2013 Rookie Draft Pick Value Chart (including value of 2014 picks) (1 Viewer)

[Sigmund Bloom]

Would love to hear your thoughts

 

[FreeBaGeL]

It's an interesting take on it to tie it to the specific year and your specific value of the players in each spot.

However, the weakness in that is that it ends up not working in a lot of places where people don't follow your value/tiering. For instance, I personally have a clear guy that I like at 1.01 so there's no way I'd even dream of moving the 1.01 for 1.02 + 4.12. In general, I think the really late picks have too much value.

Likewise, a lot of people have a 1st tier that is 7 deep this year. The pick chart says that 1.01+4.06 for 1.06+1.07 would work, and that 1.01 for 1.08+1.09+4.01 would work. I think that people would view those trades very differently. There's a huge difference between getting two of the guys from that big first tier and getting none of the guys from that big first tier, and it's being manipulated in this case with a couple of late round throwaway picks. The value of those 3rd/4th rounders really needs to be dropped.

In general I think I prefer Spin's version slightly because it seems like there were less trades where I could manipulate the points into something that was clearly unfair. That said, this is overall really helpful as well and far surpasses anything else on this front I've seen prior to that one (in any year). I would feel comfortable taking this and applying it when trying to come up with trade offers and I think that, in most cases, as long as I just ignore those late picks altogether it would give me a pretty accurate depiction of what is fair.

I don't think we've ever really had a rookie pick chart that was useful before so it's kind of crazy to get two in the same week.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

It's an interesting take on it to tie it to the specific year and your specific value of the players in each spot.

However, the weakness in that is that it ends up not working in a lot of places where people don't follow your value/tiering. For instance, I personally have a clear guy that I like at 1.01 so there's no way I'd even dream of moving the 1.01 for 1.02 + 4.12. In general, I think the really late picks have too much value.

Likewise, a lot of people have a 1st tier that is 7 deep this year. The pick chart says that 1.01+4.06 for 1.06+1.07 would work, and that 1.01 for 1.08+1.09+4.01 would work. I think that people would view those trades very differently. There's a huge difference between getting two of the guys from that big first tier and getting none of the guys from that big first tier, and it's being manipulated in this case with a couple of late round throwaway picks. The value of those 3rd/4th rounders really needs to be dropped.

In general I think I prefer Spin's version slightly because it seems like there were less trades where I could manipulate the points into something that was clearly unfair. That said, this is overall really helpful as well and far surpasses anything else on this front I've seen prior to that one (in any year). I would feel comfortable taking this and applying it when trying to come up with trade offers and I think that, in most cases, as long as I just ignore those late picks altogether it would give me a pretty accurate depiction of what is fair.

I don't think we've ever really had a rookie pick chart that was useful before so it's kind of crazy to get two in the same week.

FB, I think you hit it. take my chart or spin's or any other one as a starting point, and then alter the values for your own tiering. Also the point values are a rough estimation and certainly shouldn't cause someone to go in the opposite direction of their instincts. What I mainly hope to accomplish with this is to give folks an idea of whether an offer they got is fair, and what to float as a fair opening trade offer if you are initiating talks (or as a counteroffer)

 

[The Comedian]

I think if you/other writers came out with one of these each year, it would be a useful tool. Obviously it's all subjective, that's not a flaw as anything like this is going to be subjective, but it's a nice added dimension to the straight up rankings.

 

[Chad Parsons]

I did a historical rookie draft value chart going back to 2004. The curve is steep at the very top (based on ADP) in general. The chart posted still has a steep curve as if this is a typical set of rookies. I would argue that this year starts outside the top-3 of most normal classes, making the value curve quite flat through the first 10-15 players (depending on personal preference).

 

[Caveman_Nick]

I use my own rookie draft chart system, based loosely on the design of the leagues I play in.

Some of the things these leagues have in common:

- they are all 16 team leagues, with large rosters and 3 year taxi squads

- they are all IDP leagues

- They all have contract caps

- The rookie drafts do not snake

- Each league distributes money to franchises right before the Rookie draft, but after RFA every season. Money in a team's bank never leaves.

