contract as a rookie but has since been cut. In contrast, teams making a first-round mistake later in the round won't feel such a sting.

This is one reason Thaler believes teams at the top of the draft would be wise to trade down and accumulate more choices. He said the second round is a spot of true value.

Another benefit to trading down is that since most draft picks are crapshoots anyway, the more choices a team has, the better its chances of getting a productive player.

Also, picking lower in the draft can save a team money to devote to veteran free agents, who are easier to evaluate because they have a body of work.

One interesting hypothetical this year would be if the Raiders, who own the top pick, shipped it to the Patriots for the 24th and 28th picks. Even though the draft value chart would indicate the Patriots would get the better of the deal, Thaler doesn't necessarily agree because of the economic impact.

"Whoever is taken first -- whether it is JaMarcus Russell, Brady Quinn, Calvin Johnson -- each of those players is in fact a better prospect than anybody who will be available at picks 24 and 28," he said. "But [top prospects] cost four times as much as one of those players, and I don't think they're four times better."

Patience pays
When it comes to the Patriots' approach later in the first round, there is no set formula.
The 2001 and 2003 drafts were the only recent ones in which the team picked in the top half of the draft, and it struck gold with Richard Seymour (No. 6) and Ty Warren (No. 13). The team traded up one spot to nab Warren, surrendering a sixth-round pick to do so.

As for their work in the bottom half of the round, in 2002, the Patriots traded up the board from 32 to select Graham at 21. In 2003, they traded one of their two first-round picks for a second-round pick and a 2004 first-round choice, a deal that ultimately netted solid starters in defensive back Eugene Wilson and Wilfork.

The trade that landed Wilson and Wilfork is one example of a smart economic approach, according to the work of Thaler and Massey, who found that teams are often impatient by trading away future picks for current ones. The patient team that accumulates more future picks, they believe, has the better chance to be successful.

The Patriots often emphasize value as they prepare for the draft, and as Kraft pointed out, that means more than just the X's and O's on the field. Being smart on the economic side is a big part of the approach, especially in a sport with a level playing field and salary cap.

Thaler sees the Patriots as a model franchise in this regard, and their success with late first-round draft picks is part of the reason.

"The Patriots seem to have been better than anybody in the league at figuring out the economics of post-salary-cap football," he said.

KCUnited
01-11-2009, 09:43 AM
Will another teams GM be willing to trade up is the bigger question.

SNR
01-11-2009, 09:43 AM
Meh.

SNR
01-11-2009, 09:43 AM
Will another teams GM be willing to trade up is the bigger question.This.

chiefzilla1501
01-11-2009, 09:44 AM
I mentioned this a long time ago and got railed for it.

NaptownChief
01-11-2009, 09:44 AM
If you beleive in Thigpen then trading down would sure make a lot of sense. Probably still get the player you want, a few extra picks and cost you a lot less money on your 1st rounder.

Definitely the direction I would go. However if you don't believe in Thigpen then you probably have to sit there and take Stafford or Bradford.

On the surface I like Stafford better but when it comes to the QB position that is were personal interviews and background checks are so important. You have to find out who is the smartest and who has the best work ethic. Brains and work ethic are far more important for NFL QB's than physical talent.

chiefzilla1501
01-11-2009, 09:49 AM
If you beleive in Thigpen then trading down would sure make a lot of sense. Probably still get the player you want, a few extra picks and cost you a lot less money on your 1st rounder.

Definitely the direction I would go. However if you don't believe in Thigpen then you probably have to sit there and take Stafford or Bradford.

On the surface I like Stafford better but when it comes to the QB position that is were personal interviews and background checks are so important. You have to find out who is the smartest and who has the best work ethic. Brains and work ethic are far more important for NFL QB's than physical talent.

Yup. If there is a clear, without-a-doubt player that you want sitting at the top of the board, you don't ever trade down. But too often teams settle for players and I don't want the Chiefs settling for a QB if they're not that jazzed up about him. If Stafford is off the board, and the Chiefs aren't sold on Sanchez or Bradford, I am not a big fan of the Chiefs feeling compelled to stick around and take the QB out of obligation.

FringeNC
01-11-2009, 09:49 AM
I think the real interesting aspect of this article is the suggestion that the NFL draft trade table is wrong given the salary cap and slot position salaries for draft picks.

