I see the same wrong information being repeatedly shared on multiple threads so I figured I'd start this thread to provide correct information for those who want to know.
And some of this is "black box" stuff so if I'm wrong, hopefully someone who knows will correct it.
1. You do not get a comp pick for every free agent you lose. And it's not a 3rd round pick necessarily when you do get a comp pick. Comp pick calculations are not public, but what is known is the comp picks awarded are based on NET FREE AGENT LOSSES. this means if you lose two players and sign two player to comparable contracts you don't get any compensation. OTC (over the cap) has a good resource to use here call the comp pick cancelation chart. it's not exact since there are other variables that play into comp picks that have to do with playing time and on-field results, but it's as close as anything I've seen.
There are a lot of intracies with comp picks - some people even ostracize posters who care about the comp pick impact of some transactions, but it's not a surprise the teams who generally get the most comp picks (Ravens, Patriots, Seahawks, Eagles - etc are some of the most well run, or Bengals...some of the least likely to sign free agents).
https://overthecap.com/compensatory-draft-picks-cancellation-chart/
2. Draft round. This one bothers me, and maybe it's just me and it should not require explanation, so I hope it helps. But a late 3rd round pick is not a 4th round pick, an early 3rd round pick is not a 2nd round pick - these types of specious comments are phrased that way purely to incite a specific reaction/emotion or fit an agenda.
Here is an example, the pick the Giants traded to the Jets for Williams is slated to be around pick 65 - 70. People have said "it's basically a 2nd round pick" - in an effort to make it worse. And then other people say if we don't sign Williams we'll get a comp pick (which isn't even necessarily true), and the original people argue, yeah, but it's a comp pick at the end of the third so it's basically a 4th.
if the pick the Giants traded for Williams was a 4th (which easily may get added to the trade if they re-sign him) would those same people say it's so early in the 4th , it's basically a 3rd?
ironically the Giants 4th round pick is "basically a 3rd" to these people but 3rd round comp picks are "basically a 4th". It can't be both and the positioning is tedious.
it's tiring. a pick is whatever round it's in. period.
/rant
Comp pick cancelation chart - (
New Window )
We should sign a bunch of FAs to decent contracts so it will null a Williams signing elsewhere.
Now, the rest of the lesson on comp picks, you can assume people will willfully ignore to try to defend that trade.
1) that slot once was part of the later round 2) it does have diminished value vs a regular pick
Most teams don't group players by 32s. The 100th player picked in a draft might be in the 4th bucket of players for a team.
2) Although the 66th pick is not "basically a second-round pick", it is much closer in value to a median second-round pick (#49 or so) than the earliest third-round comp pick (#97, less forfeitures). So there's a valid point to be made about swapping #66 in 2020 for (at best) #97 in 2021, though the point is often expressed poorly.
That's the same as the cost of being able to move up from the 2nd pick in the 2nd round to back into the 1st round at pick #27 overall.
If this were a met thread we'd probably qualify a true first round pick vs. a sandwich round first or QO pick depending on the situation or rules over the years. And if this were an NBA/NHL thread people would specify the difference between lotto picks and non-lotto picks. That's all common, if tedious at times since it's an easy to spin an agenda.
I wouldn't say either is "basically a 2nd" or "basically a 4th" but of course pick location is relevant and has to be considered in evaluating a transaction.
most importantly I have an issue with it because people phrase those "basically a..." descriptors positively or negatively based on how they want to communicate the transaction - in a positive or negative light.
I wouldn't say either is "basically a 2nd" or "basically a 4th" but of course pick location is relevant and has to be considered in evaluating a transaction.
most importantly I have an issue with it because people phrase those "basically a..." descriptors positively or negatively based on how they want to communicate the transaction - in a positive or negative light.
I don't think that's a fair point. Sure, you can swing the descriptor either way 'almost a first' versus 'early second'. And that's why to be completely accurate, absolute position should be used (66th overall).
At the same time - just saying '3rd rounder' isn't really saying much. Saquon Barkley wasn't just a 1st rounder, he was the 2nd overall pick. There's a huge difference in value between the slot he was selected in, and say the one that David Wilson was selected in (32nd overall). That they were both drafted in the first round doesn't come close to telling the story.
Landon Collins is a good example.
Collins was the 33rd pick.
He was early 2nd.
People trying to make it seem better would say "that's basically a 1st round pick"
but if you trade for let's say the Patriots 1st round pick and it's pick #31 or #32.
people trying to make that pick seems worse will say "that's basically a 2nd round pick"
and it's usually the same people who talk this way.
IMV you can't say an early 2nd is basically a 1st and a late 1st is basically a 2nd. They are specious comments.
the picks are what they are.
I'm not saying all picks in a 32-pick round are equal.
Here's an even better way of illustrating how it was an overpay. Let's assume the Giants draft 2nd overall - and re-sign Williams, which would cost them a 3rd and a 4th round pick.
That would be the 66th and 98th overall picks, respectively. By the draft value chart - combining those two picks gets you 368 points - which is equivalent to a 2nd round pick, between 21st and 22nd overall.
Now - is it fair to say they could easily have traded those two picks for a second rounder?
And I'm not a draft pick hugger. I would freely trade draft picks, I just don't think that particular trade made any sense.
and
"Draft capital" (i.e. draft picks)
In fairness to pj, he's not saying that - just that you can't also call a 2nd a 1st with modifiers (and vice-versa).
So here is another important nuance that good teams seriously take into consideration. When you sign free agents, you need to distinguish the signings amongst those that are unrestricted free agents that count towards the formula vs. free agents that have been cut and do not count towatds the formula. Signing the latter allows you to sign more free agents. Again, this is just a consideration.
Ok, fair enough. I will not insult your intelligence by saying that. But I will insult your intelligence by saying you struggle with reading comprehension.