OneTwoSixFive Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 18 minutes ago, CWood21 said: Let me ask you this, would you rather have a $100 right now or $100 a year from now? The answer is always now. You can google the concept if you want, it's a discussion that's been well explained. That same concept can be applied to draft picks. Is a 2nd round pick this year worth more, less, or the same as a 1st round pick next year? And why do you take the worst case scenario as an example? Let's say that the Jaguars traded their 2018 1st in order to move back into the draft. The team acquiring the pick is believing they're getting a top 10 pick, but instead of receiving a top 10 pick they're actually getting the 29th pick. That's why you don't take where you expect it to fall, you take it where it might fall. the first of these arguments is not logical, the second paragraph is your interpretaion (which is fine), but mine is different. The first question would be better stated as "Would i rather have $100 now, or something between $150 and $300 next year" (the chosen $ amounts are just for flavour) Your second paragraph, that is where the element of risk comes in - you know you will get a higher pick next year, but you don't know how much higher. Essentially you are taking a limited gamble - you know you will accrue interest, but how much is unknown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 12 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said: the first of these arguments is not logical, the second paragraph is your interpretaion (which is fine), but mine is different. The first question would be better stated as "Would i rather have $100 now, or something between $150 and $300 next year" (the chosen $ amounts are just for flavour) Your second paragraph, that is where the element of risk comes in - you know you will get a higher pick next year, but you don't know how much higher. Essentially you are taking a limited gamble - you know you will accrue interest, but how much is unknown. I'm not sure how it's not logical. If you want to move back into the 1st round of the 2017 draft, you're going to need to give up more than a 2018 1st round pick. That pretty much explains why teams don't trade 2017 1sts for 2018 1sts. It's a bit outdated, but the Browns traded their 2nd round pick (36th overall) and a 2008 1st round pick in order to move up to 22 to select Brady Quinn. That would value that 2008 1st as an early 3rd round pick. In 2014, the Bills traded their 1st round pick (9th overall), a 2015 1st, and 2015 4th round pick to Minnesota to move up to 4 to select Sammy Watkins. That values those two future picks as worth as a mid-2nd. Your comparison is valid, because you're increasing the value of the future pick. We were talking about a 1-for-1 trade. But you can't assume that a team is going to be bad. If you want to take the happy medium between the two, I wouldn't argue too hard but you have to assume the worst if you're the one trading down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoSixFive Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 1 hour ago, CWood21 said: I'm not sure how it's not logical. If you want to move back into the 1st round of the 2017 draft, you're going to need to give up more than a 2018 1st round pick. That pretty much explains why teams don't trade 2017 1sts for 2018 1sts.Most teams won't countenance such a trade, but every year there are GMs on the hot seat. They don't care much about next year - they have to make a splash this year or it's likely they are fired at the end of the year. That can give a guy a short term view that is not in the long-term best interests of that team. It takes just one of the 31 other teams to want to trade. If there are no trade partners you have lost nothing- move on. Also, Im not suggesting the Packers trade picks this year. I originally suggested it might be a viable tactic in a future year, if the Packers need to position themselves to have the ammunition to get a high pick, to secure a top QB. It's a bit outdated, but the Browns traded their 2nd round pick (36th overall) and a 2008 1st round pick in order to move up to 22 to select Brady Quinn. That would value that 2008 1st as an early 3rd round pick. In 2014, the Bills traded their 1st round pick (9th overall), a 2015 1st, and 2015 4th round pick to Minnesota to move up to 4 to select Sammy Watkins. That values those two future picks as worth as a mid-2nd. Your comparison is valid, because you're increasing the value of the future pick. We were talking about a 1-for-1 trade.The underlined parts of your post are, well, incomprehensible.You may be talking a one for one trade, I never was and I wouldn't limit it to that. A trade for a pick this year and another next year, or a player for another team's pick, or the same player and a pick for another teams (higher) pick. Whatever gives value, is the bottom line. But you can't assume that a team is going to be bad. If you want to take the happy medium between the two, I wouldn't argue too hard but you have to assume the worst if you're the one trading down.I'm not assuming that a team is going to be bad the following year, why can't you understand this. I'm saying you don't know how well the team you trade with is going to do next year, and I have said it is a gamble on how much you gain. You don't 'HAVE TO ASSUME THE WORST', you just factor it into the overall calculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantyWrestler Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 3 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said: the first of these arguments is not logical, the second paragraph is your interpretaion (which is fine), but mine is different. The first question would be better stated as "Would i rather have $100 now, or something between $150 and $300 next year" (the chosen $ amounts are just for flavour) Your second paragraph, that is where the element of risk comes in - you know you will get a higher pick next year, but you don't know how much higher. Essentially you are taking a limited gamble - you know you will accrue interest, but how much is unknown. It’s totally logical! Have you ever heard of interest? $100 is worth more now than a year from now. Try borrowing $100 from a bank and offering to only pay back $100 one year from now. They will lahave this at you. So having something now is always worth more than waiting. As far as what it’s worth, you should always look at worst case scenario, therefore next years #1 could be the #1 pick but could also be #32 but never lower than #32. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoSixFive Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 1 hour ago, MantyWrestler said: It’s totally logical! Have you ever heard of interest? $100 is worth more now than a year from now. Try borrowing $100 from a bank and offering to only pay back $100 one year from now. They will lahave this at you. So having something now is always worth more than waiting. I don't think you understand my point. What I have been trying to say is that whatever the cost of the pick you give up THIS year, YOU GET MORE BACK next year (in other words an extra pick or a higher pick), otherwise you wouldn't make a trade, no-one would. Therefore, in money terms you are giving up $100 this year (lets call that the value of the pick you gave up) for $150 next year (the value of the picks you are due next year). As far as what it’s worth, you should always look at worst case scenario, therefore next years #1 could be the #1 pick but could also be #32 but never lower than #32. Yes, you must look at the worst case scenario, that is part of the calculation you do when deciding whether to trade or not. What you do not do is ASSUME it will be the worst pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantyWrestler Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 23 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said: Wait, I thought we were arguing? I agree. Assuming worste case... that’s not fair. Where do you assume the pick will fall? Middle of the round? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooters22 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 On 1/30/2018 at 12:15 PM, Chili said: Does anyone think Gute will move the Packers away from the bias towards highly religious players? For example: player A is highly religious and a solid footballer vs player B who is not religious but a slightly better footballer Under TT he would probably gone for player A every single time as in his eyes he would be a better "fit" with our locker room. Will we see that changing under Gute? I can't wait for the draft to discover what kind of tendencies Gute has towards players. I kinda hope he's obsessed with speed. Our team need more of it on both sides of the ball. Since Gute is part of the Wolf/Thompson tree I think it would be safe to say he will retain much of our philosophies in the draft so we should still be fairly predictable in that regard but I hope he will get to add his own flavour into the mix. What about Jewish players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 1 hour ago, cooters22 said: What about Jewish players? I've never picked up anything about the GBPs selecting "religious" or Jewish players. If I had to guess, Reggie White was the most openly "religious" - but I cant think of anyone coming close to him since. And Jewish players? Where you guys picking this up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fussnputz Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Don't mind me. My head is about to explode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 10 hours ago, squire12 said: ...GB has 12 picks this year, likely 4 in round 5. Trading 1 of those 2015 5th round picks for a 2019 4th. .... It's a cool concept. I think there's a tendency to overrate our 12 picks, though, and the 5th round comp picks. Sandwiched in between rounds 5 and 6, could as well be viewed as high 6th rounders as 5th. Very limited value. Using the trade value charts (as listed on Walters), not even two of our 5th-round comp picks would equal our regular 4th round pick. Heh heh, it would take all four of our 5th round picks to reach the value of the top pick in round 4, where we got Biegel last year! You never know, of course. But having 6 picks after the regular 5 rounds doesn't really add up to a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hands Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 55 minutes ago, craig said: It's a cool concept. I think there's a tendency to overrate our 12 picks, though, and the 5th round comp picks. Sandwiched in between rounds 5 and 6, could as well be viewed as high 6th rounders as 5th. Very limited value. Using the trade value charts (as listed on Walters), not even two of our 5th-round comp picks would equal our regular 4th round pick. Heh heh, it would take all four of our 5th round picks to reach the value of the top pick in round 4, where we got Biegel last year! You never know, of course. But having 6 picks after the regular 5 rounds doesn't really add up to a lot. I think those 5th round picks are more valuable as picks verses trade fodder. Green Bay in the past has had great success in the development part of the draft rounds (4-5-6). I don't know if it's because they see traits, particularly in offensive linemen, that will make them good pros or great guess. For whatever reason the Packers do pretty good in those rounds and should keep those picks. I hope they can be successful in the first two rounds this year. They need players that can contribute and add good depth right away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubz41 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 1 hour ago, Hands said: I think those 5th round picks are more valuable as picks verses trade fodder. Green Bay in the past has had great success in the development part of the draft rounds (4-5-6). I don't know if it's because they see traits, particularly in offensive linemen, that will make them good pros or great guess. For whatever reason the Packers do pretty good in those rounds and should keep those picks. I hope they can be successful in the first two rounds this year. They need players that can contribute and add good depth right away. Picks this year are very valuable to Gute. He's going to try to make his mark on the team and having all of these picks is a boon for him. Don't know if he's going to be inclined to trade up as much as folks think. Replacing UDFAs with 5th round picks is a good start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 19 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said: Most teams won't countenance such a trade, but every year there are GMs on the hot seat. They don't care much about next year - they have to make a splash this year or it's likely they are fired at the end of the year. That can give a guy a short term view that is not in the long-term best interests of that team. It takes just one of the 31 other teams to want to trade. If there are no trade partners you have lost nothing- move on. Also, Im not suggesting the Packers trade picks this year. I originally suggested it might be a viable tactic in a future year, if the Packers need to position themselves to have the ammunition to get a high pick, to secure a top QB. Despite teams being on the hot seat, how many of them have tapped into future picks in order to select picks this year? Not very often. Teams don't do that. You're generally going to have to get a team to bite on it, and you're having to be willing to do so. That doesn't happen very often. That's my point So even if you're willing to do, it takes two to tango. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 16 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said: I don't think you understand my point. What I have been trying to say is that whatever the cost of the pick you give up THIS year, YOU GET MORE BACK next year (in other words an extra pick or a higher pick), otherwise you wouldn't make a trade, no-one would. Therefore, in money terms you are giving up $100 this year (lets call that the value of the pick you gave up) for $150 next year (the value of the picks you are due next year). You're literally arguing the point I originally made. You don't trade a 1st round pick this year for a 1st round pick next year straight up. You want something on top of that in order to make that deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packers Select Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 I know RB isn't a need. I know it's hard to look past his collegiate production. All I'm sayng is, Kalen Ballage......googly moogly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.