Trading down is underrated

[Maelstrom787]

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.

Trading down is always a conditional proposition. It only happens if the board falls in a suboptimal way.

Also, I'm not sure if you can really say people are biased towards trade down considering just how often the unconditional refusal to consider a trade down pops up in threads like this because of previous selections.

A trade down should be explored if they don't have a top-5 blue chip grade on the prospects available at 5. That's plain jane simple resource management. Don't blow premium resources on players lacking commensurate value.

Also, depending on the trade back, they probably wouldn't have to cut anyone and may just end up saving money. Pick 5 is expensive.

 

[BlueTalon]

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

That kind of thing would make me very nervous. You never know when a crappy team will suddenly find themselves and go off, and you never know when a couple of injuries (or something) might tank our season.

Case in point, Seahawks and Broncos. Nobody expected those two teams to do what they did last season. I know that wasn't a swap of 1st round picks, but the point remains. If the Broncos had swapped 1sts with us, they would have looked a whole lot stupider than they did with the trade they actually made.

 

[HawksNation]

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.

Bye Noah Fant

 

[HawksNation]

We always assume that by trading back the Seahawks will look for draft picks in return, I think it’s totally plausible that we could try to get a stud D-Lineman as part of a trade back instead of more picks.

 

[Hawkinaz]

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

It usually happens when a team really wants a certain player in the current draft and are willing to part with a future 1st rd pick. For every year you go in the future the value of the pick lowers 1 in value.

2nd rd pick in current draft = 1st rd in following year

3rd pick in current draft = 1st rd pick in the draft in 2 yrs

Howie Roseman for the Eagles has a reputation that he is willing to do this playing for the future and not the present

 

[BlueTalon]

We always assume that by trading back the Seahawks will look for draft picks in return, I think it’s totally plausible that we could try to get a stud D-Lineman as part of a trade back instead of more picks.

Getting players as part of a draft-day trade is something I usually don't consider, but it's certainly doable. We'd still have to pay him, though, and that makes things complicated with our available cap.

 

[nanomoz]

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!

Fair. But looking at players in this draft, and knowing what they've liked in the past, I'd be surprised if there wasn't someone they're enamored with at 5.

 

[AgentDib]

It's very draft and pick dependent. 2023 #5 pick is a "stay and pick" if we end up with Stroud, Anderson, or Richardson, or a "trade down a lot" if they are off the board.

I see this draft as having just a few blue chip players at the top, then another 15 players or so I would be comfortable drafting mid/late 1st, then another 60-100 players who I'd start taking gambles on in day 2. My 100th player right now is WR Michael Wilson from Stanford who I would feel much better about spending a day 2 pick on then I did about the same ranked player last year (G Ed Ingram from LSU).

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

It's even a bigger savings when you consider that what matters is how much each contract is above our 51st contract (~1m). So in your example #5 would require 6.8m of extra cap space, while #10 and #40 would require 5.2M extra because the extra player is taking somebody's spot - for a non-trivial savings of $1.4m.

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.

There are lots of people on this roster we can cut. Map out our current depth chart and I bet you can find room for at least 14 more players on the 53 man roster. Then consider that a number of guys will end up on PUP or IR which will lead to more openings. It's also not a failure to draft a project in the 5th round or so as competition in camp, and then end up putting them on the practice squad for a year.

The draft is so uncertain that you are much better off having a competition in camp between lots of players and then cutting the losers. If you instead trust that one player is going to secure the job you have a high chance of having zero players worth playing at the spot.

 

[AgentDib]

That kind of thing would make me very nervous. You never know when a crappy team will suddenly find themselves and go off, and you never know when a couple of injuries (or something) might tank our season.

I agree, it's a sensible hedge to hang onto your first round draft picks. If everything does go wrong for your team then it's an important silver lining to be looking at a blue chip prospect in the upcoming draft.

The Jamal Adams trade worked out especially poorly because our first round pick last year ended up at #10 due to Russ (and Adams) getting hurt. Instead of giving the Jets the 20th-something pick we were expecting, they were able to take a blue chip WR in Garrett Wilson.

 

[HawksNation]

Fair. But looking at players in this draft, and knowing what they've liked in the past, I'd be surprised if there wasn't someone they're enamored with at 5.

