Throw out the trade value chart

[section122]

I know there has been some talk about this already but Peter King mentioned in his mmqb article how the old trade chart is useless.

Florio reported this first over the weekend, and let me expand on it. In the new collective bargaining agreement, there's a provision that could affect trading of draft choices in the first round. Each first-round pick can be signed to a four-year contract with a club option for a fifth year that has to be exercised in May following the third season of the contract. So rookies this year will sign for four years, through the end of the 2015 season; but in May 2015, teams have to tell the players if they intend to exercise the fifth years of the contract and lock up players through 2016. For picks 1 through 10 of the first round, that fifth-year salary will be the transition number, the average of the top 10 salaries at the position that season. For picks 11 through 32, the fifth-year salary will be the average of the third through 25th salaries at the position that year.

 

I'll give you an example. Let's use Tannehill. The transition number for quarterbacks this year is $14.3 million. The average of the third through 25th quarterback salary this year is $8.1 million. Who knows what the numbers will look like in May 2015, but they probably won't be smaller, or the gulf narrower. In other words, if you pick Tannehill at eight, you'll be paying $6.2 million more in a five-year deal for him than if you picked Tannehill at 12. Crazy. But true.

 

Now, some teams I spoke with over the weekend say the fifth year in the deal will simply be used as leverage in negotiations for a long-term deal. But I can see sticklers like Scott Pioli in Kansas City, Howie Roseman in Philadelphia and Mike Brown in Cincinnati holding players to fifth years at a lower price. There's a reason Pioli went on last week in his press conference with local writers about why he loved picking at 11. That's where the more team-friendly numbers begin.

 

In case you're interested, the difference in fifth-year numbers for defensive ends picked in the top 10 versus in the final 22 picks of round one ($4.3 million), and defensive tackles ($2.6 million), could come into play because of the big numbers of each position in the first round. "In any case,'' one club official told me over the weekend, "the old draft trade chart is obsolete.''

 

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/04/22/mmqb/index.html#ixzz1ss9FA1wq

some food for thought. Now trading out of the top 10 looks to be a touch more difficult and Pioli is in good shape with his spot.

[Ramius]

At the same time, if your top 10 draft pick is playing up to the perceived abilities, you're going to be working on re-negotiating an extension before he hits the 5th year. Pioli simply doesn't like his draft spot and is trying desperately to drum up trade interest.

[BuffaloRebound]

I know there has been some talk about this already but Peter King mentioned in his mmqb article how the old trade chart is useless.

Florio reported this first over the weekend, and let me expand on it. In the new collective bargaining agreement, there's a provision that could affect trading of draft choices in the first round. Each first-round pick can be signed to a four-year contract with a club option for a fifth year that has to be exercised in May following the third season of the contract. So rookies this year will sign for four years, through the end of the 2015 season; but in May 2015, teams have to tell the players if they intend to exercise the fifth years of the contract and lock up players through 2016. For picks 1 through 10 of the first round, that fifth-year salary will be the transition number, the average of the top 10 salaries at the position that season. For picks 11 through 32, the fifth-year salary will be the average of the third through 25th salaries at the position that year.

 

I'll give you an example. Let's use Tannehill. The transition number for quarterbacks this year is $14.3 million. The average of the third through 25th quarterback salary this year is $8.1 million. Who knows what the numbers will look like in May 2015, but they probably won't be smaller, or the gulf narrower. In other words, if you pick Tannehill at eight, you'll be paying $6.2 million more in a five-year deal for him than if you picked Tannehill at 12. Crazy. But true.

 

Now, some teams I spoke with over the weekend say the fifth year in the deal will simply be used as leverage in negotiations for a long-term deal. But I can see sticklers like Scott Pioli in Kansas City, Howie Roseman in Philadelphia and Mike Brown in Cincinnati holding players to fifth years at a lower price. There's a reason Pioli went on last week in his press conference with local writers about why he loved picking at 11. That's where the more team-friendly numbers begin.

 

In case you're interested, the difference in fifth-year numbers for defensive ends picked in the top 10 versus in the final 22 picks of round one ($4.3 million), and defensive tackles ($2.6 million), could come into play because of the big numbers of each position in the first round. "In any case,'' one club official told me over the weekend, "the old draft trade chart is obsolete.''

 

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/04/22/mmqb/index.html#ixzz1ss9FA1wq

some food for thought. Now trading out of the top 10 looks to be a touch more difficult and Pioli is in good shape with his spot.

 

If this factors into a team's decision-making process, the front office should be fired. The bust factor has to be 30-40% for 1st rounders in general, probably more for QB's. On top of that, most franchises would extend a good QB long before the final year of his rookie deal. So there's probably a less than 25% chance a QB would be playing out the final year of his rookie deal. You're talking about a 25% chance at paying $6m more five years from now. For other positions, it will be a lot less than $6m, but the probability is probably higher that a non-QB would play out the 5th year of his rookie deal, but still not greater than 50%.

