Trade-up for Travis Hunter

[BillsFanForever19]

5 hours ago, TheWeatherMan said:

3 x 1st round picks to get into the top 4 is most definitely something a team drafting in the top 4 and doesn’t want to be in the top 4 would consider.
 

Closest example would be the 2011 Draft Falcons traded #27, a 2nd, 4th and the next years 1st to move up to #6 for Julio Jones.  

 

It was 2 1st's, a 2nd, and 2 4ths. And that was 27 to 6. This is 30 to 4. Which using the Jimmy Johnson model OP is using (which is antiquated btw) would be an additional 260 points. Which equates to a bottom 2nd/top 3rd on top of that package.

 

And Julio Jones is pretty much the *only* example. Everyone brings it up every year as if it's the norm. That was about a decade and a half ago. This is even more than that. Would be practically unprecedented in the modern era. People almost never move down the board that much. We'd really have to make it worth their wile.

Edited Saturday at 05:27 AM by BillsFanForever19

[BillsFanForever19]

29 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The draft value chart puts a future 1st at 700 points which is approximately worth the 26th pick which is valued at 700 points exactly. The reason the value chart puts it at 700 vs. being worth one round less is that a future 1st has a chance to be worth 3000 points. The value chart I put it was an estimate so it's flexible but I think as an approximation of what the Bills would have to give up to trade up into the top 5 it is fair (pick 30, 56, 62 and a future 1st) you can quibble if the Bills would have to include other late round selections or not but I think it is in the range of what a trade would cost. 

 

I don't see that being a thought for a Bills pick. Again, for the past 4 years - we've averaged at the 28th pick. I don't see a team looking at our future 1st and going "maybe it turns into a Top 5 - we'll give them full value for that pick next year".

 

Like Weather said, the closest we have to compare it to is the Julio trade from 27 to 6. That was two 1st's, a 2nd, and 2 4th's. This is 30 to 4. Which, again, is a differential of a Bottom 2nd/Top 3rd on top of that. 2 1st's, 2 2nds isn't enough.

[djp14150]

Id love to get him.

 

It would cost this years 1st, 2 2nds, and 1sts in 26 and 27

[billsfan89]

15 minutes ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

 

I don't see that being a thought for a Bills pick. Again, for the past 4 years - we've averaged at the 28th pick. I don't see a team looking at our future 1st and going "maybe it turns into a Top 5 - we'll give them full value for that pick next year".

 

Like Weather said, the closest we have to compare it to is the Julio trade from 27 to 6. That was two 1st's, a 2nd, and 2 4th's. This is 30 to 4. Which, again, is a differential of a Bottom 2nd/Top 3rd on top of that. 2 1st's, 2 2nds isn't enough.

 

Effectively a 700 point evaluation would put it at the 26th overall pick which is a divisional round eliminated team. So you would be looking at picks 26, 30, 56, and 62 for pick 4. Now you could argue on the margins that the Bills would have to include some more late or mid round picks but as I said for an estimate I don't think it is far off. And considering that a future 1st hold the value of possibly being the first overall pick due to injuries then I think a 700 point evaluation is fair. 

[Doc Brown]

Watch the OP look like a genius if this somehow happens.

[GunnerBill]

4 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Effectively a 700 point evaluation would put it at the 26th overall pick which is a divisional round eliminated team. So you would be looking at picks 26, 30, 56, and 62 for pick 4. Now you could argue on the margins that the Bills would have to include some more late or mid round picks but as I said for an estimate I don't think it is far off. And considering that a future 1st hold the value of possibly being the first overall pick due to injuries then I think a 700 point evaluation is fair. 

 

Yea that isn't how NFL teams actually value future firsts in trade ups. They discount the value.

[GunnerBill]

5 hours ago, TheWeatherMan said:

3 x 1st round picks to get into the top 4 is most definitely something a team drafting in the top 4 and doesn’t want to be in the top 4 would consider.
 

Closest example would be the 2011 Draft Falcons traded #27, a 2nd, 4th and the next years 1st to move up to #6 for Julio Jones.  

 

None of the scenarios make sense though.  Browns and Giants both have regimes on the hotseat. They are not trading that far back rather than taking Carter or Hunter for future value because if they don't win this year they are toast. 

 

And if Hunter is still there at #4 there will be teams much closer to there calling the Patriots. I think they'd much prefer to slide to #12 for example and let the Cowboys go up.

[TheWeatherMan]

8 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

None of the scenarios make sense though.  Browns and Giants both have regimes on the hotseat. They are not trading that far back rather than taking Carter or Hunter for future value because if they don't win this year they are toast. 

 

And if Hunter is still there at #4 there will be teams much closer to there calling the Patriots. I think they'd much prefer to slide to #12 for example and let the Cowboys go up.

In Cleveland it’s logical to say Haslam is making the calls, and we all know the quality of his decision making.  Giants aren’t winning anything with Russ at QB.  If they don’t go QB they might be open to trade down to add more pieces and pick up a QB in the lower rounds.  Giants might subscribe to quantity over quality approach to improve their awful roster.  
 

I’m not advocating for or against this move, I’m simply saying GMs wouldn’t laugh and hang up on you if you offered 3 x 1st round picks to move up to 4.

[GunnerBill]

15 minutes ago, TheWeatherMan said:

In Cleveland it’s logical to say Haslam is making the calls, and we all know the quality of his decision making.  Giants aren’t winning anything with Russ at QB.  If they don’t go QB they might be open to trade down to add more pieces and pick up a QB in the lower rounds.  Giants might subscribe to quantity over quality approach to improve their awful roster.  
 

I’m not advocating for or against this move, I’m simply saying GMs wouldn’t laugh and hang up on you if you offered 3 x 1st round picks to move up to 4.

 

They would listen. But this class with the teams at the top I am not sure you'd have a deal.

[TheWeatherMan]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

They would listen. But this class with the teams at the top I am not sure you'd have a deal.

Most likely not

[Mr. WEO]

1s and 2s for CB and WR yielded Beane Elam and Coleman.

 

Let's say those aren't in his wheelhouse the first 24 hours of the draft....