Possible Trade Partners for Pick 30

[Brit Pack]

Trying to make sense of who we would or could do a deal with, that is if we wanted to do a deal. This is just the most likely options, of course if we are talking future picks or multiple later round picks etc the permutations are quite endless then.

TRADE DOWN
CLE gets 30 (620) from GB
GB gets 41 (490) and 97 (112) from CLE
NET: GB loss of 18pts Draft Value 

CIN gets 30 (620) from GB
GB gets pick 33 (580) and 107 (80) from CIN
NET: GB gain 40pts Draft Value 

IND gets 30 (620) from GB
GB gets pick 34 (560) and 122 (50) from IND
NET: GB loss 10pts Draft Value 
OR
IND gets 30 (620) from GB
GB gets pick 44 (460) and 75 (215) from IND
NET: GB gain 55pts Draft Value  (might have to send a 6th rounder back to sweeten this deal)

NYG gets pick 30 (620) from GB
GB gets pick 36 (540) and 99 (104) from NYG
NET: GB gain 24pts Draft Value 
OR
NYG gets pick 30 (620) from GB
GB gets pick 36 (540) and 110 (74) from NYG
NET: GB loss 6pts Draft Value 

HOU gets 30 (620) from GB
GB gets pick 40 (500) and 90 (140) from HOU
NET: GB gain 20pts Draft Value 

NYJ gets 30 (620) from GB
GB gets pick 48 (420) and 79 (195) from NYJ
NET: GB loss 5pts Draft Value 

For example last year the Giants traded up with the Seahawks for pick 30 and they received picks 37, 132 and 142, net loss of 15. They are crap at deals anyway.
The Falcons traded up in the 1^st for pick 31 and got 202, the Rams got picks 45 and 79 in return, next gain of 36 for the Rams

TRADE UP
GB gives 30 (620) and 62 (284)
To get either pick 18 MIA or pick 19 LV (LV have no second round pick, MIA have 14 picks, 3 in the 1^st, 2 in the 2nd)

GB gives 30 (620) and 94 (128)
To get either pick 23 from NE or pick 24 from NO (neither team has a 2^nd rounder, NO only has only 5 picks in the whole draft, NE has 13 picks in the draft already 3 in the third round)

The trade back deal that looks quite tasty is with NYG, with us dropping 6 picks and getting either a late 3rd or early 4th. 

 

[luke4047]

What about trading up with Seattle?

They like to trade and down and we've done it two years in a row.

 

[Brit Pack]

8 minutes ago, luke4047 said:

What about trading up with Seattle?

They like to trade and down and we've done it two years in a row.

 

They do like to trade and often do dumb deals. Having said that unless we were doing multiple picks and positional swaps I don't see it as an easy deal.  To move up 3 spots costs 60 draft value points and that would mean for us to give up our 4th and 5th rounder which might be too much for such a small gain really.

[craig]

There is a perception that there isn't much talent separation among guys in the 30's.  That makes trading down within the 30's make more sense  than trading up.  If we want to trade down within the 30's, we may not expect to get an even "Draft Value" exchange.  

[coachbuns]

10 minutes ago, craig said:

There is a perception that there isn't much talent separation among guys in the 30's.  That makes trading down within the 30's make more sense  than trading up.  If we want to trade down within the 30's, we may not expect to get an even "Draft Value" exchange.  

If one doesn't gain even draft value, why do it?  Has to be to the Packers advantage to move down ... somebody wants to move up and should pay for it.

[Golfman]

I'm not trading down with anybody and giving up 1 point in value. The biggest reason two reasons to trade back into the 1st round is the 5th year option, and a guy you don't think is going to be there when you pick. Have to get value for that move. I"m perfectly fine with trading down, but not for losing value. In fact 30-40 points of premium are what I'd be looking for to move.

I'd rather go back about 40ish to get a 3rd in the 70's. I think you can get an OT, WR, ILB and DL with pretty good value if you can manipulate the draft that way. There is one major assumption on my part however. The needs I feel we need to address match those of Gute as well as the value in some order of those positions with those picks. That is why the draft is best left to the real experts. 

[Brit Pack]

8 minutes ago, Golfman said:

I'm not trading down with anybody and giving up 1 point in value. The biggest reason two reasons to trade back into the 1st round is the 5th year option, and a guy you don't think is going to be there when you pick. Have to get value for that move. I"m perfectly fine with trading down, but not for losing value. In fact 30-40 points of premium are what I'd be looking for to move.

I'd rather go back about 40ish to get a 3rd in the 70's. I think you can get an OT, WR, ILB and DL with pretty good value if you can manipulate the draft that way. There is one major assumption on my part however. The needs I feel we need to address match those of Gute as well as the value in some order of those positions with those picks. That is why the draft is best left to the real experts. 

If that is the case I got a deal right up your alley my ol' China. Indy got two second round picks and give you what you are after to a tee.

IND gets 30 (620) from GB
GB gets pick 44 (460) and 75 (215) from IND
NET: GB gain 55pts Draft Value (might have to send a 6th rounder back to sweeten this deal)

Edited April 22, 2020 by Brit Pack

[pacman5252]

I'd consider most of those trades. One thing, I do think using the Jimmy Johnson chart is a little out of date. I really like the harvard chart and the past trade value charts. I feel like they are a better model of what is actually being used now.

https://www.bloggingtheboys.com/pages/the-harvard-trade-value-chart

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/news/2020-nfl-draft-pick-trade-value-chart-using-past-trades-to-create-blueprint-for-draft-moves/

 

[OneTwoSixFive]

When looking at possible trades, it's tough to predict who would want to trade up which is tied to who is available at #30. Therefore I looked at things a slightly different way. I looked for teams to trade up with the Pack at #30 without disrupting the rest of their own draft. 

