Trading down and not getting "chart value"

Ralphy Boy · 03-07-2010, 11:50 AM

How important is it to really get the "appropriate value" out of your pick when you are trading down? Last year we couldn't get enough out of our pick so we stayed where we were and got TJ. I don't know how far off the compensation was, but what is too much to give up if your player isn't there? Don't really care to debate who we want to pick, just assume that the team believes the player we want is going to be available at a lower pick

Just as an example:
Say we were offered a trade with Buffalo for our #5 (1700) for their #9 (1350) and their #72 (230) for a total of 1580 points. We lose 120 points but don't have to pay top 5 money and gain another 3rd. For the record, the 120 points we give up equates to the #95 pick, a late 3rd.

We'd have five picks in the first 3 rounds: 9, 36, 50, 68 & 72.

In my mind, its worse to pay a guy more than he's worth by picking him higher (TJ), just because you couldn't move down, than it is to trade down and lose points.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-07-2010, 11:51 AM

All depends on who's on the board, IMO.

Had you told me we were taking Tyson Jackson come hell or high water last year, I would have taken just about anything to trade down.

milkman · 03-07-2010, 11:55 AM

I think as the compensation to high draft picks has increased, the validity of the draft value charts has decreased.

Until they reach a slotting agreement with the union, the value chart will be antiquated.

chiefzilla1501 · 03-07-2010, 12:15 PM

I despise the draft chart. It changes every year. Some years you're sitting on Eli Manning as your #1 pick. In other years, you're sitting on Jamarcus Russel. And yet, both of them have the same value according to the draft chart.

Last year, the Browns took a bad deal where they went way off the chart. You don't want to do that. At the same time, it took them out of a high pick in what I thought was a shitty draft. That should hopefully show that things are changing.

KCDC · 03-07-2010, 12:38 PM

If you really want Berry or Clausen there, you want chart value to trade down, if at all. If you are going OL, you trade to Buffalo and happily take a 3rd rounder. Or, you swap firsts and they swap their second pick for our third, or something like that.

Heck, I'd swap with the Patriots for their #22 and a second rounder. Even though that is only 1140 points for our #5 (1700). Most mocks show good players available at #22 (Iupati, Witherspoon, Gresham, Mays, etc.) and then we'd have another second rounder to take the likes of Ducasse, McCluster, Cam Thomas, etc.

Two of these guys sure beat Okung. They probably beat Berry too, for a team with as many holes as we have. Just my two cents anyway.

B_Ambuehl · 03-07-2010, 12:59 PM

We could've really used a 2nd round pick last year.

Someone should put together a new trade chart based on probabilities. How much more likely is the 1st pick in the draft to be a pro bowler or 3 year starter vs any other pick? Go thru and do that for every pick in the draft the last 20 years.

aturnis · 03-07-2010, 01:43 PM

I can see it a few different ways. I would take less value thank the #5 is worth this year just b/c this draft is so deep. There will be a lot of guys who have 1st round talent dropping down into 2nd round. It's hard not to value that.

On the other hand, I would take lower value in a year like last year when the draft is not so fruitful and a team might be a little more desperate to get a better value.

Chiefnj2 · 03-08-2010, 07:12 AM

At the end of the day nobody remembers if a team got good or bad chart value. What matters is what you do with those picks. You could end up getting raped on chart value, but if your picks are hits that is all anyone will remember or care about.

What was the chart value to move up and grab Sims? Who cares, Sims was a bust. What was the chart value to move up and grab Tony G? Who cares, he's been one of the best TE's in the history of the game. Did we get good value for moving down and grabbing Johnson? All I know is they passed on Polamalu and took Siavii a little later.

Ralphy Boy · 03-08-2010, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Did we get good value for moving down and grabbing Johnson? All I know is they passed on Polamalu and took Siavii a little later.

LJ & Polamalu was 2003.
Siavii pick was from trading down the next year with Detroit, coupled with Kris Wilson.

We passed on Bob Sanders for Siavii and Darnell Dockett for Wilson.

Crush · 03-08-2010, 11:38 AM

The Siavii pick was due to the fact that the dumbasses did not anticipate San Diego picking Olshansky. When Olshansky was off the board, they panicked and threw a Hail Mary.

Ralphy Boy · 03-08-2010, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Admiral Crunch

The Siavii pick was due to the fact that the dumbasses did not anticipate San Diego picking Olshansky. When Olshansky was off the board, they panicked and threw a Hail Mary.

Like most Hail Mary's in KC's past, it got picked off and went the other way for a TD.

