Sammy Knight for Lance Mitchell? or (1 Viewer)

[willjohnson33]

I was offered Knight for MItchell. I have also been offered Lofa for my 4.02 and a 2006 round 2. Either of these worth it?My DBsErik ColemanSammy KnightBob SandersKen HamlinKenoy KennedyMy LBsNick BarnettTeddy LehmanD.J. WilliamsJay ForemanCato JuneChanning CrowderDavid ThorntonPisa TinoisamoaIt is actually for a draft pick, but I am pretty sure that Mitchell won't be around by the time my pick comes up. Fincher is left but I would guess both would be gone by my pick. I have crowder, but I think mitchell might have a bigger impact this year. Hamlin has been inconsistent and Sanders seems injury prone. Kennedy is a question mark. I'm guessing that platooning the three should keep me close to the production gained by knight.Thanks

 

[Renegades of Funk]

I'd keep Knight. I think you have some nice young LB's already and are probably weaker at DB. Knight should post big tackle numbers this year playing behind the KC front 7.

 

[pretender]

You might want to pick up Gilbert Gardner as Cato's handcuff. He'll be challenging June in training camp and if he stays healthy just might get the starting nod over June. My 2 cents. I would hang on to Knight also.

 

[helix]

Unless you want to dump DB's, Knight is worth more than a spec LB (Mitchell or Fincher). As to TatupuIf you don't like anything in the 4th round, an additional comp of a 2006 2nd is not out of bounds. It is not like you are giving up a potential starting RB at 2.X. I think it comes down to how much you like him. Is the current owner trying to get rid of him? That may change the equation-

 

[willjohnson33]

Gardner is not available and the guy won't trade him so that is out of the question. As far as Tatupu, I initiated not him and I am a big fan.Sounds like keeping knight is the correct move.Thanks

 

[-OZ-]

Gardner is not available and the guy won't trade him so that is out of the question. As far as Tatupu, I initiated not him and I am a big fan.

Sounds like keeping knight is the correct move.

Thanks

If you needed LBs or were rebuilding, I'd have made the deal. As your team stands, keeping Knight is the right move IMO. He'll do well in KC.

 

[Bloom]

i dont think there's any rookie IDP that i would give up a 2nd rounder from next year for.

 

[-OZ-]

i dont think there's any rookie IDP that i would give up a 2nd rounder from next year for.

Given your policy against drafting IDPs, no surprise really.But DJ, T Davis and maybe a couple others get drafted in the 2nd round, and I don't think they're all bad picks.

 

[Bloom]

i dont think there's any rookie IDP that i would give up a 2nd rounder from next year for.

Given your policy against drafting IDPs, no surprise really.But DJ, T Davis and maybe a couple others get drafted in the 2nd round, and I don't think they're all bad picks.

youre just as likely to get a davis or DJ type in the 2nd round next year - an ahmad brooks for instance - unless you are truly sold on the guy you are trading for, then i would hold the pick. Its value will only increase as time passes.

 

[Tenacious D]

Yikes. I hope a courtesy reach around was at least offered with either of those deals.Knight may only have a couple productive seasons left, but be able to put up great numbers in KC. I like Mitchell as a long-term sleeper, but it's still a long shot he ever starts.And two picks, including a second rounder next year, for another guy who it's no lock he'll ever be a starter, muchless a productive one? Wow.

 

[helix]

Yikes. I hope a courtesy reach around was at least offered with either of those deals.

And two picks, including a second rounder next year, for another guy who it's no lock he'll ever be a starter, muchless a productive one? Wow.

I guess I don't understand this type of response. First off, we don't have complete information to make a sweeping statement on this trade. Information like, where did Tatupu go in your draft? Is your team competitive or in rebuilding mode? Are MLB's highly prized? Is the target owner savvy, an ###, ect?

If Tatupu went late in the 2nd or early in the 3rd and you are competitive, you could be offering a 2006 pick that is exactly where a Tatupu type goes next year (or an even worse slot). Now, why would the other owner make that deal if you went to him? The answer is that he most likely would not. It will take something extra to make the deal happen (like an extra pick).

