PDA

View Full Version : Would you trade down with the Bengals for less than face value?


Coogs
04-11-2009, 09:24 AM
The Bengals seem to be targeting an OT. If the Lions go Stafford and the Rams go with Smith, If the Bengals (11 total picks) called and offered their #6 pick worth 1600 points, a 3rd (they have two 3rds), pick #70 worth 240 points, and maybe a 6th (they have two 6ths) pick 179 worth 20 points?

Then at pick #6, I would think more trade down options would be available, as trading up to the #6 spot is not as daunting of a task as moving up to #3.

Except a little less to gain more leverage in the draft so to speak.

Cosmos
04-11-2009, 09:55 AM
Who would you expect to be there at #6 that you would want.

Would you consider trading out of 6 again, and into the teens?

DrRyan
04-11-2009, 10:01 AM
I would have to see the Chiefs getting the Bengals second round pick at minimum to be happy with that trade. Their first, a third and a sixth is not gonna get that done. Their first, second and sixth maybe, but it is still not getting great value. If the Chiefs are able to trade down, it is very unlikely that they will get full point value on the draft value chart this year. If they are able to, Pioli will have to show some savvy negotiating skills.

Coogs
04-11-2009, 10:04 AM
Who would you expect to be there at #6 that you would want.

Would you consider trading out of 6 again, and into the teens?

Second scenario would be more what I was thinking. From #6, we might even be able to trade down a couple more times and come up with 2 or 3 or maybe even 4 first day selections.

Coogs
04-11-2009, 10:07 AM
I would have to see the Chiefs getting the Bengals second round pick at minimum to be happy with that trade. Their first, a third and a sixth is not gonna get that done. Their first, second and sixth maybe, but it is still not getting great value. If the Chiefs are able to trade down, it is very unlikely that they will get full point value on the draft value chart this year. If they are able to, Pioli will have to show some savvy negotiating skills.

That is the part I am talking about. Then combine it with my lates post, and parlay it into first day picks. Something I'm not sure you could do by trading straight up for the #3 spot due to the cost of the #3 spot.

Chris Meck
04-11-2009, 10:21 AM
honestly? I'd trade down into the middle of the first for a second rounder. Just period.

Coogs
04-11-2009, 10:23 AM
Say maybe Jacksonville wants to jump in front to the Raiders and trades #8 and #72.

Then maybe the Eagles thing could happen #8 for #21 and #28.

Picks

#21
#28
#67
#70
#72

We could either stand pat then and have 3 high 3rd rounders, or package some of those to move up into the 2nd round.

That would be 1890 points on the 2200 we started with. While not exactly perfect, it turns 1 player into 4 early selections and 1 later in the 2nd day pick.

Just a thought.

Mr. Krab
04-11-2009, 10:42 AM
honestly? I'd trade down into the middle of the first for a second rounder. Just period.
Just stupid

scratch that, just moronic

scratch the scratch, uber, life-changing retarded

The Bad Guy
04-11-2009, 12:57 PM
That is beyond stupid. I'm not dropping 14 spots to get just a second rounder.

I don't care how shallow the top of this draft is.

ChiefsCountry
04-11-2009, 02:50 PM
Cleveland is the more likely trade partner IMO. They got the ammo and love Curry.

Coogs
04-11-2009, 04:33 PM
Cleveland is the more likely trade partner IMO. They got the ammo and love Curry.

As of right now, they only have 5 draft picks. 1 first, 2 seconds, 1 forth, 1 sixth.

the Talking Can
04-11-2009, 04:51 PM
Pioli isn't bending over for anyone...

and we aren't moving anywhere for less than a 2nd, or a 1st next year...i'd wager a lot on that....

dropping from 3 to 6 is worth a low first/high second, screw taking a third...you're not getting even half the value....f that

SBK
04-11-2009, 05:02 PM
The only way I'm trading down more than a spot or 2 is if in includes a #1 next season. We have an extremely valuable pick, you don't sell it for the value of a 2nd rounder or something--that's nuts.

DaneMcCloud
04-11-2009, 10:18 PM
That is beyond stupid. I'm not dropping 14 spots to get just a second rounder.

I don't care how shallow the top of this draft is.

I fully disagree.

EVERYONE, and I mean EVERYONE has said that in this draft, there's no difference between the #3 and the #23. There just isn't any high-end talent. No Mario Williams. No Eli Manning. No one that stands out from the pack.

If you can move down 14 spots, pick up a player that you'd not only pay 10's of millions less, you could also get a player in a position that would immediately benefit the Chiefs (such as DHB).

AND you'd get a second rounder.

I'd do it in a heartbeat.

DaneMcCloud
04-11-2009, 10:19 PM
Pioli isn't bending over for anyone...

and we aren't moving anywhere for less than a 2nd, or a 1st next year...i'd wager a lot on that....

dropping from 3 to 6 is worth a low first/high second, screw taking a third...you're not getting even half the value....f that

You guys that think like this act as if the Chiefs roster is absolutely loaded with talent.

It's not. It's not even close.

