Draft Compensation Question: Why is everyone applauding the Fins for their trade down?

[JMF2006]

If Tua stinks they have the ammo to trade up next year and get another QB.

 

That would be my guess.

 

We won't know until it happens.

 

[Ethan in Cleveland]

9 hours ago, Saint Doug said:

I know this has been posted ad nauseam for YEARS. But, from a fan perspective, it still doesn’t make much sense at all. Maybe to GMs, who have leashes of various lengths (that is, their job security influence their picks). But, fast forward to 2022, the Fins are certainly not going to look at their extra 1st rounder as a 2nd rounder come draft day. 

It's the same as Time value of money concept

A second round pick now is more valuable than a pick in the future. You get the player now and they start helping your organization now.

Same way as $5 today is more valuable than $5 next year. 

[machine gun kelly]

47 minutes ago, H2o said:

I mean, Miami is now set up with two 1st Round picks for the next 3 years. Next year they have 6 picks in the first three rounds, two in each round. They've done one hell of a job amassing draft capital, but they still have to hit on those picks. I think they are rolling with Tua this year and they will use all of those picks to get a QB next year if he flops in 2021. 

Yep.  They are going to give Tua time.  He may not have looked impressive, but that was only a little more than half a year.  Flores didn’t help the situation benching him more than once.  McD at least stuck with Allen.  We didn’t have the talent, but don’t forget how erratic Allen was his rookie year.  I’m not ready to say Tua is a bust.  Not at least until after 17 games this year.  My guess is simply the Fins are trying to surround Tua with talent.

 

If he fails in 2021, I can see them taking a QB next year.  So many people want to call a player like Tua a bust, or that he is great.  It’s just too early to tell.  The fins will have more talent this year so maybe the team gets better if they hit on multiple players in the draft.  They also have around $12 mil. in space so they might pick up another role player or two.

[ProcessTruster]

Fins will be very good for many years to come.  they are playing it smart.

 

 No chasing shiny FA objects.  if they draft well (and they have a good draft history) they will be right there for years.  

 

AFC will be very very competitive ... Jets have a real coach now, will have a good QB, and have many pieces already.   Pats get all their Covid guys back, plus added a pile of FAs, so they will come flying back as well.  

 

Nothing will be easy in the AFCE.  Last year is not a predictor of this year.   Should be fun to watch.   Go bills

[Rock'em Sock'em]

Trading down, but still in the top 1/2 of the draft is a good move.  The draft is a bit of a crapshoot at that level.

Need a QB?  Just pass on Trubiski and draft Mahommes or Watson instead.  Or Pass on Mayfield or Darnold and pick Allen or Jackson instead.

When was the last time a first overall pick, one that was considered a generational talent, lived up to expectations?  Stafford?  Eli Manning?  https://www.lineups.com/articles/nfl-1st-overall-picks-list-all-time/ Spoiler alert: It doesn't happen often.  It's a crapshoot.  And that's #1 overall.  The difference between 3 and 10 is minuscule compared to the compensation.

 

I think Miami did well with trade down, and then feeling draft capital rich, they got a bit sloppy with the trade-up.

 

[Thurman#1]

13 hours ago, IgotBILLStopay said:

The Jests gave the Colts two 2nd rounders in the same draft year and one second rounder the next year to move up from 6 to 3.

The Fins got a 2023 first rounder and a third round comp pick this year.

 

I usually use a rule of thumb where a draft pick next year in round X is roughly worth a draft pick in round X-1 this year unless we are talking about a top 5 or top 10 pick. There is no way a 2023 first rounder (two years hence) is worth more than a second rounder in  the 2021 draft. So the Fins at most landed a second and a late 3rd for giving up a third overall for a sixth overall.

 

Shaking my head since every analyst is lauding the Fins.

 

Not that I am complaining. I do like it when AFCE opponents overpay or under-receive, though I would have liked it if the Colts did not get so manty cheap assets. In contrast, the NFC benefited from the Fins' largesse.

 

Edit: Went over to the Fins' message boards and a good chunk of them hate the Philly trade. Feel the fins were fleeced. The Iggles message board is gaga about the trade. Says something I think.

 

 

 

The Fins aren't giving up a 1st this year and not getting back a pick in the first this year. They went from 3rd down to 6th. And got a ton of value including a 1st rounder in 2023.