[Cash]

Peter King and Florio, now that's a dynamic duo of idiocy. I would guess that Alex Smith is the only 1st-round QB since the advent of free agency to play out his entire rookie contract without being cut, traded, or signed to an extension. Very few top 10 picks will see that last year of the rookie deal, because they'll either be busts and cut, or really good and signed to an extension before the last year kicks in.

[Matt in KC]

So if the Bills have two players they want equally, do they stand there not turning in their pick in time so they can slap it down and be at 11 when some other team turns in their pick at #10? And are the Chiefs going to react the same way since they love being at pick 11?

[section122]

So if the Bills have two players they want equally, do they stand there not turning in their pick in time so they can slap it down and be at 11 when some other team turns in their pick at #10? And are the Chiefs going to react the same way since they love being at pick 11?

hmmm that is a good one I wonder how that would play out.

 

However the whole point of me posting this up there was the statement that the old trade chart is obsolete. I think we saw it last year with the Falcons/Browns trade and this year with the Redskins/Rams trade. I'm interested to see how long it takes for a new one to come out.

[Kelly the Dog]

 

However the whole point of me posting this up there was the statement that the old trade chart is obsolete. I think we saw it last year with the Falcons/Browns trade and this year with the Redskins/Rams trade. I'm interested to see how long it takes for a new one to come out.

Maybe I am misinterpreting you but it seems to me that the changes in the CBA and rookie scale would make the draft chart obsolete because it overvalues the picks, and you shouldn't have to give up as much as you used to to move up. Even with the foolish top ten rule the rookie contracts are half what they used to be, especially in the top of the first round. And yet the two examples you gave were recent trades where teams trading up chose to give up more than they would have before or normally would have before.

 

For the record, I think those two trades are aberrations of any model and the teams moving up knew they were giving away too much, or above the going rate, but chose to do it anyway because they felt it was going to take their team over the top.

[section122]

Maybe I am misinterpreting you but it seems to me that the changes in the CBA and rookie scale would make the draft chart obsolete because it overvalues the picks, and you shouldn't have to give up as much as you used to to move up. Even with the foolish top ten rule the rookie contracts are half what they used to be, especially in the top of the first round. And yet the two examples you gave were recent trades where teams trading up chose to give up more than they would have before or normally would have before.

 

For the record, I think those two trades are aberrations of any model and the teams moving up knew they were giving away too much, or above the going rate, but chose to do it anyway because they felt it was going to take their team over the top.

I actually feel the opposite. I think draft picks have become much MORE valuable. I feel that way because the risk monetarily isn't the same, so the contract you are paying out won't cripple your team in the future. That's why we have seen two trades in the top 10 the last 2 years and very few previously. The ability to get a good/great player on a reasonable contract (with little liability if they bust) is the perspective I'm looking at it from.

[Kelly the Dog]

I actually feel the opposite. I think draft picks have become much MORE valuable. I feel that way because the risk monetarily isn't the same, so the contract you are paying out won't cripple your team in the future. That's why we have seen two trades in the top 10 the last 2 years and very few previously. The ability to get a good/great player on a reasonable contract (with little liability if they bust) is the perspective I'm looking at it from.

How is it more valuable when it is less of a risk? Seems to me logic would state that if you miss on a 40-50 million dollar guy rather than a 20 million gamble, it's far more crippling to your team the old way.

[section122]

How is it more valuable when it is less of a risk? Seems to me logic would state that if you miss on a 40-50 million dollar guy rather than a 20 million gamble, it's far more crippling to your team the old way.

I'm sorry but I feel like your answering your own question. Under the old system it was very crippling which drove up the risk for teams that may have wanted to trade up. Being less of a risk (under the new system) makes it much more valuable because if it works you get a contributor cheaply, conversely if it doesn't work it doesn't cost you as much. Supply and Demand would dictate that at a lower risk and lower price you would have more people willing to trade and therefore you could get more for your picks.

[San-O]

I actually feel the opposite. I think draft picks have become much MORE valuable. I feel that way because the risk monetarily isn't the same, so the contract you are paying out won't cripple your team in the future. That's why we have seen two trades in the top 10 the last 2 years and very few previously. The ability to get a good/great player on a reasonable contract (with little liability if they bust) is the perspective I'm looking at it from.

 

 

Very nice post. Very interesting. Thank you.

 

FWIW: I agree with you, the risk of bust is much more acceptable with the new CBA re: draft in top 10, 1st round. You won't see

teams get set back because of 1 poor high 1st round bust: as far as the cap anyhow.

 

I can also see many more trades in the top 10: lets see this year how many trades in top 10 and first round overall. I bet there

will be a lot more jockeying around.

