43M Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 Future picks are usually valued as the lowest pick of said rounds because you have no idea where the pick will be. So, this value seems pretty terrible for Houston....but my guess is the Texans didnt want to miss out on adding some draft capital if they Vikings made a deal with someone else. It certainly wasn't because the value was too good to pass on. Yikes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 5 minutes ago, incognito_man said: The biggest takeaway in this particular instance should be "hm, maybe everyone clamoring that the Texans got 'hosed' based on some arbitrary, opinion-centered, data-less, ancient TVC is not the best takeaway. Perhaps the Houston FO isn't stupid and/or doesn't use that aforementioned TVC whatsoever." The Jimmy Johnson trade chart likes it for Houston too. My guess is most of the thread (myself included) saw 1st rounder going one way and not the other way and went blind. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texansfan713 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 2 hours ago, RaidersAreOne said: This guy has been money lately fwiw: 4 I can see, but the Patriots would be crazy to trade back from 3 and not getting either Daniels or Maye. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 3 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: More valuable for what? We should be using charts that are fit for purpose. And if the goal of the exercise here is to evaluate how each GM did relative to the established trade market, the TVC should be optimized to what NFL teams think picks are worth, not what the data says they are worth. If the goal changes to which GM we may think is smartest, then I think the data TVC would be more appropriate. My personal opinion for anything with multiple answers like this is run it each way and see how it shakes out, so even then I still find value in the Jimmy Johnson chart or other old ones, if nothing else to get an idea of the magnitude of change over the years. more valuable in predicting (based on historical results) a potential "winner". I am less interested in a comparison against the 'established' trade market than I am in comparing it against the established trade results market. I do think there are smart FOs and dumber FOs when it comes to trades - at least when measured against the stick of 'actual football results/success' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 Just now, incognito_man said: more valuable in predicting (based on historical results) a potential "winner". I am less interested in a comparison against the 'established' trade market than I am in comparing it against the established trade results market. I do think there are smart FOs and dumber FOs when it comes to trades - at least when measured against the stick of 'actual football results/success' Why? To me they are two entirely different, but equally valid questions. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossibleCabbage Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 (edited) I don't think you can pry #4 out of the Cardinals hands unless MHJ goes #3. Not only is WR their biggest need and MHJ is a rare prospect, but the Cardinals also have 27 and 35 and probably do not need to make like 5 picks in the top 50 in this draft. Like you're not getting their attention without offering multiple future premium picks. The targets for the Vikings to move up should be 3 and 5. The Chargers seem like motivated sellers. Edited March 15 by PossibleCabbage 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 Just now, ramssuperbowl99 said: Why? To me they are two entirely different, but equally valid questions. because the value-gap/arbitrage window is wider if you look at the down-road results. I'd rather see where a GM is getting a 5x return on capital rather than a 1.125x return. And I believe that, at least most teams, are somewhat conservative and operate more in the 'current trade value marketplace' than the potential 'actual results value'. And I really believe the latter has much larger value opportunities when leveraged successfully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 Just now, incognito_man said: because the value-gap/arbitrage window is wider if you look at the down-road results. I'd rather see where a GM is getting a 5x return on capital rather than a 1.125x return. And I believe that, at least most teams, are somewhat conservative and operate more in the 'current trade value marketplace' than the potential 'actual results value'. And I really believe the latter has much larger value opportunities when leveraged successfully. Why are you viewing it as an either-or thing? You could be happy for the 5x return, but also a little bummed that you didn't also get the 0.1x return (I don't think the gap is that wide, but I get what you mean). The only way you'd really be able to ignore the current gap is going so all in on the sabermetric style that I think the far bigger issue would be the logistical implementation of that type of strategy. This type of thing is way easier for the Dodgers/Astros to do with a minor league system or the Spurs/Thunder to do because NBA careers last forever relatively speaking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 Just now, ramssuperbowl99 said: Why are you viewing it as an either-or thing? You could be happy for the 5x return, but also a little bummed that you didn't also get the 0.1x return (I don't think the gap is that wide, but I get what you mean). The only way you'd really be able to ignore the current gap is going so all in on the sabermetric style that I think the far bigger issue would be the logistical implementation of that type of strategy. This type of thing is way easier for the Dodgers/Astros to do with a minor league system or the Spurs/Thunder to do because NBA careers last forever relatively speaking. I don't think I am viewing it as an either-or thing. I introduced another (what I believe to be, more valuable for my focus/interest) chart to the chat. I understand it's just as possible to examine it against another baseline (such as 'historical trades as executed'), but that feels like small potatoes to me. The 5x and 1.125x were totally arbitrary, I also don't think the gap is the wide - I just made that for illustrative purposes. However, because that OTC chart seems sooo wonky to so many people, it solidifies for me that the results of using it will also certainly be magnified dramatically. And that's way more interesting to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelKing728 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 1 hour ago, NudeTayne said: So I can trade you pick 19 and 20 for your pick 1? Or picks 65 and 66 for your pick 8? That's what that value chart says is fair. You're using logic with someone who hates logic. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsfolk Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 IMO, the loss of the first rounder w/ the 5th year option is a deal breaker for me when it comes to Houston in this trade 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SotanKing Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 1 hour ago, incognito_man said: Yep. I don't understand why more people don't follow the actual data on this stuff. I think you have to take into account the position you are trading for. Even the people who made these charts or use these charts regularly mention that these charts don't necessarily capture the value if you are trading up for a QB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelKing728 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 Minnesota potentially getting 2 3rd round comp picks make up for the lost 2025 pick. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
11sanchez11 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 3 hours ago, Teen Girl Squad said: The Texans must have thought that the 'true' first round talents would be gone by 23 and thought the extra 2nd would be a better value. Don't hate it but not sure if that was the play I would have made. I see Newton falling there is almost every mock now. Getting Newton there would be a home run. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 Moving up to 4 pre-draft seems like a strange move to me. Unless they are really just targeting whichever QB is fourth. Because like, even if they know QBs go 1-2-3, they don't know which ones. Unless of course they're more clued in on what the Pats are actually thinking than the media is. But that seems like a big gamble to me. 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.