NaptownChief
01-11-2009, 09:50 AM
Yup. If there is a clear, without-a-doubt player that you want sitting at the top of the board, you don't ever trade down. But too often teams settle for players and I don't want the Chiefs settling for a QB if they're not that jazzed up about him. If Stafford is off the board, and the Chiefs aren't sold on Sanchez or Bradford, I am not a big fan of the Chiefs feeling compelled to stick around and take the QB out of obligation.


Agreed...That is how teams end up with guys like Joey Harrington at the top of the 1st round. :D

FringeNC
01-11-2009, 09:51 AM
On the surface I like Stafford better but when it comes to the QB position that is were personal interviews and background checks are so important. You have to find out who is the smartest and who has the best work ethic. Brains and work ethic are far more important for NFL QB's than physical talent.

Well fucking said.

Tribal Warfare
01-11-2009, 09:56 AM
On the surface I like Stafford better but when it comes to the QB position that is were personal interviews and background checks are so important. You have to find out who is the smartest and who has the best work ethic. Brains and work ethic are far more important for NFL QB's than physical talent.



KC has done that 10 fold with Stafford, so that's not question about him.

prhom
01-11-2009, 10:01 AM
I mentioned this a long time ago and got railed for it.

I'll bet they probably accused you of being a "true fan", loving CP, and wishing we were a 9-7 team too. Great article, and I agree with the general premise with one exception. The value of a high pick spent on a potential HOF-caliber QB is probably worth the risk if you're willing to suck for a couple years and keeping trying if they don't pan out. Few positions besides QB are worthy of a top 3 pick IMO, just because they can't contribute at the same level for as long. Once you get that high quality QB you have the luxury of trading down and letting the desperate teams fight over the high-paid potential busts in the top spots.

Smed1065
01-11-2009, 10:02 AM
Oh so he is already hired?

chiefzilla1501
01-11-2009, 10:03 AM
I think the real interesting aspect of this article is the suggestion that the NFL draft trade table is wrong given the salary cap and slot position salaries for draft picks.

I 100% agree. The draft trade chart is RETARDED. As I've pointed out before, what I hate about the draft chart is that it assumes that Carson Palmer has the same trade value as Alex Smith. Or that Calvin Johnson at #2 who went into the draft as a stud waiting to happen, carries the same value as Chris Long--a pick who most believe would be an overachiever who would have a productive but unspectacular pro career.

Why do teams continue to insist that all drafts have the same amount of talent in their class? If there is a can't-miss prospect on the board, you ask for the moon; if there isn't and you don't like what you have, you should ask for less than the moon. Not that difficult of a concept, and yet it's one that people just can't accept.

chiefscafan
01-11-2009, 10:06 AM
Hm I've been thinking bout this I think we should trade down between 10-12 range. Pick up a 1st 2nd and 5th. I don't know if draft charts work like that though. I would select rey maauluga (spelling?). At our pick crabtree will be there one or two qbs and any one of the outstanding OTs. Surely someone will trade up get our qb with second rd when and if one of them falls to second rd.

Mr. Laz
01-11-2009, 10:12 AM
if he could, he might

trade down 2/3 times and end up in the middle of round 1


Parcells and Jimmy johnson would

eazyb81
01-11-2009, 10:13 AM
If you beleive in Thigpen then trading down would sure make a lot of sense. Probably still get the player you want, a few extra picks and cost you a lot less money on your 1st rounder.

Definitely the direction I would go. However if you don't believe in Thigpen then you probably have to sit there and take Stafford or Bradford.

On the surface I like Stafford better but when it comes to the QB position that is were personal interviews and background checks are so important. You have to find out who is the smartest and who has the best work ethic. Brains and work ethic are far more important for NFL QB's than physical talent.

Or you could be sold on the value of a guy like Josh Freeman in the late 1st/early 2nd, rather than using a top 3 pick on Stafford/Sanchez/Bradford.

Tribal Warfare
01-11-2009, 10:20 AM
Or you could be sold on the value of a guy like Josh Freeman in the late 1st/early 2nd, rather than using a top 3 pick on Stafford/Sanchez/Bradford.

The only true sleeper I see at QB is John Parker Wilson of Alabama

chiefscafan
01-11-2009, 10:22 AM
Tribal speaking as a longtime tide fan we don't want happy feet Wilson at Qb.

