Potential draft trade partners

Share this page

M

MaineMan

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
Messages
6,816
Reaction score
548
Points
113
Since Mock Draft Season is upon us and many folks here are postulating BB trading the #29 for more picks, I thought I'd list - for future reference - the most likely trade partners - those who have sufficient "ammo" to actually make such a deal.

Below are the mathematically realistic trade partners for the Pats' #29 based on the Standard Value Chart (SVC). There's no implication here that any of these teams would want to trade up to the #29, this is merely to illustrate which teams COULD do so, realistically, if they chose to. A few of the teams I have "excluded" would be able to do so only if they included a 2014 pick. Since this won't help the Pats for this draft, I've just left them excluded.

PATRIOTS picks (SVC value)
#29 (640)
#61 (300)
#93 (128)
#204 (11.2)
#221 (4.8)

Partners:

Arizona:
#38 (520) - 2nd
#102 (92) - 4th
#168 (25) - 6th
643 total

Atlanta, sitting at #30, would seem to have no reason to move up one spot.

Baltimore:
#32 (590)
#128 (47) - 4th
637 total - It's conceivable that the Ravens might be willing to part with a 4th to jump up a couple of spots. Then this whole process would sorta start over from the #32 spot.

Buffalo (with 6 total picks) would have to trade their 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th (leaving them with only a 3rd), or trade their 2nd, 5th and 6th PLUS a 2014 3rd. Doesn't seem realistic.
Carolina, with only 5 total picks, would be even less realistic.
Chicago (same as above).

Cincy:
#37 (530) - they have another 2nd rounder
#117 (66) - 4th
#151 (36) - 5th
(they still have two 6th rounders plus a 2nd and 3rd)
632 total

Cleveland:
#39 (510)
#103 (88) - 4th
#165 (26.4) - 6th
#167 (25.6) - 6th
650 total (Pats might give them #204 as "change")

Dallas is in the same situation as Buffalo, Carolina and Chicago above.

Denver is sitting at #28.

Detroit (see Buffalo, Carolina, etc.)

Green Bay is sitting at #26.
Houston at #27.

Indy has only four picks and is sitting at #24.

Jacksonville:
#33 (580)
#130 (42) - 4th
#161 (28) - 5th
650 total (Pats might give them #204 as "change")

Kansas City is off the board, having traded their 2nd as part of the deal for Alex Smith.

Miami:
#43 (470) - they have another 2nd
#84 (170) - they have another 3rd
640 total

Minnesota has 9 picks, but not high value spots and they're sitting at #23. They COULD trade their 2nd, 3rd and first 4th (of two) which would still leave than with five picks. However, if Harvin is in play, they possibly could trade him plus maybe a 4th and a 5th for the #29.

New Orleans (similar to Buffalo, Carolina, etc.)

NY Giants are in a similar position to Minnesota, but starting with 7 picks instead of nine.

NY Jets:
#40 (500)
#105 (84) - 4th
#136 (38) - 5th
#170 (24) - 6th
646 total (Pats might give #221 as "change")

Oakland has no 2nd rounder.

Philly:
#35 (550)
#100 (104) - 4th
654 total (Pats would give #204 as change)

Pittsburgh is in a position similar to that of Minny and the Giants.

San Diego:
#47 (430)
#78 (200) - 3rd
#207 (10) - 7th
640 total - doable, but iffy in that it leaves them only a 4th, 5th and 6th.

San Fransisco:
#31 (600)
#127 (45) - 4th
645 total - The Niners could casually part with one of their 7 day-three picks to move up two spots in the first round. The Pats gain a 4th and then start this entire process over again from the #31 spot (which would be slightly easier on several potential trade partners).

Seattle has 10 picks, but 7 of those are very low value day-three picks. They're already sitting at #25 and would literally have to give up the rest of their picks to move back up for #29. Seems very doubtful.

St. Louis:
#48 (420)
#80 (190)
#144 (34)
644 total - Taking the #29 would give them THREE 1st rounders and they'd still have a 4th, 6th and 7th.

Tampa Bay - similar situation to Seattle. Unikely.

Tennessee (similar to Buffalo, Carolina, etc.)

Washington has no 1st rounder and would have to give up everything but their 4th to make a deal (not happening).

For some of the teams above who are short on picks as of the moment, things could change after compensatories are awarded. While the compensatories themselves are not tradeable, a team that receives (e.g.) a 3rd round compensatory might be then more willing/likely to part with their "normal" 3rd round pick as part of a trade.
 
The possibilities are fascinating. You know there will be movement.
 
BTW, does the standard value chart change based on the depth/quality of the draft class. I've heard this draft has a very small top tier, the next tier however, is very big. I suppose these are general guidelines or are 10 points in SVC really stuck too in these trades (your change posts)
 
grog said:
BTW, does the standard value chart change based on the depth/quality of the draft class. I've heard this draft has a very small top tier, the next tier however, is very big. I suppose these are general guidelines or are 10 points in SVC really stuck too in these trades (your change posts)
Click to expand...

