[Dynasty] What is the 1,06 pick worth.. (2 Viewers)

[TenTimes]

Assume equal draft pools, everything else is equal, and you know for sure right now the order of the draft next year. You're simply swapping a pick this year for a pick next year.

More importantly, if 1,06 this year is not worth 1,06 next year, why?

 

[stp-d]

Assume equal draft pools, everything else is equal, and you know for sure right now the order of the draft next year. You're simply swapping a pick this year for a pick next year.More importantly, if 1,06 this year is not worth 1,06 next year, why?

I usually find a pick this year is worth considerably more than a pick next year (ex: 3rd this yr = 2nd next yr). But knowing the position of the pick is rarely known. In this case I would need the 1.1 or 1.2 next yr for the 1.6 this yr. To makeup for losing 1 yr of production from the 1.6, I would need to see a significant bump in pick status.

 

[BigJim®]

It wouldn't make any sense to get same or worse value. I think I've heard NFL teams typically value a current round pick as being worth a future pick of 1 round ealier (e.g. a 2010 3rd is worth a 2011 2nd). It's not that dramatic in FF rookie pick value, but there should definitely be a premium of some amount to waste a year of value. I would need good assurance that I'm getting a 1.3 in 2011 to forego the value of the 2010 1.6 for a year.

 

[gianmarco]

Assume equal draft pools, everything else is equal, and you know for sure right now the order of the draft next year. You're simply swapping a pick this year for a pick next year.More importantly, if 1,06 this year is not worth 1,06 next year, why?

I usually find a pick this year is worth considerably more than a pick next year (ex: 3rd this yr = 2nd next yr). But knowing the position of the pick is rarely known. In this case I would need the 1.1 or 1.2 next yr for the 1.6 this yr. To makeup for losing 1 yr of production from the 1.6, I would need to see a significant bump in pick status.

I've never really understood this thinking. By the same logic, does the guy getting that bump because he's getting the later pick owe back the amount later on when his later pick lasts 1 year longer?

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Assume equal draft pools, everything else is equal, and you know for sure right now the order of the draft next year. You're simply swapping a pick this year for a pick next year.More importantly, if 1,06 this year is not worth 1,06 next year, why?

I usually find a pick this year is worth considerably more than a pick next year (ex: 3rd this yr = 2nd next yr). But knowing the position of the pick is rarely known. In this case I would need the 1.1 or 1.2 next yr for the 1.6 this yr. To makeup for losing 1 yr of production from the 1.6, I would need to see a significant bump in pick status.

I've never really understood this thinking. By the same logic, does the guy getting that bump because he's getting the later pick owe back the amount later on when his later pick lasts 1 year longer?

Why don't you think this is similar to the concept of time-value-of-money?

 

[stp-d]

Assume equal draft pools, everything else is equal, and you know for sure right now the order of the draft next year. You're simply swapping a pick this year for a pick next year.More importantly, if 1,06 this year is not worth 1,06 next year, why?

I usually find a pick this year is worth considerably more than a pick next year (ex: 3rd this yr = 2nd next yr). But knowing the position of the pick is rarely known. In this case I would need the 1.1 or 1.2 next yr for the 1.6 this yr. To makeup for losing 1 yr of production from the 1.6, I would need to see a significant bump in pick status.

I've never really understood this thinking. By the same logic, does the guy getting that bump because he's getting the later pick owe back the amount later on when his later pick lasts 1 year longer?

I recognize the vice versa, but why would i trade a 1.6 this yr for near equivalent (1.4-1.6) just to wait another year longer (& loss of league fees) unless the talent pool is significantly imbalanced from 1 yr to the next. I could see trading the 1.1 this yr in NON-PPR for 1.1 next yr because the talent bump, but after that I don't see the benefit to wait for little return.

 

[gianmarco]

Assume equal draft pools, everything else is equal, and you know for sure right now the order of the draft next year. You're simply swapping a pick this year for a pick next year.More importantly, if 1,06 this year is not worth 1,06 next year, why?

I usually find a pick this year is worth considerably more than a pick next year (ex: 3rd this yr = 2nd next yr). But knowing the position of the pick is rarely known. In this case I would need the 1.1 or 1.2 next yr for the 1.6 this yr. To makeup for losing 1 yr of production from the 1.6, I would need to see a significant bump in pick status.

I've never really understood this thinking. By the same logic, does the guy getting that bump because he's getting the later pick owe back the amount later on when his later pick lasts 1 year longer?

I recognize the vice versa, but why would i trade a 1.6 this yr for near equivalent (1.4-1.6) just to wait another year longer (& loss of league fees) unless the talent pool is significantly imbalanced from 1 yr to the next. I could see trading the 1.1 this yr in NON-PPR for 1.1 next yr because the talent bump, but after that I don't see the benefit to wait for little return.

Again, unless you're assuming your league will be done in 2-3 years, you're getting the pick later but, all things being equal (which is the assumption in this thread), your player will also last 1 year longer. In the end, it's the same pick, same value, just time-shifted. It's not the same as the time-value of money mentioned above, to me, because we don't gain interest on our picks and there's no inflation. Now, practically speaking, I can see a SLIGHT bump (i.e. pay next year's 1.5 for this year's 1.6), but most people subscribe to a significant difference in value and I just don't see it. I know I'm in the minority, but I simply don't pay high premiums using future picks to move it to now and I try to cash in on it when I can since that works in my favor with my thoughts on it.Let's assume each pick has 5 years of life. If I'm paying extra for the 2010 1.6 by having to give up my 2011 1.1, who's paying me back in 2015 when my player stopped playing in 2014 and he still has a player with value in 2015? The fact that there is exit value for both players and a finite time that each pick/player will keep value is what differentiates it from money and why I don't think there's a difference in value. It's the same thing only shifted over.