My draft chart assigns a cash number to each draft slot, or rather a percentage of the yearly cap that I might choose to spend to acquire a pick. I tried to make a chart that was agnostic in terms of players. My feeling was that I will know when a pick is on the clock if there is a player that I think is worth more or less than the amount of cash assigned. I also wanted to clear my head of who I might be trying to target when I was trading for future picks, so that I did not make things overly complicated.

I just wanted to boil things down to an easy system. Everything costs money, so this was the easiest thing to relate back to. I assign the 1.01 pick 100% of the cap, and everything else alighns from that.

I realize that in a draft like this year's that paying 100% of your cash allotment for the 1.01 pick is ludicrous, and when push comes to shove I would make a mental adjustment. I also know that in years like when AD came out, the chance to own him for his whole career was worth more than 100% of the yearly allotment of cash. It's a bit of a shell game.

I will see if I can dig up my chart and get it in here. In truth it is more of a parabolic graph, but I can flush it out into slots

EDIT: Regarding next year's picks, I usually keep it simple. A pick this year is worth a pick one round earlier next year (you do your own math if you think you are giving a higher pick in the round for what projects to be a lower pick) OR a pick in one round later this year plus a pick in the same round next year.

 

[ghostguy123]

There would have to be a specific chart made up for each specific league type.

One league I play in has 20 man rosters with a cut down to 16 in the offseason.

One league I play in has a few IDP spots, 35 man active rosters, and a 30 man taxi squad where you can have up to 30 guys on that, and each guy can sit for 3 years before you have to decide if you want them on the active roster or not.

Clearly, the value of picks in these leagues is night and day different. In the first league, a few 5th rounders dont carry much value. In the 2nd league, a few 5th rounders that can be held for 3 years are the kinds of roster spots that are HUGE for teams and actually necessary to sustain success, since there is never anything on waivers.

 

[ducktales]

great stuff bloom, thanks !

 

[Adam Harstad]

I have to agree with the Bagel of Freedom, here- I think the dropoff in your chart is too flat, especially past the early 2nd round. Any pick value chart that is trying to help with multiple-pick trades needs to take into account the value of a roster spot, as well. For instance, right now, your chart says that pick 1.01 is worth picks 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12... yet nobody would actually do that trade, because each of those four players takes up a roster spot. If we decide a roster spot is worth 50 points (to come up with some arbitrary number), then we can subtract 50 from all of the values, and now the multiple-pick side comes up short of the one stud. Even that doesn't go far enough, though, because now the multiple-pick side can just add pick 3.01 and the trade re-balances. An even better way would be to value each additional marginal roster spot at an increasing rate- subtract 50 points for the first one, 75 for the second, 100 for the third, 125 for the fourth, etc. This makes it a lot harder to throw a bunch of garbage together into a package and make it "worth" a single stud. Even this workaround can be gamed- make the guy giving up the 1.01 throw in a bunch of worthless late rounders, and suddenly both sides of the trade are giving up the same number of roster spots. The other way to account for this is to have a much steeper drop off in the pick values to make it much harder to pile together enough crappy assets to be "worth" a single good asset.

