What are current draft picks worth vs. future draft picks? (1 Viewer)

[Yenrub]

I know there is a NFL draft chart for trading picks in the same draft

Does anyone have any idea what 2009 draft picks are worth if traded for 2010 draft picks?

Example: Is a 2009 3rd round draft pick worth a 2010 2nd round draft pick?

 

[EBF]

In my book:

2009 1st = 2010 1st

2009 2nd = 2010 2nd

2009 3rd = 2010 3rd

Some people think a pick in X round this year is worth a pick in X-1 round next year, but this doesn't really make sense mathematically. You're taking it in the pants if you consistently trade your 1st/2nd round picks for 2nd/3rd round picks. The fact that you might get to spend the pick a year earlier doesn't make the pick any more valuable.

In general, I would always be willing to trade a random pick in this year's X round for a random pick in next year's X-1 round. On the flipside, I would almost never be willing to trade a pick in next year's X-1 round for a pick in this year's X round unless I was targeting a specific prospect who fell in the draft.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Just posted nearly the same ? in the '10 rookie thread. Looking for a mock 2010 FFB draft (1st round). Love Dez & Dwyer, don't like Spiller as much. I don't have a lot of opinion on the field at this point though.

 

[KellysHeroes]

Some people think a pick in X round this year is worth a pick in X-1 round next year, but this doesn't really make sense mathematically. You're taking it in the pants if you consistently trade your 1st/2nd round picks for 2nd/3rd round picks. The fact that you might get to spend the pick a year earlier doesn't make the pick any more valuable.

thats how I see it, why should I trade my 2.06 to you for your 2010 2nd... Future picks are very undervalued during this time of yr. If you can trade a 09 2nd for a 2010 1st.. then do it, thats a win for you.

 

[Liquid Tension]

In my book:2009 1st = 2010 1st2009 2nd = 2010 2nd2009 3rd = 2010 3rdSome people think a pick in X round this year is worth a pick in X-1 round next year, but this doesn't really make sense mathematically. You're taking it in the pants if you consistently trade your 1st/2nd round picks for 2nd/3rd round picks. The fact that you might get to spend the pick a year earlier doesn't make the pick any more valuable. In general, I would always be willing to trade a random pick in this year's X round for a random pick in next year's X-1 round. On the flipside, I would almost never be willing to trade a pick in next year's X-1 round for a pick in this year's X round unless I was targeting a specific prospect who fell in the draft.

the short sightedness of teams is amazing to me. There are some time where I may not do this, but almost all the time I would. If I had the 1st pick in the 2nd round and a team offered me and "the best team" offered me their 1st, depending on how good my team was I may consider keeping it, but I probably still would do it. I value 2nd round picks higher than more people though as you get a good player for less money. I would always trade my 3rd for a future 2nd even in the above example.I am amazed how dumb some GM's are to give up more in the future for less in the present, but then again the US population does this all the time (CC debt)

 

[FUBAR]

It's way too simple to say a 09 2nd = 2010 1st, etc.

I figure, if I am trading a top 5 pick I better be getting multiple future 1sts, but if I'm trading a late 1st to a team I think will have a top 5 pick next year, I might trade it straight up (or maybe just ask for an older producing player included). A 2009 2nd for a late 2010 1st works, but after that I would follow the x-1 picks. I'll rarely trade next year's picks for this year's unless I'm targetting someone. I was able to pick up CJ3 last year by trading a 2009 1st and 3rd, so that worked well.

 

[rct]

Also depends on when the trade is offered.

If I am about to pick at 2.03 and someone wants that pick I wouldn't accept their next years 2nd rounder, at that point, if they want it, they would have to cough up with their 1st round for the following year.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I think the real question lies with the talent in given years. '08 was concidered VERY talented at RB, and weak at WR thus making a strong 1st round in FFB, especially in non-ppr. This year is looking pretty good and very deep at WR, while lacking the star power at RB. Good in ppr, lousy in non-ppr. Next year's class looks like it could have two or three top RBs and two or three stud WRs. I'd say next year looks like a more valuable top 10 FFB class, threfore I'd say if you can get equal value for this year's pick, it's a good deal. I'm no college guru though and why I'm seeking some expertise from guys like EBF & Aposulli and a few others (I just seem to be more in line with their thinking than some others).

 

[Yenrub]

I guess I should have made it a lot more clear, but I was asking about the NFL not fantasy leagues

 

[GregR_2]

The OP is asking about the NFL draft, not about fantasy drafts.

From various things said in the media, NFL trades historically seem to suggest GMs value a pick a year away as being worth 1 round less. I've heard arguments that this can be justified for the same reason as the time value of money (that is, you shouldn't loan $1000 interest free to someone for 3 years because you will have less when he pays you back than if you'd kept the money in the first place). I admit I've never followed how that argument applies for players with given shelf-lives. You either get better sooner or later, but it seems like if you assume the drafts are equivalent in talent and the picks are in the same approximate area, you get better by the same amount either way.

But I think in practice that is what we tend to see. Cleveland gave up a 2nd (#36) and a next year 1st for the Cowboys 1.22 that they took Quinn with. Granted if you go straight by the draft pick chart then Cleveland is overpaying if you assume the future 1st is worth an early 2nd in value. However if you assume Cleveland valued Quinn as being worth maybe a 10th to 15th overall pick as many had him ranked, and so were willing to give up commensurate to get him, then their #36 and devaluing their following year 1st to an early 2nd gets you right around that value.

Not saying that is right or wrong, but that appears to be what actually happens a lot.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I guess I should have made it a lot more clear, but I was asking about the NFL not fantasy leagues

In NFL, typically x+1 works. Player development time = 1 round in the draft, unless you're talking about 1st round picks. Then it comes down to projected talent in next year's draft vs. this year's.Sorry to have ruined your thread.

 

[tdmills]

In my book:2009 1st = 2010 1st2009 2nd = 2010 2nd2009 3rd = 2010 3rdSome people think a pick in X round this year is worth a pick in X-1 round next year, but this doesn't really make sense mathematically. You're taking it in the pants if you consistently trade your 1st/2nd round picks for 2nd/3rd round picks. The fact that you might get to spend the pick a year earlier doesn't make the pick any more valuable. In general, I would always be willing to trade a random pick in this year's X round for a random pick in next year's X-1 round. On the flipside, I would almost never be willing to trade a pick in next year's X-1 round for a pick in this year's X round unless I was targeting a specific prospect who fell in the draft.