Mr. Laz
01-11-2009, 10:24 AM
Or you could be sold on the value of a guy like Josh Freeman in the late 1st/early 2nd, rather than using a top 3 pick on Stafford/Sanchez/Bradford.
no thank you

Freeman is a project imo and you don't take a project before round 3.


hell ... i think i would take a flyer on Harrell before Freeman

chiefscafan
01-11-2009, 10:28 AM
Unless the project is tim tebow if he's there at the top of second I'm tempted to take him. We have thigpen start and have a great Qb coach groom both of them to be great. Best scenario in two years we have two great Qbs not a bad deal to have.

eazyb81
01-11-2009, 10:33 AM
no thank you

Freeman is a project imo and you don't take a project before round 3.


hell ... i think i would take a flyer on Harrell before Freeman

I don't want to get into this argument again, but Freeman is going to get some helium after the combine and his pro day.

I realize this board doesn't like him because we've analyzed him to death at KSU, but you can't deny his physical talent, and some GM may think his QB coach can turn him into the next Big Ben.

milkman
01-11-2009, 10:36 AM
Unless the project is tim tebow if he's there at the top of second I'm tempted to take him. We have thigpen start and have a great Qb coach groom both of them to be great. Best scenario in two years we have two great Qbs not a bad deal to have.

Worst case scenario is that you have two sorry ass QBs that can't play in a pro set.

No way in hell I'd use a pick on TeBow.

Mr. Laz
01-11-2009, 10:38 AM
I don't want to get into this argument again, but Freeman is going to get some helium after the combine and his pro day.

I realize this board doesn't like him because we've analyzed him to death at KSU, but you can't deny his physical talent, and some GM may think his QB coach can turn him into the next Big Ben.
i don't doubt you could be right

Freeman could be that workout warrior and get a big bump on draft day.

doesn't mean he should ....... but he could

DaKCMan AP
01-11-2009, 10:40 AM
The only true sleeper I see at QB is John Parker Wilson of Alabama

JPW is garbage.

chiefscafan
01-11-2009, 10:45 AM
I just want rey from USC I watched Ray Lewis last night and how he was a leader and energized the D. We need that guys and I feel rey is that guy we can't take him third that's too high for a LB but 8 -12 range I'd pull the trigger. Every mock I see we could get him at 10 49ers pick they need a Qb and staford or Bradford possibly sanchez are there. We trade them our pick for their pick plus 2nd and 5th and even try to squeeze out a pick next year. We get rey have 2 2nds and 2 5ths to do some dammage with.

Tribal Warfare
01-11-2009, 10:55 AM
JPW is garbage.

The kid looked good against Clemson and Georgia

Chiefshrink
01-11-2009, 11:06 AM
Yup. If there is a clear, without-a-doubt player that you want sitting at the top of the board, you don't ever trade down. But too often teams settle for players and I don't want the Chiefs settling for a QB if they're not that jazzed up about him. If Stafford is off the board, and the Chiefs aren't sold on Sanchez or Bradford, I am not a big fan of the Chiefs feeling compelled to stick around and take the QB out of obligation.

Naptown and Zilla you have both nailed it big time!! Unless there is a Marino or Elway type sittin there at 3, and we all know there is not even a close Elway or Marino in this draft we do exactly what we did last yr and continue to build with many good quality picks!!!

Chiefshrink
01-11-2009, 11:12 AM
Unless the project is tim tebow if he's there at the top of second I'm tempted to take him. We have thigpen start and have a great Qb coach groom both of them to be great. Best scenario in two years we have two great Qbs not a bad deal to have.

I rarely agree with Kiper but he said Tebow was being looked at by NFL scouts as a possible H-back type like Cooley or Clark. This is a very plausible scenario because not only can this guy run,catch,block and take hit at that but hell he can pass to open up the O options for a team.:thumb:

Apologize if this has already been talked about.

Chiefshrink
01-11-2009, 11:14 AM
I just want rey from USC I watched Ray Lewis last night and how he was a leader and energized the D. We need that guys and I feel rey is that guy we can't take him third that's too high for a LB but 8 -12 range I'd pull the trigger. Every mock I see we could get him at 10 49ers pick they need a Qb and staford or Bradford possibly sanchez are there. We trade them our pick for their pick plus 2nd and 5th and even try to squeeze out a pick next year. We get rey have 2 2nds and 2 5ths to do some dammage with.

