Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: THe NEPM Trade Up Costs by Draft Position w/Premiums
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
nephillymike
So to trade up to various spots to get MM, what would it cost? I'll explain the methodology below for anyone who is so inclined to look at it, but here's the guts of the post. What would it cost to move up?

The chart below lists fair value for a move up, including a take back (if any) to balance it out and the premium picks we would need to give up based on recent trades.

In each scenario, WE HAVE TO GIVE UP OUR 1ST, #20 IN ADDITION TO THE PICKS LISTED BELOW


Pick.........Fair Value = '15 #20 Plus.............. Premium........................................Do I Do It?
1..........2 Future 1sts, a 2015 3rd...........................1 Future 1st, 1 future 2nd 1 future 3rd.....NFW
2..........1 Future 1st, 1 future 2nd, 2015 2nd.........1 future 1st, 1 future 2nd..........................NFW
3..........1 future 1st, 2015 2nd...............................1 future 2nd, future 4th, future 5th...........No
4..........1 future 1st ...............................................1 future 2nd, future 4th, ..........................Maybe
5..........1 future 1st, swap 2015 2nd's.....................1 future 3rd..............................................Yes
6..........2015 2nd, Future 2nd, take back '15 5th.....1 future 3rd..............................................Yes
7..........2015 2nd, Future 3rd, future 4th.................1 2015 4th...............................................Yes
8..........2015 2nd, 2015 3rd....................................1 Future 5th.............................................Yes
9..........2015 2nd, 2015 3rd, take back '15 5th........1 Future 5th.............................................Yes
10........2015 2nd, 2015 4th....................................1 Future 5th.............................................Yes
11........2015 2nd, 2015 6th....................................1 Future 6th.............................................Yes
12........2015 2nd, take back '15 6th........................1 Future 6th.............................................Yes
13........2015 2nd, take back '15 4th........................1 Future 6th.............................................Yes
14........2015 3rd, 4th and 6th.................................1 Future 6th.............................................Yes
15........2015 3rd, 2015 5th.....................................1 Future 6th.............................................Yes

I'm interested where is the yes/no line for others. At #4 I think seriously about it at #5 I'm a "yes". Where is your line? Where do you think Chip's line is? My guess is his line is #3 being a yes, 1 and 2 a no.

Anyone?
=====================================================================
METHODOLOGY
Everyone's Aware of the Trade Value Chart Developed by Jimmy Johnson and used by NFL teams since then. If you need to reference it, click here: http://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp

It's not difficult to figure out the draft pick math, but the thing that you need history to get a feel for is the premiums that are paid to move up to the top 9 pick of the draft. By looking at past trade ups of the last three years where team move up to a spot in the top nine, here are the premiums paid in draft trade value points and what pick equals that premium number. With the exception of the trade ups to the 6th spot, which there were two, each of these premiums are for only one trade up. Limited, yes. But it does give you an idea.

Move up to #1 has not been done in last three years.

Move up to #2 has gotten a premium of 1,510 points, which equals the 7th pick in the draft, a high 1st rounder. This was the infamous RG3 trade where the Rams pants the Skins. The outcome of this should bring the premium down in the future as it was obvious they overpaid.

Move up to #3 has gotten a premium of 520 pts, which equals the 38th pick of the draft, a high 2nd.

Move up to #4 has gotten a premium of 615 pts, which equals the 30th pick of the draft, a low 1st.

Move up to #5 has gotten a DISCOUNT of 104 pts, which equals the 99th pick of the draft, a high 4th.

Move up to #6 has gotten a premium of 230 pts, which equals the 72nd pick of the draft, a high 3rd.

There have been no trade ups to #7 in the last three years

Move up to #8 has gotten a premium of 13 points, which equals the 200th pick of the draft, a low 6th.

There were no move ups to #9.

In the scenarios above, I always give up the highest round pick first as that is more realistic of what teams would want. For example, a trading partner would want a first round pick worth 850 points, rather than the sum of two 2nds and a 3rd that would add up close to the same.

