Trading down is underrated

[HawksNation]

Bear with me,

Seahawks trade down to between picks
7-10.

Trade again between picks 10-16.

Trade again to between 16-25

With pick 20 we take Lukas Van Ness

And pick 25 we take Calijah Kancey.

Assume we pick up an additional 3 2nd round picks plus extras…

The big question, could you possibly be mad?


It seems there are always teams that want to move up to secure their guy. JS seems to be a wizard when it comes to moving around draft positions.
Using the same stategy as 2022, how could this possibly be deemed a failure?

 

[WarHawks]

Crickets...

 

[Appyhawk]

We currently don't have the money to pay for our 10 picks. But we need MORE picks? Only way I would approve of a trade is if we could acquire a good first rounder in 24. As things stand we need to get the highest quality players we can lay our hands on, not more lesser quality players.

 

[Maelstrom787]

People have an irrational bias against trading down on this board because they think it leads to substandard outcomes.

Pure small-sample size correlation rather than causation.

5 could turn into a turd sandwich real quick if the first 4 picks go suboptimally. Sticking and picking just because in that scenario is terrible practice.

 

[Hawkinaz]

Bear with me,

Seahawks trade down to between picks
7-10.

Trade again between picks 10-16.

Trade again to between 16-25

With pick 20 we take Lukas Van Ness

And pick 25 we take Calijah Kancey.

Assume we pick up an additional 3 2nd round picks plus extras…

The big question, could you possibly be mad?


It seems there are always teams that want to move up to secure their guy. JS seems to be a wizard when it comes to moving around draft positions.
Using the same stategy as 2022, how could this possibly be deemed a failure?

In this years draft more teams want to trade down vs trading up. Van Ness will be gone by 20 I am expecting he goes in the top 10. Van Ness normally would have been a late 1st rd/ 2nd rd but due to the depth of the draft this year things change

 

[Sgt. Largent]

People have an irrational bias against trading down on this board because they think it leads to substandard outcomes.

Pure small-sample size correlation rather than causation.

5 could turn into a turd sandwich real quick if the first 4 picks go suboptimally. Sticking and picking just because in that scenario is terrible practice.

Yep.

It's about value, that's it. Do you trust Schneider and his scouts to properly value every player in order to determine whether the pick slot is equal to that player's grade and value?

If there's a player available at 5, 20, whatever that fits into their value/grade chart? Then we will pick that player. If that player does not fit into that value/grade slot? Then we will attempt to trade down to accumulate more draft capital in order to move up or down later in the draft.

We as fans become to enamored with certain players, and really never stop to think whether those players are valued correctly, or it's just the endless hype of pre-draft nonsense.

 

[Hawknight]

The draft is nothing but a big gamble ....no matter on who you roll the dice.

 

[ivotuk]

I'm hoping we can get a 2024 1st round pick, or at least swap 2024 1st Round picks with a crappy team. It's a gamble, but one worth taking.

 

[Recon_Hawk]

We currently don't have the money to pay for our 10 picks. But we need MORE picks? Only way I would approve of a trade is if we could acquire a good first rounder in 24. As things stand we need to get the highest quality players we can lay our hands on, not more lesser quality players.

Trading down could actually save a team money due to the larger contracts given to earlier draft picks.

For example, the trade value chart on Drafttek.com shows the #5 pick is worth 1700 points. A fair trade down from #5 to #10 would require the #40 pick.

Using 2022 total contract amounts, the #5 pick (Kayvon Thibodeaux) had an annual salary of ~7.8M.

The total annual contract for the #10 pick (Garrett Wilson) and #40 pick (Boye Mafe) would be ~5.1M and ~2.1M, for a total amount of $7.2M.

That's a total savings of ~600k each year.

 

[Yxes1122]

I’m all for trading down in this draft. Especially under the assumption that the 3 QBs are off the board, Carter is off the board, and Anderson goes in the top 4.

I think this is a draft of contributors more than stars (especially on Defense), and we’re a roster in need of that depth. Ideally, we get some guys that surprise like Tariq and Abe Lucas, but the best chance of that happening is more bites at the apple.

 

[seatownlowdown]

Bear with me,

Seahawks trade down to between picks
7-10.

Trade again between picks 10-16.

Trade again to between 16-25

With pick 20 we take Lukas Van Ness

And pick 25 we take Calijah Kancey.

Assume we pick up an additional 3 2nd round picks plus extras…

The big question, could you possibly be mad?