The numbers are only guidelines, but they were originally based on what teams had actually exchanged in the past.

Each transaction is, of course, a negotiation based on the unique circumstances for each at that moment. Sometimes teams will get a "discount" in a trade-up, and other times they'll pay a premium. Tracking every transaction over the past 20 years or so, over 85% or so end up being within 5% of equal SVC, frequently within 1%. So teams adhere pretty closely, as a general rule.

The largest variances (up to 30% discount or premium) have involved the top five picks in round one, unsurprisingly. There's also a secondary "bump" (+/- 20%) near the end of round one.

IIRC, in the Pats' two trades up last year, they paid a 7% premium on one and received a 10% discount on the other. They also gave a huge discount when they bailed at the end of round three, but made up for it a bit on subsequent transactions.
 
You put a lot of work into that, MM. Thanks for doing it.

From your work, it looks to me that the most viable trade partners for the Pats to add picks, one of which is a 2nd rounder, would be

1. Cincy:
#37 (530) - they have another 2nd rounder
#117 (66) - 4th
#151 (36) - 5th
(they still have two 6th rounders plus a 2nd and 3rd)
632 total

Moving up to 29 from 37 & giving up 2 additional picks to do it doesn't seem worth it to them. There would only be a hair's difference between the 29th and 37th pick. I don't see them doing this.
For us: great. For them: meh

Cleveland and Jax both need bodies.

2. Miami:
#43 (470) - they have another 2nd
#84 (170) - they have another 3rd
640 total

Miami needs bodies but going from 43 to 29 is a fairly significant jump to get them a better player and still leave them with 2nd and 3rd round choices. They may find this attractive and it would be perfect for the Pats.
For us: perfect. For them: great if their guy is there at 29.

Jets need bodies.

3. Philly:
#35 (550)
#100 (104) - 4th
654 total (Pats would give #204 as change)

Marginal move up for them unless their guy is there.
For us: perfect. For them: doubtful; only if their guy is there.

San Diego needs bodies.
San Fran needs quality over quantity. They should be trying to move up with their day 3 picks while holding on to what they have.

4. St. Louis:
#48 (420)
#80 (190)
#144 (34)
644 total - Taking the #29 would give them THREE 1st rounders and they'd still have a 4th, 6th and 7th.

Along with Miami, this could make the most sense for both teams. The Rams need quality and 3 1st round picks would bolster their roster. And again, going from 48 to 29 is a significant move up.
For us: perfect. For them: Very tempting & certainly reasonable.

St. Louis and Miami both make sense.
With Miami in the division, St. Louis may be our best shot.
A trade with Minny for Harvin would be exceptional for us.
Anything can happen on draft day.
 
Nice post, Maine Man. I love this kind of stuff, but don't the Patriots typically trade out of the current draft in favor of a future draft choice in a higher round?

There must be ways of assigning value to future draft picks.

Not that I think the Patriots will do this again, this year, but if someone offers them a future 1st for a current 2nd, or whatever, I think they would do that.
 
thomas144 said:
Nice post, Maine Man. I love this kind of stuff, but don't the Patriots typically trade out of the current draft in favor of a future draft choice in a higher round?

There must be ways of assigning value to future draft picks.

Not that I think the Patriots will do this again, this year, but if someone offers them a future 1st for a current 2nd, or whatever, I think they would do that.
Click to expand...

The rule of thumb, as derived from trade history, is that for a pick in Round "X" of the current draft, you receive a pick in the next round higher in the next draft - the one round difference being, metaphorically, a year's "interest payment". AFAIK, there is no "standard" chart-value point assignment for those future picks. And there can't be, really, since one can't know how the team trading the future pick will perform in the upcoming season and, thus, one can't know where in that higher round the pick is going to fall in order to derive a point value. For example, the SVC of 2nd round picks ranges from 580 (#33) to 270 (#64). The difference, 310 SVC, is equivalent to the #59 pick.

When such trades happen, I'll generally assign a "provisional" value equal to roughly .5 times the SVC of a spot in the middle of that future round (e.g. the ambiguous "2014 2nd rounder" would be valued at half the SVC of the 16th pick in the 2nd (#48 = 420 SVC), or, roughly, 210 SVC. This 210 SVC is roughly the value of a mid-3rd.

So, for a team trading a pick from the bottom 1/3 of a current round for a pick in the next higher round of the subsequent year's draft, the point exchange always look good. For a team trading from the upper third of a given round, the point exchange always looks somewhat questionable. But, of course, one must wait until the end of the upcoming season to calculate the actual point exchange.