 

[ravage]

It'd take than just a guaranteed early first next year to get it from me. Give me next year's first and a 2nd this year. The 6th is a pretty early one to give up.

Maybe the value of the pick is close, I don't think so, but maybe it is. But here's the deal, if you want it pay for it. Cuz I can use it same as you.

 

[TenTimes]

Assume equal draft pools, everything else is equal, and you know for sure right now the order of the draft next year. You're simply swapping a pick this year for a pick next year.More importantly, if 1,06 this year is not worth 1,06 next year, why?

I usually find a pick this year is worth considerably more than a pick next year (ex: 3rd this yr = 2nd next yr). But knowing the position of the pick is rarely known. In this case I would need the 1.1 or 1.2 next yr for the 1.6 this yr. To makeup for losing 1 yr of production from the 1.6, I would need to see a significant bump in pick status.

I've never really understood this thinking. By the same logic, does the guy getting that bump because he's getting the later pick owe back the amount later on when his later pick lasts 1 year longer?

Awesome! I thought for sure everybody would point out the "extra year of production" and ignore the extra year on the back end for the future pick. If more people thought like you credit card companies would be screwed.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

There is more to the value of time than just inflation. If you trade me your current pick for a future pick, and continue to do that every year, you never get the use of that pick. I do. Same thing with money. You can't continually loan me money with no interest, even in the absence of inflation. I get to use that money and you never do, because I'll always pay you back by borrowing from you again and again. Our time is not infinite.

There is time value. I don't know exactly what it is but I know I wouldn't trade this year's #6 for next year's #6. I put it at about a quarter round, at least for 1st round picks.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Again, unless you're assuming your league will be done in 2-3 years, you're getting the pick later but, all things being equal (which is the assumption in this thread), your player will also last 1 year longer. In the end, it's the same pick, same value, just time-shifted. It's not the same as the time-value of money mentioned above, to me, because we don't gain interest on our picks and there's no inflation.

When (almost) everybody else disagrees with you, it's worth considering that you might be wrong.

Now, practically speaking, I can see a SLIGHT bump (i.e. pay next year's 1.5 for this year's 1.6), but most people subscribe to a significant difference in value and I just don't see it. I know I'm in the minority, but I simply don't pay high premiums using future picks to move it to now and I try to cash in on it when I can since that works in my favor with my thoughts on it.

Who issaying that you should pay a high premium? Is giving up pick 1.5 next year for pick 1.6 this year a high premium? Most people would not give up pick 1.1 next year for pick 1.6 this year.

 

[gianmarco]

There is more to the value of time than just inflation. If you trade me your current pick for a future pick, and continue to do that every year, you never get the use of that pick. I do. Same thing with money. You can't continually loan me money with no interest, even in the absence of inflation. I get to use that money and you never do, because I'll always pay you back by borrowing from you again and again. Our time is not infinite.There is time value. I don't know exactly what it is but I know I wouldn't trade this year's #6 for next year's #6. I put it at about a quarter round, at least for 1st round picks.

There's a huge difference in an isolated trade and doing the same thing year after year. Likewise, even if I get the premium added on, if I kept trading my current pick for a future pick I'd never get to use the pick so how does that prove your point? The difference between money and draft picks is that your money doesn't all of a sudden lose value and completely disappear after 5-6 years. If it did, then it wouldn't matter if you started earning interest on it this year or next year if the money disappeared after 5 years. You'd simply get paid for the 5 years and POOF, it would be gone. The reason the interest makes a difference is because the money remains so you get that extra year (there is no end point). Picks/players only last for a certain period of time and then they are gone. Now, if I could draft a player that would give giving me production for 80 years, then sure, it's worth paying extra to get him this year vs. next year. But, since that isn't the case, then assuming your league hangs around for a few years, it doesn't matter if I take advantage of a pick in 2010 or 2011 in the long run.

 

[gianmarco]

When (almost) everybody else disagrees with you, it's worth considering that you might be wrong

Thanks, smarty.Don't worry, I've considered it. When someone is able to show some proof, however, that there should be a time premium paid on draft picks, then I'll strongly consider changing my OPINION. Considering this isn't something based on facts but just on analogies and theories, then I'm fine on my minority side of the equation.I've already explained why I think the draft picks are different than money. I've yet to see a good explanation for why that thinking is flawed. I'm very open to the possibility it is.

 

[stp-d]

There is more to the value of time than just inflation. If you trade me your current pick for a future pick, and continue to do that every year, you never get the use of that pick. I do. Same thing with money. You can't continually loan me money with no interest, even in the absence of inflation. I get to use that money and you never do, because I'll always pay you back by borrowing from you again and again. Our time is not infinite.There is time value. I don't know exactly what it is but I know I wouldn't trade this year's #6 for next year's #6. I put it at about a quarter round, at least for 1st round picks.

this gets nearly at the root of it, because there is Interest... Consider...You draft Chris Johnson at 1.6 in 2008 and get 1500 total yds & 10 TD's out of him. In 2009he is worth much more than the 1.6 (and can be traded in 2009 for multiple 1st rd picks) & your team probably was competitive in 2008. An argument can be made for lessor performers like Moreno, McCoy, Brown & Greene. Most I have encountered want more than the 2010 equivalent pick # for these underachieving RB's because there roles are clearer than the unknown pick.