I don't know if this is a "good deal" or not, but if you like the player go for it. Sometimes you got to go with your gut-

 

[P Boy]

youre just as likely to get a davis or DJ type in the 2nd round next year - an ahmad brooks for instance - unless you are truly sold on the guy you are trading for, then i would hold the pick. Its value will only increase as time passes.

That doesn't make sense. You are saying that time aging a pick makes it more valuable than a player pick the year before getting actual NFL experience? I'd like to see anything that you can provide to back this up.

 

[Bloom]

youre just as likely to get a davis or DJ type in the 2nd round next year - an ahmad brooks for instance - unless you are truly sold on the guy you are trading for, then i would hold the pick. Its value will only increase as time passes.

That doesn't make sense. You are saying that time aging a pick makes it more valuable than a player pick the year before getting actual NFL experience? I'd like to see anything that you can provide to back this up.

2006 rookie picks will be worth more as we get closer to the actual rookie draft. for now through the end of the season, the picks are just good trade fodder. once we get to the spring and the picks can actually be seen as individual players, the value of the pick will go up - people will pay more for rookie picks right around draft time than they will a year in advance. the only exception is going to be when your team is ripping it up and showing that the pick will be a pick at the end of the round - right now its still a guessing game.

 

[Weiner Dog]

youre just as likely to get a davis or DJ type in the 2nd round next year - an ahmad brooks for instance - unless you are truly sold on the guy you are trading for, then i would hold the pick. Its value will only increase as time passes.

That doesn't make sense. You are saying that time aging a pick makes it more valuable than a player pick the year before getting actual NFL experience? I'd like to see anything that you can provide to back this up.

A 2nd-round pick in '06 is guaranteed to increase in value over the next year. A rookie drafted this year does not hold the same guarantee.

 

[P Boy]

Man, you guys play in different leagues than I do. I guess our guys understand what a crapshoot the draft is & treat it accordingly.

 

[Weiner Dog]

Man, you guys play in different leagues than I do. I guess our guys understand what a crapshoot the draft is & treat it accordingly.

This statement is a walking contradiction. If you truly believe the draft is a "crapshoot", how would a rookie who has never worn NFL pads (ie. Tatupu) be any different than draft picks (ie. the 4.02 and a 2nd in '06)?? No element of the offer to willjohnson has NFL experience.

 

[helix]

Man, you guys play in different leagues than I do. I guess our guys understand what a crapshoot the draft is & treat it accordingly.

I'm with you on this one. If I love a guy, I'll give away a future pick to get him. I can always trade during the year to get back in that round.

I've also never heard of future draft picks getting more valueable with time. But to each his own-

 

[Bloom]

this is actually a simple concept.look at the NFL draft - teams will give up more value in next years picks for a pick thats happening in this years draft - like giving up next years 3rd to get a 4th this year to take a guy that they want.therefore, you can say that at the time of the draft, next years 3rd is equal to this year's 4th - clearly showing that time makes picks worth more - otherwise, why would you give up an earlier pick next year for a later pick this year?

 

[Weiner Dog]

Man, you guys play in different leagues than I do.  I guess our guys understand what a crapshoot the draft is & treat it accordingly.

I'm with you on this one. If I love a guy, I'll give away a future pick to get him. I can always trade during the year to get back in that round.

I've also never heard of future draft picks getting more valueable with time. But to each his own-

If you truly believe this, I challenge you to offer your 1st in '06 for a 1st in '07. If you do not get a reply from every owner in your League with five minutes, you need to find a new league.

 

[P Boy]

this is actually a simple concept.

look at the NFL draft - teams will give up more value in next years picks for a pick thats happening in this years draft - like giving up next years 3rd to get a 4th this year to take a guy that they want.

therefore, you can say that at the time of the draft, next years 3rd is equal to this year's 4th - clearly showing that time makes picks worth more - otherwise, why would you give up an earlier pick next year for a later pick this year?

That value = 1 year's experience & coaching. You get a guy you want, and you get him 1 year earlier. That's why you trade a higher pick in a later draft. If anything, you've just proven that next year's draft picks are less valuable with your example. Otherwise, why would a 2005 4th rounder = a 2006 3rd rounder? If next year's picks were more valuable, a 2005 4th rounder would equal a 2006 5th rounder.

