Another way to go. Trade way down and stack up #1 picks in 2024

[filthymcnasty08]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Yea they are the four scenarios.... not sure I agree with your order. I think:

 

1) Beane stands pat and takes a 2nd round guy at #27

Rationale: I think anyone outside the top 15 is likely doing this. I don't think there is going to be a mad rush to trade up into the late 1st from teams because of the general weakness of the class and because I think all 4 QBs (most likely trade up targets) are gone by this point.

 

 

4) A 1st round talent slides to us at #27

Rationale: I only have 12 first round grades. If you include all 4 QBs that gets you to 15. That is a lot of sliding someone needs to do. It would only be an off-field or injury reason and the Bills under this regime have been very risk averse in those circumstances on draft day. 

 

Typical 1st round grades that slide to 27:  MLB, IOL, S, RB     Looks good for #4!

[Chaos]

5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

I don't think there is going to be a mad rush to trade up into the late 1st from teams because of the general weakness of the class

I think the trade down scenerio is most likely for a pass catcher. One of Kincaid, Mayer, Flowers, Hyatt, Downs is left at 27.  Other teams seem to value those positions more than the Bills have in recent years.  Not sure it creates a mad rush. But teams like Texans (33) Cardinals(34) Colts (35) may want to move ahead of the Bengals and Chiefs. 

[BritBill]

8 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

It’s all so absurd but I have to admit Juice Scruggs is a cool name.

 

The best thing about any draft is some of the players' names. I'm yet to trawl through this year's top 100 prospects but be sure I'll dazzle you with my own personal favourites very soon. 

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

HOLLYWOOD TAKES OVER NFL DRAFT!

*
Teams may exercise the '5 year option'.  All picks are relinquished for 5 consecutive years; in the sixth year the entire draft class goes to said team.  If two or more teams pursue this option, random draw to award the winner.  Teams can use this option only once every X  years.  Still working out the frequency.

*
Details need to be worked out.  Also need to run it past Belichick to see how it can be exploited.

[Thurman#1]

35 minutes ago, newcam2012 said:

Depends on teams boards and where good value appears. Teams always look to trade forward and back. 

 

The issue of it being a weak draft is really not in play. It's about perceived value, needs of the team, and a desire to get their player especially if trading up or back makes sense. 

The move up still won't be cheap or cheaper. The value system is in place and I don't think teams moving down will give other teams discounts based on a supposed weak draft. 

 

 

You're missing the point here.

 

Weak drafts don't make teams that want to trade up say, "Well, we really like this guy and his value here, so it's a weak year, so we'll only offer 10%."

 

Weak drafts make teams say "Jesus, that's all that's left?

 

Yes, teams always look to trade forward and back. But the weakness or strength of a draft will always affect the number of players you want to trade up or down for and the price you willing to pay. The grades teams use aren't year-adjusted. 

 

Not every team has every guy graded the same, obviously. But the reason it's a weak draft is because in a strong year you might have - for example - 23 players with first round grades and 34 players with 2nd round grades, while in a weak year you might have, as Bill does, 12 players with first round grades. Now, not every team would say 12. Almost surely there are some differences. Some teams might say 10. Others 15. But it's highly unlikely anyone has, say 23 this year. 

 

So at 27 this year you're not going to give the same thing you'd have given last year at 27 when you'd have been getting a guy graded maybe 6.9 or 7.0, where your highest graded guy this year at the same spot is graded by your scouts as a 6.7.

 

When your turn comes, there will be probably no players with grades about 7.0, for instance. Last year there might have been eight guys left that your team grades above 6.8. This year, zero. Your highest graded player is less talented, your scouts say, than the guy they could have traded for last year at #27. Are you going to give the same amount for a less talented player? Not if you're a smart capitalist.

 

If you're lucky, you'll have a really different grade on somebody than the others all do. But if you do, it might be because you're wrong.

[Fan in Chicago]

9 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

It’s all so absurd but I have to admit Juice Scruggs is a cool name.

Maybe the Jets will draft him and pair him in the defensive backfield with Sauce

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

 

3) We trade back out of the first

Rationale: I don't think there is going to be a mad rush to come up for the reason I explained earlier but let's say the Raiders want to get aggressive (McDaniels needs to show real progress year 2 especially after voluntarily giving up a good QB) and the Bills were willing to take a bit less than the trade value chart says - say the Raiders 3rd round comp pick and one of their early 5ths I could imagine a deal being done. 

 

 

Trade our #27 for the Raiders Rd 3 and Rd 5?

Sounds like a very bad deal for the Bills. Especially if its a bad draft, the value of the picks in return are particularly terrible. 

Edited March 29, 2023 by Fan in Chicago

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, filthymcnasty08 said:

Typical 1st round grades that slide to 27:  MLB, IOL, S, RB     Looks good for #4!