 

[Cassius]

You should be compensated for waiting a year for something. You're also giving up a degree of certainty since you have a lot more information about the present year's class/situation/possible draft position compared to next year's.

It's really not complicated.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

There is more to the value of time than just inflation. If you trade me your current pick for a future pick, and continue to do that every year, you never get the use of that pick. I do. Same thing with money. You can't continually loan me money with no interest, even in the absence of inflation. I get to use that money and you never do, because I'll always pay you back by borrowing from you again and again. Our time is not infinite.There is time value. I don't know exactly what it is but I know I wouldn't trade this year's #6 for next year's #6. I put it at about a quarter round, at least for 1st round picks.

There's a huge difference in an isolated trade and doing the same thing year after year.

Not in the value. The example of doing it every year just makes that value stand out.

Likewise, even if I get the premium added on, if I kept trading my current pick for a future pick I'd never get to use the pick so how does that prove your point?

Sure it does. The premium means you get to use that value a little bit at a time. You still don't get the original pick but the premium eventually makes up for that lost value.

The difference between money and draft picks is that your money doesn't all of a sudden lose value and completely disappear after 5-6 years. If it did, then it wouldn't matter if you started earning interest on it this year or next year if the money disappeared after 5 years. You'd simply get paid for the 5 years and POOF, it would be gone. The reason the interest makes a difference is because the money remains so you get that extra year (there is no end point). Picks/players only last for a certain period of time and then they are gone. Now, if I could draft a player that would give giving me production for 80 years, then sure, it's worth paying extra to get him this year vs. next year. But, since that isn't the case, then assuming your league hangs around for a few years, it doesn't matter if I take advantage of a pick in 2010 or 2011 in the long run.

I don't think their lifespan matters at all. The fact remains, I get the use of that money (or pick) now, for investment or enjoyment, and you don't. Ever.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

There is more to the value of time than just inflation. If you trade me your current pick for a future pick, and continue to do that every year, you never get the use of that pick. I do. Same thing with money. You can't continually loan me money with no interest, even in the absence of inflation. I get to use that money and you never do, because I'll always pay you back by borrowing from you again and again. Our time is not infinite.There is time value. I don't know exactly what it is but I know I wouldn't trade this year's #6 for next year's #6. I put it at about a quarter round, at least for 1st round picks.

this gets nearly at the root of it, because there is Interest... Consider...You draft Chris Johnson at 1.6 in 2008 and get 1500 total yds & 10 TD's out of him. In 2009he is worth much more than the 1.6 (and can be traded in 2009 for multiple 1st rd picks) & your team probably was competitive in 2008. An argument can be made for lessor performers like Moreno, McCoy, Brown & Greene. Most I have encountered want more than the 2010 equivalent pick # for these underachieving RB's because there roles are clearer than the unknown pick.

Not only that but if everything is equal, meaning our teams are equal before the trade because both of our picks are essentially equal, I will be improving my team by drafting a player who will be producing this season. My team now is better than yours because I have a player and you ahve a draft pick. My pick next year (traded to you) is now not as valuable. You have lost real value, not just time value.

 

[gianmarco]

There is more to the value of time than just inflation. If you trade me your current pick for a future pick, and continue to do that every year, you never get the use of that pick. I do. Same thing with money. You can't continually loan me money with no interest, even in the absence of inflation. I get to use that money and you never do, because I'll always pay you back by borrowing from you again and again. Our time is not infinite.There is time value. I don't know exactly what it is but I know I wouldn't trade this year's #6 for next year's #6. I put it at about a quarter round, at least for 1st round picks.

this gets nearly at the root of it, because there is Interest... Consider...You draft Chris Johnson at 1.6 in 2008 and get 1500 total yds & 10 TD's out of him. In 2009he is worth much more than the 1.6 (and can be traded in 2009 for multiple 1st rd picks) & your team probably was competitive in 2008. An argument can be made for lessor performers like Moreno, McCoy, Brown & Greene. Most I have encountered want more than the 2010 equivalent pick # for these underachieving RB's because there roles are clearer than the unknown pick.

We're assuming the picks and players are even value and known. You draft Chris Johnson in 2008 and get his production. It cost you your 2009 pick. I draft Chris Johnson in 2009 (we are assuming same value as stated in the OP). Chris Johnson plays for your team until 2012 and then he's out of the NFL. Chris Johnson plays for my team until 2013 and then he's out of the NFL. Sure, you got the production in 2008 when I didn't. But, I got production in 2013 when you didn't. The picks/players have a finite lifespan. Just as you could have traded him for multiple 1sts in 2008, I could have done the same in 2009. But again, my "returns" will last 1 year longer than yours with all things being equal.This is the primary difference between money and FF picks/players. If you invest money this year and gain interest on it, it's not going to disappear in a set amount of time.

 

[gianmarco]

There is more to the value of time than just inflation. If you trade me your current pick for a future pick, and continue to do that every year, you never get the use of that pick. I do. Same thing with money. You can't continually loan me money with no interest, even in the absence of inflation. I get to use that money and you never do, because I'll always pay you back by borrowing from you again and again. Our time is not infinite.

