Should the Vikings trade Pick #30?

[vikingsrule]

33 minutes ago, JDBrocks said:

I could see Indy wanting to move up to get a guy they like with 2 picks back to back at the top of round 2. Indy sends #36 and #104 for #30?

Id be okay with a trade like this. Dropping 6 spots isn't too far but to gain back an additional top 100ish pick would be worthwhile. Especially since our 2018 needs are mostly depth.

[PrplChilPill]

19 hours ago, vikesfan89 said:

I think he's saying to trade back for an extra 2nd/3rd

 

Correct. Adding more picks in rounds where you can often find good players, rather than late picks that almost never pan out....I'm good with that. So, sure, if they can get another 2nd or 3rd, I'd consider it (depending on who is on the board). 

[RpMc]

Rounds 3-7 are historically about the same in terms of the talent that they produce.  Getting drafted earlier often just means more chances, and not more talent. If you can drop back three to four picks, for another bullet or two, it's prudent to do so in my mind.

[vike daddy]

In a paper titled, “The loser’s curse: Decision Making & Market Efficiency in the National Football League Draft,” University of Pennsylvania professor Cade Massey and University of Chicago’s Richard H. Thayer ran through what-if trades based on the chart of draft pick value. Here is what they found:

We analyze 8,526 potential trades over the 14-year period and find overwhelming evidence that a team would do better in the draft by trading down. The average gain from trading down is 5.4 starts per season. We estimate this gain to be reliably positive for 31 of the 32 draft-pick positions in the first round. Indeed, the mean gain is greater than 3 starts/trade for most of the round (25 of the 32 positions). Importantly, these gains are generated without cost in terms of pro bowls – the net change in pro bowls for most (20 of 32) draft-pick positions is not different than zero, and there are more that are positive (9) than negative (3).

Of course not every possible trade will work out well, sometimes the team with the high pick will trade away a star for two duds, but this strategy has a very high hit rate. For 74 percent of the trades, a team would have acquired more starts by trading down than by using a pick. And it is not the case that these gains come at the expense of giving up the chance at a big hit. In fact, in terms of starts and pro bowls, trading down is a stochastically dominant strategy – 61 percent of the time the team trading down would have done better in terms of starts without doing worse in terms of pro bowls.

https://www.1500espn.com/vikings-2/2018/04/vikings-trade-draft/

 

@Krauser - seems like your kind of analysis.

[Krauser]

Yeah, that’s the same point I was making with the CarAV curves (which I think I first came across via Chase Stuart at Football Perspective).

I’d make a couple of points to complicate the analysis a little:

Saying that draft pick trades in general are won by the team that trades down isn’t quite the same thing as saying that staying put and drafting with a given pick is the wrong move. There’s a limit on NFL roster size. Teams go into the draft with assets and have limits on opportunities for playing time (even in camp and preseason) and coaching.

If the Vikings turned their top 3 picks this year into 27 picks in rounds 5-7 there’d be no way they could properly coach up that many rookies, or evaluate them in game situations in preseason while still tuning up the experienced top of the roster. They’d have to cut all but 8-10 of them anyway, to get down to 53, and that would effectively be a waste of those assets.

I would even argue that trading up can be a good move, when there’s a particular immediate need that the team wants to fill with a particular player, especially at a position of importance. There’s a difference between drafting for depth, for role players / contributors, and for major contributors / starters. Roster depth is important, but I guess most teams rise and fall on their top 20-25 players in a given year. 

So if you look at the history of Spielman trade ups, there are a series of specific moves targeting a starter for next year at a cornerstone position:

• Smith in 2012
• Patterson in 2013
• Bridgewater in 2014
• Cook and Elflein in 2017

Of those moves, the only one that didn’t pan out (in terms of player quality) was Patterson, but even there I think the pick makes sense if you remember how the 2012 offense ran through Harvin as an all purpose offensive weapon, so replacing him was a priority. Pre Norv, Patterson had something like 10 TDs as a rookie. If that’s the worst immediate contribution from trading up, that’s not so bad.

My take on it: trade up only to fill an immediate need with a player who’s clearly better than the other options, and who won’t make it to your pick, stay put enough to build quality, and trade down enough to build depth.

For the Vikings this year, I think they need depth at multiple positions, and immediate quality only really at one (OL) or a few (another OL, nickel CB, DE 3) — depending on what you think of existing depth like Alexander, Hill/Easton, Jaleel Johnson, Bower, etc). Since there are several good OL who should be available on day 2 (Ragnow, Corbett, Price, etc), I’d like to see them trade down, and add another useful depth player with an additional pick or several picks in rounds 3-5.

 

[gopherwrestler]

Let’s trade pick #30

 

[The Gnat]

While I do think he is a giant idiot, he's a very talented TE. I'd trade pick 30 for Gronk and a 4th round pick for four years of Gronk playing well. Though injuries, and him wanting to do something else (I can totally see him trying to make it in the WWE) might make him a short lived player in the NFL.

[vikingsrule]

9 minutes ago, The Gnat said:

While I do think he is a giant idiot, he's a very talented TE. I'd trade pick 30 for Gronk and a 4th round pick for four years of Gronk playing well. Though injuries, and him wanting to do something else (I can totally see him trying to make it in the WWE) might make him a short lived player in the NFL.

I wouldn't. Rudolph is solid enough and Gronk's longevity is very uncertain given his frequent injury issues and even desire to play. 

[swede700]

16 minutes ago, The Gnat said:

While I do think he is a giant idiot, he's a very talented TE. I'd trade pick 30 for Gronk and a 4th round pick for four years of Gronk playing well. Though injuries, and him wanting to do something else (I can totally see him trying to make it in the WWE) might make him a short lived player in the NFL.

I would not, because based on his comments, I'm not sure he'll play beyond this year, let alone 4 years.  

[Klomp]

Would including Rudolph in this hypothetical lessen the need to include such a high pick? Maybe get it dropped down to a 2nd or 3rd?

[RpMc]

Given what the patriots have traded players for (I guess outside of Cooks), Rudolph + a 3rd?

id entertain it, but I think I’d end up passing because of the massive injury history. Dominant player when he’s on the field but it’s been tough to trust him to stay there. 

[SemperFeist]

When the Patriots are looking to unload a veteran player, just hang up the phone. 

[Klomp]

44 minutes ago, SemperFeist said:

When the Patriots are looking to unload a veteran player, just hang up the phone. 

I don't know about that. It's certainly not because of on-field ability that his name gets brought up.

[SemperFeist]

48 minutes ago, Klomp said:

I don't know about that. It's certainly not because of on-field ability that his name gets brought up.

Belichick and the Patriots always seem to be a step ahead when it comes to knowing how much is left in the tank. 

If the Patriots are entertaining the idea of trading Gronk, I wouldn’t expect much more than another year of high level production. 

If this were about money, it’s not like the Patriots would need to dig deep in order to pay Gronkowski. It would be a very modest raise. So, the idea of New England looking to move Gronk because of some new salary demands just doesn’t seem logical. 

[CriminalMind]

No chance I would move a 1st for Gronk. Given his concerns I wouldn't move either of our top 3 picks.