Once you take into account the value of a roster spot, rookie 3rd and 4th rounders should have a value pretty close to 0. The reason is because you're not comparing them to owning no one, you're comparing them to whoever is the best free agent available on your waiver wire (which is the theoretical "opportunity cost" of rostering that 4th round rookie). And I think if you look at most leagues, the guys going in the 4th round are barely- if at all- better than the guys available on the wire.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Oh, also, I think your value for a 2014 pick is too low. Consider: let's assume that the 2014 pick is perfectly random. Let's also assume that the 2014 draft class will be a perfect clone of the 2013 class in terms of value. Now, the expected value of a 2014 pick according to this chart should be 1/12th the value of the first pick, plus 1/12th the value of the second pick... plus 1/12th the value of the 12th pick. Using the 2013 value chart, that gives us an EV of 623 points... but this is the expected value of trading a 2013 pick today for a random 2013 pick executed next year. Since there is universal agreement that this is the worst fantasy class in recent memory, there should be no problem at all assuming that next year's class will be better- likely significantly so. If we assume it's 20% better, we're looking at an EV of 750 points worth of 2013 draft value. Even if you want to discount for the fact that you have to wait to execute the pick, I'd still value that pick closer to 650 than 500. I'd be pretty happy to trade the #5 pick this year for a perfectly random 2014 first straight up. I'd be especially happy because I likely wouldn't have to make the trade straight up- I could probably get a 2013 2nd thrown in, or trade that #5 for a better-than-average 2014 first.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

I have to agree with the Bagel of Freedom, here- I think the dropoff in your chart is too flat, especially past the early 2nd round. Any pick value chart that is trying to help with multiple-pick trades needs to take into account the value of a roster spot, as well. For instance, right now, your chart says that pick 1.01 is worth picks 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12... yet nobody would actually do that trade, because each of those four players takes up a roster spot. If we decide a roster spot is worth 50 points (to come up with some arbitrary number), then we can subtract 50 from all of the values, and now the multiple-pick side comes up short of the one stud. Even that doesn't go far enough, though, because now the multiple-pick side can just add pick 3.01 and the trade re-balances. An even better way would be to value each additional marginal roster spot at an increasing rate- subtract 50 points for the first one, 75 for the second, 100 for the third, 125 for the fourth, etc. This makes it a lot harder to throw a bunch of garbage together into a package and make it "worth" a single stud. Even this workaround can be gamed- make the guy giving up the 1.01 throw in a bunch of worthless late rounders, and suddenly both sides of the trade are giving up the same number of roster spots. The other way to account for this is to have a much steeper drop off in the pick values to make it much harder to pile together enough crappy assets to be "worth" a single good asset.

Once you take into account the value of a roster spot, rookie 3rd and 4th rounders should have a value pretty close to 0. The reason is because you're not comparing them to owning no one, you're comparing them to whoever is the best free agent available on your waiver wire (which is the theoretical "opportunity cost" of rostering that 4th round rookie). And I think if you look at most leagues, the guys going in the 4th round are barely- if at all- better than the guys available on the wire.

I say in the assumptions that this assumes a medium to long bench rosters. I agree that in leagues where you struggle to find room for 4th round picks, the 4th round pick value diminishes quickly. It is also true that PVC loses accuracy as you start to use it to evaluate 3 for 1 and 4th for 1 type trades. My basic audit for values was a more typical 2 for 1 trade up or trade down. Thanks for pointing this out, I've noted it in the article. Roster size and the structure of the trade are definitely important variables and ones that are difficult to capture in any one PVC

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

Oh, also, I think your value for a 2014 pick is too low. Consider: let's assume that the 2014 pick is perfectly random. Let's also assume that the 2014 draft class will be a perfect clone of the 2013 class in terms of value. Now, the expected value of a 2014 pick according to this chart should be 1/12th the value of the first pick, plus 1/12th the value of the second pick... plus 1/12th the value of the 12th pick. Using the 2013 value chart, that gives us an EV of 623 points... but this is the expected value of trading a 2013 pick today for a random 2013 pick executed next year. Since there is universal agreement that this is the worst fantasy class in recent memory, there should be no problem at all assuming that next year's class will be better- likely significantly so. If we assume it's 20% better, we're looking at an EV of 750 points worth of 2013 draft value. Even if you want to discount for the fact that you have to wait to execute the pick, I'd still value that pick closer to 650 than 500. I'd be pretty happy to trade the #5 pick this year for a perfectly random 2014 first straight up. I'd be especially happy because I likely wouldn't have to make the trade straight up- I could probably get a 2013 2nd thrown in, or trade that #5 for a better-than-average 2014 first.

