Would you trade #31 for a future first?

We'll have plenty of mid round picks, and the 4th we could get for Percy would essentially be like a 3rd rounder for us. An extra 4th and two 5ths for Tate, Browner and Giac also gives us some maneuverability if we want to move up with our existing picks.

So, if a team picking early-mid in the draft wanted to trade for our pick, would you take a future first, let them keep their 2nd, and maybe try and grab an extra 4th/5th?

I'd do it. I'm not mad about the talent that will supposedly be available at #31 (bar a few unlikely fallers) and I think there's good value to be had in rounds 2,3 and 4.

We're set to be competitive for a long time, maybe getting an early-mid first round pick next year would set us up nicely to get a starting OT when Okung goes, or that #1 WR we will struggle to find this year.

I would not do that just for a future 1st and a current year 4th/5th rounder.

Current 2nd or very very high 3rd and a future 1st for 31, that would have more interest.

That being said ,this team is squarely in it's championship window right now and if a contributing player can be found at 31 on the OL or at TE or at WR, I keep that pick. Not too many other positions where realistically someone taken at 31 gets immediate playing time.

drrew":1i8y7rjp said:

I would not do that just for a future 1st and a current year 4th/5th rounder.

Current 2nd or very very high 3rd and a future 1st for 31, that would have more interest.

That being said ,this team is squarely in it's championship window right now and if a contributing player can be found at 31 on the OL or at TE or at WR, I keep that pick. Not too many other positions where realistically someone taken at 31 gets immediate playing time.

Click to expand...

Nobody would ever do that, in fact, I doubt my scenario would ever happen unless a team was really desperate. We got a fourth rounder trading back from #32 to #45 last season. No chance we get a future first and a 2nd/3rd for trading from #31.

The problem here is that we don't have any higher pick. The last time we traded a pick in the 30s for a future first rounder, we had already picked at #4. I don't like the idea of having absolutely nothing until the very end of the 2nd round, as I think there's some great talent available in the mid 2nd.

Depends on who is there at 31. If Gurley or DGB is there then no.

I'd certainly be open to the idea based on circumstances. I'm pretty sure that JS&PC would be, too, given the right deal.

I wouldn't do it just for the picks, though. And I wouldn't worry too much about the future first, either. I think I'd rather get an early 2d this year (plus some 2d/3d day action too of course), assuming there are players in that range on their board, than worry too much about a first next year.

OTOH, that's the kind of strategy the Patsies used for years to keep their draft fresh. If the deal came through with the right team, it could be a high-mid first, so there's that.

SomersetHawk":gh7h49s8 said:

drrew":gh7h49s8 said:

I would not do that just for a future 1st and a current year 4th/5th rounder.

Current 2nd or very very high 3rd and a future 1st for 31, that would have more interest.

That being said ,this team is squarely in it's championship window right now and if a contributing player can be found at 31 on the OL or at TE or at WR, I keep that pick. Not too many other positions where realistically someone taken at 31 gets immediate playing time.

Click to expand...

Nobody would ever do that, in fact, I doubt my scenario would ever happen unless a team was really desperate. We got a fourth rounder trading back from #32 to #45 last season. No chance we get a future first and a 2nd/3rd for trading from #31.

Click to expand...

Going strictly by the draft value chart (and yes I know the draft value chart is outdated, but it provides a starting point):

Pick 31: 600 points
for
Pick 65: 265 points
Future 1st rounder (assume middle of round) 430 points

The difference between those two is Seattle tossing in one of its extra 4s.

I can't imagine there has ever been a time when JS was made an offer like this and he said no. We as fans view the draft pick by pick, but JS views the draft in a 3+ year window. Even as he's looking at players in the 2015 draft right now, he's comparing them to players in 2016 and 2017.

kearly":feajmhqm said:

I can't imagine there has ever been a time when JS was made an offer like this and he said no. We as fans view the draft pick by pick, but JS views the draft in a 3+ year window. Even as he's looking at players in the 2015 draft right now, he's comparing them to players in 2016 and 2017.

Click to expand...

Really? A future 1st and a 4th or 5th round pick is not at all reasonable value for #31 at this point. If it's a deal with Oakland or Jacksonville or someone else you're pretty sure will be horrible then sure, but in general, that's a horrible trade for the Hawks.