I came up with two options and the reason I think they work is because in my two trade possibilities the other team will either sacrifice picks in a round if they get an extra pick in a higher round (see Jax trade below), or it doesn't leave the other team without picks in another round due to the trade (see Miami trade below).

For example:

Pack and Miami trade. Miami gets #30 (620 points on the JJ chart). Packers get #39 (510 points) and the teams swap 3rds (Packers #94 for Miami's #70, difference 116 points). Miami still has picks in rounds 2 and 3, plus it now has 4 (!!) first round picks. Total worth of trade 620 (Pack cost)  vs 626 points (Miami cost)

Pack and Jax trade. Jax gets #30 (620 points). Pack gets #42 (480 points), the second of Jax's three round 4 picks (#137 worth 37 points), plus a swap of 3rds (#94 for #73 difference 101 points). Total worth of trade 620 (Pack cost) vs 618 points (Jax cost).

That's about as good as I can find in a deal where the other side is probably happy with the outcome

Of course if you use another chart, the results are going to be different. My own belief (with zero proof) is that the better teams construct a different value chart each year, to best reflect the relative values and drop-off points for that year.

Edited April 22, 2020 by OneTwoSixFive

[Golfman]

23 minutes ago, Brit Pack said:

If that is the case I got a deal right up your alley my ol' China. Indy got two second round picks and give you what you are after to a tee.

IND gets 30 (620) from GB
GB gets pick 44 (460) and 75 (215) from IND
NET: GB gain 55pts Draft Value (might have to send a 6th rounder back to sweeten this deal)

Pick 75 is in the third round if my math is correct. Let's see 32+32 = 

Anyway, I"m good with this type of move. 

Edited April 22, 2020 by Golfman

[Brit Pack]

10 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

When looking at possible trades, it's tough to predict who would want to trade up which is tied to who is available at #30. Therefore I looked at things a slightly different way. I looked for teams to trade up with the Pack at #30 without disrupting the rest of their own draft. 

I came up with two options and the reason I think they work is because in my two trade possibilities the other team will either sacrifice picks in a round if they get an extra pick in a higher round (see Jax trade below), or it doesn't leave the other team without picks in another round due to the trade (see Miami trade below).

For example:

Pack and Miami trade. Miami gets #30 (620 points on the JJ chart). Packers get #39 (510 points) and the teams swap 3rds (Packers #94 for Miami's #70, difference 116 points). Miami still has picks in rounds 2 and 3, plus it now has 4 (!!) first round picks. Total worth of trade 620 (Pack cost)  vs 626 points (Miami cost)

Pack and Jax trade. Jax gets #30 (620 points). Pack gets #42 (480 points), the second of Jax's three round 4 picks (#137 worth 37 points), plus a swap of 3rds (#94 for #73 difference 101 points). Total worth of trade 620 (Pack cost) vs 618 points (Jax cost).

That's about as good as I can find in a deal where the other side is probably happy with the outcome

Of course if you use another chart, the results are going to be different. My own belief (with zero proof) is that the better teams construct a different value chart each year, to best reflect the relative values and drop-off points for that year.

Well thought out. I like that.

[Golfman]

10 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

When looking at possible trades, it's tough to predict who would want to trade up which is tied to who is available at #30. Therefore I looked at things a slightly different way. I looked for teams to trade up with the Pack at #30 without disrupting the rest of their own draft. 

I came up with two options and the reason I think they work is because in my two trade possibilities the other team will either sacrifice picks in a round if they get an extra pick in a higher round (see Jax trade below), or it doesn't leave the other team without picks in another round due to the trade (see Miami trade below).

For example:

Pack and Miami trade. Miami gets #30 (620 points on the JJ chart). Packers get #39 (510 points) and the teams swap 3rds (Packers #94 for Miami's #70, difference 116 points). Miami still has picks in rounds 2 and 3, plus it now has 4 (!!) first round picks. Total worth of trade 620 (Pack cost)  vs 626 points (Miami cost)

Pack and Jax trade. Jax gets #30 (620 points). Pack gets #42 (480 points), the second of Jax's three round 4 picks (#137 worth 37 points), plus a swap of 3rds (#94 for #73 difference 101 points). Total worth of trade 620 (Pack cost) vs 618 points (Jax cost).

That's about as good as I can find in a deal where the other side is probably happy with the outcome

Of course if you use another chart, the results are going to be different. My own belief (with zero proof) is that the better teams construct a different value chart each year, to best reflect the relative values and drop-off points for that year.

Yeah, I'm not down with either of those situations to be honest. I'm only doing it if I get an extra pick and some real value. Who cares if it, 'disrupts their draft?'' If they are looking to trade back up into the first round, this is likely part of their draft plan. Go give up a pick to get back in round 1, if their guy is there. IF it happens, you give up value. 

[Brit Pack]

A trade with Jax is the lowest I would want to go in the 2nd round. From pick 21 to pick 43 there is where I see the next tier of talent being. 

[GWH87]

Why wouldn’t we be entertaining the option to trade up to 20/21 with either the Jags or Philly?

It could be the desired landed spot to land one of the last “Top 4” WR.

I know the mantra don’t get hopes up for that based on history, however Gute has shown his like for trading up recently and this range wouldn’t mean giving up the farm in this draft or future ones either. Eagles and Jags need DBs even floating J Jackson in the package couldn’t hurt.

[OneTwoSixFive]

6 minutes ago, Golfman said:

Yeah, I'm not down with either of those situations to be honest. I'm only doing it if I get an extra pick and some real value. Who cares if it, 'disrupts their draft?'' If they are looking to trade back up into the first round, this is likely part of their draft plan. Go give up a pick to get back in round 1, if their guy is there. IF it happens, you give up value. 

It's the other team that is likely to care. Any deal has to work for both sides.