Hey EBF, I don't mean to disagree with you...again. But the main aspect that I think you are overlooking is production from the first season vs waiting another year.For example, if you traded 2009 1st round pick for 2010 first round pick.The value is:2009 1st round pick(RB from Austin Peay) + his production his rookie year....say 200 fantasy points for a 2010 rookie pick with no fantasy production.

 

[EBF]

In my book:2009 1st = 2010 1st2009 2nd = 2010 2nd2009 3rd = 2010 3rdSome people think a pick in X round this year is worth a pick in X-1 round next year, but this doesn't really make sense mathematically. You're taking it in the pants if you consistently trade your 1st/2nd round picks for 2nd/3rd round picks. The fact that you might get to spend the pick a year earlier doesn't make the pick any more valuable. In general, I would always be willing to trade a random pick in this year's X round for a random pick in next year's X-1 round. On the flipside, I would almost never be willing to trade a pick in next year's X-1 round for a pick in this year's X round unless I was targeting a specific prospect who fell in the draft.

Hey EBF, I don't mean to disagree with you...again. But the main aspect that I think you are overlooking is production from the first season vs waiting another year.For example, if you traded 2009 1st round pick for 2010 first round pick.The value is:2009 1st round pick(RB from Austin Peay) + his production his rookie year....say 200 fantasy points for a 2010 rookie pick with no fantasy production.

It doesn't work like that though. On average, the value you gain in the first year is lost in the last year. You're not getting MORE value with a 2009 1st round pick than you're getting with a 2010 1st round pick. You're just getting it earlier (and losing it earlier).

 

[tdmills]

In my book:2009 1st = 2010 1st2009 2nd = 2010 2nd2009 3rd = 2010 3rdSome people think a pick in X round this year is worth a pick in X-1 round next year, but this doesn't really make sense mathematically. You're taking it in the pants if you consistently trade your 1st/2nd round picks for 2nd/3rd round picks. The fact that you might get to spend the pick a year earlier doesn't make the pick any more valuable. In general, I would always be willing to trade a random pick in this year's X round for a random pick in next year's X-1 round. On the flipside, I would almost never be willing to trade a pick in next year's X-1 round for a pick in this year's X round unless I was targeting a specific prospect who fell in the draft.

Hey EBF, I don't mean to disagree with you...again. But the main aspect that I think you are overlooking is production from the first season vs waiting another year.For example, if you traded 2009 1st round pick for 2010 first round pick.The value is:2009 1st round pick(RB from Austin Peay) + his production his rookie year....say 200 fantasy points for a 2010 rookie pick with no fantasy production.

It doesn't work like that though. On average, the value you gain in the first year is lost in the last year. You're not getting MORE value with a 2009 1st round pick than you're getting with a 2010 1st round pick. You're just getting it earlier (and losing it earlier).

So your calculating in the lifespan of a career? I think thats relative to each person, but yet another thought.

 

[EBF]

So your calculating in the lifespan of a career? I think thats relative to each person, but yet another thought.

Obviously the results of every pick are going to vary wildly. Some will flame out within the first 1-2 years while others will produce for a decade. But speaking generally, you can't know the results beforehand. All you can do is assign a rough general value to each pick based on historical yields. So let's say that the average prospect picked in the first round of your rookie draft plays 5 seasons and averages 200 points per season. Now consider the following example:Someone offers you a 2009 1st round rookie pick for your 2010 1st round rookie pick. You have two options:

Option A - You accept the offer and trade your 2010 first round pick for a 2009 1st round pick. You get the following yield:

2009: 200 points

2010: 200 points

2011: 200 points

2012: 200 points

2013: 200 points

2014: 0 points

Total value: 1000 points

Option B - You reject the offer and keep your 2010 first round rookie pick. You get the following yield:

2009: 0 points

2010: 200 points

2011: 200 points

2012: 200 points

2013: 200 points

2014: 200 points

Total value: 1000 points

The argument you made above citing the GAINED value in 2009 totally ignores the LOST value in 2014.

The two scenarios offer equivalent total value. By trading your 2010 1st for a 2009 1st, you haven't changed how much value you get. You've only changed when you get it. Since there is no inflation in fantasy football, a year X+1 rookie pick in Z round is worth exactly the same as a year X rookie pick in Z round.*

Now consider the fact that 2nd round rookie picks have a lower expected yield than 1st round rookie picks. When you give tomorrow's 1st round rookie pick for today's 2nd round rookie pick, you're making a mathematical mistake akin to giving $10 tomorrow to get $5 today. It's an incredibly bad strategy in the long run. If someone offers you a random year X+1 rookie pick in round Z for your random year X rookie pick in round Z+1, you should always take it. They're giving you $10 tomorrow for your $5 today.

* Note: Technically, tomorrow's picks probably are slightly less valuable than today's since the farther out you go, the less certain you can be that your league will still exist. For example, you wouldn't want to trade a 2009 1st for a 2029 1st because your league could fold, you could die, the NFL could be disbanded, or the world could be destroyed in a nuclear war.

 

[zed2283]

I guess I'm the only one, but what you give me today is ALWAYS worth more than what you give me tomorrow (assuming it's more or less the same item, of course).

And the other thing is that generally if someone comes to you wanting to trade into a spot, they're going to have to give you more than what it's worth. i.e. why would you trade your pick for the same value?

 

[BuckeyeArt]

So your calculating in the lifespan of a career? I think thats relative to each person, but yet another thought.

* Note: Technically, tomorrow's picks probably are slightly less valuable than today's since the farther out you go, the less certain you can be that your league will still exist. For example, you wouldn't want to trade a 2009 1st for a 2029 1st because your league could fold, you could die, the NFL could be disbanded, or the world could be destroyed in a nuclear war.

Your note is exactly why a current pick is worth more than a future pick. Time has value. When you take the example to the extreme, you see the value. If you constantly trade your current pick for next year's pick, you never realize the value of the pick.Last year, I looked at a bunch of MFL trades to try to determine how the majority of people perceived the value of time. My initial thought was that it was a round. In the end, I didn't have enough data to draw a clear conclusion. I planned on adding this year's trades to that data (in another month or so). But, there was a fuzzy trend that was apparent. 1st round picks looked like they carried around a .25 to .5 round premium (this year vs next). The premium in rounds 3 and 4 was around 1.5 to 2 rounds.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

So your calculating in the lifespan of a career? I think thats relative to each person, but yet another thought.