It seems there are always teams that want to move up to secure their guy. JS seems to be a wizard when it comes to moving around draft positions.
Using the same stategy as 2022, how could this possibly be deemed a failure?

hold up OP...

that's a lot of assumptions. i get mock drafts are just that, assumptions/projections/wishes

but i gotta say,

1) trade downs are great in theory for the team that wants to trade down, but it takes a willing participant, 2 to tango. as good as the return of picks may be for the team trading down, the loss of capital is then equally bad for the team trading up. that's obviously a huge detractor. but i will say in our case if a top 4 QB is there at #5, i would definitely think a few teams would be on the phone wanting that pick.

2) just can't see kancey lasting to #25, would be fortunate if he's there at #20. the book is out on him. he's a pressure-machine. 47 pressures last year and a 92.4 pass rushing grade from pff

3) and hell no i wouldn't be mad, hell, i'd get baked, shitfaced, and climb on the top of my roof naked and hula hoop if all that happened

 

[hoxrox]

I'm ok with trading down to get more ammo. But at some point, constantly trading out the first and second rounds make it harder to find impact players. Many times, we've ended up with busts.

https://www.si.com/nfl/seahawks/news/seattle-seahawks-john-schneider-bobby-wagner-nfl-draft-day-trades-ranked

 

[nanomoz]

Because having a pick that can actually net a blue chip player doesn't happen very often. And you can't look at that opportunity through just a short-term lens. (Quarterback, quarterback, quarterback.)

And because Lukas Van Ness didn't even start in college.

And because while I like Klancey, I don't see where he fits, scheme wise. Seems like a pure 3-tech in an even front.

People constantly opine at the Hawks history with first round picks, then they advocate for trading back in to a range where the likelihood of hitting is greatly lessened. The two times Seattle has picked in the top 10 have gone pretty well.

If they trade back, it better be because they are absolutely certain they can still get a guy they just have to have.

 

[Maelstrom787]

If they trade back, it better be because they are absolutely certain they can still get a guy they just have to have.

I mean, trading back because they're not certain there's a guy worth such a premium selection is just as valid of a decision. That's the whole point. Sticking at 5 should not be an arbitrary decision. If you're not enamored with anyone there, screw reaching - get value!

 

[Appyhawk]

People have an irrational bias against trading down on this board because they think it leads to substandard outcomes.

Pure small-sample size correlation rather than causation.

5 could turn into a turd sandwich real quick if the first 4 picks go suboptimally. Sticking and picking just because in that scenario is terrible practice.

My rational as a horseman is that I feel far more confident finding a high quality/value horse in the Derby field than in Race #2 field of maidens.
I prefer quality over quantity. Always have, always will.

 

[Appyhawk]

I'm hoping we can get a 2024 1st round pick, or at least swap 2024 1st Round picks with a crappy team. It's a gamble, but one worth taking.

Me too. I think that's where we can get our perfect QB for the future.

 

[HawksNation]

.

I prefer quality over quantity. Always have, always will.

I get it, but I’m not talking about trading down to get 10 , 4th rounders, I’m talking about staying in the first and accumulating early 2nd round picks.

Maybe Texans want 5 and we get 12 and 33, If we stopped there, we just added an extra pick where 1st round talent will be available.

 

[HawksNation]

I'm hoping we can get a 2024 1st round pick, or at least swap 2024 1st Round picks with a crappy team. It's a gamble, but one worth taking.

I had never thought about swapping 1st rounders. Now that’s a good idea,

 

[CPHawk]

People have an irrational bias against trading down on this board because they think it leads to substandard outcomes.

Pure small-sample size correlation rather than causation.

5 could turn into a turd sandwich real quick if the first 4 picks go suboptimally. Sticking and picking just because in that scenario is terrible practice.

Actually people here have an irrational bias of wanting to trade down. It seems half the post are always about people wanting to trade down. It’s dumb. To sign 3 1st rounders and 2 second rounders, we would have to cut someone.

 

[Hawkinaz]

Trading down could actually save a team money due to the larger contracts given to earlier draft picks.

For example, the trade value chart on Drafttek.com shows the #5 pick is worth 1700 points. A fair trade down from #5 to #10 would require the #40 pick.

Using 2022 total contract amounts, the #5 pick (Kayvon Thibodeaux) had an annual salary of ~7.8M.

The total annual contract for the #10 pick (Garrett Wilson) and #40 pick (Boye Mafe) would be ~5.1M and ~2.1M, for a total amount of $7.2M.

That's a total savings of ~600k each year.

This was how the Seahawks got Walter Jones in a trade with New Orleans for their #6 pick in 1997. NO was in penny pinching mode and didn’t want to/couldn’t pay a high 1st rd pick