It was funny that everyone was convinced we were drafting edge with our 9th pick in 22’, we went OT.
Just go look at 2022 mock drafts

 

[nanomoz]

It was funny that everyone was convinced we were drafting edge with our 9th pick in 22’, we went OT.
Just go look at 2022 mock drafts

Totally. I was surprised by the Cross pick, but it made a ton of sense. Lucas and Cross have a whole season under their belts. And with some luck, by the time this team is ready to make another super bowl run, they'll be at their best.

 

[HawksNation]

Totally. I was surprised by the Cross pick, but it made a ton of sense. Lucas and Cross have a whole season under their belts. And with some luck, by the time this team is ready to make another super bowl run, they'll be at their best.

That’s why I wouldn’t be shocked if we trade down and take Skoronski or Ocyrus Torrence. If it worked last year, why not so it again, while also adding extra picks

 

[nanomoz]

That’s why I wouldn’t be shocked if we trade down and take Skoronski or Ocyrus Torrence. If it worked last year, why not so it again, while also adding extra picks

I would be. I think the top four QBs and Will Anderson are all players they'd jump at the chance to draft. But I've been wrong before. Skoronski does look like he could be a serious badass at guard.

 

[HawksNation]

I would be. I think the top four QBs and Will Anderson are all players they'd jump at the chance to draft. But I've been wrong before. Skoronski does look like he could be a serious badass at guard.

I agree, I’m in the draft a QB or Will Anderson camp. But if we are stuck with Jalen Carter or Will Levi’s, nothing will surprise me.

 

[WarHawks]

Seems like a moot point. We don't have cap space to sign any more picks than what we already have, and/or a proven veteran.

 

[HawksNation]

Seems like a moot point. We don't have cap space to sign any more picks than what we already have, and/or a proven veteran.

Simple restructuring can free up over 15 million

 

[Chevy]

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?

Lukas Van Ness and Calijah Kancey are not good fits for our 3-4 defense.

I'm cool with trading down from #5 (but not out of the top-8) and possibly down from #20.

 

[Maelstrom787]

Seems like a moot point. We don't have cap space to sign any more picks than what we already have, and/or a proven veteran.

Room can easily be created, and trading down likely saves money.

Please, guys. Seattle currently has the 11th most cap space in the league. 21 teams aren't going to be too poor to sign draft picks. That's not a concern.

 

[Maelstrom787]

It was funny that everyone was convinced we were drafting edge with our 9th pick in 22’, we went OT.
Just go look at 2022 mock drafts

I remember OT being the obvious want, but most thought all 3 OTs would be gone by 9. Stingley going to the Texans at 3 was unexpected and most mocked an OT there. Also, the Panthers ran a huge disinformation campaign that they were enamored with Cross, so he was universally mocked 6th by the end of the process when their real target was Ickey Ekwonu, who most predicted at 3 from what I saw.

My recollection is the reason edge got projected so much was because most thought it was either that or Trevor Penning. My mock had Seattle trading up to 7 for Neal, which apparently Seattle was actually discussing that exact trade with New York (but probably for Cross instead of Neal). Seahawks.com reported that the trade fell through.





Off-topic slightly, but we can extrapolate from the behind-the-scenes draft story from Seahawks.com that Ekwonu was probably their highest-graded player in the draft. The use of the phrase "top tackle REMAINING" referring to Cross suggests that Ekwonu was higher.

 

[BlueTalon]

I remember OT being the obvious want, but most thought all 3 OTs would be gone by 9. Stingley going to the Texans at 3 was unexpected and most mocked an OT there. Also, the Panthers ran a huge disinformation campaign that they were enamored with Cross, so he was universally mocked 6th by the end of the process when their real target was Ickey Ekwonu, who most predicted at 3 from what I saw.

My recollection is the reason edge got projected so much was because most thought it was either that or Trevor Penning. My mock had Seattle trading up to 7 for Neal, which apparently Seattle was actually discussing that exact trade with New York (but probably for Cross instead of Neal). Seahawks.com reported that the trade fell through.

View attachment 58637



Off-topic slightly, but we can extrapolate from the behind-the-scenes draft story from Seahawks.com that Ekwonu was probably their highest-graded player in the draft. The use of the phrase "top tackle REMAINING" referring to Cross suggests that Ekwonu was higher.

View attachment 58636

You have a convenient link for that?