We can definitely do this if we trade down which is my opinion and get more picks. You willin to do this?

Chiefshrink
01-11-2009, 11:17 AM
Will another teams GM be willing to trade up is the bigger question.

Precisely! And I think if we want to trade down then we focus on those teams that are seriously "in love" with Bradford and Stafford.

milkman
01-11-2009, 11:21 AM
Precisely! And I think if we want to trade down then we focus on those teams that are seriously "in love" with Bradford and Stafford.

:grr:

FringeNC
01-11-2009, 11:39 AM
I 100% agree. The draft trade chart is RETARDED. As I've pointed out before, what I hate about the draft chart is that it assumes that Carson Palmer has the same trade value as Alex Smith. Or that Calvin Johnson at #2 who went into the draft as a stud waiting to happen, carries the same value as Chris Long--a pick who most believe would be an overachiever who would have a productive but unspectacular pro career.

Why do teams continue to insist that all drafts have the same amount of talent in their class? If there is a can't-miss prospect on the board, you ask for the moon; if there isn't and you don't like what you have, you should ask for less than the moon. Not that difficult of a concept, and yet it's one that people just can't accept.

Chiefzilla:

You'll enjoy this further read on the subject. Also check the link near the end of the article on a new chart:

http://nudges.wordpress.com/nudging-in-the-nfl-draft/

Guru
01-11-2009, 11:59 AM
doesn't he officially need to be our GM to do this first?

Hoover
01-11-2009, 12:07 PM
You don't have to believe in Thigpen to trade down.

If I were the Chief new GM and knowing the holes we have to fill I would entertain a trade down knowing the following.

1. Teams are going to be egar to trade up and grab a franchise LT which make no sense for the chiefs to draft since we did that last year.

2. With the possibility of 3 QBs coming out, one of them is likley to slip a bit. Knowing the type of coin they are going to require I might gamble on moving back a few spots and seeing who I can grab there since there isn't a clear cut top QB in this class. Why pay top dollar when all three pose significant risks.

3. If the QBs are gone, then we have plenty of holes we can focus on like DE and LB.

My ideal situation would be to trade down to the 5-10 range and pick up another high 2nd rounder and maybe a future pick.

Who knows what we could get, with that being the case I'd make sure people know we are open for business.

milkman
01-11-2009, 12:09 PM
doesn't he officially need to be our GM to do this first?

Details.

chiefzilla1501
01-11-2009, 12:19 PM
Chiefzilla:

You'll enjoy this further read on the subject. Also check the link near the end of the article on a new chart:

http://nudges.wordpress.com/nudging-in-the-nfl-draft/

Fringe, that is one of the best reads I've seen all year. Thank you.

DT58HOF
01-11-2009, 12:25 PM
JPW is garbage.
I agree, we don't need another overrated bum from Bama

chiefzilla1501
01-11-2009, 12:25 PM
You don't have to believe in Thigpen to trade down.

If I were the Chief new GM and knowing the holes we have to fill I would entertain a trade down knowing the following.

1. Teams are going to be egar to trade up and grab a franchise LT which make no sense for the chiefs to draft since we did that last year.

2. With the possibility of 3 QBs coming out, one of them is likley to slip a bit. Knowing the type of coin they are going to require I might gamble on moving back a few spots and seeing who I can grab there since there isn't a clear cut top QB in this class. Why pay top dollar when all three pose significant risks.

3. If the QBs are gone, then we have plenty of holes we can focus on like DE and LB.

My ideal situation would be to trade down to the 5-10 range and pick up another high 2nd rounder and maybe a future pick.

Who knows what we could get, with that being the case I'd make sure people know we are open for business.

That was my thought as well. You can trade down and I think you could still land Sanchez or Bradford. I don't feel real comfortable taking either of those guys at #3, but I'd be more than happy to take either of those two at, say, #5 or #6 plus get an extra pick on the side. I have a feeling that with Albert Smith or Michael Oher on top of the board, there are going to be teams that will want to bite and trade up.

milkman
01-11-2009, 12:27 PM
That was my thought as well. You can trade down and I think you could still land Sanchez or Bradford. I don't feel real comfortable taking either of those guys at #3, but I'd be more than happy to take either of those two at, say, #5 or #6 plus get an extra pick on the side. I have a feeling that with Albert Smith or Michael Oher on top of the board, there are going to be teams that will want to bite and trade up.