 

If they aren't picking QB, and if the first four picks are QB, which is starting to seem decently likely with all the trading, and if Sewell goes at #5, the Fins could be looking at #6 right at the number one player on their board. If that's so, it's a terrific deal for them to get extra picks and they guy they would have taken at #3 anyway.

 

If the Fins boards are angry, I'd argue it's because a lot of them don't think Tua is the answer and would rather they went QB this year.

 

IMO that's a reasonable worry and could potentially make that FO look bad. But it would be the decision on Tua that will look bad, I think, not so much the trade.

[Thurman#1]

25 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

It's the same as Time value of money concept

A second round pick now is more valuable than a pick in the future. You get the player now and they start helping your organization now.

Same way as $5 today is more valuable than $5 next year. 

 

 

Not really. With that $5 you can get interest on it for a year and have $5.05 on it next year. More if you bought a fraction of a share of Amazon near the bottom. But they don't give interest on draft picks ... draft picks don't have earning capacity like money does.

 

The problem for GMs is that they, especially the ones on the hot seat and except for teams trading up for a franchise QB possibility, desperate GMs are nearly always the ones trading up, and in any negotiated transaction the more desperate guy generally loses.

 

If you're a GM who's really secure in his job, you can make a trade back in years like this and get two or three guys for one and depending on who you're trading to you might even get damn good odds on a higher first rounder the next year. The desperate ones can't do that, though, this may be their last year.

 

Belichick made a cottage industry out of doing this, because he was real secure in his job after that first Super Bowl win.

[YoloinOhio]

1 hour ago, H2o said:

Ahhhh, yes. You are correct. I forgot about the move back up to 6 trade. Still, 3 first round picks over the next 2 years is pretty sick and would be a enough to move up in the draft to get a QB next year if need be when you couple all the rest. 

Do you think it will be enough though? SF is a decent enough team that you can’t expect a high 1st rounder next year. You would need to package the 2023 picks to move up just for one guy. 

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, H2o said:

Ahhhh, yes. You are correct. I forgot about the move back up to 6 trade. Still, 3 first round picks over the next 2 years is pretty sick and would be a enough to move up in the draft to get a QB next year if need be when you couple all the rest. 

 

 

Three first round picks over the next two years is indeed pretty nice. But they also have five first round picks over the next three years. Sick indeed.

 

I wonder myself if they might possible trade back again with their second 1st rounder this year and build up yet more capital next year in case they decide Tua is not the guy.

 

They now have #6 and #18. Might they try to trade back #18 for, say a 1st next year and 3rd this year? If they find a needy team, they could get that or close, though the other team would be  giving up maybe 15 or 20% value according to the Johnson chart. But desperate teams do things like that sometimes.

Edited March 27, 2021 by Thurman#1

[mannc]

4 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Not really. With that $5 you can get interest on it for a year and have $5.05 on it next year. More if you bought a fraction of a share of Amazon near the bottom. But they don't give interest on draft picks ... draft picks don't have earning capacity like money does.

 

The problem for GMs is that they, especially the ones on the hot seat and except for teams trading up for a franchise QB possibility, desperate GMs are nearly always the ones trading up, and in any negotiated transaction the more desperate guy generally loses.

 

If you're a GM who's really secure in his job, you can make a trade back in years like this and get two or three guys for one and depending on who you're trading to you might even get damn good odds on a higher first rounder the next year. The desperate ones can't do that, though, this may be their last year.

 

Belichick made a cottage industry out of doing this, because he was real secure in his job after that first Super Bowl win.

Disagree.  There are a host of reasons future picks are devalued, and you’ve only hit on one of them—the fact that the GM who trades for a future first round pick might never actually get to use it, although it’s a big one.  Here are some others:

 

1.  No one really knows how good the talent will be in any particular future draft.

2.  No one knows how high or low the pick you are acquiring will be.  These first two issues go away if you’re getting picks in THIS draft.  Sometimes getting a future pick is better if the team trading it unexpectedly tanks, like Houston, but that uncertainty reduces the value of that pick NOW.

3.  Most NFL teams want to get better now, not in a couple years.  A guy you draft in 2023, especially if he’s a QB, might not be ready to really contribute until 2025.

4.  Human nature.  People rationally prefer to have something good now than in the future because who knows what the future will hold.

5. The market says future picks are worth less.

 

That being said, for a team like Miami, which already has a ton of picks the next two years, it could make sense to spread out some of those picks into the future. 