 

[P Boy]

If you truly believe this, I challenge you to offer your 1st in '06 for a 1st in '07. If you do not get a reply from every owner in your League with five minutes, you need to find a new league.

That's because the earlier pick is more valuable. Thanks for agreeing.

 

[Bloom]

my original statement was that the value of a draft pick increases with time. i dont understand whats so hard about this. you will get more for your 2006 pick next april than you will get for it right now - holding a pick until the draft approaches makes it more valuable. period.

 

[Weiner Dog]

If you truly believe this, I challenge you to offer your 1st in '06 for a 1st in '07.  If you do not get a reply from every owner in your League with five minutes, you need to find a new league.

That's because the earlier pick is more valuable. Thanks for agreeing.

...and where exactly in this thread did you make this ground-shaking revelation??Look, anybody who is willing to trade a shot (ie. 2nd in '06) at nabbing Ahmad Brooks, AJ Hawk, Chad Greenway, etc in exchange for Lofa Tatupu need to have their FF license revoked.

You need to remember: willjohnson was offered Tatupu for the 4.02 and 2nd in '06...not visa versa.

 

[helix]

If you truly believe this, I challenge you to offer your 1st in '06 for a 1st in '07.  If you do not get a reply from every owner in your League with five minutes, you need to find a new league.

That's because the earlier pick is more valuable. Thanks for agreeing.

...and where exactly in this thread did you make this ground-shaking revelation??Look, anybody who is willing to trade a shot (ie. 2nd in '06) at nabbing Ahmad Brooks, AJ Hawk, Chad Greenway, etc in exchange for Lofa Tatupu need to have their FF license revoked.

You need to remember: willjohnson was offered Tatupu for the 4.02 and 2nd in '06...not visa versa.

No, read his post. He wanted Tatupu. If he initiated the deal, he needs to IMPROVE the compensation just like you have stated.

 

[Weiner Dog]

If you truly believe this, I challenge you to offer your 1st in '06 for a 1st in '07.  If you do not get a reply from every owner in your League with five minutes, you need to find a new league.

That's because the earlier pick is more valuable. Thanks for agreeing.

...and where exactly in this thread did you make this ground-shaking revelation??Look, anybody who is willing to trade a shot (ie. 2nd in '06) at nabbing Ahmad Brooks, AJ Hawk, Chad Greenway, etc in exchange for Lofa Tatupu need to have their FF license revoked.

You need to remember: willjohnson was offered Tatupu for the 4.02 and 2nd in '06...not visa versa.

No, read his post. He wanted Tatupu. If he initiated the deal, he needs to IMPROVE the compensation just like you have stated.

Yup...you're right. I did not see willjohnson's correction later in the thread. Thanks.

 

[-OZ-]

i dont think there's any rookie IDP that i would give up a 2nd rounder from next year for.

Given your policy against drafting IDPs, no surprise really.But DJ, T Davis and maybe a couple others get drafted in the 2nd round, and I don't think they're all bad picks.

youre just as likely to get a davis or DJ type in the 2nd round next year - an ahmad brooks for instance - unless you are truly sold on the guy you are trading for, then i would hold the pick. Its value will only increase as time passes.

The part in bold was what I don't get. Sure, don't trade Ahmad Brooks for Tatapu, got it, but the comment was ANY rookie IDP, including Davis and DJ - at least IMO Davis and DJ > Brooks at this point, if for no other reason then you get an extra year out of them.

 

[Weiner Dog]

i dont think there's any rookie IDP that i would give up a 2nd rounder from next year for.

Given your policy against drafting IDPs, no surprise really.But DJ, T Davis and maybe a couple others get drafted in the 2nd round, and I don't think they're all bad picks.

youre just as likely to get a davis or DJ type in the 2nd round next year - an ahmad brooks for instance - unless you are truly sold on the guy you are trading for, then i would hold the pick. Its value will only increase as time passes.

