What would it cost to trade up to 15 or 16?

Lynch Mob · Mar 12, 2014

I know mike Evans will be going in the top 11 picks but what about Beckham jr. At 15. Golden Tate 2.0 for Seattle in my opinion. Returning kicks and high pointing balls but with 4.4 speed. With the recent signings on defense and losing Tate it would be worth a trade up in my opinion. but I want your opinions on what it would cost Seattle to move up 17 spots?

CPHawk · Mar 12, 2014

Why would you want to trade up for Tate 2.0? Tate 1.0 took 3 years to be anything and we got him for a 2nd round pick. I would want someone much better than Tate 2.0, if we traded up in the first for him.

Mtjhoyas · Mar 12, 2014

OBJ is a better prospect than Tate was IMO. If OBJ fell to the late teens or early 20s, I'd be all over trading up for him. I really think he's a difference maker, Day 1. He fits SEA like a glove.

Hawk Finn · Mar 12, 2014

SF traded #31 & #74 for #18 last year. Curious -why trade up for a WR in one of the deepest WR classes in recent memory?

drrew · Mar 12, 2014

Hawk Finn":ehcq0nh9 said:
SF traded #31 & #74 for #18 last year. Curious -why trade up for a WR in one of the deepest WR classes in recent memory?

Even in a deep class, very few rookie receivers have productive first seasons. The best bets for immediate production are Watkins, Evans, Lee, and OBJ.

JKent82 · Mar 12, 2014

I think the only WR it'd make sense to trade up for is Evans. Which would be quite costly. (I'm ignoring Sammy) I just don't see the other guys past them as clear number ones and if you aren't getting a number one for all that draft capital it'd be pretty tough to swallow.

See what falls and go from there.

Hawk Finn · Mar 12, 2014

drrew":xo8saxcw said:
Hawk Finn":xo8saxcw said:

SF traded #31 & #74 for #18 last year. Curious -why trade up for a WR in one of the deepest WR classes in recent memory?

Click to expand...

Even in a deep class, very few rookie receivers have productive first seasons. The best bets for immediate production are Watkins, Evans, Lee, and OBJ.

I get that, but is the value really there? Just seems like an overreaction to the loss of Tate.

Mtjhoyas · Mar 12, 2014

It's a deep WR class...but at 64, we are talking about Moncrief, Bryant, Coleman; all who could become bonafide #1s or do absolutely nothing. Secure a guy like OBJ and you can rest easy for the next few years that you will definitely have a good WR corps, even if you don't have a 6'3" legit #1.

If PC/JS have a handful of 1st rounders they love; I have no problem with them being aggressive to get their guy at a certain point (let's arbitrarily say the line to trade up starts at 18). Not talking about a Julio trade. But swapping 64 for a 3rd or 4th? Go for it. We have a few areas we could use a big upgrade. Might as well attack it if it makes sense. Could be OL, WR, etc.

Lady Talon · Mar 12, 2014

I don't know if it is an overreaction in the case of Evans, at least. He might not be a spectacular burner or really route polished, but he can block, run over corners, and dominated with a scrambling, play extending QB.

With a better QB in RW both in decision making and pass placement, and defenses keying in on Harvin and Lynch, Evans could turn into a big headache for them pretty quickly.

Natethegreat · Mar 12, 2014

Evans would make this an elite WR core. In fact I would argue the best receiving core out there.

Scottemojo · Mar 12, 2014

I am not the smartest guy in the world, but in a draft this deep, giving away top 100 picks to move up and get one guy seems short sighted.

Natethegreat · Mar 12, 2014

It makes sense if your trying to get an elite playmaker rather than a couple nice ancillary pieces. We are no longer looking to fill holes all over our team (Pete even said the same after the super bowl)so it would make sense to go and get that elite guy.

HunnyBadger · Mar 12, 2014

Lynch Mob":1euoi0w8 said:
I know mike Evans will be going in the top 11 picks but what about Beckham jr. At 15. Golden Tate 2.0 for Seattle in my opinion. Returning kicks and high pointing balls but with 4.4 speed. With the recent signings on defense and losing Tate it would be worth a trade up in my opinion. but I want your opinions on what it would cost Seattle to move up 17 spots?

To answer your question... this calculator might help.

http://mockdraftable.com/pick-trade-calculator/

I didn't have the patience to put in all the pick values to balance it out, but I would guess it would take at least this years and next years 1st round picks plus a few other mid round picks.

kearly · Mar 12, 2014

Scottemojo":1y5v6956 said:
I am not the smartest guy in the world, but in a draft this deep, giving away top 100 picks to move up and get one guy seems short sighted.