03-07-2010, 11:50 AM
Ralphy Boy MVP Join Date: Aug 2001 Casino cash: $10004900	Trading down and not getting "chart value" How important is it to really get the "appropriate value" out of your pick when you are trading down? Last year we couldn't get enough out of our pick so we stayed where we were and got TJ. I don't know how far off the compensation was, but what is too much to give up if your player isn't there? Don't really care to debate who we want to pick, just assume that the team believes the player we want is going to be available at a lower pick Just as an example: Say we were offered a trade with Buffalo for our #5 (1700) for their #9 (1350) and their #72 (230) for a total of 1580 points. We lose 120 points but don't have to pay top 5 money and gain another 3rd. For the record, the 120 points we give up equates to the #95 pick, a late 3rd. We'd have five picks in the first 3 rounds: 9, 36, 50, 68 & 72. In my mind, its worse to pay a guy more than he's worth by picking him higher (TJ), just because you couldn't move down, than it is to trade down and lose points.
Posts: 5,088

03-07-2010, 11:55 AM	#3
milkman Dumbass! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Leading the Marty bashing Casino cash: $10029395	I think as the compensation to high draft picks has increased, the validity of the draft value charts has decreased. Until they reach a slotting agreement with the union, the value chart will be antiquated. __________________
Posts: 70,769

03-07-2010, 12:15 PM	#4
chiefzilla1501 In Search of a Life Join Date: Aug 2008 Casino cash: $-1755503	I despise the draft chart. It changes every year. Some years you're sitting on Eli Manning as your #1 pick. In other years, you're sitting on Jamarcus Russel. And yet, both of them have the same value according to the draft chart. Last year, the Browns took a bad deal where they went way off the chart. You don't want to do that. At the same time, it took them out of a high pick in what I thought was a shitty draft. That should hopefully show that things are changing.
Posts: 51,663

03-07-2010, 12:59 PM	#6
B_Ambuehl Veteran Join Date: Apr 2005 Casino cash: $9705405	We could've really used a 2nd round pick last year. Someone should put together a new trade chart based on probabilities. How much more likely is the 1st pick in the draft to be a pro bowler or 3 year starter vs any other pick? Go thru and do that for every pick in the draft the last 20 years. __________________ Who's decision was it to fire Romeo" - Coleman C Hunt: "It was my decision but it was one that Scott agreed with" LOL
Posts: 2,613

03-08-2010, 07:12 AM	#8
Chiefnj2 In Search of a Life Join Date: Mar 2007 Casino cash: $6654388	At the end of the day nobody remembers if a team got good or bad chart value. What matters is what you do with those picks. You could end up getting raped on chart value, but if your picks are hits that is all anyone will remember or care about. What was the chart value to move up and grab Sims? Who cares, Sims was a bust. What was the chart value to move up and grab Tony G? Who cares, he's been one of the best TE's in the history of the game. Did we get good value for moving down and grabbing Johnson? All I know is they passed on Polamalu and took Siavii a little later. __________________ Mismanaging the clock.
Posts: 22,541

03-07-2010, 11:51 AM	#2
OnTheWarpath15 MVP Join Date: Sep 2005 Casino cash: $2051115	All depends on who's on the board, IMO. Had you told me we were taking Tyson Jackson come hell or high water last year, I would have taken just about anything to trade down.
Posts: 60,758

03-07-2010, 12:38 PM	#5
KCDC Starter Join Date: Mar 2009 Casino cash: $9616110	If you really want Berry or Clausen there, you want chart value to trade down, if at all. If you are going OL, you trade to Buffalo and happily take a 3rd rounder. Or, you swap firsts and they swap their second pick for our third, or something like that. Heck, I'd swap with the Patriots for their #22 and a second rounder. Even though that is only 1140 points for our #5 (1700). Most mocks show good players available at #22 (Iupati, Witherspoon, Gresham, Mays, etc.) and then we'd have another second rounder to take the likes of Ducasse, McCluster, Cam Thomas, etc. Two of these guys sure beat Okung. They probably beat Berry too, for a team with as many holes as we have. Just my two cents anyway.
Posts: 886

03-07-2010, 01:43 PM	#7
aturnis MVP Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Iowa Casino cash: $9975811	I can see it a few different ways. I would take less value thank the #5 is worth this year just b/c this draft is so deep. There will be a lot of guys who have 1st round talent dropping down into 2nd round. It's hard not to value that. On the other hand, I would take lower value in a year like last year when the draft is not so fruitful and a team might be a little more desperate to get a better value.
Posts: 13,873

03-08-2010, 11:38 AM	#10
Crush Amateur Poster Join Date: Mar 2004 Casino cash: $2277091	The Siavii pick was due to the fact that the dumbasses did not anticipate San Diego picking Olshansky. When Olshansky was off the board, they panicked and threw a Hail Mary.
Posts: 15,298