The Chiefs should take the money and run.

Rebuild this shitty fucking roster.

jtfris
04-11-2009, 10:20 PM
Yes

The Bad Guy
04-11-2009, 10:46 PM
You guys that think like this act as if the Chiefs roster is absolutely loaded with talent.

It's not. It's not even close.

The Chiefs should take the money and run.

Rebuild this shitty ****ing roster.

I'm not acting like anything.

I don't care what this draft looks like on paper, I'm not moving down 14 spots for just a second rounder. No how, no way.

the Talking Can
04-12-2009, 04:31 AM
You guys that think like this act as if the Chiefs roster is absolutely loaded with talent.

It's not. It's not even close.

The Chiefs should take the money and run.

Rebuild this shitty ****ing roster.

yeah, let's trade down for less than half of what the pick is worth...awesome

let's be the laughingstock of the nfl

Pioli isn't being paid to be Carl 2....no way in hell he gets bent over in a trade, ever....

keg in kc
04-12-2009, 04:34 AM
I'd take less to move down this year, yes. How much less depends on what the offers are.

I don't think it's worth it to stay at 3.

Rausch
04-12-2009, 05:33 AM
Would you trade down with the Bengals for less than face value?

Yup...

Psyko Tek
04-12-2009, 08:15 AM
only if they take LJ

htismaqe
04-12-2009, 10:56 AM
I'd take less to move down this year, yes. How much less depends on what the offers are.

I don't think it's worth it to stay at 3.

Yes, yes, and yes.

Mecca
04-12-2009, 03:10 PM
If I'm moving I at the very very least want a 2 and a 4, I'm prying for 2 and 3 though.

If you have Raji as your guy though that's the team you can trade with and still get him and get the 2nd round pick back.

Rain Man
04-12-2009, 03:14 PM
In the top five picks, the draft value chart shouldn't be anything other than a negotiating tool. It's based on averages, and in any year there can be a big difference in talent among the top five players. If it's looking like a bad year for talent in the top five, then the draft chart is overvaluing those picks. So yeah, trade for less than face value if the talent doesn't fit your needs or desires.

htismaqe
04-12-2009, 03:24 PM
In the top five picks, the draft value chart shouldn't be anything other than a negotiating tool. It's based on averages, and in any year there can be a big difference in talent among the top five players. If it's looking like a bad year for talent in the top five, then the draft chart is overvaluing those picks. So yeah, trade for less than face value if the talent doesn't fit your needs or desires.

And we already know it doesn't.

DaneMcCloud
04-12-2009, 08:43 PM
yeah, let's trade down for less than half of what the pick is worth...awesome

let's be the laughingstock of the nfl

Pioli isn't being paid to be Carl 2....no way in hell he gets bent over in a trade, ever....

I'm not acting like anything.

I don't care what this draft looks like on paper, I'm not moving down 14 spots for just a second rounder. No how, no way.

Then the result it that instead of having two players of essentially equal value, you have ONE.

Brilliant.

I really thought both of you guys were smarter than that.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-12-2009, 08:56 PM
I'd rather trade for a first rounder next year than a second this year, even though they have equivalent value in the ether.

The Bad Guy
04-12-2009, 09:08 PM
I'd rather trade for a first rounder next year than a second this year, even though they have equivalent value in the ether.

Absolutely 100% agreed.

If we are moving down 14 spots, it better be for a nice future pick - like a first rounder, instead of just one second.

kcbubb
04-13-2009, 09:19 AM
Then the result it that instead of having two players of essentially equal value, you have ONE.

Brilliant.

I really thought both of you guys were smarter than that.

who would you target with your middle first rounder and 2nd rounder?

One problem that I have with that is the second round compensation is much less. You would get a middle round 2nd pick say the 48th pick instead of the 39th.

htismaqe
04-13-2009, 09:38 AM
I'd rather trade for a first rounder next year than a second this year, even though they have equivalent value in the ether.

There's no way we're trading out of the #3 spot WITHOUT getting a 1st next year. Hell, I would be surprised if we got a 2nd this year AND a 1st next year.

It's just my opinion, but I don't see alot of scenarios where we don't get a 1st next year.

SBK
04-13-2009, 10:07 AM
There's no way we're trading out of the #3 spot WITHOUT getting a 1st next year. Hell, I would be surprised if we got a 2nd this year AND a 1st next year.

It's just my opinion, but I don't see alot of scenarios where we don't get a 1st next year.

This is how I see it. If you're leaving the top 5 you should get a #1 next year.

I'd rather have that anyway, next year could be a great year to get some great defensive players.

Micjones
04-13-2009, 10:52 AM
No reason to take the shaft just to move down.
Get good value (chart or no chart) or stay put.

DaneMcCloud
04-13-2009, 10:54 AM
No reason to take the shaft just to move down.
Get good value (chart or no chart) or stay put.

Then again, you're stuck with one player instead of two with equal value.

That makes no sense for a roster in such dire need of quality football players.

