to acquire picks. If we sign LW and sign a WR then I see a trade down to acquire more picks as the best course of action. QB is going to dominate the top half of the draft.
If we can get an 2 and say another 3 or 4 (assuming only a minor move down) then we can backfill the roster much more quickly.
I think FA will be all about getting impact starters- LW, maybe DT and then getting one of the better WR's available. We will also grab a guard if Zeitler is released.
Then the draft will be trade down in rd 1 a bit, acquire additional picks and load up on OL, TE and LB/Edge.
I tend to agree, plus, DG hasn’t shown any inclination to do so. With Judge here, perhaps that changes.
But if you have Andrew Thomas, Wirfs, Becton, etc available, and I'd even throw in CeeDee Lamb too. Unless Chase Young falls to you, you try to trade down. That's what i would do anyways.
Not only would they have received draft capital for the trade down, but the Salary for Thomas is 8M avg and the other guys are around 4M avg. Trading out of the top ten makes a lot of sense, unless the player is special.
The draft-to a certain extent- is a crap shoot.
Statistically speaking - the more picks you have, the more likely you are to get it right and/or survive if you miss on one.
The good GMs have figured this out.
The NFL is past the idea of trading entire drafts to move up. If you are offered a "bag of donuts, the hot pretzel and the hot dog" to move down a couple of spots, you freakin do it now!!!!
Especially if your plan is to show everyone how smart you are rather than collect guys that can play and create depth.
Smith, Waddle, Surtain, Farley, with Parsons in the mix if he's still available. I think they'll get one of them at #11.
If they're somehow all gone, then I think they're looking at Edge.
The only significant first round trade-down I remember was when the Giants drafted Kiwanuka. He may have been BPA where he was picked (27?) but he was a tweener who never really fit in the Giants 4-3 defense. If he was drafted into this defense, he would be a great pick. Go back to that draft and see who the Giants passed on.
Or at least be near his rotary phone :)
Pittsburgh took Santonio Holmes.
Then the following picks went off:
John McCargo
DeAngelo Williams
Marcedes Lewis
Nick Mangold
Joseph Addai
Kelly Jennings
Williams and Addai were good RB's, but Mangold would have helped with the OL.
Pittsburgh took Santonio Holmes.
Then the following picks went off:
John McCargo
DeAngelo Williams
Marcedes Lewis
Nick Mangold
Joseph Addai
Kelly Jennings
Williams and Addai were good RB's, but Mangold would have helped with the OL.
Thanks. I guess the Giants didn’t miss much although Mangold would have solved the center problem post-O’Hara. It was kind of a shame Kiwi didn’t fit the 4-3 defense.
Out side of QB, what player are teams going to be giving up assets for to move up to 11. If SF wants to get in the QB game they are moving further up than 11. SD does not need to move to grab an OL. MN needs defense - they can pick whoever is avail. NE is not moving up. Are AZ and Vegas moving up
A general trade down opportunity could make sense if a team starts seeing that a larger volume of players in their draft tiers are still available when their pick is nearing. Meaning that players they evaluated and ranked accordingly are in more of a supply. And as long as that team is very comfortable with their evaluation process, trading down allows them to simply pick up "two players with an overall value greater than the one".
There are pitfalls of course. One unknown risk is that there will be a bit of a "run on the bank" with players on their board after making the deal causing the supply to shrink quickly before their newly acquired picks come due. Another is that a team's board isn't fair and equitable or contains some biases based on certain opinions or immediate roster needs. Not difficult to imagine that plenty of GMs/Teams simply struggle at just letting the draft come to them as well.
Quote:
picked 32nd. We traded with Pittsburgh. We missed out on a couple of players, but not a huge star there.
Pittsburgh took Santonio Holmes.
Then the following picks went off:
John McCargo
DeAngelo Williams
Marcedes Lewis
Nick Mangold
Joseph Addai
Kelly Jennings
Williams and Addai were good RB's, but Mangold would have helped with the OL.
Thanks. I guess the Giants didn’t miss much although Mangold would have solved the center problem post-O’Hara. It was kind of a shame Kiwi didn’t fit the 4-3 defense.
Huh? He definitely did fit the 4-3, but as a DE. The issue was that with the Giants' embarrassment of riches (at that time) of pass rushers, getting as much talent on the field at the same time meant playing some guys out of position. So Kiwi was miscast as a SAM prospect, where he was not really a difference-maker.
But he did fit the 4-3, IMO, just not where the Giants primarily deployed him.
If better players fall to 11 I want to stay put. Quality over quantity is what I generally subscribe to - so moving down a few slots wouldn't bother me but back into the 20's? No thank you unless the price was huge.
As noted here, trading down probably requires a GM to be a bit more, let's say "agnostic" amongst players in a similar ranked pool.
That isn't Gettleman, at all...
All kidding aside, there used to be a particular characteristic of the 11th pick that did make it an attractive spot until the recent CBA update: 1st-round picks taken in the top 10 used to receive a 5th year option salary equal to the average of the top 10 salaries at their position. Players taken in picks 11-32 would receive a 5th year option salary equal to the average of the 3rd through 25th highest salaries at their positions.
The new CBA makes no such distinction, instead setting a 5th year option value for each position regardless of draft slot, and the salary increases (and I believe the options vest fully guaranteed automatically along with those increases also) based on playing time thresholds and Pro Bowl seasons.