 

I don't have a 1st round grade on any MLB or IOL in this class. I have Bryan Branch who is a hybrid S/CB and Bijan Robinson. Not sure either makes #27

35 minutes ago, Fan in Chicago said:

 

Trade our #27 for the Raiders Rd 3 and Rd 5?

Sounds like a very bad deal for the Bills. Especially if its a bad draft, the value of the picks in return are particularly terrible. 

 

No, sorry for their 2nd - #38 plus their comp 3rd #100 and say #141. Value wise according to the chart that is about 35 points light on what the Bills should get. 

[BillsFanThru-N-Thru]

Of Course everything depends on how the draft board falls.  In the mock scenario I ran Anthony Richardson falls to 27 and the Bills trade with the Saints for their 29 and 40 picks.  Then in the 2nd round Joey Porter Jr is still on the board and Detroit trades their 48 and 55 to get him for the 40 we got from NO and a 2025 Rd 5 pick.  Finally I traded our 28 in Rd 3, 28 in Rd 6, and 2024 Rd 4 for Atlanta's 12th in Rd 3

 

29: R1 P29 OT Paris Johnson Jr. - Ohio State

48: R2 P17 LB Drew Sanders - Arkansas

55: R2 P24 C John Michael Schmitz - Minnesota

59: R2 P28 DL Mazi Smith - Michigan

75: R3 P12 WR Cedric Tillman - Tennessee

130: R4 P28 EDGE Mike Morris - Michigan

137: R5 P2 TE Zack Kuntz - Old Dominion

 

TRADES

Trade Partner: New Orleans Saints

Sent:      Round 1 Pick 27

Received:  Round 1 Pick 29, Round 2 Pick 9

 

Trade Partner: Detroit Lions

Sent:      Round 2 Pick 9, 2025 Round 5 Pick

Received:  Round 2 Pick 17, Round 2 Pick 24

 

Trade Partner: Atlanta Falcons

Sent:      Round 3 Pick 28, Round 6 Pick 28, 2024 Round 4 Pick

Received: Round 3 Pick 12

[newcam2012]

47 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

You're missing the point here.

 

Weak drafts don't make teams that want to trade up say, "Well, we really like this guy and his value here, so it's a weak year, so we'll only offer 10%."

 

Weak drafts make teams say "Jesus, that's all that's left?

 

Yes, teams always look to trade forward and back. But the weakness or strength of a draft will always affect the number of players you want to trade up or down for and the price you willing to pay. The grades teams use aren't year-adjusted. 

 

Not every team has every guy graded the same, obviously. But the reason it's a weak draft is because in a strong year you might have - for example - 23 players with first round grades and 34 players with 2nd round grades, while in a weak year you might have, as Bill does, 12 players with first round grades. Now, not every team would say 12. Almost surely there are some differences. Some teams might say 10. Others 15. But it's highly unlikely anyone has, say 23 this year. 

 

So at 27 this year you're not going to give the same thing you'd have given last year at 27 when you'd have been getting a guy graded maybe 6.9 or 7.0, where your highest graded guy this year at the same spot is graded by your scouts as a 6.7.

 

When your turn comes, there will be probably no players with grades about 7.0, for instance. Last year there might have been eight guys left that your team grades above 6.8. This year, zero. Your highest graded player is less talented, your scouts say, than the guy they could have traded for last year at #27. Are you going to give the same amount for a less talented player? Not if you're a smart capitalist.

 

If you're lucky, you'll have a really different grade on somebody than the others all do. But if you do, it might be because you're wrong.

Not sure how I missed the point. 

 

I don't disagree with what you've posted. However, it's really not pertinent to my premise.

 

My premise was that teams won't get trades ups on the cheap because it's a weak draft. Another poster suggested that. 

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

3 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Four most realistic scenarios and what I think is the most likely in order.

1.) We get lucky and a first round prospect is available to us at 27 at a premium position of need.

2.)Beane trades up a few spots to get the last guy he has graded as a first round prospect.

3.)  We reach for a 2nd round prospect at 27 because we can't find a trade partner to trade back into the 2nd.

4.)  We trade our first round pick for some other team's second along with multiple day two and three picks (a 3rd and a 5th for example)

 

You have nicely covered all of the possible options that exists.

 

The 5th one which you rarely see is "team doesn't get their pick in in time" and picks at 28 instead of 27.

[ExWNYer]

21 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't have a 1st round grade on any MLB or IOL in this class. I have Bryan Branch who is a hybrid S/CB and Bijan Robinson. Not sure either makes #27

 

No, sorry for their 2nd - #38 plus their comp 3rd #100 and say #141. Value wise according to the chart that is about 35 points light on what the Bills should get. 

 

Maybe McDaniels can throw in a 'Bildo' to even things out. He's probably collected one or two during the Brady games at the stadium.