Obviously the results of every pick are going to vary wildly. Some will flame out within the first 1-2 years while others will produce for a decade. But speaking generally, you can't know the results beforehand. All you can do is assign a rough general value to each pick based on historical yields. So let's say that the average prospect picked in the first round of your rookie draft plays 5 seasons and averages 200 points per season. Now consider the following example:Someone offers you a 2009 1st round rookie pick for your 2010 1st round rookie pick. You have two options:

Option A - You accept the offer and trade your 2010 first round pick for a 2009 1st round pick. You get the following yield:

2009: 200 points

2010: 200 points

2011: 200 points

2012: 200 points

2013: 200 points

2014: 0 points

Total value: 1000 points

Option B - You reject the offer and keep your 2010 first round rookie pick. You get the following yield:

2009: 0 points

2010: 200 points

2011: 200 points

2012: 200 points

2013: 200 points

2014: 200 points

Total value: 1000 points

The argument you made above citing the GAINED value in 2009 totally ignores the LOST value in 2014.

The two scenarios offer equivalent total value. By trading your 2010 1st for a 2009 1st, you haven't changed how much value you get. You've only changed when you get it. Since there is no inflation in fantasy football, a year X+1 rookie pick in Z round is worth exactly the same as a year X rookie pick in Z round.*

Now consider the fact that 2nd round rookie picks have a lower expected yield than 1st round rookie picks. When you give tomorrow's 1st round rookie pick for today's 2nd round rookie pick, you're making a mathematical mistake akin to giving $10 tomorrow to get $5 today. It's an incredibly bad strategy in the long run. If someone offers you a random year X+1 rookie pick in round Z for your random year X rookie pick in round Z+1, you should always take it. They're giving you $10 tomorrow for your $5 today.

* Note: Technically, tomorrow's picks probably are slightly less valuable than today's since the farther out you go, the less certain you can be that your league will still exist. For example, you wouldn't want to trade a 2009 1st for a 2029 1st because your league could fold, you could die, the NFL could be disbanded, or the world could be destroyed in a nuclear war.

EBF,I don't agree with this at all, and here's why.

I don't get any value from a player or a draft pick in the future to help me to win now or in the near future (before that future pick).

You state above that there is no inflation in fantasy football. That's exactly the crux of the argument.

Using your example above, you get a player in 2009 that could help you win in 09, 10, 11, 12, or 2013. That player in Scenario 2 doesn't exist yet.

Sure you could be wrong with the pick, but I'd rather have the change in 09 to use it than to wait 5 years to reap any benefit.

The inflation that you fail to see is that you don't have an asset that may help you win now (and for the next 4-5 years) that you do not have in the second case. What you do with that asset (use the pick or trade it) is irrelevant.

To give another example - let's say that there is a weekly drawing for $1,000 and everyone gets 10 tickets. Would you say that a ticket next week is the same as one this week? Forget the change in odds from having 9, 10 or 11 tickets - would you rather win $1,000 this week or next?

The utility of the pick does have a time value.

 

[Adebisi]

The Patriots (and I'm sure others) have been known to do this - trade a pick in the current year's draft for a better pick in the following year's draft.

Two examples off the top of my head:

In 2003, they traded their 1st rounder to Baltimore (which the Ravens used to select Kyle Boller) and got Baltimore's 2nd round pick that year (Eugene Wilson) along with Baltimore's 1st rounder in 2004 (Vince Wilfork).

In 2007, they traded the 26th overall pick to San Francisco (Joe Staley) and got a 4th rounder out of SF that same year along with SF's 1st rounder in 2008 (the expectation likely being that it would be a much higher pick than 26th, which it was - it became the 7th overall pick in the draft, and further value was obtained when they traded down to 10th overall, where they took Jerod Mayo).

With so many first day picks in 2009, I expect more of the same from the Pats.

 

[bcr8f]

Some people think a pick in X round this year is worth a pick in X-1 round next year, but this doesn't really make sense mathematically. You're taking it in the pants if you consistently trade your 1st/2nd round picks for 2nd/3rd round picks. The fact that you might get to spend the pick a year earlier doesn't make the pick any more valuable.

thats how I see it, why should I trade my 2.06 to you for your 2010 2nd... Future picks are very undervalued during this time of yr. If you can trade a 09 2nd for a 2010 1st.. then do it, thats a win for you.

YOU shouldn't (and I don"t either)but other people do in competitive leagues to get them over the top. They value the present more than the future. And think they'll do great so the pick will be a late pick. They'll trade the 2.01 pick for next years 1st rounder thinking it'll be the 1.12 so it isn't much of a loss.

 

[EBF]

So your calculating in the lifespan of a career? I think thats relative to each person, but yet another thought.

* Note: Technically, tomorrow's picks probably are slightly less valuable than today's since the farther out you go, the less certain you can be that your league will still exist. For example, you wouldn't want to trade a 2009 1st for a 2029 1st because your league could fold, you could die, the NFL could be disbanded, or the world could be destroyed in a nuclear war.

Your note is exactly why a current pick is worth more than a future pick. Time has value. When you take the example to the extreme, you see the value. If you constantly trade your current pick for next year's pick, you never realize the value of the pick.Last year, I looked at a bunch of MFL trades to try to determine how the majority of people perceived the value of time. My initial thought was that it was a round. In the end, I didn't have enough data to draw a clear conclusion. I planned on adding this year's trades to that data (in another month or so). But, there was a fuzzy trend that was apparent. 1st round picks looked like they carried around a .25 to .5 round premium (this year vs next). The premium in rounds 3 and 4 was around 1.5 to 2 rounds.

I think you have to look at your league and try to figure out how solid it is. Personally, none of the league I've played in have ever disbanded. So it's not a big leap of faith for me to defer that value a year with the understanding that I'll be getting a higher pick in return for my patience. If I felt the league was unstable and likely to fold then I wouldn't be so comfortable making that decision.

 

[NorrisB]

So your calculating in the lifespan of a career? I think thats relative to each person, but yet another thought.

Obviously the results of every pick are going to vary wildly. Some will flame out within the first 1-2 years while others will produce for a decade. But speaking generally, you can't know the results beforehand. All you can do is assign a rough general value to each pick based on historical yields. So let's say that the average prospect picked in the first round of your rookie draft plays 5 seasons and averages 200 points per season. Now consider the following example:Someone offers you a 2009 1st round rookie pick for your 2010 1st round rookie pick. You have two options:

Option A - You accept the offer and trade your 2010 first round pick for a 2009 1st round pick. You get the following yield:

2009: 200 points

2010: 200 points

2011: 200 points

2012: 200 points

2013: 200 points

2014: 0 points

Total value: 1000 points

Option B - You reject the offer and keep your 2010 first round rookie pick. You get the following yield:

2009: 0 points

2010: 200 points

2011: 200 points

2012: 200 points

2013: 200 points

2014: 200 points

Total value: 1000 points

The argument you made above citing the GAINED value in 2009 totally ignores the LOST value in 2014.

