_2.gif "Time.com 50 Best Websites 2008")
We’ve heard from a couple of league insiders regarding the apparent efforts of some teams to revise the outdated trade chart, which was developed long before the signing of a top-five draft pick to a long-term contract entailed the sacrifice of one or more testicles.
There’s a sense in some circles that the teams backing the change are the teams hoping to trade up. As one source said, “The teams trying to have a new trade chart are teams trying to steal their way into the top ten. The teams that have those picks aren’t that stupid.”
The source’s bottom-line observation? “You will not see a noticeable difference in trade value on draft day.”
But others disagree that the changes are being driven by teams looking to find an easy way to trade up. The reality is that, under the old chart, there are hardly any trades, because the combination of picks surrendered for the ability to move up and money paid to the player drafted with the higher pick makes the transaction undesirable. Indeed, teams who would like to trade out of those big-money spots should welcome a new trade chart that allows them to move down without creating the impression that they got screwed by not getting enough value in return from the team that moved up.
As Dolphins G.M. Jeff Ireland said on Thursday at his “pillar of your defense” press conference, “I don’t necessarily know if [the current trade chart] applies to the first pick anymore because no one wants to pay that value to go up and get that pick because now you’re dealing with the economics.”
The new chart knocks down the point values for the first four picks, and raises the points for the rest of the first round, making it easier to do deals.
And if part of the motivation comes from teams looking to move up, so be it. If there’s a team out there that wants to step in one of the high-dollar spots, there should be a fair way to make it happen. Under the existing chart, the combination of money and draft picks is simply too much.
That said, we think the best way to fix the trade chart is to adopt a new point system at some point after the draft and before the start of the regular season, when everyone’s record is 0-0 and no one can be perceived as having a motivation to slant the numbers in a way that helps a given team get what it wants.
April 17th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
I can see someone like Parcells having the guts to ignore the old chart and trading down for “less value” to 1. accumulate more picks, which the Dolphins desperately need and 2. to get out of the burden of paying big bucks for some guy who may or may not end up being a good NFL player. With sites like this one and others, the average fan is now smarter than the old days and I suspect they’ll understand if Parcells gets less than fair value under the old trade chart.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 4 rating(s)
April 17th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
It seems like it’s up to each team to come up with its own trade-value chart, and to tweak it each year to account for the value of the players in that particular year’s draft. (If Peyton Manning’s in the draft, for example, the value of the No. 1 overall pick goes up). If teams place different values on picks and use different charts, that should only result in more trades, since it makes for more win-win situations (at least in the eyes of the participating parties).
P.S. — Where was Mike Lynn’s trade value chart in 1989?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 17th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
I get so annoyed with all of these stories about trade charts. Can’t NFL GMs grow a pair and make the trades they feel are best for their team? I make trades in my fantasy football league all the time and don’t rely on some stupid chart to tell me if I’m making a good deal (not exactly the same thing, I know).
The whole point of the chart is for GMs to justify to their fans and their bosses why they traded out of a spot. If somebody they traded up for is a bust or if they trade out of a spot where they could have selected an All Pro, GMs want to have the “trade looked good according to the chart” excuse.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
April 17th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Why wasn’t this a priority at the owners meeting? Or did I miss something?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 17th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
There’s no way to force people to “adopt a new point system”. The prices are set by the teams working to barter.
Of course the teams with the higher picks now are going to act like their pick is worth more and the teams with lower picks are going to act like the picks they don’t have are worth less. Maybe they believe it, maybe they don’t…but they are trying to scare up more value for the picks they own of course.
If people want to start trading more, they’ll be less worried about what the media thinks and do what they know is right.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4.5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
April 17th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Anything that any team says with the draft approaching is pretty much worthless. We could spin anything as reverse psychology, and none of us will be the smarter. Who cares.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 17th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
I was thinking they could customize the draft chart each year by having each team submit a value chart based on the strength of the class available and evolving economic considerations that year and have the first pick a set number of points, say 1000, and all the other picks valued relative to that. To prevent teams from within a division undermining the value of a rivals picks you throw out the 8 highest and 8 lowest values for each pick and average the remaining 16 values. I think the result would be significantly more trading of draft picks.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 17th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Does it really matter? If two teams are using different charts in the end, if they want to move they’re either going to be the team with the higher position and take less than the chart suggests or they’re going to be the team trying to move up and give up more. Doesn’t the simple economic principle of supply and demand win out?