What position does Albert Smith play?

Chiefshrink
01-11-2009, 12:53 PM
You don't have to believe in Thigpen to trade down.

If I were the Chief new GM and knowing the holes we have to fill I would entertain a trade down knowing the following.

1. Teams are going to be egar to trade up and grab a franchise LT which make no sense for the chiefs to draft since we did that last year.

2. With the possibility of 3 QBs coming out, one of them is likley to slip a bit. Knowing the type of coin they are going to require I might gamble on moving back a few spots and seeing who I can grab there since there isn't a clear cut top QB in this class. Why pay top dollar when all three pose significant risks.

3. If the QBs are gone, then we have plenty of holes we can focus on like DE and LB.

My ideal situation would be to trade down to the 5-10 range and pick up another high 2nd rounder and maybe a future pick.

Who knows what we could get, with that being the case I'd make sure people know we are open for business.

I see your point but you can never have enough top notch O-lineman

chiefzilla1501
01-11-2009, 01:32 PM
What position does Albert Smith play?

Sorry, my mistake. I meant Andre Smith.

Manila-Chief
01-11-2009, 02:31 PM
This guy sounds like Carl whose greatest concern was to save his owner money. Over all maybe it’s better to draft in the 2nd. round, but teams with a game changer player, generally go further into the playoff (if they have a creditable coach). Usually, you can get game changer players at the top of the 1st. round.

That’s why I think it is imperative that we get a quality GM who can evaluate talent. I’ll trust him to evaluate Thigpen and determine if he is our QB … doesn’t have to be a QBOTF but he has to get the job done. He will decide if there is a franchise QB at our spot. Manning, Elway, etc. are worth paying top dollar to draft. If there is not a true game changer, then trade down and get additional picks.

chiefzilla1501
01-11-2009, 03:55 PM
This guy sounds like Carl whose greatest concern was to save his owner money. Over all maybe it’s better to draft in the 2nd. round, but teams with a game changer player, generally go further into the playoff (if they have a creditable coach). Usually, you can get game changer players at the top of the 1st. round.

That’s why I think it is imperative that we get a quality GM who can evaluate talent. I’ll trust him to evaluate Thigpen and determine if he is our QB … doesn’t have to be a QBOTF but he has to get the job done. He will decide if there is a franchise QB at our spot. Manning, Elway, etc. are worth paying top dollar to draft. If there is not a true game changer, then trade down and get additional picks.

Bob Kraft and Scott Pioli are NOT Carl Peterson and Lamar Hunt.

This article is exactly right. It's not about passing on a game-changing player, it's that way too many teams settle for players they don't want only because they're the best value. When you're in the top 5 and the best players on the board are not players you want, then you shouldn't stubbornly cling to your pick. I think that's the point.

Furthermore, if you are really good at drafting in the middle to late first round, then that validates the point even further because you can get a difference maker at, say, #15 PLUS get additional picks. A game-changer is always great to have, but the Patriots get game-changers AND get extra compensation picks on the side. That's one of the reasons they've been so effective in the draft.

Mecca
01-11-2009, 03:57 PM
That's great and all aside from when the Pats were actually building their team they didn't move, Seymour was the 7th pick, they traded up to get Warren.

keg in kc
01-11-2009, 03:59 PM
Will another teams GM be willing to trade up is the bigger question.Yep. It's pretty likely that, once the collective bargaining agreement is re-upped, the league will be going to a new system for rookie contracts. So 2009 may well be the last year for bloated deals, which means the agents are going to be going for broke. It was rare enough before this season that teams moved up into the big contract range. I don't see how anybody's going to want to give up anything to move up into the top 5 in 2009.

bowener
01-11-2009, 04:02 PM
Supposedly the Eagles want a great LT, maybe they want to trade their 2 firsts plus more for our 3rd? I don't really like that since one of them is going to be 28-32 range. I think the other is #22. That seems like a pretty long way to drop, so I am not a fan of it. It just leads to more speculation though, because then we could use the 2 firsts to possibly trade back up into the top 10 if somebody's 'guy' is already taken by then... I just hope after the combine there is a guy who is clearly worth the #3 pick and will fit with our needs.

chiefzilla1501
01-11-2009, 04:56 PM
Yep. It's pretty likely that, once the collective bargaining agreement is re-upped, the league will be going to a new system for rookie contracts. So 2009 may well be the last year for bloated deals, which means the agents are going to be going for broke. It was rare enough before this season that teams moved up into the big contract range. I don't see how anybody's going to want to give up anything to move up into the top 5 in 2009.