Also, you may see a scenario where we give up our 2015 5th but take back a 5th from the other team. Why? They are not a wash. Since our team is drafting lower than those we're trading with, their 5th is worth more than ours. I use offsets to balance out the trade points
samaroo
I'm pretty much in line with you at where I say "yes," but read an interesting offer on 24/7 today. What about a trade with TEN, but instead of 2 Future 1st, 2 future 2nd, and a 2015 2nd, we give them Bradford and some mix of Boykin/Curry/Kendricks. The thinking was that TEN has a lot of holes, especially at QB, CB and pass rusher. Would our 1st this year + Bradford + Boykin + 2016 1st be enough? And would you do THAT? What about if we had to throw in Curry?

I'd have to seriously consider it, at least.
nephillymike
QUOTE (samaroo @ Apr 10 2015, 10:10 PM) *
I'm pretty much in line with you at where I say "yes," but read an interesting offer on 24/7 today. What about a trade with TEN, but instead of 2 Future 1st, 2 future 2nd, and a 2015 2nd, we give them Bradford and some mix of Boykin/Curry/Kendricks. The thinking was that TEN has a lot of holes, especially at QB, CB and pass rusher. Would our 1st this year + Bradford + Boykin + 2016 1st be enough? And would you do THAT? What about if we had to throw in Curry?

I'd have to seriously consider it, at least.


The trade you are proposing, I would do in a heart beat. But they won't. Due to the RG3 trade, the premium listed to get to #2 based on that trade is inflated. So maybe the premium goes down by a 2nd round pick.

If that's the case, let's try to match it up:

According to the above scenarios, we would need to give up the following to get to #2:

#20 this year
2 future 1st round picks
Our 2nd round this year
2 future 2nd round picks - one 2nd round pick assumes it was over priced from RG3 = 1 future 2nd.

#20 this year - no brainer
Assume Bradford is valued at a future 1st, and with our pick, that would likely be bottom half. OK, I'll give you that.
Assume Kendricks gets you a 2nd round pick. He was a 2nd and has played well so far, so I'll give you that.

Now you are talking giving up Boykin and/or Curry. On their own, I don't think either gets you more than a 4th. And let's say they each net a 4th, it's not like 2 4th = a 3rd so we haven't done much in that regard. If I throw them in, and all agree the RG3 guideline is whacked, then here's where the balance of trade is:

We would owe them another future 1st and a future 2nd but if we gave up Curry and Boykin, we;d get two 4ths back.

I still see us way short. Need to ante up another 1st and 2nd.

Now I don't do this BUT if we trade Mathis, that would solve a 2.

Still leaves us a 1st short. The only guy worth that is Cox.

So:
#20
Bradford (1st)
Kendricks (2nd)
Mathis (2nd)
Cox (1st)
Boykin (4th)
Curry (4th)

For Mariota and 2 4ths or Keep Curry and Boykin and just get Mariota.

I can't do it.

I'd much prefer to give them the pics which are crapshoots and keep the guys we know can play.

I'll buy Bradford's plane ticket, but I can't part with Cox or Mathis. They are too instrumental in our bid to win this year.

What if we ship the Oklahoma pair out to TEN? Murray would get us back that 1st!!

Again, I'd prefer the player. I doubt RB Matthews is worth a 2nd.

I can't see a TEN trade working out.

Too rich for my blood.

But on the bright side, two reasonable people, you and I, each go get him at #5 for sure or #4 maybe.

If that is the case, there's a good shot we get him, IMO.




samaroo
Damn, I was hoping that would math out better. Isn't it weird that fans seem to overvalue their players? Strange...

If I'm in charge, I say we need Mathis (this year) and Cox (this year and beyond), so I don't trade them.

Curry is more interesting. I really like him, and he's really coming along, but if he gets us MM, then I say do it.

Kendricks is the same as Curry.