 

IMO: Trade down, if no impact player available at 10.

[NoSaint]

How is it more valuable when it is less of a risk? Seems to me logic would state that if you miss on a 40-50 million dollar guy rather than a 20 million gamble, it's far more crippling to your team the old way.

 

 

the value shift is taking a shot on a huge talent for cheap, instead of being hamstrung by someone that hasnt proven anything. you can have a franchise type player for FAR less then it would cost on the open market.

 

couple that with misses not hurting as bad, and you can roll a little more into your trade offer. worst case scenario is not near as bad, so i can invest a bit more in the trade up.

Edited April 23, 2012 by NoSaint

[Last Guy on the Bench]

How is it more valuable when it is less of a risk? Seems to me logic would state that if you miss on a 40-50 million dollar guy rather than a 20 million gamble, it's far more crippling to your team the old way.

 

Less risk equals more value, everything else being equal.

 

The old way, if I move from pick 10 to pick 1, I get a potentially better player, but I also take on a huge financial burden. At the 10 pick, I will factor that into my offer.

 

In the current system, if I move from pick 10 to pick 1, I get a potentially better player at less financial risk than formerly. I will pay more (in draft picks/players).

 

Think about it. If pick 1 gets $0 in salary, then I will offer exactly what I feel that player will be worth to my team on the field. If pick 1 gets $100,000,000 then I will offer less, because in addition to whatever picks/players I am giving up, I will also have to take on the risk not just of losing the picks/players but of losing the $100,000,000 (or the salary cap implications, etc.).

[section122]

Phew I was beginning to wonder if I had it right! Kelly your Jedi mind trick almost worked haha o:)

[Bill from NYC]

How is it more valuable when it is less of a risk? Seems to me logic would state that if you miss on a 40-50 million dollar guy rather than a 20 million gamble, it's far more crippling to your team the old way.

 

Well, Parcells could not trade out of the #1 spot when he took Jake Long. And look at how much the Raiders spent to bust out on Russell. I think early picks are worth more in terms of owners not having to take a financial risk on an unproven player. These kids were getting 30 million dollar bonuses. Not any more. Even Whitner held out at #8.

 

We will see how it plays out real soon.

[Kelly the Dog]

Phew I was beginning to wonder if I had it right! Kelly your Jedi mind trick almost worked haha o:)

To me I understand what each of you guys said and I agree with it from that angle. It's kind of a semantic argument though. I was looking at it as if you're rolling the dice, and it's a bigger chance to fail and set you back a couple years because you're betting 50 million on a player and not 20, it's more important that you make the right decision, so therefore it is more "valuable".Now if you're just risking half of that, it doesn't hurt you if you miss nearly as much, so you can hurl it at the wall and take a chance.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Kelly the Dog

[OCinBuffalo]

hmmm that is a good one I wonder how that would play out.

 

However the whole point of me posting this up there was the statement that the old trade chart is obsolete. I think we saw it last year with the Falcons/Browns trade and this year with the Redskins/Rams trade. I'm interested to see how long it takes for a new one to come out.

Why wouldn't they just modify the points on the old trade chart, and continue on as before? Why wouldn't they use the identical chart for Rounds 2-7, as they aren't affected?

 

I wouldn't be bringing up the Redskins as a way to prove anything, ever. Which is more obsolete?

A. the old draft chart

B. the Redskins methodology for making football decisions

 

I don't need a draft chart to tell me that 3 first round picks and a 2nd for RG3 is flat out stupid. Aberration? For the Redskins? Before you say it: Albert Haynesworth. There's no end to the examples. The Redskins are....never mind doubling, they are what? quintupling down? After making soooo many bad decisions, they figure the only way to make a good one is to spend even more ludicrously than they have in the past....this time with draft picks, again.

 

The draft chart, or some modification of it, is not going away. It serves a purpose, namely, helping GMs evaluate trade offers quickly when they are on the clock. It also helps to grade out whole sections of the draft, and help determine draft day player trades.

 

Is this an attempt to impugn the draft chart, as a way to remove the #1 impediment to "I wanted to trade up for X, we could of traded up because the internet said so, but you(correctly)called me an idiot because of the draft chart "? It fails because the draft chart solves multiple problems, and we never hear what will replace it. No. The only thing we hear is "now it's ok for the Redskins to be the Redskins, and for everybody else to shoot from the hip, too, because the draft chart is old!"

 

 

Oh, and this is the 3rd time I've read that Kalil might fall to the Bills....just sayin'. Probably a smoke screen from the Vikings to try and build trade value for somebody who wants to take Tannehill/Richardson, but we never know.

Edited April 24, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[dollars 2 donuts]

I know there has been some talk about this already but Peter King mentioned in his mmqb article how the old trade chart is useless.