[MrEpsYtown]

I think, the way this year's draft is shaping up, your only hope of a trade-down is if one of those QBs is there. Outside of the top 15 picks, everybody is really 2nd/3rd round pick value. No one is trading 2024 first to go and get some mid-level player. 

[BillsShredder83]

3 hours ago, TheBeaneBandit said:

I think #2 is most likely ala the Elam pick. This time from a run on receivers.

yeah i see 2 & 3 being most likely unfortunately

[nosejob]

Trade Ed to his hometown Houston for picks 65 and 161 and 201.

If Robinson somehow is there at 27 trade with Saints for 29 and 71.

 

Then...I put my trust in McBeane.

 

Picks  29       

           40       

           59       

           65

           71        

           130

           137

           161

           201

           205

Plenty of ammo for Beane to do his wizardry....plus an extra 10.7

Edited March 29, 2023 by nosejob

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, newcam2012 said:

Not sure how I missed the point. 

 

I don't disagree with what you've posted. However, it's really not pertinent to my premise.

 

My premise was that teams won't get trades ups on the cheap because it's a weak draft. Another poster suggested that. 

 

 

I believe you missed the point when you said, "The issue of it being a weak draft is really not in play. It's about perceived value, needs of the team, and a desire to get their player especially if trading up or back makes sense." 

 

It being a weak draft is absolutely in play, without the slightest question. Yeah, it's the three factors you cited, but in weak drafts there will precisely be fewer players with perceived value and lower desires to get guys with less talent.

 

Yes, your three factors  matter, but there are certainly other factors, certainly including the weak draft.

 

If that's your premise, it's unclear what you mean. If you mean "on the cheap" compared to the traditional draft pick chart, I think you're wrong. Players at any given pick are likely to be less better than the guys available to you at your original pick than in strong years. There aren't as likely to be as many teams as usual offering trade-ups at the value they'd give in ordinary years. So if teams aren't willing to accept trade-downs with a bit lower rewards than usual, I expect we won't see many trades.

 

If you mean "on the cheap" meaning compared to the differential of scouting scores between the players, I'd expect things to look much like normal, but with teams that want trade-downs saying, "Hey, look at the draft pick charts, you're not offering enough," and the teams that want trade-ups saying, "Hey, we want the guy, but not that much. He's not worth a #27 in most years."

 

59 minutes ago, MrEpsYtown said:

I think, the way this year's draft is shaping up, your only hope of a trade-down is if one of those QBs is there. Outside of the top 15 picks, everybody is really 2nd/3rd round pick value. No one is trading 2024 first to go and get some mid-level player. 

 

 

I can see someone trading up for Bijan, absolutely, depending how far he falls. 

 

IMO, we'll see trade-ups and trade-downs, but perhaps fewer and for less of return for the team trading down. 

 

Some teams are desperate and think they're smarter than everyone else. It's the idea behind Massey-Thaler. We'll see a few, I think. 

 

Edited March 29, 2023 by Thurman#1

[Aussie Joe]

10 minutes ago, nosejob said:

Trade Ed to his hometown Houston for picks 40 and 115 and 201.

If Robinson somehow is there at 27 trade with Saints for 29 and 71.

 

Then...I put my trust in McBeane.

 

Picks  29       

           40       

           59       

           71        

           91

           115

           130

           137

           203

           205

Plenty of ammo for Beane to do his wizardry....plus an extra 10.7

Wow… that is some haul for Ed… there I was thinking you might get a bottom third/ early fourth for a guy on his 5th year option that you gotta pay $10 m

[nosejob]

35 minutes ago, Aussie Joe said:

Wow… that is some haul for Ed… there I was thinking you might get a bottom third/ early fourth for a guy on his 5th year option that you gotta pay $10 m

They have 2 3rds and 11 picks overall, plus they can stretch out a 2 or 3 yr. deal if they wanted to. I don't really have a problem keeping him because like Tremaine, he's probably gonna have his best year yet but get over paid by some team next year.

 

EDIT: I screwed up my original trade with Houston. Went back and changed it.

Edited March 29, 2023 by nosejob

[Aussie Joe]

Just now, nosejob said:

They have 2 3rds and 11 picks overall, plus they can stretch out a 2 or 3 yr. deal if they wanted to. I don't really have a problem keeping him because like Tremaine, he's probably gonna have his best year yet but get over paid by some team next year.

I think you have over valued his worth regardless oh how many picks they have..

[Simon Says]

12 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

It’s all so absurd but I have to admit Juice Scruggs is a cool name.

He is a bluegrass banjo player

[nosejob]

36 minutes ago, Aussie Joe said:

Wow… that is some haul for Ed… there I was thinking you might get a bottom third/ early fourth for a guy on his 5th year option that you gotta pay $10 m

 

21 minutes ago, Aussie Joe said:

I think you have over valued his worth regardless oh how many picks they have..

I screwed up. It should have been Ed for 65 161 201

Edited March 29, 2023 by nosejob