The two scenarios offer equivalent total value. By trading your 2010 1st for a 2009 1st, you haven't changed how much value you get. You've only changed when you get it. Since there is no inflation in fantasy football, a year X+1 rookie pick in Z round is worth exactly the same as a year X rookie pick in Z round.*

Now consider the fact that 2nd round rookie picks have a lower expected yield than 1st round rookie picks. When you give tomorrow's 1st round rookie pick for today's 2nd round rookie pick, you're making a mathematical mistake akin to giving $10 tomorrow to get $5 today. It's an incredibly bad strategy in the long run. If someone offers you a random year X+1 rookie pick in round Z for your random year X rookie pick in round Z+1, you should always take it. They're giving you $10 tomorrow for your $5 today.

* Note: Technically, tomorrow's picks probably are slightly less valuable than today's since the farther out you go, the less certain you can be that your league will still exist. For example, you wouldn't want to trade a 2009 1st for a 2029 1st because your league could fold, you could die, the NFL could be disbanded, or the world could be destroyed in a nuclear war.

EBF,I don't agree with this at all, and here's why.

I don't get any value from a player or a draft pick in the future to help me to win now or in the near future (before that future pick).

You state above that there is no inflation in fantasy football. That's exactly the crux of the argument.

Using your example above, you get a player in 2009 that could help you win in 09, 10, 11, 12, or 2013. That player in Scenario 2 doesn't exist yet.

Sure you could be wrong with the pick, but I'd rather have the change in 09 to use it than to wait 5 years to reap any benefit.

The inflation that you fail to see is that you don't have an asset that may help you win now (and for the next 4-5 years) that you do not have in the second case. What you do with that asset (use the pick or trade it) is irrelevant.

To give another example - let's say that there is a weekly drawing for $1,000 and everyone gets 10 tickets. Would you say that a ticket next week is the same as one this week? Forget the change in odds from having 9, 10 or 11 tickets - would you rather win $1,000 this week or next?

The utility of the pick does have a time value.

Not only that but EBF is assuming that, that 2014 year will actually happen, alot of times the league goes belly up after 2-3 season, also assumes you're going to want to play fantasy football that long. Also EBF is missing the opportunity cost, suppose I sold player A for a younger player at year 13. I would make $200 on the deal.

 

[FUBAR]

So your calculating in the lifespan of a career? I think thats relative to each person, but yet another thought.

Obviously the results of every pick are going to vary wildly. Some will flame out within the first 1-2 years while others will produce for a decade. But speaking generally, you can't know the results beforehand. All you can do is assign a rough general value to each pick based on historical yields. So let's say that the average prospect picked in the first round of your rookie draft plays 5 seasons and averages 200 points per season. Now consider the following example:Someone offers you a 2009 1st round rookie pick for your 2010 1st round rookie pick. You have two options:

Option A - You accept the offer and trade your 2010 first round pick for a 2009 1st round pick. You get the following yield:

2009: 200 points

2010: 200 points

2011: 200 points

2012: 200 points

2013: 200 points

2014: 0 points

Total value: 1000 points

Option B - You reject the offer and keep your 2010 first round rookie pick. You get the following yield:

2009: 0 points

2010: 200 points

2011: 200 points

2012: 200 points

2013: 200 points

2014: 200 points

Total value: 1000 points

The argument you made above citing the GAINED value in 2009 totally ignores the LOST value in 2014.

The two scenarios offer equivalent total value. By trading your 2010 1st for a 2009 1st, you haven't changed how much value you get. You've only changed when you get it. Since there is no inflation in fantasy football, a year X+1 rookie pick in Z round is worth exactly the same as a year X rookie pick in Z round.*

Now consider the fact that 2nd round rookie picks have a lower expected yield than 1st round rookie picks. When you give tomorrow's 1st round rookie pick for today's 2nd round rookie pick, you're making a mathematical mistake akin to giving $10 tomorrow to get $5 today. It's an incredibly bad strategy in the long run. If someone offers you a random year X+1 rookie pick in round Z for your random year X rookie pick in round Z+1, you should always take it. They're giving you $10 tomorrow for your $5 today.

* Note: Technically, tomorrow's picks probably are slightly less valuable than today's since the farther out you go, the less certain you can be that your league will still exist. For example, you wouldn't want to trade a 2009 1st for a 2029 1st because your league could fold, you could die, the NFL could be disbanded, or the world could be destroyed in a nuclear war.

I wish the federal government and more credit card users viewed life like you do. Fact is though, today's production is worth more than production in 2014. Unless you're building or have too many good players already.

 

[EBF]

EBF,I don't agree with this at all, and here's why.I don't get any value from a player or a draft pick in the future to help me to win now or in the near future (before that future pick).You state above that there is no inflation in fantasy football. That's exactly the crux of the argument.Using your example above, you get a player in 2009 that could help you win in 09, 10, 11, 12, or 2013. That player in Scenario 2 doesn't exist yet. Sure you could be wrong with the pick, but I'd rather have the change in 09 to use it than to wait 5 years to reap any benefit.The inflation that you fail to see is that you don't have an asset that may help you win now (and for the next 4-5 years) that you do not have in the second case. What you do with that asset (use the pick or trade it) is irrelevant.To give another example - let's say that there is a weekly drawing for $1,000 and everyone gets 10 tickets. Would you say that a ticket next week is the same as one this week? Forget the change in odds from having 9, 10 or 11 tickets - would you rather win $1,000 this week or next? The utility of the pick does have a time value.

I think I see what you're trying to say, but I don't think it's correct.If you trade your future pick for a current pick then you're helping your team today, but you're hurting your team tomorrow. The cost cancels out the gain and there's no overall benefit.

The inflation that you fail to see is that you don't have an asset that may help you win now (and for the next 4-5 years) that you do not have in the second case. What you do with that asset (use the pick or trade it) is irrelevant.