OnTheWarpath58
04-13-2009, 10:57 AM
No reason to take the shaft just to move down.
Get good value (chart or no chart) or stay put.

Then again, you're stuck with one player instead of two with equal value.

That makes no sense for a roster in such dire need of quality football players.

I think what should be done, and what Pioli will do, is determine pre-draft what the least he's willing to take is.

You have to find a happy medium.

Yes, 2 players would help us more than one. But moving down to the middle of the 1st and then only getting a mid-late 2nd out of the deal is giving too much away, IMO.

I know we're not going to get full value, and I'm OK with that. But we need to find that happy medium and not give the pick away.

DaneMcCloud
04-13-2009, 11:01 AM
I think what should be done, and what Pioli will do, is determine pre-draft what the least he's willing to take is.

You have to find a happy medium.

Yes, 2 players would help us more than one. But moving down to the middle of the 1st and then only getting a mid-late 2nd out of the deal is giving too much away, IMO.

I know we're not going to get full value, and I'm OK with that. But we need to find that happy medium and not give the pick away.

The way I look at it is this:

Would I rather have Curry with a huge contract or DHB/Nicks and Mack/Unger? Wouldn't my football team be better off with those two players?

The offensive lineman are equally adept at their position as Curry and the WR's would just be a nice added bonus.

OnTheWarpath58
04-13-2009, 11:02 AM
The way I look at it is this:

Would I rather have Curry with a huge contract or DHB/Nicks and Mack/Unger? Wouldn't my football team be better off with those two players?

That's best case scenario, assuming those players would even be available when we pick.

But to answer the question, yes.

DaneMcCloud
04-13-2009, 11:07 AM
That's best case scenario, assuming those players would even be available when we pick.

But to answer the question, yes.

Well, right.

It depends on the offer. If the Chiefs received the Eagles #21 & #28 (and maybe a 5th), they'd could easily get two quality players instead of one.

If they traded with Denver, they'd be in even better shape. It all depends on the scenario.

Since the talent level in the Top Ten is equal to the bottom ten, it makes all the sense in the world for the Chiefs to trade back and get what they can, regardless of the "value chart".

Think about that, guys. "Value chart". The best "value" would be two players of equal ability.

2>1.

suds79
04-13-2009, 11:15 AM
I would absolutely be willing to trade down even if we didn't get exactly face value back.

When you factor in cost, there's not a player I wouldn't rather have at #15 or so than #3 for the $$ and the possibility to add draft picks.

- Curry? Eh give me Rey at the lower $$.
- Monroe? Eh give me Oher instead to play RT.
- Raji? Nah not at 3. Look for someone else or begin to target Cody next year.
- Crabtree? No thanks. Not super fast and not that big. I'll take Harvin to compliment Bowe later on.

on & on.

Mecca
04-13-2009, 03:54 PM
Man when you factor in who else is in next years draft I'd rather not have to target Cody.

eazyb81
04-15-2009, 03:32 PM
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/ic/blogs/insider/index.shtml?GID=cbB76Zobqheo4ua9Qal3DaGyqtle1DBSo4I4nKFp2fc%3D

Mayock says the trade value chart is completely out the window this year.


Sat in on the first hour of a media conference call this afternoon with NFL Network draft analyst Mike Mayock, who offered two bold statements regarding teams that hold top-10 picks this year:

They're all looking to get rid of those picks, and they're willing to accept less -- perhaps as a little as half -- of the value the standard trade chart dictates.

"Every team in the top 10 is looking to trade out," Mayock said. "Never seen it, never seen the situation quite this heavy. And the theory is, everybody knows we’re upside-down right now with this draft. The rookies are getting paid way too much money proportionate to their value. So, teams are scared to death of missing (in) the top-10.

"Here’s what happening, though, that I think is really interesting, and I’m anxious to see if this trend plays out. That whole trade chart that all the teams used to use, it began to go out the window last year, and I think, like the economy, it’s completely out the window now. So, I think any team in the top 10 that is looking to get out will listen to any reasonable offer, and more than ever, teams are looking to get down (to picks) 15 to 25, because you can get the same kind of player at (No.) 20 as you can at (No.) 7, and you pay one-third the money."

kcchiefsus
04-16-2009, 01:17 PM
Considering the report that teams are throwing out the draft trade value chart this year and I would say hell yes. I would do whatever it takes to move down and get additional picks. There is simply not a single player I can see worth taking at the #3 pick and paying $60 million to. It would be different if we didn't already have Branden Albert but we do have him so we are left with a pick with very little positional value to choose from.

Unlike Carl Peterson, I feel that Scott Pioli is not so arrogant that he would refuse a trade just because he felt he was getting screwed over. He will do what is best for the team.

DaneMcCloud
04-17-2009, 11:04 AM
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/ic/blogs/insider/index.shtml?GID=cbB76Zobqheo4ua9Qal3DaGyqtle1DBSo4I4nKFp2fc%3D

Mayock says the trade value chart is completely out the window this year.

DaneMcCloud has been saying the same exact thing since January.

I guess he reads the 'Planet.