NJC33 Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 Trying to quantify the Fields trade by sighting value charts is myopic, to say the least. Any other position, sure, but how do you 'value' a potential franchise quarterback, especially when neither team currently has the answer? The Giants make this move believing DJ is the guy, and from that perspective it's great value, theoretically. But in the absence of a surefire franchise QB, the opportunity cost of passing on fields could prove to be the real "fleecing" here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gmen Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 2 minutes ago, CWood21 said: And you're more than welcome to take that stance. But don't be surprised when others disagree with you. You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with multiple highly qualified domain experts (including a math Phd), that have studied the value of draft picks, and have analyzed this trade objectively. But, whatever. Moving on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 5 minutes ago, .Buzz said: Moving a future 1st for a 9 pick jump in the top half of the 1st for a QB seems like a normal rate to me personally. Precisely what I've been saying. There's a QB premium being paid. But even @Gmen's original tweet from Seth Walder even said he wasn't discounting the future pick. Why the hell wouldn't you devalue the future pick? Teams giving up the pick don't anticipate it being a top 5 pick, and probably not a bottom 5 pick. So you're likely finding something in the middle (say the 16th pick). Plus you have to devalue the future pick, so drop it a full round and that's probably in the ballpark of value for a future pick. So you're talking about a pick that's worth roughly the 48th overall pick. If you devalue that future 4th as a mid-5th, you're looking at a surplus value of an early 4th round pick. Solid value, but not spectacular value by any means. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 1 minute ago, NJC33 said: Trying to quantify the Fields trade by sighting value charts is myopic, to say the least. Any other position, sure, but how do you 'value' a potential franchise quarterback, especially when neither team currently has the answer? The Giants make this move believing DJ is the guy, and from that perspective it's great value, theoretically. But in the absence of a surefire franchise QB, the opportunity cost of passing on fields could prove to be the real "fleecing" here. Same reason the Giants can't just assume that the Bears are handing them a top 5 pick. You can't just assume one scenario or another. You usually need to find the happy medium. IF Fields turns out to be a bust, and they hand the Giants a top 10 pick then that sets back the Bears franchise even further. I get that the Bears probably needed Fields more than anyone, but saying a team fleeced another trade without actually digging into the numbers is illogical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 6 minutes ago, Gmen said: You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with multiple highly qualified domain experts (including a math Phd), that have studied the value of draft picks, and have analyzed this trade objectively. But, whatever. Moving on. Except I am. You used two Tweets citing the Giants "fleecing" the Bears. I posted several scenarios attempting to "value" that future picks the Bears received, and the only scenarios in which the Bears received significant surplus value (i.e. top 64 pick(s) or more) was when you valued that future FRP as a current FRP. Why would you value a future FRP as a current FRP? Would you rather have a FRP today or a FRP next year? It's literally no different than the time value of money. You have to devalue future picks. Doing some rough calculation on Lee Sharpe's tweet suggests he's not devaluing future picks. I understand why he doesn't because there's no standard. But that doesn't mean he can't very well be wrong. And even Seth Walder admitted he wasn't devaluing future pick value. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBLIII Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 Jeremy Layton on Twitter: "On NFL Network right now, Michael Silver said the Broncos "loved Justin Fields" but liked Patrick Surtain even more, so they took him. Which, if true...big ****in yikes" / Twitter 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJC33 Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 1 minute ago, CWood21 said: Same reason the Giants can't just assume that the Bears are handing them a top 5 pick. You can't just assume one scenario or another. You usually need to find the happy medium. IF Fields turns out to be a bust, and they hand the Giants a top 10 pick then that sets back the Bears franchise even further. I get that the Bears probably needed Fields more than anyone, but saying a team fleeced another trade without actually digging into the numbers is illogical. Yep, I'm with you. I see this as a much bigger gamble for the Giants -- not only are they rolling the dice on DJ > Fields, but the discrepancy or uncertainty in talent from 11 to 20 was HUGE in this draft, more so than others. Passing on a guy like Slater for Toney (who I like) could prove costly. Coupled with the fact that you're basing trade value on a hypothetical future pick, there's just way too much going on here to sight a trade chart as reason for praise or celebration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrissooner49er Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 8 minutes ago, SBLIII said: Jeremy Layton on Twitter: "On NFL Network right now, Michael Silver said the Broncos "loved Justin Fields" but liked Patrick Surtain even more, so they took him. Which, if true...big ****in yikes" / Twitter 🤨 I like Surtain better than Fields. A lot better. shrug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soko Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 19 minutes ago, Gmen said: You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with multiple highly qualified domain experts (including a math Phd), that have studied the value of draft picks, and have analyzed this trade objectively. But, whatever. Moving on. It’s not really about math, though. Valuing a future FRP as a present FRP has nothing to do with math. I like the trade for NYG. They got a player that they probably liked + a future FRP, that’s a win. But Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gmen Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 20 minutes ago, NJC33 said: Trying to quantify the Fields trade by sighting value charts is myopic, to say the least. Any other position, sure, but how do you 'value' a potential franchise quarterback, especially when neither team currently has the answer? The Giants make this move believing DJ is the guy, and from that perspective it's great value, theoretically. But in the absence of a surefire franchise QB, the opportunity cost of passing on fields could prove to be the real "fleecing" here. The way I look at this is if Daniel Jones plays poorly this year and turns out to not be the franchise QB, that extra 1st round pick next year could go a long way in the Giants securing their next QB in the 2022 draft. 6 minutes ago, NJC33 said: Yep, I'm with you. I see this as a much bigger gamble for the Giants -- not only are they rolling the dice on DJ > Fields, but the discrepancy or uncertainty in talent from 11 to 20 was HUGE in this draft, more so than others. Passing on a guy like Slater for Toney (who I like) could prove costly. Coupled with the fact that you're basing trade value on a hypothetical future pick, there's just way too much going on here to sight a trade chart as reason for praise or celebration. In the chart I posted from Lee, I counted 6 QBs that were worth trading up for out of 23. Watson, Allen, Mahomes, Flacco, Cutler, Jackson. Basically 1 in 4 trades ended up being worth it. Not great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 14 minutes ago, SBLIII said: Jeremy Layton on Twitter: "On NFL Network right now, Michael Silver said the Broncos "loved Justin Fields" but liked Patrick Surtain even more, so they took him. Which, if true...big ****in yikes" / Twitter Surtain is probably exponentially safer. And it's not like he lacks upside either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 5 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said: It’s not really about math, though. Valuing a future FRP as a present FRP has nothing to do with math. I like the trade for NYG. They got a player that they probably liked + a future FRP, that’s a win. But Agreed. I don't hate the trade down for the Giants in the slightest. Gives them extra ammunition next year. IF the Giants suck next year, they could potentially be armed with 2 top 10 picks. That'd be HUGE. Is that likely to happen? Probably not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Buzz Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 Can I get some Tyson Campbell takes? I think he's our pick at 33. I get Marlon Humphrey vibes when I watch him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 4 minutes ago, .Buzz said: Can I get some Tyson Campbell takes? I think he's our pick at 33. I get Marlon Humphrey vibes when I watch him. Even over Moehrig? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Buzz Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 3 minutes ago, CWood21 said: Even over Moehrig? Its sounding that way at the moment, yeah. Urban in his presser said pick 25 was between ETN, a CB, and S. Assuming the latter were Campbell and Moerhig. So they appear to be neck and neck on our board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.