[YoloinOhio]

Just now, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Three first round picks is indeed pretty nice. But they also have five first round picks over the next three years. Sick indeed.

 

I wonder myself if they might possible trade back again with their second 1st rounder this year and build up yet more capital next year in case they decide Tua is not the guy.

 

They now have #6 and #18. Might they try to trade back #18 for, say a 1st next year and 3rd this year? If they find a needy team, they could get that or close, though the other team would be  giving up maybe 15 or 20% value according to the Johnson chart. But desperate teams do things like that sometimes.

That could work but I’m not sure they will get a 1st next year for pick 18. We will see

[benderbender]

Turn on ESPN today and after waking up from a coma you fell into after the AFC championship game and you’d believe NE won free agency thereby making them presumptive SB champs and the Dolphins locked up a dynasty for the SBs to follow. 

 

I get the draft feels far away, and SNL won’t make fun of current politicians, but the hot take machines are at full blast at the moment it feels out of sheer boredom.

[MAJBobby]

10 hours ago, mannc said:

They accrued zero extra capital today.

Extra 1 is Capital. 

[YoloinOhio]

14 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

Trades will always be evaluated based on the players taken with the picks. What MIA has done is built a solid cache of capital to turn their team quick. Now they have to execute the second part and use that Capital effectively 

Their FA and draft last year was kind of a bust and I think Fitz made them look better than they were most of the year. Their defense was good at times last year but a lot of those guys are gone now and their success level had a tinge of being unsustainable with it being driven by a lot of turnovers. I think flores makes some questionable  personnel decisions as well. For whatever reason he gets a pass and people act like he’s a great coach like winning any number of games with that team  is like a baby driving a car. 

[Thurman#1]

28 minutes ago, mannc said:

Disagree.  There are a host of reasons future picks are devalued, and you’ve only hit on one of them—the fact that the GM who trades for a future first round pick might never actually get to use it, although it’s a big one.  Here are some others:

 

1.  No one really knows how good the talent will be in any particular future draft.

2.  No one knows how high or low the pick you are acquiring will be.  These first two issues go away if you’re getting picks in THIS draft.  Sometimes getting a future pick is better if the team trading it unexpectedly tanks, like Houston, but that uncertainty reduces the value of that pick NOW.

3.  Most NFL teams want to get better now, not in a couple years.  A guy you draft in 2023, especially if he’s a QB, might not be ready to really contribute until 2025.

4.  Human nature.  People rationally prefer to have something good now than in the future because who knows what the future will hold.

5. The market says future picks are worth less.

 

That being said, for a team like Miami, which already has a ton of picks the next two years, it could make sense to spread out some of those picks into the future. 

 

 

Sorry, I wasn't saying there was one and only one reason why teams prefer this year's pick to next year's. If I said or implied that, that's my bad. But yeah I'd argue that the difference between desperate and secure GMs is the most significant reason. By far.

 

The academic studies (Massey and Thaler's famous article "The Loser's Curse: Overconfidence vs. Market Efficiency in the National Football League Draft" is the best-known but at this point there are dozens and they all say the same thing) show that if you want to increase your efficiency at drafting better players, you should trade back. It doesn't work that way every time, but far more than 50%. You shouldn't be giving up major assets trading up, with the exception of going for a franchise QB, and even that has a major risk of not working out well, but is worth taking the risk if you don't have a franchise guy.

 

The teams trading up and giving up major assets are generally desperate, whether for a franchise QB or because the GM's seat is on fire or both.

 

1) They do have a decent idea most years how good the draft will be. Not precise but they have a general idea. This year less so.

 

2) Agreed, but these first two real risks are generally mitigated by receiving an extra pick

 

3) Yes, most NFL teams want to get better now. But that's precisely because GMs on the hot seat are forced to want to get better now. Secure GMs are in a position to prefer being a lot better two or three years down the road to being a bit better next year. Which is smart.

 

4) Yes, but what the relevant things the future holds for most GMs is mostly job security or a lack thereof.

 

5) Yes, the market says those picks are worth less, but again, most of the reason for that comes down to the very same thing. Teams trading up are more desperate. So you can ask them for more. The secure teams get a bad offer and can say "Thanks, but call us back when you get real." It's the team that needs a guy now that tries to overcome the other guy's reluctance by sweetening the pot.

 

IMO you're very right, particularly on #1 and #2, but #3 - #5 are just different ways of looking at the same phenomenon, that teams that feel more pressure crack first and give up more.