There is time value. I don't know exactly what it is but I know I wouldn't trade this year's #6 for next year's #6. I put it at about a quarter round, at least for 1st round picks.

this gets nearly at the root of it, because there is Interest... Consider...You draft Chris Johnson at 1.6 in 2008 and get 1500 total yds & 10 TD's out of him. In 2009he is worth much more than the 1.6 (and can be traded in 2009 for multiple 1st rd picks) & your team probably was competitive in 2008. An argument can be made for lessor performers like Moreno, McCoy, Brown & Greene. Most I have encountered want more than the 2010 equivalent pick # for these underachieving RB's because there roles are clearer than the unknown pick.

Not only that but if everything is equal, meaning our teams are equal before the trade because both of our picks are essentially equal, I will be improving my team by drafting a player who will be producing this season. My team now is better than yours because I have a player and you ahve a draft pick. My pick next year (traded to you) is now not as valuable. You have lost real value, not just time value.

How is this the case? The only way the pick is now not as valuable is if you're factoring in that the pick would be lower because of a higher finish by your team this year. The OP clearly states that isn't to be assumed. It's assuming the same pick this year vs next year.

 

[Cassius]

We're assuming the picks and players are even value and known.

Oh. Then this discussion is dumber than previously thought. There's no point to assume a situation that could never actually happen.

 

[gianmarco]

Likewise, even if I get the premium added on, if I kept trading my current pick for a future pick I'd never get to use the pick so how does that prove your point?

Sure it does. The premium means you get to use that value a little bit at a time. You still don't get the original pick but the premium eventually makes up for that lost value.

Example for you:You get my 2010 1.12 pick for your 2011 1.11Next year, you get my 2011 1.11 pick for your 2012 1.10 pickNext year, you get my 2012 1.10 pick for your 2013 1.9 pickNext year, you get my 2013 1.9 pick for your 2014 1.8 pick....You get my 2021 1.1 pick for your 2022 1.1 pick and your 2nd round pickYou get my 2022 1.1/2nd for your 2023 1.1/2nd/3rd.......etc.Sure, I keep adding value, but if I keep trading it away, then I keep building value and never use it. Your example of "if you do that every year you'll never get to use it" is foolish since I can apply the same logic to your added value and still never get to use it.So, while theoretically you can attempt to show that you'd never get to use it if someone was foolish enough to keep trading it every year, it simply isn't practical and doesn't just apply to not getting any premium added.

 

[TenTimes]

I want to hear from the people voting 1,03 and other (1,02 or even 1,01 *yikes*). According to Jeff Pasquino's dynasty pick value calculator you've done the following:

1,01 = 1,06 + 1,06

1,02 = 1,06 + 1,08

1,03 = 1,06 + 1,11

How is it worth giving up pick 1,11 to get the year of production right away rather than in 5 years (under Gian's example). I know my fantasy team can't afford that interest rate in the long run.

 

[Cassius]

I want to hear from the people voting 1,03 and other (1,02 or even 1,01 *yikes*). According to Jeff Pasquino's dynasty pick value calculator you've done the following:

1. Pretty sure the calculator doesn't take into consideration future pick value.2. Pretty sure this is the guy who had Chris Johnson ranked behind Samkon Gado on his current dynasty rankings.

 

[Go deep]

Gianmarco, you probably arent going to find a mathmatical answer to your question. It mostly boils down to this for me. Instant gratification, its human nature. Do you have kids? Go buy them a toy, and show it to them. Ask them if they want the toy now, or if they want to wait a year until they play with it?

Why would i want to wait a year to get a player i need when i can have him this year? Would you really trade a draft pick this year for the same one next year, what would be your motivation for doing so?

 

[TenTimes]

I want to hear from the people voting 1,03 and other (1,02 or even 1,01 *yikes*). According to Jeff Pasquino's dynasty pick value calculator you've done the following:

1. Pretty sure the calculator doesn't take into consideration future pick value.2. Pretty sure this is the guy who had Chris Johnson ranked behind Samkon Gado on his current dynasty rankings.

Psst.. Future pick value is a myth

 

[TenTimes]

Gianmarco, you probably arent going to find a mathmatical answer to your question. It mostly boils down to this for me. Instant gratification, its human nature. Do you have kids? Go buy them a toy, and show it to them. Ask them if they want the toy now, or if they want to wait a year until they play with it? Why would i want to wait a year to get a player i need when i can have him this year? Would you really trade a draft pick this year for the same one next year, what would be your motivation for doing so?

Exactly. Credit card debt. Why wait til next year when I can pay cash for a better, cheaper TV that will last longer when I can pay 121% the value of a worse one right now?Its time to become the card issuer, not the interest payer.

 

[gianmarco]

Gianmarco, you probably arent going to find a mathmatical answer to your question. It mostly boils down to this for me. Instant gratification, its human nature. Do you have kids? Go buy them a toy, and show it to them. Ask them if they want the toy now, or if they want to wait a year until they play with it? Why would i want to wait a year to get a player i need when i can have him this year? Would you really trade a draft pick this year for the same one next year, what would be your motivation for doing so?

1. I voted for 1.5. I do believe there should be a very small premium added as I don't have them perfectly equal. I just don't see it nearly to the extent as most others do. Unless there's a reason for me to wait (which there are some), then you're right---there's little motivation to push the pick back. The potential of a league folding, even if minimal, is a real risk and is part of the reason I think there should be a nominal premium paid.2. Part of the reasons to wait, since you asked -- This is a hypothetical situation and it's assuming the picks are exactly equal and the player pool is identical. We all know this can never be the case. So, if I like next year's class a bit better, I may prefer to wait. I wouldn't expect to be paid extra to do so. -- For the same reason as above that this is hypothetical, it's also impossible to know where next year's pick will be. Sure, you can try and guess and that's how the value is usually determined, but there's both risk and upside to an unknown pick. An estimated 1.6 pick has the potential to be the 1.1 or the 1.12. Depending on where you assign those %'s, that potential upside usually equals any type of time premium you may place on a pick. This is the major reason I don't believe in paying time premiums even though it wasn't considered in the OP. -- If I have multiple picks for this year and don't have room, I may want to defer to a later year. Again, I wouldn't expect to be paid extra because I'm doing this. Likewise, I may have a few picks in next year's draft and want to consolidate to strengthen the overall value of those picks by holding multiple picks.

 

[Donsmith753]

Surely the only reason that a pick next year should differ in value from this year is if you believe next year to have a weaker draft class (or you know less about the potential of the draft class).

For example if you're taking Jonathan Dwyer 1.06 this year, do you know who the equivalent pick will be next year and whether he will be worthy of 1.06 or whether he'll just be the best of a bad bunch. Therefore you need some security.

It's amplified even more the further into the "unknown" you go.

 

[Catbird]

Assume 2 guys with idential production over their careers, picked one year apart (both as 1.6). I get my guy this year and you get nothing. Big edge. Next year my guy is year 2 and yours is a rook. Generally another big edge for me. Third year it may get closer, although for WRs and QBs, still a good edge for me. After that, probably no difference for several years - except that I still am ahead by the value I got in years 1, 2 and perhaps 3.

If they are RBs and stay peak for 4 more years, I am still ahead by the value I got in years 1 and 2 through year 6 or 7. If we don't stay in the same league for more than 7 years - more than a dozen for a QB - I will always have the extra value of those first 2-3 years which you don't make up. Can you gain that back in theory when guy starts to decline a year before yours? Maybe, but that depends on when we trade them away and what we get. And that comes perhaps 7-10 year away and assummes you and the people in your league are still into fantasy football and haven't decided to change the rules, re-draft or take any of a dozen other courses that would moot out the value you are waiting to even out.

So, would I give up next year's 1.1 for this year's 1.6. Probably not, but I wouldn't take a lot less - probably the 1.3, but probably not the 1.4, because IMO the difference between 1.4 and 1.6 in a rookie draft that's essentially a crap shoot anyway on who will turn into what isn't as great as that extra year and a half or so of production.

 

[TenTimes]

Good posts, previous 2.

For the former, you speak of needing security against next year's class, which is an unknown. if its completely unknown them don't the chances of it being better of worse cancel out?

For the latter, the rises and declines mimic eachother. Assuming you pick Player A in year 1 and I player 2 in year B, both with identical careers, you won every season until A starts to regress, and then I won each year for the rest of the career. You pointed out that you can trade a guy when he starts to decline... Can't I too? Your argument still assumes I won't get that final year of productivity when your guy has become of no value to you.

The only reason the 2010 pick should be more valuable than the 2011 is if you know the league will fold before 2011's career ends. Obviously other factors are involved, draft class etc, my point is "because its a future pick" alone shouldn't be enough to lower the value of a future pick.

 

[FUBAR]

When (almost) everybody else disagrees with you, it's worth considering that you might be wrong.

Sure, it's also a good thing because it allows you to make trades. In this situation, it seems many people would offer GM next year's top pick for this year's 1.06 and he'd almost certainly take it. As would I for that matter.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

There is more to the value of time than just inflation. If you trade me your current pick for a future pick, and continue to do that every year, you never get the use of that pick. I do. Same thing with money. You can't continually loan me money with no interest, even in the absence of inflation. I get to use that money and you never do, because I'll always pay you back by borrowing from you again and again. Our time is not infinite.

There is time value. I don't know exactly what it is but I know I wouldn't trade this year's #6 for next year's #6. I put it at about a quarter round, at least for 1st round picks.

this gets nearly at the root of it, because there is Interest... Consider...You draft Chris Johnson at 1.6 in 2008 and get 1500 total yds & 10 TD's out of him. In 2009he is worth much more than the 1.6 (and can be traded in 2009 for multiple 1st rd picks) & your team probably was competitive in 2008. An argument can be made for lessor performers like Moreno, McCoy, Brown & Greene. Most I have encountered want more than the 2010 equivalent pick # for these underachieving RB's because there roles are clearer than the unknown pick.

Not only that but if everything is equal, meaning our teams are equal before the trade because both of our picks are essentially equal, I will be improving my team by drafting a player who will be producing this season. My team now is better than yours because I have a player and you ahve a draft pick. My pick next year (traded to you) is now not as valuable. You have lost real value, not just time value.

How is this the case? The only way the pick is now not as valuable is if you're factoring in that the pick would be lower because of a higher finish by your team this year. The OP clearly states that isn't to be assumed. It's assuming the same pick this year vs next year.

There lies the problem with this hypothetical. It's ok to assume that the current value of my future pick is the 1.06 but you cannot assume that my future value is the 1.06. Otherwise it's current value is higher. The OP has decided to start with assumption that 1+1=1. If add a 1.06 player to my team now, it gets better now. You can't put the restriction that the player contributes nothing to my team. It does. And, when it does, the future value of my pick gets worse.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

1. I voted for 1.5. I do believe there should be a very small premium added as I don't have them perfectly equal.

Why? I thought you were arguing there was no difference and would practically just offer the 1.05 just to get the deal done. If you believe there is a difference in value, if not time, then what is the reason?

 

[Cassius]

I want to hear from the people voting 1,03 and other (1,02 or even 1,01 *yikes*). According to Jeff Pasquino's dynasty pick value calculator you've done the following:

1. Pretty sure the calculator doesn't take into consideration future pick value.2. Pretty sure this is the guy who had Chris Johnson ranked behind Samkon Gado on his current dynasty rankings.

Psst.. Future pick value is a myth

This is absurd. Unless you don't think future picks have any value, this cannot be a "myth."

 

[FUBAR]

There lies the problem with this hypothetical. It's ok to assume that the current value of my future pick is the 1.06 but you cannot assume that my future value is the 1.06. Otherwise it's current value is higher. The OP has decided to start with assumption that 1+1=1. If add a 1.06 player to my team now, it gets better now. You can't put the restriction that the player contributes nothing to my team. It does. And, when it does, the future value of my pick gets worse.

Does it help you if you assume next year's pick, before trade, would have been 1.04 or 1.05? Now that you've gotten a new player, it will be 1.06All this is besides the point anyway, bottom line here is would you rather have this year's 1.06 or next year's 1.06, 1.05, 1.04, 1.03, 1.02, 1.01, or maybe a lesser pick for whatever reason.

 

[Donsmith753]

Good posts, previous 2.

For the former, you speak of needing security against next year's class, which is an unknown. if its completely unknown them don't the chances of it being better of worse cancel out?

For the latter, the rises and declines mimic eachother. Assuming you pick Player A in year 1 and I player 2 in year B, both with identical careers, you won every season until A starts to regress, and then I won each year for the rest of the career. You pointed out that you can trade a guy when he starts to decline... Can't I too? Your argument still assumes I won't get that final year of productivity when your guy has become of no value to you.

The only reason the 2010 pick should be more valuable than the 2011 is if you know the league will fold before 2011's career ends. Obviously other factors are involved, draft class etc, my point is "because its a future pick" alone shouldn't be enough to lower the value of a future pick.

Spot on

 

[Crippler]

Next years class looks so much better and I want that pick instead and think the class is quality of 8 deep compared to 3 this year.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

Likewise, even if I get the premium added on, if I kept trading my current pick for a future pick I'd never get to use the pick so how does that prove your point?

Sure it does. The premium means you get to use that value a little bit at a time. You still don't get the original pick but the premium eventually makes up for that lost value.

Example for you:You get my 2010 1.12 pick for your 2011 1.11Next year, you get my 2011 1.11 pick for your 2012 1.10 pickNext year, you get my 2012 1.10 pick for your 2013 1.9 pickNext year, you get my 2013 1.9 pick for your 2014 1.8 pick....You get my 2021 1.1 pick for your 2022 1.1 pick and your 2nd round pickYou get my 2022 1.1/2nd for your 2023 1.1/2nd/3rd.......etc.Sure, I keep adding value, but if I keep trading it away, then I keep building value and never use it. Your example of "if you do that every year you'll never get to use it" is foolish since I can apply the same logic to your added value and still never get to use it.So, while theoretically you can attempt to show that you'd never get to use it if someone was foolish enough to keep trading it every year, it simply isn't practical and doesn't just apply to not getting any premium added.

This looks like doubling up on a loss in blackjack. The problem is that there are limits. In blackjack, it's table limits. In FF, it's the limited number of draft picks. Eventually, you can't trade me all the number of draft picks in the league "+1". You have to eventually realize your loss and I get to realize my gain.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

When (almost) everybody else disagrees with you, it's worth considering that you might be wrong

Thanks, smarty.Don't worry, I've considered it. When someone is able to show some proof, however, that there should be a time premium paid on draft picks, then I'll strongly consider changing my OPINION. Considering this isn't something based on facts but just on analogies and theories, then I'm fine on my minority side of the equation.I've already explained why I think the draft picks are different than money. I've yet to see a good explanation for why that thinking is flawed. I'm very open to the possibility it is.

Sorry if I came across as a ####, that wasn't my intent. Buckeye has done a great job explaining why there should be a time premium. A $1 today is worth more than $1 tomorrow, not just because of interest (earned in the future), but also because of future uncertainty. So people *do* place a premium on "winning today" over "winning tomorrow" because they face uncertainty in the future.I can only give you anecdotal evidence from my keeper league (which blends in auction elements) - by looking at a boatload of trades involving players, picks, "cash" I've estimated that owners apply a 20-30% discount rate to future commodities. In other words, a 20-30% interest rate is the effective rate in my league. Anyway, I really like the topic because it's an interesting debate. That said, I struggle to see why you think the time element should be ignored and haven't found your explanation compelling. Because uncertainty DOES matter and time brings uncertainty, even if picks don't earn interest the way dollars do.

 

[zed2283]

This has been debated on here a number of times, but something today is always worth more than something tomorrow (for all the reasons already stated). Also, don't forget that demand plays a role as well. If there is a demand for my pick (i.e. you want it) then the price goes up. What other motivation is there for me to trade you that pick, all things being equal?

 

[footballsavvy]

Clearly the only reason anyone would swap 1.06 now for 1.06 later would be a scenario in which they speculated that next years draft class was going to be significantly better. Still I would want a 1.05 or 1.04 to even consider giving away me first rounder - and thats just from a want-to-have-fun-participating-in-the-draft-this-year stand point.

 

[smashingsilver]

This has been debated on here a number of times, but something today is always worth more than something tomorrow (for all the reasons already stated). Also, don't forget that demand plays a role as well. If there is a demand for my pick (i.e. you want it) then the price goes up. What other motivation is there for me to trade you that pick, all things being equal?

That's the key point in this entire discussion: incentive. Even if we hypothesize that the 1.06 in this year's draft is exactly identical in value to the 1.06 in next year's draft, what incentive would I have to make that trade if I'm holding this year's 1.06? There has to be a motivational reason to make me agree to a trade. Remember, the setting is that "everything else is equal", which would include team situations/ranks, draft classes, etc. Of course, we all realize that everything else is never equal in real life, but for the purposes of the discussion, there are no "2011 draft class is better than 2010" or "Team A is a contender while Team B is a basement dweller" situations. So, if I hold the 2010 1.06 pick and you want it, but are only willing to give me a 2011 1.06, what incentive would I have to make the trade? Simply to delay the receiving of my reward? Because I'm a nice guy and I want you to get a good player now instead of enjoying that myself? Conversely, if I own the 2011 1.06 pick and want your 2010 1.06 pick in exchange, why would you give it to me?The only way any reasonable FF owner would trade their current 1st round pick for a future 1st round pick, all other things being equal, is if they are receiving more long-term value in return. This would mean either an additional draft selection, or a draft selection of higher arbitrary value (assuming that a 1.05 is always better than a 1.06, again, part of the everything being equal aspect). In the real world, this is a foolish discussion because there are several different scenarios (already discussed in this topic) which would legitimately cause a team to part with the current year 1.06 for a future year 1.06. However, I've never been in a league where you know exactly what next year's draft order will be. To me, that's the biggest reason why I would expect more for my current year draft pick, because the value of that pick is known. I have no idea what selection your 2011 pick will end up being. That uncertainty alone commands extra value.

 

[moderated]

without assessing the strength of the current class vs the next years class it's impossible to answer.

If a current year is weak and the following year is a lot stronger i could see trading a 1.6 in the current year for a LATER pick the following year.

 

[Faust]

This year's class is very strong with all of the labor uncertainty and with the underclassmen that have declared.

Some analysts have stated that this draft may rival the fabled 1983 draft class.

"This is the best first round going into the draft that I've seen since 1983.''

-- NFL Network and CBS analyst Charley Casserly, the former Redskins and Texans GM, live from the Scouting Combine in Indianapolis, on the quality of the top of this draft.

 

[Faust]

from Don Banks:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ....combine/1.html

Bill Belichick's favorite TV analyst, Charley Casserly, made the boldest statement of the entire combine, labeling this year's first-round talent the strongest he's seen since the fabled Class of '83, when quarterbacks John Elway, Dan Marino and Jim Kelly led a star-studded group.

"This is the best first round I've seen since 1983," said Casserly, the former Redskins/Texans general manager who now works for both CBS and the NFL Network. "In talking to general managers throughout the league, decision-makers, I think it's the result of two things:

"Last year, there was a concentrated effort to keep players in school. Conversely, both sides in the labor negotiations have talked about a rookie wage scale (this year), so when you have those two things working, players without a motivation to stay in school (will come out early). You have a perfect storm to have the best junior crop you've had since all the way back to '83, and I think this is the best first round I've seen going into a draft since 1983.''

As far back as November, an NFL personnel man I trust started telling me the junior class in this draft would be stacked, and that a record 20-22 underclassmen would populate the first round. After spending the past four days at the combine and hearing the assessment of various NFL officials, I'm more convinced than ever the hype is right in this case.

 

[bigmarc27]

I try every year and I've never had a team accept a trade that netted me their future first for my current 2nd rounder - even if the pick is 2.01. I will trade a late pick in a round for the same round next year depending on how good I think the team will perform. Why pick 3.12 if I don't like anyone if I can get what I assume to be 3.01-3.03 next year?

 

[moderated]

from Don Banks:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ....combine/1.html

Bill Belichick's favorite TV analyst, Charley Casserly, made the boldest statement of the entire combine, labeling this year's first-round talent the strongest he's seen since the fabled Class of '83, when quarterbacks John Elway, Dan Marino and Jim Kelly led a star-studded group.

"This is the best first round I've seen since 1983," said Casserly, the former Redskins/Texans general manager who now works for both CBS and the NFL Network. "In talking to general managers throughout the league, decision-makers, I think it's the result of two things:

"Last year, there was a concentrated effort to keep players in school. Conversely, both sides in the labor negotiations have talked about a rookie wage scale (this year), so when you have those two things working, players without a motivation to stay in school (will come out early). You have a perfect storm to have the best junior crop you've had since all the way back to '83, and I think this is the best first round I've seen going into a draft since 1983.''

As far back as November, an NFL personnel man I trust started telling me the junior class in this draft would be stacked, and that a record 20-22 underclassmen would populate the first round. After spending the past four days at the combine and hearing the assessment of various NFL officials, I'm more convinced than ever the hype is right in this case.

they did go on to say it was the o-line/d-line that made it so strong which is irrelevant for most FF leagues, but the RB's/WR's are also pretty deep IMO.

 

[Faust]

from Don Banks:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ....combine/1.html

Bill Belichick's favorite TV analyst, Charley Casserly, made the boldest statement of the entire combine, labeling this year's first-round talent the strongest he's seen since the fabled Class of '83, when quarterbacks John Elway, Dan Marino and Jim Kelly led a star-studded group.

"This is the best first round I've seen since 1983," said Casserly, the former Redskins/Texans general manager who now works for both CBS and the NFL Network. "In talking to general managers throughout the league, decision-makers, I think it's the result of two things:

"Last year, there was a concentrated effort to keep players in school. Conversely, both sides in the labor negotiations have talked about a rookie wage scale (this year), so when you have those two things working, players without a motivation to stay in school (will come out early). You have a perfect storm to have the best junior crop you've had since all the way back to '83, and I think this is the best first round I've seen going into a draft since 1983.''

As far back as November, an NFL personnel man I trust started telling me the junior class in this draft would be stacked, and that a record 20-22 underclassmen would populate the first round. After spending the past four days at the combine and hearing the assessment of various NFL officials, I'm more convinced than ever the hype is right in this case.

they did go on to say it was the o-line/d-line that made it so strong which is irrelevant for most FF leagues, but the RB's/WR's are also pretty deep IMO.

Yeah, from the same article:The first round is never a haven of running backs these days, but it's a pretty deep position in this particular draft, and a pretty speedy one. Sprinters were everywhere in Sunday's workout. Clemson's C.J. Spiller ran a scorching 4.37 in the 40-yard dash, Cal's Jahvid Best was at 4.35, Fresno State's Ryan Matthews really helped his draft grade with a 4.45, Mississippi's Dexter McCluster finished at 4.58, and USC's Joe McKnight ran a 4.49.

Spiller, Best and Matthews could all be legitimate first-round considerations at this point. And Stanford's Toby Gerhart, a Heisman finalist, flashed in his workout as well, running a very solid 4.53

I think WRs in this class are perceived as deep, but not a clear seperation in the group behind Dez Bryant (and Dez has raised a number of red flags)

 

[Crippler]

from Don Banks:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ....combine/1.html

Bill Belichick's favorite TV analyst, Charley Casserly, made the boldest statement of the entire combine, labeling this year's first-round talent the strongest he's seen since the fabled Class of '83, when quarterbacks John Elway, Dan Marino and Jim Kelly led a star-studded group.

"This is the best first round I've seen since 1983," said Casserly, the former Redskins/Texans general manager who now works for both CBS and the NFL Network. "In talking to general managers throughout the league, decision-makers, I think it's the result of two things:

"Last year, there was a concentrated effort to keep players in school. Conversely, both sides in the labor negotiations have talked about a rookie wage scale (this year), so when you have those two things working, players without a motivation to stay in school (will come out early). You have a perfect storm to have the best junior crop you've had since all the way back to '83, and I think this is the best first round I've seen going into a draft since 1983.''

As far back as November, an NFL personnel man I trust started telling me the junior class in this draft would be stacked, and that a record 20-22 underclassmen would populate the first round. After spending the past four days at the combine and hearing the assessment of various NFL officials, I'm more convinced than ever the hype is right in this case.

they did go on to say it was the o-line/d-line that made it so strong which is irrelevant for most FF leagues, but the RB's/WR's are also pretty deep IMO.

Yeah, from the same article:The first round is never a haven of running backs these days, but it's a pretty deep position in this particular draft, and a pretty speedy one. Sprinters were everywhere in Sunday's workout. Clemson's C.J. Spiller ran a scorching 4.37 in the 40-yard dash, Cal's Jahvid Best was at 4.35, Fresno State's Ryan Matthews really helped his draft grade with a 4.45, Mississippi's Dexter McCluster finished at 4.58, and USC's Joe McKnight ran a 4.49.

Spiller, Best and Matthews could all be legitimate first-round considerations at this point. And Stanford's Toby Gerhart, a Heisman finalist, flashed in his workout as well, running a very solid 4.53

I think WRs in this class are perceived as deep, but not a clear seperation in the group behind Dez Bryant (and Dez has raised a number of red flags)

Exactly. This draft also has one of the best S to come out in a longtime to add to a total good S class and a very nice LB core. I tont think it is the O that gets GM's excited about this draft and this statement says it. Next year's list is looking like 3 outstanding QB's, 2 RB's that would rock this class and some very nice top end WR's like Bryant. Floyd, Greene, Jones. And why I prefer the class next year. Normally a pick this year is worth a pick plus next year but you got to know what your getting. If you know the number already, than 2 things to remember. If you covet a certain player than you better make sure he is available at your pick now and have a mock ready for next year to compare. In 2 QB leagues especially give me the nice pick next year. I think most should be able to convince someone to give top 5 next year for the 1.6 now or even more with draft fever. But looking at next years class I think it is worth the 1.8 and you get the better player next year at that spot

 

[BigJim®]

It just cracks me up that some guys would trade a current 1st for a worse 1st next year. It's like mailing someone $10 on the promise they'll give you $5 next year. Even a straight up trade is senseless, unless your team is an embarrassment of riches and you don't need that value in 2010. Even then its a 0% savings account.