It depends on your perspective. An alternate view is that teams have a lot more cap room and could potentially have a ton more cap room if the league goes uncapped. If teams have a lot more cap room, they're more likely to spend a ton of money to keep their key players at key positions.

Quite simply, if you don't draft a LT in the top 10, where else will you get him? You won't get it through free agency. You're taking a huge gamble if you want to get a top-flight LT outside of the top 10 or 15.

I think because quality players aren't hitting the free agent market, that makes top 5 picks even MORE valuable.

bowener
01-11-2009, 05:01 PM
doesn't he officially need to be our GM to do this first?

It is clear you do not know your ass from a hole in the ground, jesus fuck, havent you read,


Okay gang, as many of you know I still have friends at the highest level in the Chiefs organization and have this info to share with full confidence: Scott Pioli is the new GM. His announcement will come Thursday or Friday at the latest..........

I keed, you know your ass.

FringeNC
01-11-2009, 05:03 PM
The point of the article is given a salary cap and slotted salaries for rookies, there is more bang for you buck at the end of the 1st round than at the beginning. It has nothing to do with being "cheap".

bowener
01-11-2009, 05:11 PM
Wow. The 'new' chart (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pOO-aj705ClVIFI_mW6eHFA&gid=0) discussed toward the end of that article (http://nudges.wordpress.com/nudging-in-the-nfl-draft/) is a big change.

chiefzilla1501
01-11-2009, 05:20 PM
Wow. The 'new' chart (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pOO-aj705ClVIFI_mW6eHFA&gid=0) discussed toward the end of that article (http://nudges.wordpress.com/nudging-in-the-nfl-draft/) is a big change.

I think the fan took it way too far--it is WAY too easy to trade out of a top 5 spot and they should hope to get much more value than what that fan was proposing.

My opinion is that you throw away the chart. Use that chart as a guide only to see if you're getting ripped off, but otherwise rely on supply and demand. If you really want to get rid of that pick, then don't be afraid to reduce your offer just a little bit. If your trade partner really wants to get your pick, then they should be willing to give a little more for your pick.

That's how negotiations work. Can you imagine if you were buying a house in this crap economy and the realtor quoted you prices from 3 years ago? Who would buy a house then? The housing market changes every year and so, prices change every year. Similarly, if there is a shitty draft class, why do you continue to quote the same prices as a really outstanding draft class? It doesn't make any sense.

djrcmay
01-11-2009, 05:21 PM
Why should we care what the Patriots do in their draft.

FringeNC
01-11-2009, 05:28 PM
I think the fan took it way too far--it is WAY too easy to trade out of a top 5 spot and they should hope to get much more value than what that fan was proposing.

My opinion is that you throw away the chart. Use that chart as a guide only to see if you're getting ripped off, but otherwise rely on supply and demand. If you really want to get rid of that pick, then don't be afraid to reduce your offer just a little bit. If your trade partner really wants to get your pick, then they should be willing to give a little more for your pick.

That's how negotiations work. Can you imagine if you were buying a house in this crap economy and the realtor quoted you prices from 3 years ago? Who would buy a house then? The housing market changes every year and so, prices change every year. Similarly, if there is a shitty draft class, why do you continue to quote the same prices as a really outstanding draft class? It doesn't make any sense.

That wasn't a fan. The original chart was a production of the Dallas Cowboys. The new chart is is some alternative another NFL team devised. Which team, I don't know.

keg in kc
01-11-2009, 05:29 PM
It depends on your perspective. An alternate view is that teams have a lot more cap room and could potentially have a ton more cap room if the league goes uncapped. If teams have a lot more cap room, they're more likely to spend a ton of money to keep their key players at key positions.