 

But it's worth noting also that sometimes next year's pick has a major advantage over this year's, namely that a young team knows more about their situation. For example, imagine if after Manuel's first year Whaley had instead of trading up for Watkins traded down, thinking, "Not sure about Manuel yet and I'll have a better idea next year, so why don't I trade the #9 for a 1st next year and a 3rd this year (for example)?" Then the next year he'd have had legit doubts about Manuel and could have angled for a QB a year or two or three down the line. Turned out a WR wasn't what that team most needed, but Whaley had no way of knowing that so early in Manuel's stay.

 

That's only an example, of course, but tons of times a team uses a #1 at a position which turns out to not have been one they should have been prioritizing.

 

But of course, that argument only works with GMs who are secure. The ones in hot seats can't worry about the future.

 

27 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

That could work but I’m not sure they will get a 1st next year for pick 18. We will see

 

 

Oh, right I'm not sure either, but I'd guess it's a decent chance. And if they don't, it might be worth their while instead if a team eyeing some particular player at #18 might offer maybe a 2nd this year and a 2nd next, and maybe a late pick beyond that. Another second next year would help them trade up for a QB and having two 2nds this year after they already get a guy they love and believe in at #6 might look great to them.

 

If they're a bit less sure about Tua than maybe they're letting on.

Edited March 27, 2021 by Thurman#1

[MAJBobby]

18 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

Their FA and draft last year was kind of a bust and I think Fitz made them look better than they were most of the year. Their defense was good at times last year but a lot of those guys are gone now and their success level had a tinge of being unsustainable with it being driven by a lot of turnovers. I think flores makes some questionable  personnel decisions as well. For whatever reason he gets a pass and people act like he’s a great coach like winning any number of games with that team  is like a baby driving a car. 

I agree. I think they are still further away than most think. But just in terms of the process and plan I do see what they are doing. The youngest team in the NFL with a lot of Capital spread. They obviously are in better shape is Tua can prove me wrong and then use that capital to build the team. If not though they do have the capital to get another QB early. They are set up to turn around quick. Flores and Grier just have to execute. 
 

but end of day if they don’t have a QB in a couple years will have a new coach and doing it all over again 

Edited March 27, 2021 by MAJBobby

[YoloinOhio]

Just now, MAJBobby said:

I agree. I think they are still further away than most think. But just in terms of the process and plan I do see what they are doing. The youngest team in the NFL with a lot of Capital spread. They obviously are in better shape is Tua can prove me wrong and then use that capital to build the team. If not though they do have the capital to get another QB early. They are set up to turn around quick. Flores and Grier just have to execute. 

I don’t fault them for stocking up on picks but I saw Cleveland do that for years and continue to suck until they stayed at the top two years in a row and got Garrett and baker. That’s why when they traded out of the 3 I was like come on man. Stay in the top 5 and grab the elite Qb. Not even saying baker is elite but he’s turned them around. The way they’ve handled Tua so far is pretty curious if they really believe in him and I don’t know why they don’t just take a guy at 3. 

[auburnbillsbacker]

It was a great trade for the Dolphins.  4 quality picks will set them up nicely for years.  I actually didn't like their trade up from 12 to 6.  

[Thurman#1]

14 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

Trades will always be evaluated based on the players taken with the picks. What MIA has done is built a solid cache of capital to turn their team quick. Now they have to execute the second part and use that Capital effectively 

 

 

If trades are evaluated that way, by the players taken, it's generally by people not thinking as precisely and clearly as they should.

 

It makes it easier to compare and thus come up with a result. But that's truly evaluating not the trade but instead two things, the trade and the drafting. Those are two different things.

 

The tradeup in which we took Watkins was a bad trade. It made us more likely to come out of it with lesser value.

 

But the drafting was also bad. If they'd picked Mack instead of Watkins (I thought for just a moment that they would ... sigh), the cumulative result would have looked a lot better. Whaley screwed up both facets of that. But that's always more likely. It's precisely overconfidence in your talent at picking that means that keeping more draft picks or trading for more will increase your chances..

 

But it's your first sentence I disagree with. You're dead on with the rest of it. They increased their chances, but could still either screw it up or knock it out of the park.

 

 

[H2o]

1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:

Do you think it will be enough though? SF is a decent enough team that you can’t expect a high 1st rounder next year. You would need to package the 2023 picks to move up just for one guy. 

It's kind of like packaging 2022 picks to move up this year.