I could see a 2014 first being worth 1.6, so perhaps 550 would have been a better number, but I would still happily pocket Bell or Hopkins before I would trade 1.5 for a 2014 first. The only exception would be if I thought the other owner had a poor roster and skills.

There's some still some uncertainty in projecting a 20% inflation rate. Look at what happened to Lattimore. Look at what happened to Lacy/Franklin, having to share a roster. Take away those two issues and the 2013 first round looks a lot better. Another factor is that any time you are dealing a high first now for a first later, you are improving your trade partner's roster. Either Le'Veon Bell or DeAndre Hopkins could easily be an everyweek starter this year, both have a clear path to big opportunity. That's not as true of Lacy or Allen or Ball or anyone else you would consider at 1.6. Another difficult wrinkle to reflect is that you have some probability of seeing one of Hopkins/Bell there at 1.6 (at least 25% I would guess), and a smaller, but greater than zero possibility of Patterson being there. I've even heard of Bernard falling to 1.6. So in those cases, again I wouldn't advocate 1.6 for 2014 1st straight up.

Great thoughts to spur discussion though. I could definitely see enhancing this as we go along this year, and then taking a lot of this back to the drawing board for the 2014 version.

 

[jmo87usc]

I have to agree with the Bagel of Freedom, here- I think the dropoff in your chart is too flat, especially past the early 2nd round. Any pick value chart that is trying to help with multiple-pick trades needs to take into account the value of a roster spot, as well. For instance, right now, your chart says that pick 1.01 is worth picks 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12... yet nobody would actually do that trade, because each of those four players takes up a roster spot. If we decide a roster spot is worth 50 points (to come up with some arbitrary number), then we can subtract 50 from all of the values, and now the multiple-pick side comes up short of the one stud. Even that doesn't go far enough, though, because now the multiple-pick side can just add pick 3.01 and the trade re-balances. An even better way would be to value each additional marginal roster spot at an increasing rate- subtract 50 points for the first one, 75 for the second, 100 for the third, 125 for the fourth, etc. This makes it a lot harder to throw a bunch of garbage together into a package and make it "worth" a single stud. Even this workaround can be gamed- make the guy giving up the 1.01 throw in a bunch of worthless late rounders, and suddenly both sides of the trade are giving up the same number of roster spots. The other way to account for this is to have a much steeper drop off in the pick values to make it much harder to pile together enough crappy assets to be "worth" a single good asset.

Once you take into account the value of a roster spot, rookie 3rd and 4th rounders should have a value pretty close to 0. The reason is because you're not comparing them to owning no one, you're comparing them to whoever is the best free agent available on your waiver wire (which is the theoretical "opportunity cost" of rostering that 4th round rookie). And I think if you look at most leagues, the guys going in the 4th round are barely- if at all- better than the guys available on the wire.

I say in the assumptions that this assumes a medium to long bench rosters. I agree that in leagues where you struggle to find room for 4th round picks, the 4th round pick value diminishes quickly. It is also true that PVC loses accuracy as you start to use it to evaluate 3 for 1 and 4th for 1 type trades. My basic audit for values was a more typical 2 for 1 trade up or trade down. Roster size and the structure of the trade are definitely important variables and ones that are difficult to capture in any one PVC

Good work Sigmund. I actually like it the way it is.

What is the advantage of me trading a dollar bill in for 4 quarters? None if I'm using the dollar at the grocery store, but a big advantage if I'm at the arcade. Some guys may have 4 roster spots to play with and need more help than one player can give. This is the perfect draft to make that kind of deal. I'm not sold on Gio or Austin, but feel I can get Stacy, Dobson, Ertz and Ellington for my 1.1. If I have holes at RB, WR and TE I might make that deal this year. The rankings are so volitile this year that it makes sense.

