KC looking to trade #1 overall?

[Guiness]

Word is that KC is, not so quietly, trying to trade out of the #1 pick.

With the rookie salary cap making the #1 pick not so much of an albatross, and no franchise QB available at #1, is this the year that pick is traded?

Last year, picks 2-7 were involved in trades, although only one trade involved a team moving into that range. The rest were swaps of picks in that range.

[MadScientist]

Word is that KC is, not so quietly, trying to trade out of the #1 pick.

With the rookie salary cap making the #1 pick not so much of an albatross, and no franchise QB available at #1, is this the year that pick is traded?

KC would like to be out, because there is no great QB, but since there is no great QB, who would trade up, and why? Just because the price is manageable, doesn't mean it is worth it.

[Guiness]

KC would like to be out, because there is no great QB, but since there is no great QB, who would trade up, and why? Just because the price is manageable, doesn't mean it is worth it.

No great QB is why someone might trade well up. You're not bidding against idiot bottom feeders trying to hit the pot of gold - read: Redskins giving up more than 3 first rounders for a college player.

If you're a team that needs an OT or DT, has good depth (can afford to give up a multiple picks in the current draft) and think Joeckel or Floyd are going to be great players, why not?

Kinda related, is there a concensus on the best DE prospect? Seems like Bjoern Werner, Star Lotulelei with Ezekiel Ansah moving up because of 'athleticism'.

[red]

who would anyone want to trade up to get though?

i'm not that impressed with anyone in the top ten or so that makes me say "OMG, lets trade multiple picks to move up to get guy A or guy B"

i'm thinking a lot of teams will be trying to get out of the top 5 or 10 just because of a real lack of top 10 talent

[MadScientist]

No great QB is why someone might trade well up. You're not bidding against idiot bottom feeders trying to hit the pot of gold - read: Redskins giving up more than 3 first rounders for a college player.

If you're a team that needs an OT or DT, has good depth (can afford to give up a multiple picks in the current draft) and think Joeckel or Floyd are going to be great players, why not?

Kinda related, is there a consensus on the best DE prospect? Seems like Bjoern Werner, Star Lotulelei with Ezekiel Ansah moving up because of 'athleticism'.

A team trading up would still have to give something close to fair value for the trade, and the teams with depth to trade a bunch to get a top pick are most likely far enough back to not be able to make a trade. Because of the cap, KC is not desperate to trade back. So here are the most likely trade options:
1) SF - lots of depth and picks, but the picks are very low, so it would take most of them to move up.
2) Minn - two 1st round picks, but they are near the end of the round so the value is not great, and Minn needs 2 picks more than 1 high pick.
3) StL - two mid 1st round picks that KC would likely take, but again StL is better off keeping the picks and getting two good players.
4) Det - only one year removed from the playoffs, and at #5, their 1st and 2nd might do it, but only if there is 1 player they value greatly over the next 4 on their board.

I can't see anyone else as a realistic possibility.

[Guiness]

A team trading up would still have to give something close to fair value for the trade, and the teams with depth to trade a bunch to get a top pick are most likely far enough back to not be able to make a trade.

If KC is stuck on the so-called 'draft pick value chart' that assigns a value of 3K to the #1 overall, and 580 to the first pick of the 2nd round, then no, a playoff team is not likely to move up. If you add up all the picks for the team that finished #21, you get under 1500 points, so a playoff team would have to give up their entire draft and more to meet that arbitrary requirement. Not that I'd advocate pulling a Ditka style move to do that, but I guess by my thinking any GM of a team that finished last overall would listen to the offer of another team's entire draft for one pick...of course, sanity does not run deep in people who run NFL franchises!

There's also a new chart, which may or not be meaningful, that assigns very different values. In it, the value of the first choice of each round, in order, is 495, 175, 128, 98, 76, 58 and 44. While I don't think it's great, because the first overall pick is worth more than 11 or 12 seventh rounders, I think it does a good job of showing, for instance, that a couple of 2nd round picks are probably of more value then a 1st rounder around the same location.

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/how-to-value-nfl-draft-picks/

4) Det - only one year removed from the playoffs, and at #5, their 1st and 2nd might do it, but only if there is 1 player they value greatly over the next 4 on their board.

They're out...no WR ranked in the top 10 from what I've seen

[Patler]

#26 + Jermichael Finley
#26 + Tramon Williams
#26 + AJ Hawk

Each should move the Packers up a fair amount.

[MadScientist]

If KC is stuck on the so-called 'draft pick value chart' that assigns a value of 3K to the #1 overall, and 580 to the first pick of the 2nd round, then no, a playoff team is not likely to move up. If you add up all the picks for the team that finished #21, you get under 1500 points, so a playoff team would have to give up their entire draft and more to meet that arbitrary requirement. Not that I'd advocate pulling a Ditka style move to do that, but I guess by my thinking any GM of a team that finished last overall would listen to the offer of another team's entire draft for one pick...of course, sanity does not run deep in people who run NFL franchises!

There's also a new chart, which may or not be meaningful, that assigns very different values. In it, the value of the first choice of each round, in order, is 495, 175, 128, 98, 76, 58 and 44. While I don't think it's great, because the first overall pick is worth more than 11 or 12 seventh rounders, I think it does a good job of showing, for instance, that a couple of 2nd round picks are probably of more value then a 1st rounder around the same location.
http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpre...l-draft-picks/

Based on that chart, SF's 1, 2, 3, and 4 would be about equal to the #1 pick. More plausible than going off the old chart, and maybe KC would pull the trigger with that set of picks. (I keep going back to SF because they have a ton of picks and are in a position where going all out for it this year makes a hell of a lot of sense.)

[Guiness]

The old value chart is stick stupid, as is anyone who takes it anywhere near literally. Under the old chart, the #1 pick overall was worth more than the entire5th, 6th and 7th rounds! I wonder if any GM outside of Millen used it, or if it was just a convenient tool for talking heads to determine if your team 'won or lost' a draft day trade immediately after it happened.

Because we all know that no matter what the chart says, if your trade up netted you a punter that didn't start, it was a bad trade!

[MadScientist]

The old value chart is stick stupid, as is anyone who takes it anywhere near literally. Under the old chart, the #1 pick overall was worth more than the entire5th, 6th and 7th rounds! I wonder if any GM outside of Millen used it, or if it was just a convenient tool for talking heads to determine if your team 'won or lost' a draft day trade immediately after it happened.

Because we all know that no matter what the chart says, if your trade up netted you a punter that didn't start, it was a bad trade!

Perhaps, but it still is a fair measure of the trades that actually happen:
http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2013/...still-relevant

Looking at the new chart, the GB - NE trade that everyone described as a big plus for GB actually swings a little for NE.

[Guiness]

Perhaps, but it still is a fair measure of the trades that actually happen:
http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2013/...still-relevant

Looking at the new chart, the GB - NE trade that everyone described as a big plus for GB actually swings a little for NE.

It might still hold value, impossible for any of us to know. In the article he says it's valid, then goes on to make excuses for the cases where it's not. If it was so important, then losing 10% of the value of your picks in a trade is just not something that would happen. I think the GMs might look at it for a rough idea, but don't let it make or break a deal. His analysis of the Minn-Cle swap of the #3 and #4 picks last year shows the Vikings taking a big hit. Does anyone really think they did themselves wrong by trading back one spot to pick up 3 extra picks?

[smuggler]

The Lions might be willing to trade up to get Joekel. Or perhaps another team with a hole at LT.

Re: pick value

I'd think that the best GMs value the players that they can take with the picks more than the picks themselves... at least with regard to the current year's draft.

For instance, this season there are a bunch of 85%-90% prospects but no 95+% prospects. if the prospects are still roughly in the 85% range at the 20th selection, you could trade back from the 10th and ANYTHING you get at all is gravy. It depends on your evaluations and grades.

Basically, make a trade partner with a team that operates in a different method.

[3irty1]

The Lions might be willing to trade up to get Joekel. Or perhaps another team with a hole at LT.

Re: pick value

I'd think that the best GMs value the players that they can take with the picks more than the picks themselves... at least with regard to the current year's draft.

For instance, this season there are a bunch of 85%-90% prospects but no 95+% prospects. if the prospects are still roughly in the 85% range at the 20th selection, you could trade back from the 10th and ANYTHING you get at all is gravy. It depends on your evaluations and grades.

Basically, make a trade partner with a team that operates in a different method.

I think we've got 2 or 3 95%+ ers but 2 of them are guards!

[Fritz]

The old value chart is stick stupid, as is anyone who takes it anywhere near literally. Under the old chart, the #1 pick overall was worth more than the entire5th, 6th and 7th rounds! I wonder if any GM outside of Millen used it, or if it was just a convenient tool for talking heads to determine if your team 'won or lost' a draft day trade immediately after it happened.

Because we all know that no matter what the chart says, if your trade up netted you a punter that didn't start, it was a bad trade!

Don't be stupid, Guiness. Nobody would ever do something that dumb.

[Bretsky]

I think the old value chart is junk based on when it was designed. The world has changed with the new collective bargaining agreement aka...rookie salary structure