Not this year no.

We need this draft.

No. We are in the win now mode.

Win Forever includes this year, i.e., includes Win Now, and only the balance changes from a purely Win Now.

Trading pick 31 for a first-rounder next year and a 4th or 5th-round pick is a terrible value, and JS&PC would be rightly skewered for it.

As a rule, future picks are valued at a round lower than their 'normal' value. i.e., next year's first is approximately worth this year's second (assuming similar positions within the round).

Unless somehow you're getting a pick that is going to be a top-10 pick, it doesn't make any sense. Just moving back from the end of the first to the middle of the 2nd is enough to pick up a 5th-rounder without giving up your first pick in its entirety.

jkitsune":3r64l8sf said:

Trading pick 31 for a first-rounder next year and a 4th or 5th-round pick is a terrible value, and JS&PC would be rightly skewered for it.

As a rule, future picks are valued at a round lower than their 'normal' value. i.e., next year's first is approximately worth this year's second (assuming similar positions within the round).

Unless somehow you're getting a pick that is going to be a top-10 pick, it doesn't make any sense. Just moving back from the end of the first to the middle of the 2nd is enough to pick up a 5th-rounder without giving up your first pick in its entirety.

Click to expand...

I don't think they'd be skewered for it at all. We traded #32 for #45 and #108 last year. It'd be a bit of a gamble but a trade like the one proposed would probably net us something around #10-#20 next year plus something from #100-150 this year, depending on whether it would be a 4th or a 5th.

I don't care about the 'rules', and PC and JS certainly don't. If you're going to suggest a future first is worth a second then the trade proposed isn't a whole lot different from the one we made last year on paper. However I'd argue that when 2016 draft comes around again and the value's looking typically 'meh' at #32, we'd be all too pleased to have a mid round pick. Maybe we could even trade them both to move up for one of the surefire studs - something successful teams never get a shot at.

Hasselbeck":2z3oncck said:

Not this year no.

We need this draft.

Click to expand...

Sure, but when has a late 1st round pick ever worked out for the Seahawks? I think I remember looking this up a couple years ago and the best pick Seattle ever made at the end of the first round was Pete Kendall.

PC/JS have made their hay in rounds 3-7. If they get a deal to move that crappy late first into a pick the might be top 20 next year, I don't see how that's a bad move.

kearly":a0igjt8n said:

Hasselbeck":a0igjt8n said:

Not this year no.

We need this draft.

Click to expand...

Sure, but when has a late 1st round pick ever worked out for the Seahawks? I think I remember looking this up a couple years ago and the best pick Seattle ever made at the end of the first round was Pete Kendall.

PC/JS have made their hay in rounds 3-7. If they get a deal to move that crappy late first into a pick the might be top 20 next year, I don't see how that's a bad move.

Click to expand...

Pete Kendall went 21st.

Shaun Alexander went 19th.

Manu Tuiasosopo went 18th.

Come to think of it, we haven't had a lot of low First Round picks in team history.

I know this isn't the same scenario being discussed here, but it reminded me of it:

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/1/21/5 ... rl-thomsas

It's also a reminder that while Tim Ruskell gets (deservedly) lambasted around here, this trade he made allowed JS/PC to enter a most excellent situation in their first draft together with the 'Hawks.

And finally, it's a reminder that GREAT Coordinators (Josh McDaniels in this case) can be absolute buffoons when it comes to making personnel decisions.

As for trading #31 for a "future" first rounder, it seems like it'd be worthy of consideration as long as a few variables are met:
1. Future means NEXT year.
2. There are no players on the board at 31 that John & Pete feel would be huge contributors THIS year.
3. The team we'd be trading with is projected to have a top ~20 pick next year.
4. The trading team is including one or more early round picks (2-4) this year.

To summarize, "maybe."

There are also other factors that would influence the decision such as: will Marshawn be back, what is their long-term plan for Okung, what FAs (if any) were signed prior to the draft, has RW and/or Wagner been extended...?

This is looking like a fairly weak draft, so assuming that next year's projects to be deeper (anyone?), that does make me more open to the idea.