Who's worth trading up for in the second?

[Jaegybomb]

You take 33 and 35 in a heartbeat. It's not even close.

[Leader]

37 minutes ago, Toddfather said:

I think we will have more than one pick tonight. How and where it happens I have no idea. Just a feeling. 

Hold that thought.... 

[Scoremore]

7 minutes ago, Jaegybomb said:

You take 33 and 35 in a heartbeat. It's not even close.

Oh I don't know might take me about 10 seconds....

[Cpdaly23]

22 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

There has to be some sort of devalue since you're not using it for a year.  You can value it as the middle of the round if you want, but there's got to be some sort of devalue since you're not using it for a year.

I believe the word you are looking for is “discount”... sorry I am a finance guy and love talking discount rates 

In all seriousness, you’re  spot on- a 1st rounder today is worth more than a 1st rounder tomorrow.  Where that break point is in terms of discounting the future pick forward a year depends on (in order of importance)

A)  relative strength of this years’ draft

B) probabilities you assign to the order of the pick next year (I roughly assign a 25% chance it’s top 15, 50% chance it’s 16-26, and a 25% chance it’s 27-32)

C) How much utility your team can get out of a pick now vs. the future (if Rodgers was 40, filling a hole now would be much more important)

I am not a professional football analyst, but I would think given how I THINK Gutekunst views the three discount valuation inputs above, it would take the Browns  top picks (33 and 64) in rounds 2+3 to even consider a deal.

 

[MantyWrestler]

17 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Honestly, that'd tempt me.

 

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, Cpdaly23 said:

I believe the word you are looking for is “discount”... sorry I am a finance guy and love talking discount rates 

In all seriousness, your spot on- a 1st rounder today is worth more than a 1st rounder tomorrow.  Where that break point is in terms of discounting the future pick forward a year depends on (in order of importance)

A)  relative strength of this years’ draft

B) probabilities you assign to the order of the pick next year (I roughly assign a 25% chance it’s top 15, 50% chance it’s 16-26, and a 25% chance it’s 27-32)

C) How much utility your team can get out of a pick now vs. the future (if Rodgers was 40, filling a hole now would be much more important)

I am not a professional football analyst, but I would think given how I THINK Gutekunst views the three discount valuation inputs above, it would take the Browns  top picks (33 and 64) in rounds 2+3 to even consider a deal.

I think the word we'd be using would be depreciate, not discount if we're getting technical.

That being said, every team probably has some sort of way to put a price on that.  As I've mentioned, the value of future picks has always been the last pick of the next round.  So for me, that NO 1st is worth the 64th overall pick.  So the Packers traded 14 (1100) to New Orleans for 27 (680), 64 (270), and 147 (32.2).  By that measure, the Packers lost ~118 points in value so the Packers would have had to value that pick as roughly the 51st pick.  That suggests the Packers value it closer to the middle of the next round under Gute.

[Cpdaly23]

4 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I think the word we'd be using would be depreciate, not discount if we're getting technical.

That being said, every team probably has some sort of way to put a price on that.  As I've mentioned, the value of future picks has always been the last pick of the next round.  So for me, that NO 1st is worth the 64th overall pick.  So the Packers traded 14 (1100) to New Orleans for 27 (680), 64 (270), and 147 (32.2).  By that measure, the Packers lost ~118 points in value so the Packers would have had to value that pick as roughly the 51st pick.  That suggests the Packers value it closer to the middle of the next round under Gute.

Trust me, it’s a discount rate that is applied; depreciation is a loss of value over time.  

Anyway, applying simple rules of thumb without considering the factors listed above is a sure fire way to get fired.  Maybe it worked in the 90’s, but NFL franchises are much, much smarter when it comes to valuing draft choices these days.  

[CWood21]

Just now, Cpdaly23 said:

Trust me, it’s a discount rate that is applied; depreciation is a loss of value over time.  

Anyway, applying simple rules of thumb without considering the factors listed above is a sure fire way to get fired.  Maybe it worked in the 90’s, but NFL franchises are much, much smarter when it comes to valuing draft choices these days.  

Which is exactly what we're talking about...

[Chinaski_86]

48 minutes ago, SSG said:

Right, because ignoring the present and always building for the future has been great for Cleveland.  They've had multiple first round picks in 5 of the last 7 years.  They have always valued the future over their present roster which is a reason why they are consistently picking at the top of the draft.  

New England has done it several times. They traded away their first round pick in 2011 and 2013 for future picks. 

[Cpdaly23]

6 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Which is exactly what we're talking about...

No, the pick isn’t LOSING any value.  You are trying to “discount” the value of the pick for the fact that it occurs in the future.  

Anyway, it was a joke.  Sorry for bringing it up.

[Jaegybomb]

If anything the pick gains value the closer you get to next years draft.