H
HardRightEdge
Guest
Like I said, the chart is a rule of thumb and a baseline. I would not expect anybody would follow it slavishly.
I question whether the rookie salary scale has changed the charts much as you suggest.
I looked at the Julio Jones trade, one the most notable draft pick trades since the rookie salary scale was installed. If you assume that Atlanta's #27 position in 2011 was going to apply again in 2012 for the future picks, Atlanta overpaid by about 400 points or about 20%, the equivalent of a mid-second round pick. That's not a big discrepancy given the scope of the trade.
I also looked at the 5 trades in the 2014 draft that involved 1st. round picks. 4 of those trades tracked very closely with the chart; they involved only 2014 picks so the positioning of each pick was known. That makes sense...no guess work on value of future picks, no discounting of future picks for "time value"...a pick now is worth more than the same pick next year for many managements.
The Watkins trade was an outlier. But it involved future picks of uncertain value. The Bills traded up to #4 with their 1st. rounder in 2014 (#9), plus their 1st. rounder in 2015, plus a 4th. rounder in 2015.
If one assumed the Bills would end up in the #9 spot again in 2015, the trade was lopsided...Watkins at 1800 points vs. the picks worth 1350 + 1350 + 84 = 2784. However, like the Julio Jones trade, Buffalo saw themselves as a playoff contender if they could get Manual another play maker, so they no doubt downgraded the value of their 2015 picks.
The Bills were right. If the draft were today, they'd be somewhere between the 18 - 20 spots in the first round. I'm not going to check the tie breaker rules so lets assume 19. That brings the Bills point value down to 2,289, a similar overpayment as in the Jones trade.
I draw a couple of conclusions.
- Trades are more likely to be close in value as defined in the chart if the trade involves only picks in that draft where the relative values are known.
- Teams that perceive themselves to be missing a key piece will pay a premium to trade up especially when it involves future picks of unknown value. Optimism and time value discounts the future picks.
- I don't see any reason not to still use the chart as a rule of thumb.
- According the chart, a team would need to trade 3 entire drafts from the #30 spot to move up for a single #1 pick. I have a hard time seeing the rookie salary scale increasing that cost.
- The chart is still better than throwing numbers at the wall.
Edit: I forgot about the RGIII trade. The Skins traded three first round picks and a #39. The Skins were picking at #6. If one assumed the future Skin first rounders would be out of the #6 slots as in 2012, the chart says this was a very lopsided trade. RGII: 2600 points; 4 Ram picks: 5310. The chart was right...the Redskins paid too much.
Last edited by a moderator:
