Trading Down Again

[Attyla the Hawk]

trading our late 1 for the patriots 2 second rd picks seems a bit maddenish to me. I think if we were to trade back into the 2nd we would maybe net a 4th and maybe an additional mid round pick or at most a 3rd.

Actually from recent history, it would take more than 60-61 to be similar value.

It's very rare to move that far back. Since the CBA I can only find one trade somewhat similar:

Give: #29 (1st)
Get: #52 (2nd), #83 (3rd) #102 (4th)

It's really rare to see that kind of trade.

I think for the #26 pick, the Hawks could get a mid-2nd round pick and a mid-3rd round pick.

Nah, a mere 6 or so spot move back from 26 is worth a 1st and 3rd. Handful of trades made in last 4 years confirms. If it were as you suggest, it would warrant a 2017 first round

 

[AgentDib]

You should obviously factor UDFA's into the roster conversation. I think we have room for a total of 12ish guys on the 53 from UDFA/Rookie/Cutdowns or so, which means I'd be comfortable spending resources on 15+ with a legitimate shot at it for the training camp competition.

One of the minor benefits of trading down that can be overlooked is the salary implications of slotted rookie contracts. If our favorite guy has a second round grade and we think he's going to go in the mid second round then trading down to that area saves us money on the contract.

 

[Willyeye]

trading our late 1 for the patriots 2 second rd picks seems a bit maddenish to me. I think if we were to trade back into the 2nd we would maybe net a 4th and maybe an additional mid round pick or at most a 3rd.

Actually from recent history, it would take more than 60-61 to be similar value.

It's very rare to move that far back. Since the CBA I can only find one trade somewhat similar:

Give: #29 (1st)
Get: #52 (2nd), #83 (3rd) #102 (4th)

It's really rare to see that kind of trade.

I think for the #26 pick, the Hawks could get a mid-2nd round pick and a mid-3rd round pick.

Nah, a mere 6 or so spot move back from 26 is worth a 1st and 3rd. Handful of trades made in last 4 years confirms. If it were as you suggest, it would warrant a 2017 first round

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. If I'm hearing you correctly, you're talking about a 6 spot move back, which would be Pick#32 overall, which would be the first pick of the 2nd round. So you're saying that the Hawks could trade pick #26 for pick #32 AND a 3rd round pick?

My trade suggestion was to trade pick #26 for perhaps pick #45 and pick #75. In fact, even on the old values chart that most teams still use as a reference point, pick #26 is worth 700 points...pick #45 is worth 450 points and pick #75 is worth 215 points for a total of 665 points. I don't get where my scenario would warrant a 2017 1st round pick also.

One thing to keep in mind: if we were to use your suggestion and move down only 6 picks to #32, that team's 3rd round pick would likely be the first pick of the 3rd round...in this case, pick #64.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

My trade suggestion was to trade pick #26 for perhaps pick #45 and pick #75. In fact, even on the old values chart that most teams still use as a reference point, pick #26 is worth 700 points...pick #45 is worth 450 points and pick #75 is worth 215 points for a total of 665 points. I don't get where my scenario would warrant a 2017 1st round pick also.

You're right. May be overstating the return.

That big a drop is not common. The most recent examples each indicate that would be a 1st round pick for 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks

2010:

Ravens give #25
Broncos give #43, #70, #114

2013:

Patriots give #29
Vikings give #52, #83, #102, #229


Of the two, the latter is probably more indicative since the 2010 trade was executed pre CBA. So you're going to ask for more than just a 2nd/3rd/4th. The 4th in the latest trade was about 15 spots better than the Vikes' native 4th round pick.

Schneider has been very reluctant to drop too far in trade back deals. He's stated that he likes to hit the pockets of talent and that's oftentimes fluid. We're good at figuring out who teams will take, but it's hard to account for possible trades that shake the draft order up. We have shown to be much more comfortable trading back in small amounts -- and if need be multiple small amounts. Instead of one big trade back.

I suspect it aligns with the other aversion of his: Don't trade for future draft picks. We philosophically like to have a good read on who we can get when we move around. Big trades or next year trades is trading for the unknown.

For us to get from 26 to 45, I think it takes two deals. Maybe three. And given that he's indicated that the draft pool this year is far more steady and even through the first 3 rounds as opposed to having steep shelves of talent like when we drafted Britt -- I think the landscape is ripe for a move back. I would see us looking to be fluid (up or down) depending on how the board takes shape by pick 15.