Boykin is tradeable. There's no way he signs here again to play nickel. He's gone next year, so if we can get something for him now, do it.

Bradford is a no-brainer trade. Sprinkle some fairy dust and turn him into MM. Later!

So, you're saying (for my scenario) we need Bradford, Boykin, Curry, Kendricks, our #20, and 2016 1st and 2nd? Or am I short a 1st? I'd have to think about it real hard, but I might do that??? Maybe??? I don't know.

Any way we can parlay with Cleveland and come up with something better for Tennessee? I don't see anything other than Bradford for one of their 1st's, which seems worse to me from TEN's percpective, cause then they don't get a QB.

Man, you're bumming me out, I really want MM. Here's to hoping he goes the way of Rodgers/Bridgewater! Slide baby slide!!!
Eyrie
Surely Bradford should be valued as a current first round pick rather than a future first round pick, which will increase his value in a trade? Cleveland are heavily rumoured to be interested in exchange for #19.

#19 and #20 would total 1725 points, so adding next year's second (equivalent to a mid-third this year) takes us to 1900 points and enough for picks 4-6.

If Kelly is that convinced that Mariota can be our franchise QB, then that trade may interest me as it leaves us the chance to address some of our many other holes this year. The downside is that we can effectively write off 2015 as Mariota adapts to life in the NFL, whether or not that means using Sanchez in a Pederson role for the first half dozen games.

I'm still to be convinced that Mariota is the answer, but fortunately for the Eagles I'm not making the decisions.
Zero
I'm still in the DON'T column. If he falls to us or to a spot where a reasonable trade (our first and a second) then I'm OK with the gamble. But he's still an unknown NFL quantity and the Eagles needs are too great to give up so much. The offense was dynamic without him, I'm lost at giving up so much for him. Draft another QB and groom him, don't rush him.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 11 2015, 05:47 AM) *
I'm still in the DON'T column. If he falls to us or to a spot where a reasonable trade (our first and a second) then I'm OK with the gamble. But he's still an unknown NFL quantity and the Eagles needs are too great to give up so much. The offense was dynamic without him, I'm lost at giving up so much for him. Draft another QB and groom him, don't rush him.


so it looks like if he drops to #11 you are in. anything higher than that and you are out?
nephillymike
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Apr 11 2015, 04:55 AM) *
Surely Bradford should be valued as a current first round pick rather than a future first round pick, which will increase his value in a trade? Cleveland are heavily rumoured to be interested in exchange for #19.

#19 and #20 would total 1725 points, so adding next year's second (equivalent to a mid-third this year) takes us to 1900 points and enough for picks 4-6.

If Kelly is that convinced that Mariota can be our franchise QB, then that trade may interest me as it leaves us the chance to address some of our many other holes this year. The downside is that we can effectively write off 2015 as Mariota adapts to life in the NFL, whether or not that means using Sanchez in a Pederson role for the first half dozen games.

I'm still to be convinced that Mariota is the answer, but fortunately for the Eagles I'm not making the decisions.



You need to account for the premiums. After you match the point value, then you need to add in the premium.

In an odd twist, future picks are normally thought to be the 16th pick of any round. so technically, next year's 16th is more valuable then this year's 20th, IF teams follow that convention like they have in the past.
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 11 2015, 08:52 AM) *
so it looks like if he drops to #11 you are in. anything higher than that and you are out?

I'd probably be OK with 10 too. That would give the Eagles their #3, STL #5, #5, #6 and #7 this year. The risk/reward factor is far less of a gamble if he flops. Then again, if you're just talking picks, so if they trade Bradford to Cleveland for #19 the deal becomes awesome ... I'd really like to see if they can find a way to recover that #2 value in 2016 that they surrendered for Bradford and #19 would do it with a bonus.
Zero
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Apr 11 2015, 05:55 AM) *
Surely Bradford should be valued as a current first round pick rather than a future first round pick, which will increase his value in a trade? Cleveland are heavily rumoured to be interested in exchange for #19.