You determine what it’s worth to your team to make a move and then stick with it. The chart is a lazy mans tool to determine what that value is.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
April 17th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Does anyone else think that the Todd McShay and Mel Kiper arguments are FAKE? (Sadly, I enjoy their “discussions” anyway.) ESPN builds this thing up like it’s Roe v. Wade.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 17th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Why not try something really easy, really simple? Why not let the owners, GM’s, coaches, and the entire front office of every team actually earn some of those big bucks they get paid for making their teams “the best they can be” by allowing them to show they are the best in the business? Simply toss out that stupid chart completely since it’s all subjective anyway. Let every team in every position in every round trade up, down and sideways if they like …. trade draft choices for draft choices, for players, for any combination they like. Hell, let them sell a draft choice if they choose. This way we can judge who has the best complete team….from owner right down to the scouts.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 17th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
1st round picks are too risky for the bucks they command.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 17th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Why is the market so outrageous for 1st rounders — for every Manning there is a Leaf.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 17th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
I didn’t realize the trade chart has become some immutable law like the Laws of Thermodynamics.
If any GM holds out on a trade, or refuses to bargain because he already has made an offer that matches the numbers, he deserves to be fired on the spot. What good is a GM’s, or coach’s, judgement if he refuses to use it?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
April 17th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
I agree the draft value chart teams have been using is goofed up.
But… Like with a lot of other things… who wants it? If the team that has what the other team wants most can wheedle more out of the greedy SOBs, well that is the way it works. Some times the team at the top of the picking heap wants out worse…
One obvious rule in the workplace… you want it bad… you get it bad.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 17th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
If I were the Big Tuna I’d trade out of the No.1 spot for a lot less than JJs trade chart just because of the money saved and the fact that there really is no consensus no. 1. As an EXAMPLE: everybody says Dallas’ 2 1st rounders and Marion Barber. RU kidding? Why would the Boys do that? They wouldn’t and won’t. But they might do just the two first rounders and there are a bunch of good players available there. Jeff ireland said he’s fielded a few calls about trading the pick (okay that could be BS just to perk up some ears - but let’s say it’s true) - he’d be a fool to demand the JJ trade value since there’s no player who warrants that trade value OR the money. Which is why the Fins are being smart and negotiating to get the best deal otu of one of the top four or five guys - and it will be less than last year’s No.1 (who was a undisputable No. 1 at the time and also a potential Franchise QB - not a DE or LB or LT who’s really a RT).
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 18th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Those that are criticizing the idea of even having a trade chart are missing the point. There was a reason Jimmy Johnson’s original trade chart was adopted so quickly and thoroughly. It facilitated much easier trades. This does not make the GM’s that use it lazy or stupid it makes them smart and efficient at their jobs. If you can spend an hour or two on a negotiation vs. a day or two then you can go about doing more important things and may very well have gotten a deal done that otherwise would not have gotten done.
Engineers, executives and others get training on new trends and methods all the time that serve as baselines for getting something done. This is how businesses continue to get more done every year. These things serve as starting points and are adjusted based on any given situation. In this case the chart has always been adjusted for each individual trade, not just each year. AJ Smith was criticized last year for not getting the proper “value” according to the trade chart. Well he was confident in his personnel evaluation. So he got what will end up being a starter instead of maybe a backup, some special teams no-name and some guy who might have gotten cut from the roster.
AJ adjusted the relative values of the trade base on that situation. Good GMs will always do this and having a consensus trade chart to use as a starting piont simply makes things easier.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 18th, 2008 at 8:41 am
There are teams in the NFL that do not even use a trade chart. They look at past trades and feel IF the value is there, they make the trade. Kevin Colbert of the Steelers is one of those guys. He traded a 3rd and 5th to move from 27th (680) to 16th (1000) and gave up the 92nd (132) and 200th (12.4) picks to do so. So, the Steelers gained what would equal 1000 points while giving up @925. Most of the time, the team initiating the trade (in this case, the Steelers) will overpay to get it done. This simply shows that the trade chart is just a basic tool used to help set the parameters for the deal, not absolutely lock it down.
What if Darren McFadden falls to pick #20 and the Raiders decide they want to come back and get him….do you really think they will look at that chart and NOT give up enough to move back up?
And, when a team trades a future 1st rounder to move back into the first, exactly how do you quantify that on the chart since you have no idea if it is the #1 or #32 pick next season.
The chart just gives a guideline, a rough idea, all this stuff about redoing it is much ado about nothing.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 18th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Wow, I can’t believe someone referenced the trades they make in fantasy football…because that’s relevant discussion.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 19th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Top 16 picks, net.
Top 5, net.
Bottom 16, median based on the four nearest picks.
Top 5 counted twice to reflect how important it is for the cap.
Trade Value is what it is, a way of asking for future value if you don’t match what is there immediately. The chart isn’t arbitrary, much like the Tendered and Franchise tags, it’s a way to develop a starting point for trades.
The coming agreement may change this, or the lack of agreement.
All value is relative, in Parcell’s case he has to consider less than value for the fact that it’s so far up the charts and that he’s saving cap past that position to his gain. There’s some equilibrium attached for that reason.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated