Patriots deal 3rd rounder to Oakland (1 Viewer)

[Aaron Rudnicki]

f you accept the fact that a future 1st is roughly equivalent to a current 2nd

Except that I don't. That's the point.For example, Colts traded up from #146 to #42 this year at the cost of a 1st rounder next year. By the draft value chart, the difference (434) is roughly the same as pick 15 in the second round. Surely the Colts will be drafting well below that in the first round next year.In other words, the discount factor is more like 1/2 to 2/3 of a round rather than a full round.

well, you may not. but, I'm guessing most people here and around the league do. I didn't just make this up. It's pretty widely accepted from what I can tell.the Colts traded a 4th round pick (#126) and a future 1st for the #42 pick.pick 126 is worth 46 points.pick 42 is worth 480 points.like you said, the difference is 434, which is basically pick 15 in the 2nd round.So, the Colts future 1st was roughly worth a mid 2nd round pick this year...just as I've been saying.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

doing the same thing with the Pats/49ers trade.

Patriots gave up pick #28 for pick #110 and a future 1st.

pick #28 worth 660 points

pick #110 worth 74

difference is 586, which is roughly equivalent to the last pick of the 1st round or the 1st pick of the 2nd round.

So, the Pats got value equivalent to a late 1st/early 2nd and a 4th for their #28 overall pick.

it's not horrible or anything and obviously could pay off big if the 49ers suck next year. not trying to be argumentative here at all.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Deion Branch has gone from a late 1st round pick to what should be a mid 1st round pick, and what very well could be an early 1st round pick. Would anyone really be shocked if this turned into a top 10, or hell, even a top 5 pick? You wouldn't wait two years for a shot at that?

fook yeah baby.

The big issue, as Patriot fans are pointing out and dealing with at other boards... is having the talent there with Brady. Branch in last years playoffs would have been more then enough to make the Super Bowl - slappin' around the Bears. So to put off this talent does seem a very strange way to do things.

 

[BassNBrew]

It's a good move in my eyes because they are in good position to get a higher pick in a better draft a year from now.

so, let's say hypothetically the 49ers pick next year is #16 overall.would you gladly trade #28 in 2007 for #16 in 2008?it's a higher pick, but it's also a year later.

Sure, I'd take that. Why would I mind that it's a year later? If long-term success is the goal, an investment like that is a good one.

Tell that to all the coaches and staff that got fired this year and who will be fired next year. Tell that to the owners with an empty stadium at the end of this year. Tell it to the city that just misses the playoffs by a game and the windfall that comes with it. 08 doesn't equal 07.

 

[Boston]

doing the same thing with the Pats/49ers trade.Patriots gave up pick #28 for pick #110 and a future 1st.pick #28 worth 660 pointspick #110 worth 74difference is 586, which is roughly equivalent to the 1st pick of the 2nd round or so.So, the Pats got value equivalent to an early 2nd and a 4th for their #28 overall pick.

In all honesty I think you're looking at this much differently than others are. The bottomline is the Pats obviously were not overwhelmed by anyone at #28 and now have a draft pick that will probably fall somewhere between 10-20 next year. If the Pats had not been so active in free agency I may feel different but right now I love the fact they have set themselves up to be big players in next year's draft.

 

[PMENFAN]

It's a good move in my eyes because they are in good position to get a higher pick in a better draft a year from now.

so, let's say hypothetically the 49ers pick next year is #16 overall.would you gladly trade #28 in 2007 for #16 in 2008?it's a higher pick, but it's also a year later.

Let's see who is on the board at 28 in 2007 to make the decision. I didn't like the value on the board at the time. Staley was there, but he wasn't a fit for the Pats at all. Everybody else was too much of a rach for the salary slot, and a waste of the pick, so they moved it, and got what value they could. I think you're about right on with the #16. Is the best value ever they could have obtained for a #28? No. But given the situation, it's a fair trade. As for overall getting only 1 player on day one, they really don't have a lot of holes left to fill. They were quite active in the market. There aren't a lot of roster spots left.

 

[Boston]

It's a good move in my eyes because they are in good position to get a higher pick in a better draft a year from now.

so, let's say hypothetically the 49ers pick next year is #16 overall.would you gladly trade #28 in 2007 for #16 in 2008?it's a higher pick, but it's also a year later.

Sure, I'd take that. Why would I mind that it's a year later? If long-term success is the goal, an investment like that is a good one.

Tell that to all the coaches and staff that got fired this year and who will be fired next year. Tell that to the owners with an empty stadium at the end of this year. Tell it to the city that just misses the playoffs by a game and the windfall that comes with it. 08 doesn't equal 07.

Nothing you say applies to the Pats. BB isn't getting fired, the stadium is sold out with a waiting list about 10 miles long and after what they did in free agency I don't think they'll be missing the playoffs.

 

[Pat Patriot]

It's a good move in my eyes because they are in good position to get a higher pick in a better draft a year from now.

so, let's say hypothetically the 49ers pick next year is #16 overall.would you gladly trade #28 in 2007 for #16 in 2008?it's a higher pick, but it's also a year later.

Let's see who is on the board at 28 in 2007 to make the decision. I didn't like the value on the board at the time. Staley was there, but he wasn't a fit for the Pats at all. Everybody else was too much of a rach for the salary slot, and a waste of the pick, so they moved it, and got what value they could. I think you're about right on with the #16. Is the best value ever they could have obtained for a #28? No. But given the situation, it's a fair trade. As for overall getting only 1 player on day one, they really don't have a lot of holes left to fill. They were quite active in the market. There aren't a lot of roster spots left.

SF obviously wanted Staley. I thiink the Patriots could have had #42 and #76 or #110 and a 1st next year.I dont disagree that they players that they supposedly liked (Harris, Leonard) would have been reaches at #28. But what if they could have had David Harris at #42 and either Jason Hill, Charles Johnson, Jonathon Wade or any other number of players this year?They obviously liked the idea of rolling the dice for a high pick next year.

 

[BassNBrew]

It's a good move in my eyes because they are in good position to get a higher pick in a better draft a year from now.

so, let's say hypothetically the 49ers pick next year is #16 overall.would you gladly trade #28 in 2007 for #16 in 2008?it's a higher pick, but it's also a year later.

Sure, I'd take that. Why would I mind that it's a year later? If long-term success is the goal, an investment like that is a good one.

Tell that to all the coaches and staff that got fired this year and who will be fired next year. Tell that to the owners with an empty stadium at the end of this year. Tell it to the city that just misses the playoffs by a game and the windfall that comes with it. 08 doesn't equal 07.

Nothing you say applies to the Pats. BB isn't getting fired, the stadium is sold out with a waiting list about 10 miles long and after what they did in free agency I don't think they'll be missing the playoffs.

Trade values aren't set by the logo on the jersey. Who's on the Pats roster, wearing the headset, or in the stands is not relevant to the topic of value. This could be a great move for the Pats based on the options available and still be less top dollar. Everyone is saying the Pats got a steal....they didn't get a steal, just made a very solid move for their situation.As an example...Pats tickets go for 2X face value in the parking lot. I have two extra tix. It's a minute before kickoff and the parking lot is empty except for two people. They offer 1.5x face value and I accept. I did good even though I got less than the going rate.

 

[bostonfred]

I agree that the Patriots didn't do much with their draft this year.

I think the expectations in New England are championship or bust. Going into the draft, they seemed to be one of the top teams in the AFC, with a chance to come out of the draft as the favorite. Coming out of the draft, I still think they're one of the favorites, but they didn't distance themselves from the competition. So I'd say that, as a fan, this draft was disappointing.

If they don't win the Superbowl this year, people will look back at the fact that they traded their first, second and third picks for Wes Welker and a couple of picks next year, just the same way they traded Branch for a pick this year while just missing out on another Superbowl. If they do win the Superbowl this year, though, they'll be in an incredibly strong position going forward.

There is one possible light at the end of the tunnel from all these draft day trades, though. By freeing up the money that was supposed to go to their top three picks, they may have made it possible to trade for Moss, or to sign Samuel to a long term deal. If either of those happened, these trades would instantly make a lot more sense.

 

[Boston]

It's a good move in my eyes because they are in good position to get a higher pick in a better draft a year from now.

so, let's say hypothetically the 49ers pick next year is #16 overall.would you gladly trade #28 in 2007 for #16 in 2008?it's a higher pick, but it's also a year later.

Sure, I'd take that. Why would I mind that it's a year later? If long-term success is the goal, an investment like that is a good one.

Tell that to all the coaches and staff that got fired this year and who will be fired next year. Tell that to the owners with an empty stadium at the end of this year. Tell it to the city that just misses the playoffs by a game and the windfall that comes with it. 08 doesn't equal 07.

Nothing you say applies to the Pats. BB isn't getting fired, the stadium is sold out with a waiting list about 10 miles long and after what they did in free agency I don't think they'll be missing the playoffs.

just made a very solid move for their situation.

I think that's the point people who are supporting this move are saying. No one's saying it's a steal...it just a savvy move that could potentially pay off big dividends next year. The goal of the Patriot organization is short and long term success and this move along with their overall offseason fits that philosophy.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

There is one possible light at the end of the tunnel from all these draft day trades, though. By freeing up the money that was supposed to go to their top three picks, they may have made it possible to trade for Moss, or to sign Samuel to a long term deal. If either of those happened, these trades would instantly make a lot more sense.

as a Patriots fan, do you guys really want Randy Moss?I guess the idea is that Belichick and Brady and the veterans will keep him in line just like Jordan and Phil Jackson did with Rodman. Still, seems like a guy that is pretty much the exact opposite of the type of player the Patriots have built their dynasty around.

 

[BassNBrew]

It's a good move in my eyes because they are in good position to get a higher pick in a better draft a year from now.

so, let's say hypothetically the 49ers pick next year is #16 overall.would you gladly trade #28 in 2007 for #16 in 2008?it's a higher pick, but it's also a year later.

Sure, I'd take that. Why would I mind that it's a year later? If long-term success is the goal, an investment like that is a good one.

Tell that to all the coaches and staff that got fired this year and who will be fired next year. Tell that to the owners with an empty stadium at the end of this year. Tell it to the city that just misses the playoffs by a game and the windfall that comes with it. 08 doesn't equal 07.

Nothing you say applies to the Pats. BB isn't getting fired, the stadium is sold out with a waiting list about 10 miles long and after what they did in free agency I don't think they'll be missing the playoffs.

just made a very solid move for their situation.

I think that's the point people who are supporting this move are saying. No one's saying it's a steal...it just a savvy move that could potentially pay off big dividends next year. The goal of the Patriot organization is short and long term success and this move fits that philosophy.

savvy, YES. But Ruds said they got poor value and everyone is beating him up.The Panthers got poor value trading 14 and a 7th for 25, a 2nd, and 6th accordingly to the value chart. It was a savvy move because Beason would have been the pick at 14 or 25.

 

[BassNBrew]

I agree that the Patriots didn't do much with their draft this year. I think the expectations in New England are championship or bust. Going into the draft, they seemed to be one of the top teams in the AFC, with a chance to come out of the draft as the favorite. Coming out of the draft, I still think they're one of the favorites, but they didn't distance themselves from the competition. So I'd say that, as a fan, this draft was disappointing. If they don't win the Superbowl this year, people will look back at the fact that they traded their first, second and third picks for Wes Welker and a couple of picks next year, just the same way they traded Branch for a pick this year while just missing out on another Superbowl. If they do win the Superbowl this year, though, they'll be in an incredibly strong position going forward. There is one possible light at the end of the tunnel from all these draft day trades, though. By freeing up the money that was supposed to go to their top three picks, they may have made it possible to trade for Moss, or to sign Samuel to a long term deal. If either of those happened, these trades would instantly make a lot more sense.

Isn't there separate money allotted to rookie salaries where you can sign them regardless???

 

[Boston]

There is one possible light at the end of the tunnel from all these draft day trades, though. By freeing up the money that was supposed to go to their top three picks, they may have made it possible to trade for Moss, or to sign Samuel to a long term deal. If either of those happened, these trades would instantly make a lot more sense.

as a Patriots fan, do you guys really want Randy Moss?I guess the idea is that Belichick and Brady and the veterans will keep him in line just like Jordan and Phil Jackson did with Rodman. Still, seems like a guy that is pretty much the exact opposite of the type of player the Patriots have built their dynasty around.

As a Patriot fan I'm very comfortable with Moss if BB/Pioli are. It's that simple and that's just how it is in Patriot Nation. Most fans have faith that if they think he'll be a positive addition than he will be. They have earned that trust and there's little doubt that a lot of thought goes into a decision of this magnitude. Also, the fact that they probably won't have to give up a lot and reports are he will restructure really cuts down their exposure.If it were the Carroll/Grier regime and they made that move than I'd be sick to my stomach.

 

[bostonfred]

There is one possible light at the end of the tunnel from all these draft day trades, though. By freeing up the money that was supposed to go to their top three picks, they may have made it possible to trade for Moss, or to sign Samuel to a long term deal. If either of those happened, these trades would instantly make a lot more sense.

as a Patriots fan, do you guys really want Randy Moss?I guess the idea is that Belichick and Brady and the veterans will keep him in line just like Jordan and Phil Jackson did with Rodman. Still, seems like a guy that is pretty much the exact opposite of the type of player the Patriots have built their dynasty around.

I would love to have the Pats get Moss. I'd love to see what Brady could do with a true stud receiver, and I'd love to see what Moss could do with a true stud QB. That's really intriguing to me. I understand that it would turn New England into the Randy Moss team, which would be annoying at times, but there's enough to talk about on the team that the media wouldn't be pushing for stories on Moss as much as they did in Oakland and Minnesota and pushed for stories on Owens in Dallas until Romo became the story. And, in turn, I think Moss would be happier facing less scrutiny while on a winning team, playing with Tom Brady, and playing with other talented players so he didn't have to feel like The Guy. The veteran leadership and coaching notwithstanding, I think Moss would be fine.

 

[Boston]

It's a good move in my eyes because they are in good position to get a higher pick in a better draft a year from now.

so, let's say hypothetically the 49ers pick next year is #16 overall.would you gladly trade #28 in 2007 for #16 in 2008?it's a higher pick, but it's also a year later.

Sure, I'd take that. Why would I mind that it's a year later? If long-term success is the goal, an investment like that is a good one.

Tell that to all the coaches and staff that got fired this year and who will be fired next year. Tell that to the owners with an empty stadium at the end of this year. Tell it to the city that just misses the playoffs by a game and the windfall that comes with it. 08 doesn't equal 07.

Nothing you say applies to the Pats. BB isn't getting fired, the stadium is sold out with a waiting list about 10 miles long and after what they did in free agency I don't think they'll be missing the playoffs.

just made a very solid move for their situation.

I think that's the point people who are supporting this move are saying. No one's saying it's a steal...it just a savvy move that could potentially pay off big dividends next year. The goal of the Patriot organization is short and long term success and this move fits that philosophy.

savvy, YES. But Ruds said they got poor value and everyone is beating him up.The Panthers got poor value trading 14 and a 7th for 25, a 2nd, and 6th accordingly to the value chart. It was a savvy move because Beason would have been the pick at 14 or 25.

I don't think guys are beating him up. He's backing up his side. Yet, the Pats often don't follow the norm and I think this is another case.Also, I don't think that chart is the be all end all. It's a tool but it assumes all drafts are created equal and doesn't take into account what type of shape a team is currently in.

 

[bostonfred]

I agree that the Patriots didn't do much with their draft this year. I think the expectations in New England are championship or bust. Going into the draft, they seemed to be one of the top teams in the AFC, with a chance to come out of the draft as the favorite. Coming out of the draft, I still think they're one of the favorites, but they didn't distance themselves from the competition. So I'd say that, as a fan, this draft was disappointing. If they don't win the Superbowl this year, people will look back at the fact that they traded their first, second and third picks for Wes Welker and a couple of picks next year, just the same way they traded Branch for a pick this year while just missing out on another Superbowl. If they do win the Superbowl this year, though, they'll be in an incredibly strong position going forward. There is one possible light at the end of the tunnel from all these draft day trades, though. By freeing up the money that was supposed to go to their top three picks, they may have made it possible to trade for Moss, or to sign Samuel to a long term deal. If either of those happened, these trades would instantly make a lot more sense.

Isn't there separate money allotted to rookie salaries where you can sign them regardless???

I don't know the answer to this completely. I know the league sets the rookie pool, but I don't know what happens to that pool if you trade away a pick. I think it may free up some money, since if a team like Washington traded away the #6 overall for Lance Briggs, say, they shouldn't have to spend their whole $6 million rookie pool on their two remaining picks in the sixth and seventh rounds or whatever. The rookie pool is actually more of a minimum anyways. A lot of these rookie contracts include incentives that aren't part of the rookie cap, but do apply to the overall cap. Trading away a first might still have opened up some money.

 

[vasco75]

There is one possible light at the end of the tunnel from all these draft day trades, though. By freeing up the money that was supposed to go to their top three picks, they may have made it possible to trade for Moss, or to sign Samuel to a long term deal. If either of those happened, these trades would instantly make a lot more sense.

as a Patriots fan, do you guys really want Randy Moss?I guess the idea is that Belichick and Brady and the veterans will keep him in line just like Jordan and Phil Jackson did with Rodman. Still, seems like a guy that is pretty much the exact opposite of the type of player the Patriots have built their dynasty around.

I've been arguing this very point with my bro (who would jump up and down if the Pats landed Moss). My take as a Pats fan is that the way that this offense has been performing the past few years, i.e. spreading the ball around to a plethora of receivers, I really think that come Week 3, Moss would be pissing and moaning about not getting the rock. I understand that the Pats have dealt with attitude guys in the past (Dillon being an example), but I really think that the Pats can be competitive WITHOUT Moss...

 

[Ron_Mexico]

I expect NE to unload more picks tomorrow.

They have 9 freaking picks in rounds 4 through 7.

 

[Green and Gold]

I'm not sure I understand the "championship or bust" mentality. For a great organization, that's the goal every year. It isn't an expectation, however. I don't think anyone expects the Pats to just walk all over everyone to an easy trophy, regardless of offseason moves. There are a lot of other good organizations that can win on any given Sunday, and every team, no matter how great, can lose a game. It sucks if it happens in the playoffs, but it can.

Trading for future draft picks is a great idea for a team that can compete as it stands. It gives you the leeway to pick guys you think will really help your organization down the line, rather than having to pick up someone you you don't think will really fit your system.

Either that or the Pat's scout team decided to mail it in. "Dude, you see that Meriweather guy throwing those kicks? We gotta pick him up, we need to make sure we have the dirtiest safety in the league on our team. Rodney won't last forever, man. Who else? Nah man, we'll just trade it all away and take the year off. Everyone will think we're geniuses anyway."

 

[David Yudkin]

I expect NE to unload more picks tomorrow.They have 9 freaking picks in rounds 4 through 7.

I don't see the Pats having roster space to add 9 second day picks. I suspect Pats fans would rather see them roll the dice on Moss and give 3-4 of them away than have them draft players that probably won't make the team.

 

[SoloMatisse]

There is one possible light at the end of the tunnel from all these draft day trades, though. By freeing up the money that was supposed to go to their top three picks, they may have made it possible to trade for Moss, or to sign Samuel to a long term deal. If either of those happened, these trades would instantly make a lot more sense.

as a Patriots fan, do you guys really want Randy Moss?I guess the idea is that Belichick and Brady and the veterans will keep him in line just like Jordan and Phil Jackson did with Rodman. Still, seems like a guy that is pretty much the exact opposite of the type of player the Patriots have built their dynasty around.

I've been arguing this very point with my bro (who would jump up and down if the Pats landed Moss). My take as a Pats fan is that the way that this offense has been performing the past few years, i.e. spreading the ball around to a plethora of receivers, I really think that come Week 3, Moss would be pissing and moaning about not getting the rock. I understand that the Pats have dealt with attitude guys in the past (Dillon being an example), but I really think that the Pats can be competitive WITHOUT Moss...

Youre right about the Pats being competitive without Moss. But, imo, Moss wouldnt be #####ing and moaning like the old Moss because he'd actually be winning......probably somewhere between 12 and 14 times next year. And as bad as his attitude has been in the past, we all know that winning is the ultimate elixir. The guy has already amassed the stats to get him in HOF. He's had all the #s a guy could ever want, and he'll NEVER surpass what Rice or Marvin will reach. Its the RING he's after. So, if he gets shipped to NE, expect a change in attitude, a team-first mentality, and alot of smiles from Randy Moss.

 

[Spike]

doing the same thing with the Pats/49ers trade.

Patriots gave up pick #28 for pick #110 and a future 1st.

pick #28 worth 660 points

pick #110 worth 74

difference is 586, which is roughly equivalent to the 1st pick of the 2nd round or so.

So, the Pats got value equivalent to an early 2nd and a 4th for their #28 overall pick.

In all honesty I think you're looking at this much differently than others are. The bottomline is the Pats obviously were not overwhelmed by anyone at #28 and now have a draft pick that will probably fall somewhere between 10-20 next year. If the Pats had not been so active in free agency I may feel different but right now I love the fact they have set themselves up to be big players in next year's draft.

I think this is the key. The Pats simply didn't feel the worth of the player they would get for the #28 was high enough. Lots of draft pundits/talent evaluators have been saying that this draft wasn't especially deep in the first round.If the Pats felt the value wasn't there this year (as I had posted from a conversation Belichick had on Friday on a local radio station), it was smart moving the pick for a #1 next year.

The draft value chart is a nice guide, but that's all it is. It's not something that's set in stone.

 

[DropKick]

It's a good move in my eyes because they are in good position to get a higher pick in a better draft a year from now.

so, let's say hypothetically the 49ers pick next year is #16 overall.would you gladly trade #28 in 2007 for #16 in 2008?it's a higher pick, but it's also a year later.

Sure, I'd take that. Why would I mind that it's a year later? If long-term success is the goal, an investment like that is a good one.

Tell that to all the coaches and staff that got fired this year and who will be fired next year. Tell that to the owners with an empty stadium at the end of this year. Tell it to the city that just misses the playoffs by a game and the windfall that comes with it. 08 doesn't equal 07.

Nothing you say applies to the Pats. BB isn't getting fired, the stadium is sold out with a waiting list about 10 miles long and after what they did in free agency I don't think they'll be missing the playoffs.

just made a very solid move for their situation.

I think that's the point people who are supporting this move are saying. No one's saying it's a steal...it just a savvy move that could potentially pay off big dividends next year. The goal of the Patriot organization is short and long term success and this move fits that philosophy.

savvy, YES. But Ruds said they got poor value and everyone is beating him up.The Panthers got poor value trading 14 and a 7th for 25, a 2nd, and 6th accordingly to the value chart. It was a savvy move because Beason would have been the pick at 14 or 25.

I don't think guys are beating him up. He's backing up his side. Yet, the Pats often don't follow the norm and I think this is another case.Also, I don't think that chart is the be all end all. It's a tool but it assumes all drafts are created equal and doesn't take into account what type of shape a team is currently in.

:( Completly agree the chart is just a rough tool. It's a simple model that can't possibly capture the nuances of individual teams; the quality/depth of individual drafts or even the human behavior and relationships between team's front offices.The Carolina example cited in the above quote is a good one. They had a need and a player targeted but were able to trade down and still get their man. This is what is so cool about draft day. A savvy move to drop down... maybe a savvy move to jump up, ala the Browns move to acquire Quinn. All dynamic opportunities that teams must find a willing trade partner to capitalize upon. Incidentally, local (New England) sports radio yesterday cited the Patriot's as not being enamored with this draft class. Although my first thought after hearing about the deals were financial.

 

[Spike]

I expect NE to unload more picks tomorrow.

They have 9 freaking picks in rounds 4 through 7.

I don't see the Pats having roster space to add 9 second day picks. I suspect Pats fans would rather see them roll the dice on Moss and give 3-4 of them away than have them draft players that probably won't make the team.

Don't forget that 4 of the Pats picks today are Compensatory - which cannot be traded.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

b/c a 1st next year is roughly equivalent to a 2nd this year and a 3rd next year is roughly equivalent to a 4th this year.

What is the logic in this?

Present discounted value.(I'm not crticizing the Pats' moves here. It's not like they had a ton of holes to fill or anything, so if they wanted to stockpile picks in next year's draft, that seems reasonable. But I don't think they got exceptional value either. The 1st round pick Dallas got from Cleveland should be a very high pick. I doubt SF's first rounder will be nearly that high. Not 28th, but probably not top 10 either.)

 

[AB in DC]

So, the Colts future 1st was roughly worth a mid 2nd round pick this year...just as I've been saying.

A late-round future 1st is worth a mid-round 2d this year. (49ers-Colts)Or, an early-to-mid-round future 1st is worth a late-round 1st this year. (Pats-49ers)

Or, an early-round future 3d is worth a late-round 3rd this year. (Pats-Raiders)

In other words, you're not getting a full round of value by trading your pick into the future. Just as I've been saying.

 

[AB in DC]

Present discounted value.

Agreed -- I'm just saying that the discount rate is less than a full round.

(I'm not crticizing the Pats' moves here. It's not like they had a ton of holes to fill or anything, so if they wanted to stockpile picks in next year's draft, that seems reasonable. But I don't think they got exceptional value either. The 1st round pick Dallas got from Cleveland should be a very high pick. I doubt SF's first rounder will be nearly that high. Not 28th, but probably not top 10 either.)

The Cleveland-Dallas case was unusual because Quinn was seen as a top-ten talent available at #22. That made the pick worth a lot more. Joe Staley was expected to be picked somewhere in the twenties, so getting him at #28 isn't a huge steal.