For example, during the 2010 draft, the Pats (who still ended up with 12 picks) traded their #89 3rd-rounder (145 SVC) for Carolina's 2011 2nd rounder (210), so that looked pretty good on paper from the get-go (Carolina used that pick to draft the now-famous WR Armanti Edwards). Carolina had gone 8-8 in 2009 and were widely projected to improve their record a bit in 2010, thus potentially lowering the value of that future pick somewhat, but still probably a good deal. As it happened, the Panthers went 2-14 in 2010, worst in the NFL, and that 2011 2nd-rounder ended up being the #33 pick (which the Pats squandered on Ras-I Dowling, unfortunately). So that 145 SVC from 2010 turned into 580 SVC in 2011. Even with the 50% "discount" for waiting a year, the 290 "net" represented the Pats "doubling their money". BTW, such trades rarely work out so well.

The other side of the coin, hypothetically would be a team trading, say, the #68 (250 SVC) for a future second from an 8-8 team that ends up 11-5 and in the playoffs. The team receiving that future 2nd might end up having waited a year to move up only 10 spots or so. NOT such a good deal. Trading from the upper 1/3 of the 2nd round for a future 1st is a bit different, though, since that future 1st - even if it's only 10 spots higher - would have a lot of intrinsic trade value within that future draft.

For the 2013 draft, with as few picks as they have currently, I'm very doubtful that the Pats would trade even their #61 for a 2014 1st-rounder, as good as that might look on paper. If, somehow, BB can maneuver his way into a couple more 2nd-rounders and perhaps another 3rd or a 4th, then maybe he'd let go of the #61 for a 2014 1st. Even then, I'm not so sure.
 
I think you will see the Cowboys become big horse traders in this years draft. My reasoning is the story last week that Jerry Jones wants the credit for winning the Championship when it happens????? Well he better get his butt in gear. Right now in my opinion he is a high visibility owner but a lesbian General Manager. (He doesn't do D_ _k)
 
Out of curiosity, if you wanted to trade up into the first round, and the Colts wanted to trade down, what would make that a fair deal?
 
Jaric said:
Out of curiosity, if you wanted to trade up into the first round, and the Colts wanted to trade down, what would make that a fair deal?
Click to expand...

A little Luck. :coffee:
 
Jaric said:
You give us your first and second round pick and you get 15 minutes to bask in his glow. :)
Click to expand...

All I want is a minute to get a sample for DNA testing. I want to know how much neanderthal genetic material he has.
:thumb:
 
chevss454 said:
All I want is a minute to get a sample for DNA testing. I want to know how much neanderthal genetic material he has.
:thumb:
Click to expand...

Right. You just want to clone him so you can have a real successor to Brady in a few years.

:)

Seriously though, any chance NE trades up? We certainly need picks having essentially drafted Vonte Davis last season and made a few other moves as well.

We're 5 spots ahead of you so it sounds fairly feasible
 
Jaric said:
Right. You just want to clone him so you can have a real successor to Brady in a few years.

:)

Seriously though, any chance NE trades up? We certainly need picks having essentially drafted Vonte Davis last season and made a few other moves as well.

We're 5 spots ahead of you so it sounds fairly feasible
Click to expand...

We barely have any picks ourselves unless you want a few 7's.
 
MaineMan said:
When such trades happen, I'll generally assign a "provisional" value equal to roughly .5 times the SVC of a spot in the middle of that future round (e.g. the ambiguous "2014 2nd rounder" would be valued at half the SVC of the 16th pick in the 2nd (#48 = 420 SVC), or, roughly, 210 SVC. This 210 SVC is roughly the value of a mid-3rd.
Click to expand...

Interesting.....I bet BB and co set a predetermined "provisional" value based on strength of the team they are trading with if the trade is for a pick the next year. For example, the Raiders might be .9 X SVC and the Seahawks might be .2 X SVC. Or something along those lines......

For draft picks that are further out than a year, multiplying the SVC times .5 would seem reasonable.
 
chevss454 said:
With Miami in the division, St. Louis may be our best shot.
Click to expand...

The SVC value for the Pats and Miami is equal at 640. What difference does it make if they are in our division? Neither team will know who will still be available if the deal is done before the draft.
 
Captainkirk said:
The SVC value for the Pats and Miami is equal at 640. What difference does it make if they are in our division? Neither team will know who will still be available if the deal is done before the draft.
Click to expand...

I can't remember BB ever trading picks in a draft before it even starts. BB likes to get a feel for the draft before moving like that.

Within the division wouldn't stop BB but I think it might stop the Dolphins.
 
chevss454 said:
I can't remember BB ever trading picks in a draft before it even starts. BB likes to get a feel for the draft before moving like that.

Within the division wouldn't stop BB but I think it might stop the Dolphins.
Click to expand...

Not to mention there is the strong possibility of getting fleeced by Belichick. (I say that as a compliment btw)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top