Florio reported this first over the weekend, and let me expand on it. In the new collective bargaining agreement, there's a provision that could affect trading of draft choices in the first round. Each first-round pick can be signed to a four-year contract with a club option for a fifth year that has to be exercised in May following the third season of the contract. So rookies this year will sign for four years, through the end of the 2015 season; but in May 2015, teams have to tell the players if they intend to exercise the fifth years of the contract and lock up players through 2016. For picks 1 through 10 of the first round, that fifth-year salary will be the transition number, the average of the top 10 salaries at the position that season. For picks 11 through 32, the fifth-year salary will be the average of the third through 25th salaries at the position that year.

 

I'll give you an example. Let's use Tannehill. The transition number for quarterbacks this year is $14.3 million. The average of the third through 25th quarterback salary this year is $8.1 million. Who knows what the numbers will look like in May 2015, but they probably won't be smaller, or the gulf narrower. In other words, if you pick Tannehill at eight, you'll be paying $6.2 million more in a five-year deal for him than if you picked Tannehill at 12. Crazy. But true.

 

Now, some teams I spoke with over the weekend say the fifth year in the deal will simply be used as leverage in negotiations for a long-term deal. But I can see sticklers like Scott Pioli in Kansas City, Howie Roseman in Philadelphia and Mike Brown in Cincinnati holding players to fifth years at a lower price. There's a reason Pioli went on last week in his press conference with local writers about why he loved picking at 11. That's where the more team-friendly numbers begin.

 

In case you're interested, the difference in fifth-year numbers for defensive ends picked in the top 10 versus in the final 22 picks of round one ($4.3 million), and defensive tackles ($2.6 million), could come into play because of the big numbers of each position in the first round. "In any case,'' one club official told me over the weekend, "the old draft trade chart is obsolete.''

 

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/04/22/mmqb/index.html#ixzz1ss9FA1wq

some food for thought. Now trading out of the top 10 looks to be a touch more difficult and Pioli is in good shape with his spot.

 

 

 

Good catch, 122. Thanks man.

[section122]

Why wouldn't they just modify the points on the old trade chart, and continue on as before? Why wouldn't they use the identical chart for Rounds 2-7, as they aren't affected?

 

I wouldn't be bringing up the Redskins as a way to prove anything, ever. Which is more obsolete?

A. the old draft chart

B. the Redskins methodology for making football decisions

 

I don't need a draft chart to tell me that 3 first round picks and a 2nd for RG3 is flat out stupid. Aberration? For the Redskins? Before you say it: Albert Haynesworth. There's no end to the examples. The Redskins are....never mind doubling, they are what? quintupling down? After making soooo many bad decisions, they figure the only way to make a good one is to spend even more ludicrously than they have in the past....this time with draft picks, again.

 

The draft chart, or some modification of it, is not going away. It serves a purpose, namely, helping GMs evaluate trade offers quickly when they are on the clock. It also helps to grade out whole sections of the draft, and help determine draft day player trades.

 

Is this an attempt to impugn the draft chart, as a way to remove the #1 impediment to "I wanted to trade up for X, we could of traded up because the internet said so, but you(correctly)called me an idiot because of the draft chart "? It fails because the draft chart solves multiple problems, and we never hear what will replace it. No. The only thing we hear is "now it's ok for the Redskins to be the Redskins, and for everybody else to shoot from the hip, too, because the draft chart is old!"

 

 

Oh, and this is the 3rd time I've read that Kalil might fall to the Bills....just sayin'. Probably a smoke screen from the Vikings to try and build trade value for somebody who wants to take Tannehill/Richardson, but we never know.

Wouldn't the first part of your post confirm throwing out the old chart? Obviously the point values have changed which changes the chart.

 

Also I'm not sure what trade I've put out that was turned down so I'm not sure where you came up with that. Im sure ive been called an idiot but not for that reason. This article came out Monday so I'm surprised you "only hear" the old chart is useless.

 

Also I would like to add that if the stories are correct the browns were going to beat the redakins offer however the rams had set rules of 1 offer per team. I'm on my phone so it is kind of hard to post links.

Edited April 24, 2012 by section122

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Why wouldn't they just modify the points on the old trade chart, and continue on as before? Why wouldn't they use the identical chart for Rounds 2-7, as they aren't affected?

To follow OC's point, you can't throw out the draft value chart.

 

It is a tool, a starting point. You refer to it to reaffirm some loose parameters.

 

The actual trade is always based on what the market will bear or put differently, teams make the deal they're willing to make.

 

When the Bills traded up for the pick they used on Poz, they actually overpaid but they liked the player so much that they felt it was worth it.

 

If you examine draft day trades over the years you'll find that many of them don't strictly adhere to the chart but you can bet the chart was referred to at some point in the process.

 

I'm trying to think of an analogy but I can't come up with one right now. Anyone?