#19 and #20 would total 1725 points, so adding next year's second (equivalent to a mid-third this year) takes us to 1900 points and enough for picks 4-6.

If Kelly is that convinced that Mariota can be our franchise QB, then that trade may interest me as it leaves us the chance to address some of our many other holes this year. The downside is that we can effectively write off 2015 as Mariota adapts to life in the NFL, whether or not that means using Sanchez in a Pederson role for the first half dozen games.

I'm still to be convinced that Mariota is the answer, but fortunately for the Eagles I'm not making the decisions.
Didn't we give up 2016 #2 for Bradford? If we could do #19, #20 and our #5 would that be a closer?
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 11 2015, 09:02 AM) *
Didn't we give up 2016 #2 for Bradford? If we could do #19, #20 and our #5 would that be a closer?



Was that conditional depending his playing time?

When I get time I will look it up.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 11 2015, 08:59 AM) *
I'd probably be OK with 10 too. That would give the Eagles their #3, STL #5, #5, #6 and #7 this year. The risk/reward factor is far less of a gamble if he flops. Then again, if you're just talking picks, so if they trade Bradford to Cleveland for #19 the deal becomes awesome ... I'd really like to see if they can find a way to recover that #2 value in 2016 that they surrendered for Bradford and #19 would do it with a bonus.



My nightmare is the trade doesn't go through and we have Bradford and his $13M salary and all the lost opportunity that salary entails and his rehab goes slow and instead of being ready by training camp he takes an extra few weeks and we have Sanchez to start the season with a recovering Bradford with little system training being the back up.
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 11 2015, 12:57 PM) *
My nightmare is the trade doesn't go through and we have Bradford and his $13M salary and all the lost opportunity that salary entails and his rehab goes slow and instead of being ready by training camp he takes an extra few weeks and we have Sanchez to start the season with a recovering Bradford with little system training being the back up.
I'm not worried about that. I still think Mariota will go to either Tampa or #2 to Tennessee or someone who can offer a better deal than the Eagles and I'm OK with that. Bradford will either surprise people by playing well or be your nightmare and go away in '16. There are a couple of QBs in the draft that could do well with a year or two of good coaching ... that's the Sanchez contract. If we accept that the team isn't winning the SB this year that isn't a problem and if they draft well they strengthen the team long term.

BTW, if Cleveland doesn't get MM they may still deal for Bradford. If it's #19 we're that much better off. That said, I still think Bradford can play well in this system and I hope he stays healthy enough to prove it.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 11 2015, 01:21 PM) *
I'm not worried about that. I still think Mariota will go to either Tampa or #2 to Tennessee or someone who can offer a better deal than the Eagles and I'm OK with that. Bradford will either surprise people by playing well or be your nightmare and go away in '16. There are a couple of QBs in the draft that could do well with a year or two of good coaching ... that's the Sanchez contract. If we accept that the team isn't winning the SB this year that isn't a problem and if they draft well they strengthen the team long term.

BTW, if Cleveland doesn't get MM they may still deal for Bradford. If it's #19 we're that much better off. That said, I still think Bradford can play well in this system and I hope he stays healthy enough to prove it.



So if CLE and us can't get MM, you think we should trade Bradford to CLE for #19?

I'd have to think about that. It would be nice having the consecutive 19 and 20th picks on one hand, but on the other hand, it's just two guys with only a so so chance to be anything special. Maybe at that point we hang on to Bradford for a year and see if he can produce. I don't know, that would be an unattractive option to me.

MM is made for this offense. His legs, his decision making, his familiarity. It would be nice to see a guy like that play for us and aside from Brady, Manning and Brees, Chip may want MM more than anyone else in the QB field.

Fingers crossed here in NE Philly..............................
samaroo
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 12 2015, 03:49 AM) *
So if CLE and us can't get MM, you think we should trade Bradford to CLE for #19?

I'd have to think about that. It would be nice having the consecutive 19 and 20th picks on one hand, but on the other hand, it's just two guys with only a so so chance to be anything special. Maybe at that point we hang on to Bradford for a year and see if he can produce. I don't know, that would be an unattractive option to me.


Unattractive? I'd gladly ship our $13M peg-leg QB for #19. Consecutive 1st's means either a package to move up to grab a no-brainer starter, or a solid pick and a "gamble" with a huge upside. Or a trade back for a handful of other picks. There's so many options there. If we can't get MM, that's the next best scenario to me.

QUOTE
Fingers crossed here in NE Philly..............................


Crossed in Japan as well!
Zero
This seems to make sense. Outside of moving up for MM, there doesn't seem to be sure-fire, blue chip, can't miss talent at 20. There does appear to be high potential of somewhat equal level at PON from the middle of round 1 to the middle of round 2. Following Chip's 'questionable' off season moves, there may be several teams that want to trade with him for a player they covet. On that point, I'm not convinced that Kelly blundered on those off season moves, maybe (hope springs eternal) he was being crafty and has been setting the table. (Yep, I'm an optimist.)
QUOTE
I wouldn’t be stunned if the Eagles traded back to acquire picks and fill more positions of need than sitting at 20 and taking someone who might not be the best player at his position or the best fit for Kelly’s scheme and program.

Guys the Eagles have scouted heavily — UConn corner Byron Jones, USC wideout Nelson Agholor, UCLA quarterback Brett Hundley, Utah defensive back Eric Rowe — might not be worthy of the 20th-overall pick but also could be off the board when the Eagles pick again, at 52nd overall. It might be more beneficial of the Eagles to move down and get another second-round pick in return to get the guys they desire without reaching.

At the owners meetings last month in Arizona, Kelly may have foreshadowed a move down in the first round.

“More players are better than one player, philosophically,” he said when asked about the dangers of trading up and losing picks. “The history of the game, study all the trades. What set the Cowboys [of the 1990s] going forward? They traded one player for multiple players.

“I’ve got a better chance of hitting if [I] have more draft picks than if you have less draft picks. That’s basically it, philosophically.”
Linc ...
nephillymike
The latest news from Mark Eckel is the following trade up:

Eagles trade Bradford to CLE for the #19

We then trade the #19, #20, Fletcher Cox and Michael Kendricks to TEN for the #2 pick.

Would you??

Joe D asked Clayton and Caplan tonight and they both said it wasn't enough. Ouch.

I would do that. Reason is, Kendricks isn't in our plans. We don't have the luxury of having an extra starting ILB. Also, we gain 13M in cap less a few mill for getting rid of Bradford for Mariota.

How does this compare to what is fair based on the chart above?

To go from #20 to #2, we would need to give up:

The #20 plus:

Two 1st's and 3 2nd's. Cox washes one of the 1st's, #19 for one of the 1st's, Kendricks one of the 2nd's.

This leaves us short two 2nd's. However, the fact that Cox and Kendricks are proven players and not crap shoots should eliminate one of the 2nd's. That leaves us one more 2nd short.

Do you do it if it costs another 2nd?

I think that would be deal breaker for me, especially since we already gave up a second for Bradford.

What say you?
samaroo
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 25 2015, 11:26 AM) *
The latest news from Mark Eckel is the following trade up:

Eagles trade Bradford to CLE for the #19

We then trade the #19, #20, Fletcher Cox and Michael Kendricks to TEN for the #2 pick.

Would you??

Joe D asked Clayton and Caplan tonight and they both said it wasn't enough. Ouch.

I would do that. Reason is, Kendricks isn't in our plans. We don't have the luxury of having an extra starting ILB. Also, we gain 13M in cap less a few mill for getting rid of Bradford for Mariota.

How does this compare to what is fair based on the chart above?

To go from #20 to #2, we would need to give up:

The #20 plus:

Two 1st's and 3 2nd's. Cox washes one of the 1st's, #19 for one of the 1st's, Kendricks one of the 2nd's.