Whether you have the asset today or tomorrow is irrelevant if the asset has a static value. A random 1st round rookie pick in 2012 will have the same value as a random 1st round rookie pick in 2009. So while one might argue that trading your future picks for current picks improves your odds of winning the league right now, I would argue that it decreases your odds of winning the league in the future. You don't get an extra asset by trading your future picks for a current pick. You just get access to that asset earlier. Your argument cites the benefit of the earlier pick without citing the cost of losing the future pick. If I give my 2010 1st for a 2009 1st, I have two rookie picks this year, but I have zero rookie picks next year. The total number of rookie picks hasn't changed. All that has changed is when I have access to them. There is no gain in value here.

 

[NorrisB]

Also there is kind of an inflation, championship teams are alot weaker in years n+0 than they are n+1

 

[Ernol]

To give another example - let's say that there is a weekly drawing for $1,000 and everyone gets 10 tickets. Would you say that a ticket next week is the same as one this week? Forget the change in odds from having 9, 10 or 11 tickets - would you rather win $1,000 this week or next? The utility of the pick does have a time value.

We would prefer $1000 today over next year because there IS inflation in real life but there is not in fantasy football (also, you can invest the $1000 today for a greater return tomorrow in real life, not so much in fantasy football). In this example, you are making the assumption that there is inflation in fantasy football to make your argument that there is inflation in fantasy football. Only way I can see an argument that production now is better than production tomorrow work is that the money you win today from fantasy football WILL be worth more than the money you win tomorrow (which is a fact), but I don’t think that’s where you were going with this.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I guess I'm the only one, but what you give me today is ALWAYS worth more than what you give me tomorrow (assuming it's more or less the same item, of course).And the other thing is that generally if someone comes to you wanting to trade into a spot, they're going to have to give you more than what it's worth. i.e. why would you trade your pick for the same value?

The idea is that you would trade your 3rd this year for the teams 2nd next year, so the value is not the same. You are getting more to get it later, but because tomorrow always comes, you are ahead of the game. Like I said previously i would trade away my picks this for better ones next year EVERY time.if it makes it easier for people, imagine if you traded away your 7th round pick for next years 6th round pick and then next year the 6th for a 5th and so on. Eventually you traded your 7th round pick for a 1st round pick! For the people who don't want to wait 6 years to cash in, I say you can still spend money on free agents to hit your cap and you have lost out in the long run.

 

[Liquid Tension]

So your calculating in the lifespan of a career? I think thats relative to each person, but yet another thought.

Obviously the results of every pick are going to vary wildly. Some will flame out within the first 1-2 years while others will produce for a decade. But speaking generally, you can't know the results beforehand. All you can do is assign a rough general value to each pick based on historical yields. So let's say that the average prospect picked in the first round of your rookie draft plays 5 seasons and averages 200 points per season. Now consider the following example:Someone offers you a 2009 1st round rookie pick for your 2010 1st round rookie pick. You have two options:

Option A - You accept the offer and trade your 2010 first round pick for a 2009 1st round pick. You get the following yield:

2009: 200 points

2010: 200 points

2011: 200 points

2012: 200 points

2013: 200 points

2014: 0 points

Total value: 1000 points

Option B - You reject the offer and keep your 2010 first round rookie pick. You get the following yield:

2009: 0 points

2010: 200 points

2011: 200 points

2012: 200 points

2013: 200 points

2014: 200 points

Total value: 1000 points

The argument you made above citing the GAINED value in 2009 totally ignores the LOST value in 2014.

The two scenarios offer equivalent total value. By trading your 2010 1st for a 2009 1st, you haven't changed how much value you get. You've only changed when you get it. Since there is no inflation in fantasy football, a year X+1 rookie pick in Z round is worth exactly the same as a year X rookie pick in Z round.*

Now consider the fact that 2nd round rookie picks have a lower expected yield than 1st round rookie picks. When you give tomorrow's 1st round rookie pick for today's 2nd round rookie pick, you're making a mathematical mistake akin to giving $10 tomorrow to get $5 today. It's an incredibly bad strategy in the long run. If someone offers you a random year X+1 rookie pick in round Z for your random year X rookie pick in round Z+1, you should always take it. They're giving you $10 tomorrow for your $5 today.

* Note: Technically, tomorrow's picks probably are slightly less valuable than today's since the farther out you go, the less certain you can be that your league will still exist. For example, you wouldn't want to trade a 2009 1st for a 2029 1st because your league could fold, you could die, the NFL could be disbanded, or the world could be destroyed in a nuclear war.

EBF,I don't agree with this at all, and here's why.

I don't get any value from a player or a draft pick in the future to help me to win now or in the near future (before that future pick).

You state above that there is no inflation in fantasy football. That's exactly the crux of the argument.

Using your example above, you get a player in 2009 that could help you win in 09, 10, 11, 12, or 2013. That player in Scenario 2 doesn't exist yet.

Sure you could be wrong with the pick, but I'd rather have the change in 09 to use it than to wait 5 years to reap any benefit.

The inflation that you fail to see is that you don't have an asset that may help you win now (and for the next 4-5 years) that you do not have in the second case. What you do with that asset (use the pick or trade it) is irrelevant.

To give another example - let's say that there is a weekly drawing for $1,000 and everyone gets 10 tickets. Would you say that a ticket next week is the same as one this week? Forget the change in odds from having 9, 10 or 11 tickets - would you rather win $1,000 this week or next?

The utility of the pick does have a time value.

I am not sure what EBF was trying to prove with the example, but if the future "prize" is exactly like the present, then you you would rather have the present. the problem is that people think that they need the present 3rd round pick and are willing to give up the 2nd round pick in the future and because those are NOT equal and most of the time that future pick will be worth more, it is a BAD idea to take less now.

 

[Spark026]

I would argue given how long most fantasy dynasty leagues tend to last that the time-value factor is quite high; therefore, current picks have a good bit more value than picks in later years. More so in fantasy than in real life because in real life there's a little more assurety that the NFL is going to be around for a while.

I think ignoring special circumstances, that the current 1.3 pick would be worth next years 1.1. And my chart would skew even more if I actually made out a full chart.

There's no point building a team for a league that may not be around, so I'd highly advise against trades such as this year 1.5 for next years 1.5. Time is value! (unless you invested in the stock market in 1997, then it would appear time has no value at all).

 

[doubletrouble]

someone traded their 2.3 last year ( devin thomas ) for the other person's 1st 2009. the 2009 ended up being 1.2

To me it all depends on where the 1st is and if it's worth the gamble for waiting another year for a player, kind of a double edge sword

 

[Ernol]

If you are under the assumption that a league is likely to disband within a few years, then yes, the pick today is worth more than tomorrow. I prefer not to enter dynasty leagues under that assumption (will play redrafts instead).

 

[Christo]

In my book:2009 1st = 2010 1st2009 2nd = 2010 2nd2009 3rd = 2010 3rdSome people think a pick in X round this year is worth a pick in X-1 round next year, but this doesn't really make sense mathematically. You're taking it in the pants if you consistently trade your 1st/2nd round picks for 2nd/3rd round picks. The fact that you might get to spend the pick a year earlier doesn't make the pick any more valuable.

Looking at is either way is too simple. If you anticipate being near the top of the first round in '10 of course your pick isn't worth an '09 second. But if you have a solid team and will be drafting near the end of the first in '10 then trading it for an '09 second may make some sense.

 

[EBF]

In my book:2009 1st = 2010 1st2009 2nd = 2010 2nd2009 3rd = 2010 3rdSome people think a pick in X round this year is worth a pick in X-1 round next year, but this doesn't really make sense mathematically. You're taking it in the pants if you consistently trade your 1st/2nd round picks for 2nd/3rd round picks. The fact that you might get to spend the pick a year earlier doesn't make the pick any more valuable.

Looking at is either way is too simple. If you anticipate being near the top of the first round in '10 of course your pick isn't worth an '09 second. But if you have a solid team and will be drafting near the end of the first in '10 then trading it for an '09 second may make some sense.

In a best case scenario you're still dropping down 1 spot (from 1.12 to 2.01). In a worst case scenario you might be dropping down all the way from 1.01 to 2.12. Can it work out in certain cases? Yea, maybe. Is it a winning strategy? No. I will gladly trade my 2nd round pick this year for a 1st round pick next year. If anyone in any of my leagues is reading this, make that offer and I'll accept it. Predicting team strength is dangerous business. Almost every team is 1-2 key injuries or breakouts away from worst or first. In my experience it's very dangerous to give up your future draft picks because you never know how your team will do. But when you give up a 2nd round pick for a 1st round pick, you're guaranteed a higher selection. It's a no-brainer move.

 

[Christo]

In my book:2009 1st = 2010 1st2009 2nd = 2010 2nd2009 3rd = 2010 3rdSome people think a pick in X round this year is worth a pick in X-1 round next year, but this doesn't really make sense mathematically. You're taking it in the pants if you consistently trade your 1st/2nd round picks for 2nd/3rd round picks. The fact that you might get to spend the pick a year earlier doesn't make the pick any more valuable.

Looking at is either way is too simple. If you anticipate being near the top of the first round in '10 of course your pick isn't worth an '09 second. But if you have a solid team and will be drafting near the end of the first in '10 then trading it for an '09 second may make some sense.

In a best case scenario you're still dropping down 1 spot (from 1.12 to 2.01). In a worst case scenario you might be dropping down all the way from 1.01 to 2.12. Can it work out in certain cases? Yea, maybe. Is it a winning strategy? No.

You're wrong.

 

[EBF]

In my book:2009 1st = 2010 1st2009 2nd = 2010 2nd2009 3rd = 2010 3rdSome people think a pick in X round this year is worth a pick in X-1 round next year, but this doesn't really make sense mathematically. You're taking it in the pants if you consistently trade your 1st/2nd round picks for 2nd/3rd round picks. The fact that you might get to spend the pick a year earlier doesn't make the pick any more valuable.

Looking at is either way is too simple. If you anticipate being near the top of the first round in '10 of course your pick isn't worth an '09 second. But if you have a solid team and will be drafting near the end of the first in '10 then trading it for an '09 second may make some sense.

In a best case scenario you're still dropping down 1 spot (from 1.12 to 2.01). In a worst case scenario you might be dropping down all the way from 1.01 to 2.12. Can it work out in certain cases? Yea, maybe. Is it a winning strategy? No.

You're wrong.

Care to prove that?Assuming that you're a clairvoyant and you can know with 100% certainty that you're going to win the league and that the team you're trading with will finish dead last, you're still giving up the last pick in the 1st round for the first pick in the 2nd round. If the best case scenario is you losing the deal by a little bit and the worst case scenario is you losing the deal by a lot, how is this a wise trade to make?

 

[Christo]

In my book:2009 1st = 2010 1st2009 2nd = 2010 2nd2009 3rd = 2010 3rdSome people think a pick in X round this year is worth a pick in X-1 round next year, but this doesn't really make sense mathematically. You're taking it in the pants if you consistently trade your 1st/2nd round picks for 2nd/3rd round picks. The fact that you might get to spend the pick a year earlier doesn't make the pick any more valuable.

Looking at is either way is too simple. If you anticipate being near the top of the first round in '10 of course your pick isn't worth an '09 second. But if you have a solid team and will be drafting near the end of the first in '10 then trading it for an '09 second may make some sense.

In a best case scenario you're still dropping down 1 spot (from 1.12 to 2.01). In a worst case scenario you might be dropping down all the way from 1.01 to 2.12. Can it work out in certain cases? Yea, maybe. Is it a winning strategy? No.

You're wrong.

Care to prove that?

I've done it.Only a fool would stick to a hard and fast rule like yours.

 

[EBF]

I've done it.Only a fool would stick to a hard and fast rule like yours.

I don't see why it's a good idea to trade picks for lower picks. You're basically arguing that sometimes it's a good idea to give up $10 for $5.

 

[Christo]

I've done it.Only a fool would stick to a hard and fast rule like yours.

I don't see why it's a good idea to trade picks for lower picks. You're basically arguing that sometimes it's a good idea to give up $10 for $5.

This is where you're going wrong because it's nothing of the sort.

 

[doubletrouble]

But if you have a solid team and will be drafting near the end of the first in '10 then trading it for an '09 second may make some sense.

Yeah got to agree w/ EBF on this one...The guy that traded his 2009 1st in my league for the 2.3 in 2008 won the title that year and had a solid team...he drafted Devin Thomas from Was and some players got hurt and now I have his 1.2 in 2009.

He guessed he would be drafting near the end in 2009 (as you put it) and now has DT for the 1.2....that to me is a horrible trade......

 

[identikit]

But if you have a solid team and will be drafting near the end of the first in '10 then trading it for an '09 second may make some sense.

Yeah got to agree w/ EBF on this one...The guy that traded his 2009 1st in my league for the 2.3 in 2008 won the title that year and had a solid team...he drafted Devin Thomas from Was and some players got hurt and now I have his 1.2 in 2009.

He guessed he would be drafting near the end in 2009 (as you put it) and now has DT for the 1.2....that to me is a horrible trade......

In the scenario you describe, what if he'd have drafted Eddie Royal instead of Devin Thomas and hadn't had injuries? Doubt that trade would be so horrible as you describe.Easy to say afterwards that a trade is horrible....

 

[FUBAR]

In my book:

2009 1st = 2010 1st

2009 2nd = 2010 2nd

2009 3rd = 2010 3rd

Some people think a pick in X round this year is worth a pick in X-1 round next year, but this doesn't really make sense mathematically. You're taking it in the pants if you consistently trade your 1st/2nd round picks for 2nd/3rd round picks. The fact that you might get to spend the pick a year earlier doesn't make the pick any more valuable.

Looking at is either way is too simple. If you anticipate being near the top of the first round in '10 of course your pick isn't worth an '09 second. But if you have a solid team and will be drafting near the end of the first in '10 then trading it for an '09 second may make some sense.

In a best case scenario you're still dropping down 1 spot (from 1.12 to 2.01). In a worst case scenario you might be dropping down all the way from 1.01 to 2.12. Can it work out in certain cases? Yea, maybe. Is it a winning strategy? No.

You're wrong.

Care to prove that?Assuming that you're a clairvoyant and you can know with 100% certainty that you're going to win the league and that the team you're trading with will finish dead last, you're still giving up the last pick in the 1st round for the first pick in the 2nd round. If the best case scenario is you losing the deal by a little bit and the worst case scenario is you losing the deal by a lot, how is this a wise trade to make?

It's not clairvoyant to know the 2009 draft order in March 2009. It takes some reading, but I think we're up to it.

 

[FUBAR]

EBF,I don't agree with this at all, and here's why.I don't get any value from a player or a draft pick in the future to help me to win now or in the near future (before that future pick).You state above that there is no inflation in fantasy football. That's exactly the crux of the argument.Using your example above, you get a player in 2009 that could help you win in 09, 10, 11, 12, or 2013. That player in Scenario 2 doesn't exist yet. Sure you could be wrong with the pick, but I'd rather have the change in 09 to use it than to wait 5 years to reap any benefit.The inflation that you fail to see is that you don't have an asset that may help you win now (and for the next 4-5 years) that you do not have in the second case. What you do with that asset (use the pick or trade it) is irrelevant.To give another example - let's say that there is a weekly drawing for $1,000 and everyone gets 10 tickets. Would you say that a ticket next week is the same as one this week? Forget the change in odds from having 9, 10 or 11 tickets - would you rather win $1,000 this week or next? The utility of the pick does have a time value.

I think I see what you're trying to say, but I don't think it's correct.If you trade your future pick for a current pick then you're helping your team today, but you're hurting your team tomorrow. The cost cancels out the gain and there's no overall benefit.

The inflation that you fail to see is that you don't have an asset that may help you win now (and for the next 4-5 years) that you do not have in the second case. What you do with that asset (use the pick or trade it) is irrelevant.

Whether you have the asset today or tomorrow is irrelevant if the asset has a static value. A random 1st round rookie pick in 2012 will have the same value as a random 1st round rookie pick in 2009. So while one might argue that trading your future picks for current picks improves your odds of winning the league right now, I would argue that it decreases your odds of winning the league in the future. You don't get an extra asset by trading your future picks for a current pick. You just get access to that asset earlier. Your argument cites the benefit of the earlier pick without citing the cost of losing the future pick. If I give my 2010 1st for a 2009 1st, I have two rookie picks this year, but I have zero rookie picks next year. The total number of rookie picks hasn't changed. All that has changed is when I have access to them. There is no gain in value here.

So you're saying you'll readily trade your 09 1st for my 2020 1st?

 

[identikit]

EBF,I don't agree with this at all, and here's why.I don't get any value from a player or a draft pick in the future to help me to win now or in the near future (before that future pick).You state above that there is no inflation in fantasy football. That's exactly the crux of the argument.Using your example above, you get a player in 2009 that could help you win in 09, 10, 11, 12, or 2013. That player in Scenario 2 doesn't exist yet. Sure you could be wrong with the pick, but I'd rather have the change in 09 to use it than to wait 5 years to reap any benefit.The inflation that you fail to see is that you don't have an asset that may help you win now (and for the next 4-5 years) that you do not have in the second case. What you do with that asset (use the pick or trade it) is irrelevant.To give another example - let's say that there is a weekly drawing for $1,000 and everyone gets 10 tickets. Would you say that a ticket next week is the same as one this week? Forget the change in odds from having 9, 10 or 11 tickets - would you rather win $1,000 this week or next? The utility of the pick does have a time value.

I think I see what you're trying to say, but I don't think it's correct.If you trade your future pick for a current pick then you're helping your team today, but you're hurting your team tomorrow. The cost cancels out the gain and there's no overall benefit.

The inflation that you fail to see is that you don't have an asset that may help you win now (and for the next 4-5 years) that you do not have in the second case. What you do with that asset (use the pick or trade it) is irrelevant.

Whether you have the asset today or tomorrow is irrelevant if the asset has a static value. A random 1st round rookie pick in 2012 will have the same value as a random 1st round rookie pick in 2009. So while one might argue that trading your future picks for current picks improves your odds of winning the league right now, I would argue that it decreases your odds of winning the league in the future. You don't get an extra asset by trading your future picks for a current pick. You just get access to that asset earlier. Your argument cites the benefit of the earlier pick without citing the cost of losing the future pick. If I give my 2010 1st for a 2009 1st, I have two rookie picks this year, but I have zero rookie picks next year. The total number of rookie picks hasn't changed. All that has changed is when I have access to them. There is no gain in value here.

So you're saying you'll readily trade your 09 1st for my 2020 1st?

In EBF's world, that's exactly what he's saying.

 

[FUBAR]

EBF,I don't agree with this at all, and here's why.I don't get any value from a player or a draft pick in the future to help me to win now or in the near future (before that future pick).You state above that there is no inflation in fantasy football. That's exactly the crux of the argument.Using your example above, you get a player in 2009 that could help you win in 09, 10, 11, 12, or 2013. That player in Scenario 2 doesn't exist yet. Sure you could be wrong with the pick, but I'd rather have the change in 09 to use it than to wait 5 years to reap any benefit.The inflation that you fail to see is that you don't have an asset that may help you win now (and for the next 4-5 years) that you do not have in the second case. What you do with that asset (use the pick or trade it) is irrelevant.To give another example - let's say that there is a weekly drawing for $1,000 and everyone gets 10 tickets. Would you say that a ticket next week is the same as one this week? Forget the change in odds from having 9, 10 or 11 tickets - would you rather win $1,000 this week or next? The utility of the pick does have a time value.

I think I see what you're trying to say, but I don't think it's correct.If you trade your future pick for a current pick then you're helping your team today, but you're hurting your team tomorrow. The cost cancels out the gain and there's no overall benefit.

The inflation that you fail to see is that you don't have an asset that may help you win now (and for the next 4-5 years) that you do not have in the second case. What you do with that asset (use the pick or trade it) is irrelevant.

Whether you have the asset today or tomorrow is irrelevant if the asset has a static value. A random 1st round rookie pick in 2012 will have the same value as a random 1st round rookie pick in 2009. So while one might argue that trading your future picks for current picks improves your odds of winning the league right now, I would argue that it decreases your odds of winning the league in the future. You don't get an extra asset by trading your future picks for a current pick. You just get access to that asset earlier. Your argument cites the benefit of the earlier pick without citing the cost of losing the future pick. If I give my 2010 1st for a 2009 1st, I have two rookie picks this year, but I have zero rookie picks next year. The total number of rookie picks hasn't changed. All that has changed is when I have access to them. There is no gain in value here.

So you're saying you'll readily trade your 09 1st for my 2020 1st?

In EBF's world, that's exactly what he's saying.

Who plays in a league with him and how do I get in?

 

[identikit]

 

[Christo]

But if you have a solid team and will be drafting near the end of the first in '10 then trading it for an '09 second may make some sense.

Yeah got to agree w/ EBF on this one...The guy that traded his 2009 1st in my league for the 2.3 in 2008 won the title that year and had a solid team...he drafted Devin Thomas from Was and some players got hurt and now I have his 1.2 in 2009.

He guessed he would be drafting near the end in 2009 (as you put it) and now has DT for the 1.2....that to me is a horrible trade......

Well, that seals it. I'm never trading again. Something may go bad.

 

[identikit]

But if you have a solid team and will be drafting near the end of the first in '10 then trading it for an '09 second may make some sense.

Yeah got to agree w/ EBF on this one...The guy that traded his 2009 1st in my league for the 2.3 in 2008 won the title that year and had a solid team...he drafted Devin Thomas from Was and some players got hurt and now I have his 1.2 in 2009.

He guessed he would be drafting near the end in 2009 (as you put it) and now has DT for the 1.2....that to me is a horrible trade......

Well, that seals it. I'm never trading again. Something may go bad.

Well said...Trading isn't an exact science....

 

[doubletrouble]

But if you have a solid team and will be drafting near the end of the first in '10 then trading it for an '09 second may make some sense.

Yeah got to agree w/ EBF on this one...The guy that traded his 2009 1st in my league for the 2.3 in 2008 won the title that year and had a solid team...he drafted Devin Thomas from Was and some players got hurt and now I have his 1.2 in 2009.

He guessed he would be drafting near the end in 2009 (as you put it) and now has DT for the 1.2....that to me is a horrible trade......

Well, that seals it. I'm never trading again. Something may go bad.

Well said...Trading isn't an exact science....

Just giving you an example of what happened our my league. I wouldn't trade a future 1st for a 2nd...IMOyou guys can

 

[EBF]

EBF,I don't agree with this at all, and here's why.I don't get any value from a player or a draft pick in the future to help me to win now or in the near future (before that future pick).You state above that there is no inflation in fantasy football. That's exactly the crux of the argument.Using your example above, you get a player in 2009 that could help you win in 09, 10, 11, 12, or 2013. That player in Scenario 2 doesn't exist yet. Sure you could be wrong with the pick, but I'd rather have the change in 09 to use it than to wait 5 years to reap any benefit.The inflation that you fail to see is that you don't have an asset that may help you win now (and for the next 4-5 years) that you do not have in the second case. What you do with that asset (use the pick or trade it) is irrelevant.To give another example - let's say that there is a weekly drawing for $1,000 and everyone gets 10 tickets. Would you say that a ticket next week is the same as one this week? Forget the change in odds from having 9, 10 or 11 tickets - would you rather win $1,000 this week or next? The utility of the pick does have a time value.

I think I see what you're trying to say, but I don't think it's correct.If you trade your future pick for a current pick then you're helping your team today, but you're hurting your team tomorrow. The cost cancels out the gain and there's no overall benefit.

The inflation that you fail to see is that you don't have an asset that may help you win now (and for the next 4-5 years) that you do not have in the second case. What you do with that asset (use the pick or trade it) is irrelevant.

Whether you have the asset today or tomorrow is irrelevant if the asset has a static value. A random 1st round rookie pick in 2012 will have the same value as a random 1st round rookie pick in 2009. So while one might argue that trading your future picks for current picks improves your odds of winning the league right now, I would argue that it decreases your odds of winning the league in the future. You don't get an extra asset by trading your future picks for a current pick. You just get access to that asset earlier. Your argument cites the benefit of the earlier pick without citing the cost of losing the future pick. If I give my 2010 1st for a 2009 1st, I have two rookie picks this year, but I have zero rookie picks next year. The total number of rookie picks hasn't changed. All that has changed is when I have access to them. There is no gain in value here.

So you're saying you'll readily trade your 09 1st for my 2020 1st?

In a vacuum it would be a fair trade, but the uncertainty of the picks increases very slightly the further out you go because the league might fold, you might lose interest in FF and quit, you might die, etc. None of my leagues allow you to trade more than 2 years down the road. I think a 2011 1st is roughly equal to a 2009 1st. It's worth slightly less because of the uncertainty, but it's close, especially if you don't anticipate your league folding in the near future.

 

[cstu]

In my book:2009 1st = 2010 1st2009 2nd = 2010 2nd2009 3rd = 2010 3rdSome people think a pick in X round this year is worth a pick in X-1 round next year, but this doesn't really make sense mathematically. You're taking it in the pants if you consistently trade your 1st/2nd round picks for 2nd/3rd round picks. The fact that you might get to spend the pick a year earlier doesn't make the pick any more valuable. In general, I would always be willing to trade a random pick in this year's X round for a random pick in next year's X-1 round. On the flipside, I would almost never be willing to trade a pick in next year's X-1 round for a pick in this year's X round unless I was targeting a specific prospect who fell in the draft.

I have a very difficult time believing that you would give up your 2009 1st for a 2010 1st.