The part in bold was what I don't get. Sure, don't trade Ahmad Brooks for Tatapu, got it, but the comment was ANY rookie IDP, including Davis and DJ - at least IMO Davis and DJ > Brooks at this point, if for no other reason then you get an extra year out of them.

I agree 100%. I would not trade Davis or DJ for the "rights" to any LB next year.Tatupu...that's a different story.

 

[Bloom]

i dont think there's any rookie IDP that i would give up a 2nd rounder from next year for.

Given your policy against drafting IDPs, no surprise really.But DJ, T Davis and maybe a couple others get drafted in the 2nd round, and I don't think they're all bad picks.

youre just as likely to get a davis or DJ type in the 2nd round next year - an ahmad brooks for instance - unless you are truly sold on the guy you are trading for, then i would hold the pick. Its value will only increase as time passes.

The part in bold was what I don't get. Sure, don't trade Ahmad Brooks for Tatapu, got it, but the comment was ANY rookie IDP, including Davis and DJ - at least IMO Davis and DJ > Brooks at this point, if for no other reason then you get an extra year out of them.

you hit on it already, my policy about drafting IDPs in rookie drafts - that 2nd rounder next year could easily end up being a guy like lendale white, leon washington, or another solid offensive prospect - to put it in 2004/05 terms - i would say that DJ and Davis are not quite a vilma, closer to DJ williams - this years 2nd should land you a player like matt jones/roddy white/morency/moats/fason/barber OR your pick of all the IDPs - unless you were absolutely sure that DJ williams was the next big thing and you absolutely had to get him (in which case i would say, why didnt you just draft him?), then you are severely cutting down your flexibility with that asset you have - i would contend that most years, a 2nd round pick will get you any IDP you want. unless you just absolutely must have a certain IDP that you ranked #1 among IDPs in this class and missed out on, there's no reason trade next years 2nd for any rookie IDP.sure DJ williams turned out well, but what if you had mewelde moore and holding that pick gave you a shot to almost corner the minn RBs with fason? or if you owned DD and you missed a shot to get morency to hedge against him losing the job? worst case scenario you just get a premium IDP player one year later. i think you shouldnt give up that flexibility unless you are sure that the IDP you are trading for will pay out big time (in which case, why didnt you just draft him?)

 

[P Boy]

If you truly believe this, I challenge you to offer your 1st in '06 for a 1st in '07.  If you do not get a reply from every owner in your League with five minutes, you need to find a new league.

That's because the earlier pick is more valuable. Thanks for agreeing.

...and where exactly in this thread did you make this ground-shaking revelation??

So here's what we have in a nutshell:weiner dog: Draft picks are gauranteed (sic) to gain value as time goes on.

pony boy: No, draft picks should not gain value as they age.

weiner dog: Yeah, well then why is a 2006 1st rounder more valuable than a 2007 1st rounder?

pony boy: Because you get the player a year sooner. That proves my point - the earlier pick is worth more.

weiner dog: Well no kidding, duh. How stupid are you, pony boy?

 

[stevec]

I've been following this, and I think you guys are talking past each other. One side is talking about past draft picks and the other is talking about future draft picks.Future picks:A rookie draft pick for 2006 will increase in value as we get closer to the draft. In absolute terms it will be worth more, while there are other factors going on around to make the players & picks that one would deal for it increase or decrease in value. Let's say a 2.XX pick is generally assumed to be worth a 3rd and a 5th in the same draft - if one waits until just before the draft, it might be worth a 3rd & a 4th.Past picks:A player drafted already in 2005 may be more valuable the corresponding pick in 2006 will be because the player will have a year of experience. Since this is a guy you covet, you should be willing to pay more for him, by giving a pick higher than where he originally went. However, if the player busts, he will have less value than the pick.Side note:Regarding the 2006 1st for 2007 1st - I'd take the 2007 first in a heartbeat. Why? Generally people can project how good or bad they may be this year, so the teams likely to be awful won't bite on the deal in that direction. So we'd expect the teams who'd be willing to deal a 2006 1st for a 2007 1st to be less likely to be at the top of the draft. I don't think people would have quite so good an idea one year out. And there's a RB who's coming out in 2007 who grades out pretty well.