This leaves us short two 2nd's. However, the fact that Cox and Kendricks are proven players and not crap shoots should eliminate one of the 2nd's. That leaves us one more 2nd short.

Do you do it if it costs another 2nd?

I think that would be deal breaker for me, especially since we already gave up a second for Bradford.

What say you?

I think I still do that deal, even if it costs us another 2nd. Although, I'm still not sure if we get that 2nd back if Bradford gets traded. That seems too convenient to be true.

I read somewhere today that the old trade chart is garbage now, and that premiums aren't as needed because of the new rookie pay scale. Players being "signable" isn't a concern anymore, so it evens out. It explains why there are more 1st round trades nowadays.

Anyway, I would do that deal. Having a franchise QB is the most important thing for an NFL team. If Chip thinks MM can be that, then get it done. I'll miss Kendricks, but he's expendable. I'll really miss Cox, but he's not the difference between us and a SB.

Counter offer: what about some combo of Boykin/Curry/later pick instead of that 2nd. Say, Boykin and a 5th, or something along those lines. I'd be happier with that.
nephillymike
QUOTE (samaroo @ Apr 24 2015, 10:22 PM) *
I think I still do that deal, even if it costs us another 2nd. Although, I'm still not sure if we get that 2nd back if Bradford gets traded. That seems too convenient to be true.

I read somewhere today that the old trade chart is garbage now, and that premiums aren't as needed because of the new rookie pay scale. Players being "signable" isn't a concern anymore, so it evens out. It explains why there are more 1st round trades nowadays.

Anyway, I would do that deal. Having a franchise QB is the most important thing for an NFL team. If Chip thinks MM can be that, then get it done. I'll miss Kendricks, but he's expendable. I'll really miss Cox, but he's not the difference between us and a SB.

Counter offer: what about some combo of Boykin/Curry/later pick instead of that 2nd. Say, Boykin and a 5th, or something along those lines. I'd be happier with that.


I would be OK and would give up your counter offer. I forgot about the Bradford pay back, It would be nice to get a pick back.

I also would be happy with the lower premium. Any thing that makes it less painful.
Zero
You both just glaze over the loss of Cox. I can take losing Kendricks with Ryans resigned and Alonzo expected to be healthy. I like Kendricks but I can see the logic if you believe you're getting a franchise QB. Cox is becoming a dominant DT on a defense that, although is improving is still suspect. Those kind of players aren't as hard to get as a QB but they're still valuable and not easy to find.

I thought I heard Missanelli say we give up Cox, Kendricks, Bradford in a three way deal that allows us to keep 20 and get Mariota.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 25 2015, 05:39 AM) *
You both just glaze over the loss of Cox. I can take losing Kendricks with Ryans resigned and Alonzo expected to be healthy. I like Kendricks but I can see the logic if you believe you're getting a franchise QB. Cox is becoming a dominant DT on a defense that, although is improving is still suspect. Those kind of players aren't as hard to get as a QB but they're still valuable and not easy to find.

I thought I heard Missanelli say we give up Cox, Kendricks, Bradford in a three way deal that allows us to keep 20 and get Mariota.


Didn't hear the part about keeping 20. I heard that Bradford gets us #19 and then both 19 and 20 go with the two players to land Mariota.
Zero
With needs at WR and DB and DL if we trade Cox, I'd be much a lot happier if we kept 20 and wouldn't be sad if they trade down to get more picks.
mcnabbulous
I want MM as much as anyone, but I'd have a tough time stomaching including Cox in any deal to get him.
samaroo
I agree with all regarding Cox. He's becoming a top-tier disruptive force on D, and he's young. I want that guy on the team. But as Jimmy K said: "Franchise QB > DT."

I'm not glossing over his loss. He would be missed, and our D would suffer for his loss. But if Cox is the difference between getting a franchise QB or not, ship him. But I'd rather send Boykin + Curry + later pick than Cox by himself.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.