So we got a second and fourth for the #32 first round pick

mort · May 8, 2014

?
Sorry don't have cable....

Penman96 · May 8, 2014

you don't need it, you are properly informed!

FortWorthSeahawk · May 8, 2014

That is correct; got the Vikes 2nd and 4th in the deal.

Seahawk Sailor · May 8, 2014

Yes. The Seahawks now pick in the second round at #40, and in exchange for dropping the eight positions, they get a mid-to-high fourth round pick, #108. This was a great trade!

Hawknballs · May 8, 2014

we moved down 8 spots from 32 to 40.

In return we got pick #108 / rd4 #12

MizzouHawkGal · May 8, 2014

Both high round no less. I like it.

Gametime · May 8, 2014

Great trade in a deep draft.

JS and PC for the win.

Seahawk Sailor · May 8, 2014

We now have two 2nds, two 4ths, two 5ths, and a 6th. Lots of good mid-draft choices there.

Recon_Hawk · May 8, 2014

Love the trade down. The #108th pick is solid. After Day 2 rd 2&3, John and Pete can reset their board and attack Day 3 like champs.

Seahawk Sailor · May 8, 2014

John said about the draft there were "a lot of upsets" in it, meaning they have a ton of guys they graded highly still left. Such a good time to move down a few spots for an extra pick.

hawknation2014 · May 8, 2014

I'm sure they were tempted to take their guy at No. 32. I'm glad they stuck to the plan and split the pick into two. Go Hawks!

NorthDallas40oz · May 8, 2014

Based on the trade value chart (which, granted, isn't the letter of the law) it wasn't nearly as good of a trade as it could/should have been for the Hawks. The Hawks should have also gotten the Vikes' 6th round pick to make the points match up. If the Vikes simply refused to part with any more picks (likely the case since they're not over-loaded with picks a la SF or JAX), the Hawks should have at least gotten them to trade places with us in the 5th round (their early 5 for our late 5) for added value. It was a good trade, not a great one.

jlwaters1 · May 8, 2014

NorthDallas40oz":1vqeklk9 said:
Based on the trade value chart (which, granted, isn't the letter of the law) it wasn't nearly as good of a trade as it could/should have been for the Hawks. The Hawks should have also gotten the Vikes' 6th round pick to make the points match up. If the Vikes simply refused to part with any more picks (likely the case since they're not over-loaded with picks a la SF or JAX), the Hawks should have at least gotten them to trade places with us in the 5th round (their early 5 for our late 5) for added value. It was a good trade, not a great one.

Wish they could have at least gotten a 7th rounder out of it- to make 2 additional picks

DavidSeven · May 8, 2014

NorthDallas40oz":q6b3j3be said:
Based on the trade value chart (which, granted, isn't the letter of the law) it wasn't nearly as good of a trade as it could/should have been for the Hawks. The Hawks should have also gotten the Vikes' 6th round pick to make the points match up. If the Vikes simply refused to part with any more picks (likely the case since they're not over-loaded with picks a la SF or JAX), the Hawks should have at least gotten them to trade places with us in the 5th round (their early 5 for our late 5) for added value. It was a good trade, not a great one.

The trade chart doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's only a guide. It changes every year depending on the perceived quality of the draft. Is it top heavy? Is it deep? That will change the equation. This draft is considered by many as the deepest in years. That means teams aren't too thrilled about surrendering mid-round picks. Nevertheless, the trade values were close enough anyway that hand-wringing is kind of silly.

Hawknballs · May 8, 2014

NorthDallas40oz":3gz7fdgv said:
Based on the trade value chart (which, granted, isn't the letter of the law) it wasn't nearly as good of a trade as it could/should have been for the Hawks. The Hawks should have also gotten the Vikes' 6th round pick to make the points match up. If the Vikes simply refused to part with any more picks (likely the case since they're not over-loaded with picks a la SF or JAX), the Hawks should have at least gotten them to trade places with us in the 5th round (their early 5 for our late 5) for added value. It was a good trade, not a great one.

deep draft + don't forget that he salary and cap hit of a 1st around player is higher than later rounds. We weren't negotiating from a position of power in this case

kigenzun · May 8, 2014

jlwaters1":2f1dlw38 said:
NorthDallas40oz":2f1dlw38 said:

Based on the trade value chart (which, granted, isn't the letter of the law) it wasn't nearly as good of a trade as it could/should have been for the Hawks. The Hawks should have also gotten the Vikes' 6th round pick to make the points match up. If the Vikes simply refused to part with any more picks (likely the case since they're not over-loaded with picks a la SF or JAX), the Hawks should have at least gotten them to trade places with us in the 5th round (their early 5 for our late 5) for added value. It was a good trade, not a great one.

Click to expand...

Wish they could have at least gotten a 7th rounder out of it- to make 2 additional picks

Exactly.
Receiving 40, 108, PLUS swapping 5ths,
or
40, 108, AND a 7th would have been more equitable according to "The Chart".

Perhaps this reflects the difficulty trading out of the 32slot.

It is what it is. There will be excellent players at 40 and 108. No worries.

mikeak · May 8, 2014

Hawknballs":3rizlub8 said:
NorthDallas40oz":3rizlub8 said:

Based on the trade value chart (which, granted, isn't the letter of the law) it wasn't nearly as good of a trade as it could/should have been for the Hawks. The Hawks should have also gotten the Vikes' 6th round pick to make the points match up. If the Vikes simply refused to part with any more picks (likely the case since they're not over-loaded with picks a la SF or JAX), the Hawks should have at least gotten them to trade places with us in the 5th round (their early 5 for our late 5) for added value. It was a good trade, not a great one.

Click to expand...

deep draft + don't forget that he salary and cap hit of a 1st around player is higher than later rounds. We weren't negotiating from a position of power in this case

Vikings may also have made it clear that they were taking Manziel. Then I look at it as moving down 7 spots not 8. We know that is a player we were not looking at.

TDOTSEAHAWK · May 8, 2014

The draft chart was made for a slightly different era. Having picks at the back end of draft days are harder to trade and having picks at the beginning of days is nice for the team to regroup. Overall, trading down was the best move for the Seahawks at the time so I am quite glad that it occurred.

The player they draft with 40 and 108 will more than likely be more valuable to this team than the single player drafted at 32. Therefore, the trade is a win.

tooshort · May 8, 2014

I do believe that if Carr or Bridgewater was already off the board we would have(presumably... IF Mallet isn't the Texans trade target) been able to manipulate the Vikes and Texans QB needs for another late 2014 pick or a 2015 4th rounder from the "winner".

mikeak · May 9, 2014

^ while I agree the fact that two qb's are on the board and Houston and Minnesota picking meant we only dropped 6 spots...

So we got a second and fourth for the #32 first round pick

New member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

Similar threads