Well, you can usually trade up for significantly less draft pick cost in a deeper draft because teams are competing with each other to trade down. Remember in 2011 when JS couldn't move down because nobody would give him a decent offer to move up?

Speaking of that deep 2011 draft, the Falcons moved up that year for Julio Jones.

As far as whether Seattle should move up or not, I think by the time the draft gets pretty close Seattle will have a mostly accurate idea of what their options will probably look like at #32 and #64. I do not expect them to move up, but if they do, I do not think it's because they are being shortsighted. I think they will have a pretty firm grasp on what they are giving up and will have weighed their options with measured judgement.

Hawken-Dazs · Mar 12, 2014

PCJS are too talented at what they do to trade up in the first round.

Natethegreat · Mar 12, 2014

Hawken-Dazs":3fgumrg7 said:
PCJS are too talented at what they do to trade up in the first round.

Sheesh, they just gave up a first, third, and seventh, for Harvin (not to mention a boatload of cash). The idea that they would never trade picks(or players) to trade up is absurd. If they see the value in it they will do it. They are not bound to some rule of keeping boatloads of picks.

Hawken-Dazs · Mar 12, 2014

Natethegreat":36iil0x8 said:
Hawken-Dazs":36iil0x8 said:

PCJS are too talented at what they do to trade up in the first round.

Click to expand...

Sheesh, they just gave up a first, third, and seventh, for Harvin (not to mention a boatload of cash). The idea that they would never trade picks(or players) to trade up is absurd. If they see the value in it they will do it. They are not bound to some rule of keeping boatloads of picks.

I hear you, but if they thrive at making solid picks in mid-to-late rounds, why would they bother burning all those picks to move up a few spots for one guy that could potentially be a bust.

Harvin should be an exception. He's a proven, MVP-caliber freak of nature at the NFL level.

Hawk Finn · Mar 13, 2014

Natethegreat":xpqyyz9m said:
It makes sense if your trying to get an elite playmaker rather than a couple nice ancillary pieces. We are no longer looking to fill holes all over our team (Pete even said the same after the super bowl)so it would make sense to go and get that elite guy.

I'd argue that those picks are essential in replenishing a Super Bowl roster that has seen its valuable depth depleted in free agency. But your point is taken.

Scottemojo · Mar 13, 2014

kearly":3vfpiqgn said:
Scottemojo":3vfpiqgn said:

I am not the smartest guy in the world, but in a draft this deep, giving away top 100 picks to move up and get one guy seems short sighted.

Click to expand...

Well, you can usually trade up for significantly less draft pick cost in a deeper draft because teams are competing with each other to trade down. Remember in 2011 when JS couldn't move down because nobody would give him a decent offer to move up?

Speaking of that deep 2011 draft, the Falcons moved up that year for Julio Jones.

As far as whether Seattle should move up or not, I think by the time the draft gets pretty close Seattle will have a mostly accurate idea of what their options will probably look like at #32 and #64. I do not expect them to move up, but if they do, I do not think it's because they are being shortsighted. I think they will have a pretty firm grasp on what they are giving up and will have weighed their options with measured judgement.

Last year, they did not like the options at their spot and opted to "move up" for Percy. So I know they will do it if they feel it is the right move. I can only think of two guys I would move up for in this draft, and I simply don't know if it is worth it to do so.

Attyla the Hawk · Mar 13, 2014

Scottemojo":25u2dokl said:
kearly":25u2dokl said:

Scottemojo":25u2dokl said:

I am not the smartest guy in the world, but in a draft this deep, giving away top 100 picks to move up and get one guy seems short sighted.

Click to expand...

Well, you can usually trade up for significantly less draft pick cost in a deeper draft because teams are competing with each other to trade down. Remember in 2011 when JS couldn't move down because nobody would give him a decent offer to move up?

Speaking of that deep 2011 draft, the Falcons moved up that year for Julio Jones.

As far as whether Seattle should move up or not, I think by the time the draft gets pretty close Seattle will have a mostly accurate idea of what their options will probably look like at #32 and #64. I do not expect them to move up, but if they do, I do not think it's because they are being shortsighted. I think they will have a pretty firm grasp on what they are giving up and will have weighed their options with measured judgement.

Click to expand...

Last year, they did not like the options at their spot and opted to "move up" for Percy. So I know they will do it if they feel it is the right move. I can only think of two guys I would move up for in this draft, and I simply don't know if it is worth it to do so.

I have 3 guys. But I agree, Seattle will have a pretty decent approximation of what will be available.

This draft could see a buyer's market in terms of moving up. So the standard 'costs' of moving up may not exactly apply. On the flip side, trying to move down is likely to not net as much as one would expect either.

What would it cost to trade up to 15 or 16?

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Similar threads