Quite simply, if you don't draft a LT in the top 10, where else will you get him? You won't get it through free agency. You're taking a huge gamble if you want to get a top-flight LT outside of the top 10 or 15.

I think because quality players aren't hitting the free agent market, that makes top 5 picks even MORE valuable.Whichever perspective you take, the road leads to the same destination: trading up into those picks isn't very likely. Because, in my view, teams won't want to trade up into them because of the cost of contracts, making them less willing to give up value, or, in your view, the teams already there will believe they're worth even more than in the past, meaning they'll be asking for even more of a king's ransom. Either way, that makes a trade more difficult.

FringeNC
01-11-2009, 05:57 PM
Whichever perspective you take, the road leads to the same destination: trading up into those picks isn't very likely. Because, in my view, teams won't want to trade up into them because of the cost of contracts, making them less willing to give up value, or, in your view, the teams already there will believe they're worth even more than in the past, meaning they'll be asking for even more of a king's ransom. Either way, that makes a trade more difficult.

I think the new chart was developed by the Eagles:

Earlier this week, Eagles president Joe Banner publicly commented on the revisions to the chart, which teams have been using since the 1990s.

“There is no question that the dynamic of the first round has changed very dramatically,” Banner said. “There is no question, in my mind at least, that the old system is no longer applicable for trades in the first round. The question is, do we have a viable replacement about which is a consensus that it makes sense?

“I don’t think there’s anybody who could intelligently argue that you don’t have to [use a new chart]. Even if you work off the old chart, but kind of adjust it in your head, the old chart does not make sense anymore with the economics of the guaranteed money in the first round.”

aturnis
01-11-2009, 06:04 PM
My opinion is that you throw away the chart. Use that chart as a guide only to see if you're getting ripped off, but otherwise rely on supply and demand. If you really want to get rid of that pick, then don't be afraid to reduce your offer just a little bit. If your trade partner really wants to get your pick, then they should be willing to give a little more for your pick.

That's how negotiations work. Can you imagine if you were buying a house in this crap economy and the realtor quoted you prices from 3 years ago? Who would buy a house then? The housing market changes every year and so, prices change every year. Similarly, if there is a shitty draft class, why do you continue to quote the same prices as a really outstanding draft class? It doesn't make any sense.

Isn't that EXACTLY how it IS used now?

aturnis
01-11-2009, 06:06 PM
So can the old chart and the new chart fuck and have a baby that is a happy median of the two?

OnTheWarpath58
01-11-2009, 06:11 PM
That new chart is retarded.

Why would the team with the #1 pick accept a mid 1st and a 5th as equal value?

Mr. Laz
01-11-2009, 06:34 PM
Wow. The 'new' chart (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pOO-aj705ClVIFI_mW6eHFA&gid=0) discussed toward the end of that article (http://nudges.wordpress.com/nudging-in-the-nfl-draft/) is a big change.
with that new chart it would cost a single 6th round pick to trade up from #2 to #1.

:spock:

lazepoo
01-11-2009, 07:04 PM
I think the real interesting aspect of this article is the suggestion that the NFL draft trade table is wrong given the salary cap and slot position salaries for draft picks.

I'd like to see the comparison of the values in the draft trade table to the average salary for each pick in the draft over the last five years. That would certainly shed some light on the subject relative to the overall cost for picks. I still think that things are only worth what people will pay for them, so the board is still valuable as a general reference, but it isn't an absolute by any stretch.

FringeNC
01-11-2009, 07:24 PM
As a reference point, we could compare the contracts of Dorsey vs. Albert vs. Flowers.

What the author is arguing is that while yes, higher picks perform better, the premium that they command makes them less valuable lower first rounder.

So in a weird sense, you'd give up draft picks to pick later in the first round.

This really isn't all that out there. Bill Polian has said in the past that the entire draft system is broken.

I do know that if I was running the show, and I could get close to what the original trade chart has, I'd sure trade down. Think if we can trade down for say two late first rounders+change. With our pick at the top of the 2nd, that'd give us three picks right there in the sweet spot of value.

They way NE analyzes these things is kinda like Oakland being at the forefront of the Moneyball revolution. I think it's so cool that the Chiefs are on the verge of joining that club. Going from Carl and Herm to Pioli and the Pats way of doing things. Wow.