I do think the drop in value from 1.1 to 1.8 is a bit off however. Given there is no real consensus on any players ranking this year, it should be more gradual of a drop with the 1.8 being worth in the 600-700 point range.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

I have to agree with the Bagel of Freedom, here- I think the dropoff in your chart is too flat, especially past the early 2nd round. Any pick value chart that is trying to help with multiple-pick trades needs to take into account the value of a roster spot, as well. For instance, right now, your chart says that pick 1.01 is worth picks 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12... yet nobody would actually do that trade, because each of those four players takes up a roster spot. If we decide a roster spot is worth 50 points (to come up with some arbitrary number), then we can subtract 50 from all of the values, and now the multiple-pick side comes up short of the one stud. Even that doesn't go far enough, though, because now the multiple-pick side can just add pick 3.01 and the trade re-balances. An even better way would be to value each additional marginal roster spot at an increasing rate- subtract 50 points for the first one, 75 for the second, 100 for the third, 125 for the fourth, etc. This makes it a lot harder to throw a bunch of garbage together into a package and make it "worth" a single stud. Even this workaround can be gamed- make the guy giving up the 1.01 throw in a bunch of worthless late rounders, and suddenly both sides of the trade are giving up the same number of roster spots. The other way to account for this is to have a much steeper drop off in the pick values to make it much harder to pile together enough crappy assets to be "worth" a single good asset.

Once you take into account the value of a roster spot, rookie 3rd and 4th rounders should have a value pretty close to 0. The reason is because you're not comparing them to owning no one, you're comparing them to whoever is the best free agent available on your waiver wire (which is the theoretical "opportunity cost" of rostering that 4th round rookie). And I think if you look at most leagues, the guys going in the 4th round are barely- if at all- better than the guys available on the wire.

I say in the assumptions that this assumes a medium to long bench rosters. I agree that in leagues where you struggle to find room for 4th round picks, the 4th round pick value diminishes quickly. It is also true that PVC loses accuracy as you start to use it to evaluate 3 for 1 and 4th for 1 type trades. My basic audit for values was a more typical 2 for 1 trade up or trade down. Roster size and the structure of the trade are definitely important variables and ones that are difficult to capture in any one PVC

Good work Sigmund. I actually like it the way it is.

What is the advantage of me trading a dollar bill in for 4 quarters? None if I'm using the dollar at the grocery store, but a big advantage if I'm at the arcade. Some guys may have 4 roster spots to play with and need more help than one player can give. This is the perfect draft to make that kind of deal. I'm not sold on Gio or Austin, but feel I can get Stacy, Dobson, Ertz and Ellington for my 1.1. If I have holes at RB, WR and TE I might make that deal this year. The rankings are so volitile this year that it makes sense.

I do think the drop in value from 1.1 to 1.8 is a bit off however. Given there is no real consensus on any players ranking this year, it should be more gradual of a drop with the 1.8 being worth in the 600-700 point range.

The dropoff from 1.1 to the 1.6-1.8 range is more a reflection of my beliefs about this class than a reflection of what I think the consensus value of the picks will be among fantasy owners. I had 1.6 and 1.8 in a league and felt very very strongly about moving up into the top 3 when I considered the idea of walking away with austin/patterson/bernard vs walking away with franklin/allen or a similar duo. The drop reflects my belief of the premium value of production as you go higher up the ladder. I would never advocate trading 1.1 for 1.8 and a late 1st or early 2nd in this class and a 600-700 value of 1.8 would recommend that.

 

[jmo87usc]

I have to agree with the Bagel of Freedom, here- I think the dropoff in your chart is too flat, especially past the early 2nd round. Any pick value chart that is trying to help with multiple-pick trades needs to take into account the value of a roster spot, as well. For instance, right now, your chart says that pick 1.01 is worth picks 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12... yet nobody would actually do that trade, because each of those four players takes up a roster spot. If we decide a roster spot is worth 50 points (to come up with some arbitrary number), then we can subtract 50 from all of the values, and now the multiple-pick side comes up short of the one stud. Even that doesn't go far enough, though, because now the multiple-pick side can just add pick 3.01 and the trade re-balances. An even better way would be to value each additional marginal roster spot at an increasing rate- subtract 50 points for the first one, 75 for the second, 100 for the third, 125 for the fourth, etc. This makes it a lot harder to throw a bunch of garbage together into a package and make it "worth" a single stud. Even this workaround can be gamed- make the guy giving up the 1.01 throw in a bunch of worthless late rounders, and suddenly both sides of the trade are giving up the same number of roster spots. The other way to account for this is to have a much steeper drop off in the pick values to make it much harder to pile together enough crappy assets to be "worth" a single good asset.

