Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner
 

Archived Thread

Trading down

Tim in VA : 3/11/2018 11:18 am
Just take a look at some of the top draft trades in history and ask yourselves who got the better deal. The way picks are valued in a trade seems to favor trading down in almost every scenario. Add that the Giants are in an extremely sought after position to grab a QB, and the fact that we have many holes to fill. Lastly consider that the best teams are built from the draft.

The biggest question I have is, why not?
Top draft trades - ( New Window )
Why not?  
Mike from Ohio : 3/11/2018 11:23 am : link
Because you may be passing up on a franchise changing talent to get a bunch of pretty good players. Having more picks is not a sure path to more talent. Ask the Cleveland Browns how stockpiling draft picks by trading down has worked out for them so far.
Oops, wrong link  
Tim in VA : 3/11/2018 11:30 am : link
.
Corrected link - ( New Window )
Why NOT to trade down  
Breeze_94 : 3/11/2018 11:34 am : link
1. We need a QB and this is a QB rich draft.
2. There are non-QB's at positions of need also worth the #2 pick if we decide not to draft a QB


The only scenario I am okay with trading down is moving back a few spots and targeting Nelson
How about some examples  
Tim in VA : 3/11/2018 11:43 am : link
There are 5 in the link I posted where the team trading down got the better deal, in spite of the fact that the team trading up clearly thought they were doing so to get an exceptional player. The Eli trade is the only one that is close to a wash.

If it were such a bad strategy, history would back up that claim with examples. Who did Cleveland pass on for their trades? Personally, though it didn't translate into wins, I thought Cleveland had the best draft last year
RE: How about some examples  
WillVAB : 3/11/2018 11:49 am : link
In comment 13858573 Tim in VA said:
Quote:
There are 5 in the link I posted where the team trading down got the better deal, in spite of the fact that the team trading up clearly thought they were doing so to get an exceptional player. The Eli trade is the only one that is close to a wash.

If it were such a bad strategy, history would back up that claim with examples. Who did Cleveland pass on for their trades? Personally, though it didn't translate into wins, I thought Cleveland had the best draft last year


I agree with you but you’re gonna get a lot of pushback from the posters married to Barkley/Rosen/Darnold.
That article misses one big one:  
81_Great_Dane : 3/11/2018 11:50 am : link
The Eric Dickerson trade. The Rams got a boatload of picks and didn't do much with them.
How has it worked out for the Browns?  
Sean : 3/11/2018 11:55 am : link
.
Tim  
Mike from Ohio : 3/11/2018 12:05 pm : link
You realize that is a subjective list, and not a study of all trades, right? You can't use that as proof that either strategy is better or worse.
True  
Tim in VA : 3/11/2018 12:05 pm : link
Making a draft trade will not immediately turn the league's worst team into the champs. Point taken. Pass
Why not  
EmpireWF : 3/11/2018 12:20 pm : link
just keep the pick and draft BPA?
Dickerson is not a bad example  
Tim in VA : 3/11/2018 12:29 pm : link
Though it did allow the oilers to select HOF lineman Bruce Matthews
Mike  
Tim in VA : 3/11/2018 12:30 pm : link
It's supporting evidence. I'm soliciting those opposed to a trade down to cite examples contrary to my claim.
RE: How has it worked out for the Browns?  
WillVAB : 3/11/2018 12:34 pm : link
In comment 13858594 Sean said:
Quote:
.


This is such a tired example. The Browns have failed with their picks both trading down and not trading down. The failure is in who they picked not the act of trading down.
Check this article  
Tim in VA : 3/11/2018 12:41 pm : link
Which uses statistical and historical data to show that trading down is the most economically sound approach
Linky - ( New Window )
RE: Mike  
Mike from Ohio : 3/11/2018 12:54 pm : link
In comment 13858636 Tim in VA said:
Quote:
It's supporting evidence. I'm soliciting those opposed to a trade down to cite examples contrary to my claim.


No, it isn't supporting evidence, it is an article that you think supports your preconceived idea. It's called confirmational bias.

Trading down is the right call in certain situations and not in others. It is not a scientific truth that it is either fright or wrong that can be determined universally. If you like trading down - great. That's an opinion which is just as valid as staying put.
Whether you trade down or not  
Ten Ton Hammer : 3/11/2018 12:56 pm : link
It's still building through the draft either way.
We'll clearly you  
Tim in VA : 3/11/2018 12:58 pm : link
are not going to provide any of your own evidence, biased or not
It's diversifying  
Tim in VA : 3/11/2018 12:59 pm : link
What is better in investing? One fund vs. many?
.  
arcarsenal : 3/11/2018 1:02 pm : link
It makes a lot more sense when you're a team that doesn't need a QB. It's different when you do.
I see the arguments to both sides of staying put or trading down  
yankeeslover : 3/11/2018 1:03 pm : link
The one issue I have with trading down is Eli will be 38. If this was 5 years ago I think it's w no brainer and you get the picks. With Eli only having year or two left I think it's admerent that we get a qb. If not, next year or the year after we will be trading up for a qb. From what I read the next couple qb draft classes are not as deep as this one.
Either way, DG has a tough decision.
RE: How about some examples  
pjcas18 : 3/11/2018 1:18 pm : link
In comment 13858573 Tim in VA said:
Quote:
There are 5 in the link I posted where the team trading down got the better deal, in spite of the fact that the team trading up clearly thought they were doing so to get an exceptional player. The Eli trade is the only one that is close to a wash.

If it were such a bad strategy, history would back up that claim with examples. Who did Cleveland pass on for their trades? Personally, though it didn't translate into wins, I thought Cleveland had the best draft last year


Falcons traded up for Julio Jones.

Browns got ATL 1st, 2nd, and 5th and 1st and 4th the next year to go from 27 to 5.

Cleveland traded down out of 27 again.

I'd type who the Browns wound up with but basically it was poor. Greg Little, Brandon Weeden, etc.


Also, another case where trading down didn't work.

Patriots, 2009, they traded out of spots where the picks were Michael Oher and Clay Matthews, to Patrick Chung, Ron Brace, Darius Butler, and Sebastian Vollmer.

there are many more cases where trading down backfired.

The trade down strategy is only as good as the draft picks made.

And for the record Pat Shurmer was the Browns head coach when they traded UP a spot and gave up three picks (not high value picks, but still) to take Trent Richardson.




OK  
mdthedream : 3/11/2018 1:18 pm : link
say three of the QBs are like Eli,Ruth and Rivers. The Giants trade back to 4 and add a lot of picks. Do you think taking a QB at 4 one of the three and getting a lot of extra picks is a better deal or taking the one guy you like more the best thing?
Why Not??? Really???  
BillT : 3/11/2018 1:31 pm : link
Because our QB is 37 and we could get a franchise QB to replace him. Is that really that hard to figure out.
RE: We'll clearly you  
Mike from Ohio : 3/11/2018 1:40 pm : link
In comment 13858678 Tim in VA said:
Quote:
are not going to provide any of your own evidence, biased or not


The fact that you think there is "evidence" to support either side is the problem, Tim. None of those trades were the same as the Giant's current situation. But if it makes you feel better, we'll all agree you proved every team should trade down in all situations to get more picks. So weird that every GM doesn't fight to do this based on your "evidence."
Do you have any thoughts  
Tim in VA : 3/11/2018 2:39 pm : link
On the Casserly article above? Pretty good stuff
Terrible article for the reasons stated.  
Keith : 3/11/2018 2:46 pm : link
How about they claim Rivers>Eli, to make their point. GTFO.

Didn't last years SB team just trade up for wentz? How'd that work out?
The Patriots have . . . .  
TC : 3/11/2018 2:50 pm : link
an enviable record. And while there are a number of reasons for that, excepting the 2017 draft, they have also historically had more than 7 picks.

And while there's good and poor talent evaluation, there's no such thing as perfect evaluation. This is demonstrated every draft season. Increasing the number of picks a team gets, increases the probability of adding the greatest number of productive players.

When exceptional players are added to a team do they change the ability of the team, or are they more of catalyst for talent already on the team? A cherry on top? Certainly there are also plenty of examples of extraordinary talents who get stuck on crappy teams with records that remain dismal despite having these talents.
RE: Terrible article for the reasons stated.  
Mike from Ohio : 3/12/2018 8:56 am : link
In comment 13858866 Keith said:
Quote:
How about they claim Rivers>Eli, to make their point. GTFO.

Didn't last years SB team just trade up for wentz? How'd that work out?


Tim doesn't want to hear you changing the subject. Look at his evidence!!!
RE: The Patriots have . . . .  
gmenatlarge : 3/12/2018 9:17 am : link
In comment 13858872 TC said:
Quote:
an enviable record. And while there are a number of reasons for that, excepting the 2017 draft, they have also historically had more than 7 picks.

And while there's good and poor talent evaluation, there's no such thing as perfect evaluation. This is demonstrated every draft season. Increasing the number of picks a team gets, increases the probability of adding the greatest number of productive players.

When exceptional players are added to a team do they change the ability of the team, or are they more of catalyst for talent already on the team? A cherry on top? Certainly there are also plenty of examples of extraordinary talents who get stuck on crappy teams with records that remain dismal despite having these talents.


In addition the Pats are usually drafting near the bottom of the 1st round, yet somehow they draft good players.
Actually the Patriots  
pjcas18 : 3/12/2018 9:22 am : link
draft record isn't stellar (under Belichick at least).

They're just better coached/prepared, you don't see many players leave the Patriots and have success elsewhere, do you?

and they're not known for dishing out high $$$ second/third contracts.

I wouldn't use them as a measuring stick for anything, they're very unique.

I'd prefer quality over quantity  
JonC : 3/12/2018 9:29 am : link
If NYG feels Barkley is the best player, who can provide the most impact to this team winning championships in the future, draft him. If it's a QB, draft him. Chubb? Draft him. I want the impact elite prospect who can generate the greatest effect on the game.

Giving that opportunity away for lesser players does not compute, especially if you acknowledge this team probably isn't a contender in 2018.

If you feel there's no player worth picking at #2, you won't agree with the take. If you prescribe to drafting down to rebuild the OL "now", you won't agree with the take. But, there's approx six blue chippers in this draft and then the talent falls off, according to most draftniks who have some level of plugged in.
RE: .  
Peppers : 3/12/2018 9:31 am : link
In comment 13858685 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
It makes a lot more sense when you're a team that doesn't need a QB. It's different when you do.


This.
Great point, arc  
JonC : 3/12/2018 9:43 am : link
.
RE: How about some examples  
Milton : 3/12/2018 9:50 am : link
In 1990 the Patriots traded the #3 pick to Seattle for the #8 and #10 picks in the draft. With the #3 pick Seattle selected Cortez Kennedy, with the #8 and #10 picks New England selected Chris Singleton and Ray Agnew.

Seattle won that trade by a wide margin.
Bottom line...  
Milton : 3/12/2018 9:53 am : link
Trading up or down is neither good nor bad. You do what your board tells you to do.
Back to the Corner