The 11th pick used to be a sneaky good place to gain a tiny bit of incremental value for your cap management, but not anymore.
One possibility though is they go into the draft saying that if the top 4 guys are gone they'd be happy enough taking a 2nd tier WR like Toney, Terrace Marshall, Rashod Bateman or even an Elijah Moore who is starting to generate some real buzz. And those guys are likely going to be available in the 20s.
At the same time, there is a little buzz starting to grow about Mac Jones actually being top ten worthy, while there are whispers that Justin Fields is slipping. And it is not unreasonable to think that if either or both were still on the board at #11 that teams like Chicago, which is desperate to upgrade at QB, might be very eager to move up. Get you an extra 2nd and maybe another early 3rd day pick. For the Giants it would allow them to get a quality receiver later in the 1st and then get both a corner (like one of the 2 Georgia guys) and an interior OL (say Wyatt Davis, Creed Humphrey or Leatherwood) in the 2nd and still get a couple more WRs in Rds 3-4.
Again flies against the odds and historical precedence but it does feel like a way to maximize the returns on an almost top ten pick in a very good draft year. Just 55 days to go for those that are counting.
Are you implying that he is not interested in trading down simply because he has not done it?
It is easy to trade down when you do not want much in return.
Quote:
Very low odds it happens this year.
Are you implying that he is not interested in trading down simply because he has not done it?
It is easy to trade down when you do not want much in return.
I can't speak for Rick's POV, but I know my personal opinion about DG's lack of trades down is that despite all the Giants' talk about using "rows" in ranking players, they do often get tunnelvision about a particular prospect or position of need, which results in them becoming more reluctant to move out of a draft slot once they've locked in on a specific target, even if they have several players remaining in that tier.
In case that sounds too speculative, consider how many times the Giants have mentioned that a player that they took in the 4th round, for example, was a prospect that they almost took with their pick before that? If we're taking them at their word, that - to me, anyway - always makes me question why they didn't trade down at the previous spot? Clearly they had so many players ranked similarly at that point that an entire round was able to go by and still have players remaining in that tier.
Granted, it's always possible that they're just not getting suitable offers, but given how many trades DO happen each year, it just seems so unlikely that the Giants never get viable trade offers that intersect with instances where they have enough prospects at their current scouting row to move to the lower pick and still choose from the same row.
You need to set the stage, you need to play parties against each other to get the best transaction. You need to sell a story. It seems like DG expect to get a phone call to blow him away and I'd guess you never just get a phone call that "blows you away" I'd bet behind any great trade down haul there was a tough negotiation with many parties involved leading up to it.
I think DG is a scout first and foremost and prefers to spend his time learning about the players vs. cultivating leverage and opportunity in this way. Part of how you get someone to move on a trade is the perception that you can lose out if you don't move. And unfortunately for him the longer you don't pursue trades like this the harder to get an offer that is really good because no one really believes they will lose out by not striking when the iron is hot. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Teams also don't want to waste their time setting up these scenarios if they don't have much faith that their counterparty will actually act on it...
In case that sounds too speculative, consider how many times the Giants have mentioned that a player that they took in the 4th round, for example, was a prospect that they almost took with their pick before that? If we're taking them at their word, that - to me, anyway - always makes me question why they didn't trade down at the previous spot? Clearly they had so many players ranked similarly at that point that an entire round was able to go by and still have players remaining in that tier.
This is similar point that chick310 was making above on trade down strategies and is a good observation.
I could be mistaken though but I think we heard those types of comments moreso in the Reese regime when he discussed the picks the following day. Do you recall hearing it from DG as well?
You need to set the stage, you need to play parties against each other to get the best transaction. You need to sell a story. It seems like DG expect to get a phone call to blow him away and I'd guess you never just get a phone call that "blows you away" I'd bet behind any great trade down haul there was a tough negotiation with many parties involved leading up to it.
I think DG is a scout first and foremost and prefers to spend his time learning about the players vs. cultivating leverage and opportunity in this way. Part of how you get someone to move on a trade is the perception that you can lose out if you don't move. And unfortunately for him the longer you don't pursue trades like this the harder to get an offer that is really good because no one really believes they will lose out by not striking when the iron is hot. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Teams also don't want to waste their time setting up these scenarios if they don't have much faith that their counterparty will actually act on it...
Gettleman does indeed do a decent bit of trading involving picks...just not trading down for whatever the reason.
I know that last year on 2020 during draft day trade discussions from the number 4 pick I think he stated all trade discussions were touchy freely whatever the hell that means.
All I am saying is DG does not have a history of draft day trades.
I know that last year on 2020 during draft day trade discussions from the number 4 pick I think he stated all trade discussions were touchy freely whatever the hell that means.
All I am saying is DG does not have a history of draft day trades.
And for the record, I meant he did some trading involving picks outside of draft day. Examples include picks for Ogletree, picks for Williams, pick for Yiadom, traded Apple, Snacks and Golden for picks.
The touchy feely comment is new to me...when did he say that?
One thing that always stuck with me was that silly statement back in 2018 when he defending not trading back from overall #2 because people were offering a "bag of donuts and a hot pretzel".
Obviously in jest but still a wise-ass thing to say about other GMs that are his peers. I think he realized that after the fact too because he switched his story that he actually got one very reasonable offer.