Once you take into account the value of a roster spot, rookie 3rd and 4th rounders should have a value pretty close to 0. The reason is because you're not comparing them to owning no one, you're comparing them to whoever is the best free agent available on your waiver wire (which is the theoretical "opportunity cost" of rostering that 4th round rookie). And I think if you look at most leagues, the guys going in the 4th round are barely- if at all- better than the guys available on the wire.

I say in the assumptions that this assumes a medium to long bench rosters. I agree that in leagues where you struggle to find room for 4th round picks, the 4th round pick value diminishes quickly. It is also true that PVC loses accuracy as you start to use it to evaluate 3 for 1 and 4th for 1 type trades. My basic audit for values was a more typical 2 for 1 trade up or trade down. Roster size and the structure of the trade are definitely important variables and ones that are difficult to capture in any one PVC

Good work Sigmund. I actually like it the way it is.

What is the advantage of me trading a dollar bill in for 4 quarters? None if I'm using the dollar at the grocery store, but a big advantage if I'm at the arcade. Some guys may have 4 roster spots to play with and need more help than one player can give. This is the perfect draft to make that kind of deal. I'm not sold on Gio or Austin, but feel I can get Stacy, Dobson, Ertz and Ellington for my 1.1. If I have holes at RB, WR and TE I might make that deal this year. The rankings are so volitile this year that it makes sense.

I do think the drop in value from 1.1 to 1.8 is a bit off however. Given there is no real consensus on any players ranking this year, it should be more gradual of a drop with the 1.8 being worth in the 600-700 point range.

The dropoff from 1.1 to the 1.6-1.8 range is more a reflection of my beliefs about this class than a reflection of what I think the consensus value of the picks will be among fantasy owners. I had 1.6 and 1.8 in a league and felt very very strongly about moving up into the top 3 when I considered the idea of walking away with austin/patterson/bernard vs walking away with franklin/allen or a similar duo. The drop reflects my belief of the premium value of production as you go higher up the ladder. I would never advocate trading 1.1 for 1.8 and a late 1st or early 2nd in this class and a 600-700 value of 1.8 would recommend that.

I get what you're saying here. Funny thing is when you say it like that, I agree. But If you said I would never trade Gio Bernard for Keenan Allen and Montee Ball, I would disgaree. I'm sure the opinion would be split in both directions if you took a poll.

Since your value system is a reflection of your personal rankings for these players, than I can't argue. If you took an average ADP based off of completed rookie drafts for your value system, the dropoff would be more gradual.

 

[dickey moe]

So one Chris Gragg/Dion Sims worth four Vance McDonalds? Seems like you might be in the minority on that one.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

So one Chris Gragg/Dion Sims worth four Vance McDonalds? Seems like you might be in the minority on that one.

The sample players are just a rough guide of what is available at that time in the time, and I've added a note that the usefulness diminishes for 3 for 1 or 4 for 1 type trades. I'm not just a McDonald fan in rookie drafts because A) inconsistent hands and B) SF offense doesn't seem like it'll be good for TEs as long as VD is around, and he's signed to a reasonable deal thru 2015. Gragg and Sims should have more immediate value. Sims is an underrated athlete and has excellent ball skills/hands for a big man. He's probably the best blocking TE the Dolphins have on the right now, and will get on the field right away. Gragg is a converted WR with the best athleticism of any TE in this class, and it looks like BUF is going uptempo/spread and will try to use Gragg as a joker to confuse the D and cause them to reveal things as he moves around before the snap...