billsfan89 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 The RGIII trade was a huge overpay on paper (I thought fair value would have been this years first, next years first, and this years second, the first in two years was just overkill as it was only 4 spots) BUT if RGIII is a franchise QB then no one will care how much you gave up to get him. Even if he is a McNabb type QB where you get a decade of having one of the top 10-5 QB's in the league and a shot to win a Super Bowl with him, its going down as a good move. The Skins are all in on RGIII and even more so because if he is a bust it cripples your team for 5-7 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 I have to revisit this after the first round we just saw. I worked out all of the point values of the trades and came up with some interesting numbers (to support my argument of course ) Cleveland Browns: Acquire pick No. 3 in 2012 Minnesota Vikings: Acquire picks No. 4, No. 118, No. 139 and No. 211 in 2012 Cleveland gave up 1901.5 points and received 2200 points which is a point difference equal to the #60 overall pick. So this trade didn't follow the chart Jacksonville Jaguars: Acquire pick No. 5 in 2012 Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Acquire picks No. 7 and No. 101 in 2012 Jags gave up 1596 points and received 1700 points. To make this trade far the Jags should have had to add the equivalent of the #99 overall pick so this didn't follow the chart. Dallas Cowboys: Acquire pick No. 6 in 2012 St. Louis Rams: Acquire picks No. 14 and No. 45 in 2012 Cowboys gave up 1600 points and received 1550 the difference of #122 overall. Didn't follow chart Philadelphia Eagles: Acquire pick No. 12 in 2012 Seattle Seahawks: Acquire picks No. 15, No. 114 and No. 172 in 2012 Eagles give up 1138.6 and received 1200 difference of the #116 pick. Didn't follow chart. New England Patriots: Acquire pick No. 21 in 2012 Cincinnati Bengals: Acquire picks No. 27 and No. 93 in 2012 New England gave up 808 and received 800. Followed trade chart. New England Patriots: Acquire pick No. 25 in 2012 Denver Broncos: Acquire picks No. 31 and No. 126 in 2012 Pats give up 646 and get 720 difference of #110. Didn't follow chart. Minnesota Vikings: Acquire pick No. 29 in 2012 Baltimore Ravens: Acquire picks No. 35 and No. 98 in 2012 Vikes give up 658 get 640 call it fair though it is the difference of #183. We'll give it to you. Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Acquire picks No. 31 and No. 126 in 2012 Denver Broncos: Acquire picks No. 36 and No. 101 in 2012 Bucs give up 636 and get 646 we'll call it even. Followed the chart. This doesn't include the Redskins trade that you thought was so ridiculous. So out of 9 trades in the first round 2 came within range of following the chart with another borderline. Even if I give that one to you it is 33% of the trades that followed the old chart. I rest my case! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 27, 2012 Author Share Posted April 27, 2012 I have to revisit this after the first round we just saw. I worked out all of the point values of the trades and came up with some interesting numbers (to support my argument of course ) Cleveland Browns: Acquire pick No. 3 in 2012 Minnesota Vikings: Acquire picks No. 4, No. 118, No. 139 and No. 211 in 2012 Cleveland gave up 1901.5 points and received 2200 points which is a point difference equal to the #60 overall pick. So this trade didn't follow the chart Jacksonville Jaguars: Acquire pick No. 5 in 2012 Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Acquire picks No. 7 and No. 101 in 2012 Jags gave up 1596 points and received 1700 points. To make this trade far the Jags should have had to add the equivalent of the #99 overall pick so this didn't follow the chart. Dallas Cowboys: Acquire pick No. 6 in 2012 St. Louis Rams: Acquire picks No. 14 and No. 45 in 2012 Cowboys gave up 1600 points and received 1550 the difference of #122 overall. Didn't follow chart Philadelphia Eagles: Acquire pick No. 12 in 2012 Seattle Seahawks: Acquire picks No. 15, No. 114 and No. 172 in 2012 Eagles give up 1138.6 and received 1200 difference of the #116 pick. Didn't follow chart. New England Patriots: Acquire pick No. 21 in 2012 Cincinnati Bengals: Acquire picks No. 27 and No. 93 in 2012 New England gave up 808 and received 800. Followed trade chart. New England Patriots: Acquire pick No. 25 in 2012 Denver Broncos: Acquire picks No. 31 and No. 126 in 2012 Pats give up 646 and get 720 difference of #110. Didn't follow chart. Minnesota Vikings: Acquire pick No. 29 in 2012 Baltimore Ravens: Acquire picks No. 35 and No. 98 in 2012 Vikes give up 658 get 640 call it fair though it is the difference of #183. We'll give it to you. Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Acquire picks No. 31 and No. 126 in 2012 Denver Broncos: Acquire picks No. 36 and No. 101 in 2012 Bucs give up 636 and get 646 we'll call it even. Followed the chart. This doesn't include the Redskins trade that you thought was so ridiculous. So out of 9 trades in the first round 2 came within range of following the chart with another borderline. Even if I give that one to you it is 33% of the trades that followed the old chart. I rest my case! All this work....and all you proved is: the chart needs to be tweaked, not "thrown out". We aren't talking about people trading 600 for 1200, or even 900 for 1200. If that were the case, then yeah, it's time to throw out the chart, like you said. Do you know about standard deviation, or stats in general? Did you notice the deviation tended to get smaller over time? Now, why is that? Random chance...or the fact that teams had to beat out other offers, and therefore had to sweeten their deals...the higher they traded up? Why would Cleveland trade up 1 spot to get Richardson, with a team that already has a HOF RB? Answer: They had to beat the offers of other teams who were calling Minnesota. This is called: inflation. The price for moving up was inflated by increased demand for moving up. The later trades tended to follow the chart. Why? Less inflation. Your analysis isn't very meaningful without accounting for this obvious, to me anyway, pattern. Now, what would be interesting? See how closely the initial, but rejected, trade offers from other teams followed the chart. (may be difficult to get that info) Most likely they were very near the chart values. After all, the successful offers had to be higher than the failed ones, by definition. Then we could compare the accepted offers, and create a meaningful statistic, such as: "if you try to trade to the #5 spot...you can expect to pay 10% more than the chart value. #3 spot, 20%, etc." If we prove that enough times....now we know how many points should be assigned to that pick. Now we know it's...worth(or market value)...and now we can modify the chart accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts