Tweet
The math here bears mentioning.
The deal Thompson was purportedly offered
Packers give up: 16, 47, and 78.
Packers total value: 1,560 points.
Browns give up: 36 and 67 (820 points) and future 1st round pick (600 points)
Browns total value: 1,420 points.
Winner: Browns, by 140 points, approximately worth a 3rd round pick.
The deal the Cowboys got
Cowboys give up: 22
Cowboys total value: 800
Browns give up: 36 and future 1st round pick
Browns total value: 1160
Winner: Cowboys, by 360 points, approximately a 2nd round pick.
The Deal the Cowboys got, if it was offered to the Packers
Packers give up: 16
Packers total value: 1000
Browns give up: 36 and future 1st round pick
Browns total value: 1160
Winner: Packers by 160 points, approximately a 3rd round pick.
So if we took the deal Thompson was offered, the points chart says we're approximately losing by a third round pick, this is not a good trade. On the other hand, Dallas basically won by a second round pick, which is a huge trade, I'd do that in a second. Even if the Packers took the deal the Cowboys got we'd win by a third round pick, and I'd take that too. But I would never ever trade a first round pick in a trade that's a net loss. If Thompson took the trade that Cleveland reportedly offered initially, we would have good reason to criticize this year, and we'd have very good reason to criticize him next year if the player he took with the extra first doesn't make an immediate impact, since you'd certainly expect whoever he took at 16 to be making an impact in his second year.
Assuming the swap 2nd and 3rd round picks story is true, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Cleveland consistently tried to lowball teams from Green Bay up to Dallas, since the reported offer was clearly a lowball offer. Keep in mind that in response to the lowball offer Thompson has absolutely no leverage, since Cleveland has 5 more teams to offer the same lowball offer to. They have no reason to up the ante if Thompson doesn't want the trade they offer, which is (by the numbers) a trade he loses in. Not everybody uses the same points chart, but the ones that are publicly available are, according to several sources, "pretty good approximations of the real ones".
So in response to my own question, I'm unhappy with deal 1), since it's a loss, but I'd take deal 2) in a second. The Cowboys got away with a fleecing. If we were picking 22 instead of 16, we could have gotten away with a similar fleecing since then we'd have leverage, but picking at 16 we have none as far as Cleveland is concerned.
I would be very unhappy if the GM of my team made any trade that (by the points) they lost by as much as a first day pick, particularly if the trade does not net me a player that I am high on. Since TT making the trade that was apparently offered would result in him netting no additional players this year, I would have been very unhappy with him if he had made that deal.
N.B.
The traditional means for scoring a future pick, is that it's valued at the same position that team is picking in the given round this year, but one round lower. So the Browns future first is graded out as the 3rd pick in the 2nd round next year. There are a couple of reasons for this. Firstly, there's the uncertainty in where the team that's giving up the pick will be selecting next year. Teams traditionally trade up, particularly in the early rounds, to get cogs that they feel will make them much much better. Logically, the team giving up the pick this year would assume that they're right, and in order to protect themselves assume that the team getting their pick will be much better, since the team that gave up the pick will be doing everything in their power to devalue that pick over the course of the season. Plus the future pick does not have any clear value to the team picking in that spot, since they don't know what their needs will be in the future, where they will be picking in the future, or who will be available and/or attractive in the future. Secondly, a team holding a pick is under no compunction to trade it away for picks not in this draft. You get one pick in every round, and you're not entitled to anybody else's. To give up value now, the deal has to be almost certainly in the favor of the team giving up the pick, particularly since most teams which are liable to trade away picks for future picks (particularly in the first round, since bad teams never trade away their first round picks for future considerations) are teams that consider themselves potential contenders for this year, assuming the addition of a cog or two. To sacrifice a pick that might be a cog to help you contend, you need to be clearly a winner in the deal where you lose the pick without receiving commensurate consideration in this draft. Since the season hasn't happened yet, almost all teams will value "impact in this coming season" over "ill-defined impact in the seasons following this one", coaches and GM can lose their jobs in a season, after all, and "I set us up well to win eventually" isn't going to fix a disappointing season.
The deal Thompson was purportedly offered
Packers give up: 16, 47, and 78.
Packers total value: 1,560 points.
Browns give up: 36 and 67 (820 points) and future 1st round pick (600 points)
Browns total value: 1,420 points.
Winner: Browns, by 140 points, approximately worth a 3rd round pick.
The deal the Cowboys got
Cowboys give up: 22
Cowboys total value: 800
Browns give up: 36 and future 1st round pick
Browns total value: 1160
Winner: Cowboys, by 360 points, approximately a 2nd round pick.
The Deal the Cowboys got, if it was offered to the Packers
Packers give up: 16
Packers total value: 1000
Browns give up: 36 and future 1st round pick
Browns total value: 1160
Winner: Packers by 160 points, approximately a 3rd round pick.
So if we took the deal Thompson was offered, the points chart says we're approximately losing by a third round pick, this is not a good trade. On the other hand, Dallas basically won by a second round pick, which is a huge trade, I'd do that in a second. Even if the Packers took the deal the Cowboys got we'd win by a third round pick, and I'd take that too. But I would never ever trade a first round pick in a trade that's a net loss. If Thompson took the trade that Cleveland reportedly offered initially, we would have good reason to criticize this year, and we'd have very good reason to criticize him next year if the player he took with the extra first doesn't make an immediate impact, since you'd certainly expect whoever he took at 16 to be making an impact in his second year.
Assuming the swap 2nd and 3rd round picks story is true, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Cleveland consistently tried to lowball teams from Green Bay up to Dallas, since the reported offer was clearly a lowball offer. Keep in mind that in response to the lowball offer Thompson has absolutely no leverage, since Cleveland has 5 more teams to offer the same lowball offer to. They have no reason to up the ante if Thompson doesn't want the trade they offer, which is (by the numbers) a trade he loses in. Not everybody uses the same points chart, but the ones that are publicly available are, according to several sources, "pretty good approximations of the real ones".
So in response to my own question, I'm unhappy with deal 1), since it's a loss, but I'd take deal 2) in a second. The Cowboys got away with a fleecing. If we were picking 22 instead of 16, we could have gotten away with a similar fleecing since then we'd have leverage, but picking at 16 we have none as far as Cleveland is concerned.
I would be very unhappy if the GM of my team made any trade that (by the points) they lost by as much as a first day pick, particularly if the trade does not net me a player that I am high on. Since TT making the trade that was apparently offered would result in him netting no additional players this year, I would have been very unhappy with him if he had made that deal.
N.B.
The traditional means for scoring a future pick, is that it's valued at the same position that team is picking in the given round this year, but one round lower. So the Browns future first is graded out as the 3rd pick in the 2nd round next year. There are a couple of reasons for this. Firstly, there's the uncertainty in where the team that's giving up the pick will be selecting next year. Teams traditionally trade up, particularly in the early rounds, to get cogs that they feel will make them much much better. Logically, the team giving up the pick this year would assume that they're right, and in order to protect themselves assume that the team getting their pick will be much better, since the team that gave up the pick will be doing everything in their power to devalue that pick over the course of the season. Plus the future pick does not have any clear value to the team picking in that spot, since they don't know what their needs will be in the future, where they will be picking in the future, or who will be available and/or attractive in the future. Secondly, a team holding a pick is under no compunction to trade it away for picks not in this draft. You get one pick in every round, and you're not entitled to anybody else's. To give up value now, the deal has to be almost certainly in the favor of the team giving up the pick, particularly since most teams which are liable to trade away picks for future picks (particularly in the first round, since bad teams never trade away their first round picks for future considerations) are teams that consider themselves potential contenders for this year, assuming the addition of a cog or two. To sacrifice a pick that might be a cog to help you contend, you need to be clearly a winner in the deal where you lose the pick without receiving commensurate consideration in this draft. Since the season hasn't happened yet, almost all teams will value "impact in this coming season" over "ill-defined impact in the seasons following this one", coaches and GM can lose their jobs in a season, after all, and "I set us up well to win eventually" isn't going to fix a disappointing season.
Comment