This makes no sense, and the foundational reasoning here is a big reason why JJ's trade chart has royally screwed up NFL draft trades.
But I think this part makes sense: I mean, yeah I probably could sell my lunch for good value after the cafeteria closes. But that means I'm going hungry.
A second and conditional sixth is not a 3rd I don't get it. So in the upcoming draft we have to wait for round three?
Not sure why the confusion... it is essentially a third round pick. it's the present value of a future pick.
But it's likely to be more like a future 1st round pick when it comes time to spend it. I don't think Jimmy Johnson's opinion is bad, but he's definitely going to have a stronger negative opinion than pretty much anyone. He was a coach very tolerate of player bull****, and had a very strict ideas of what picks were worth in what context.
Johnson said by phone: “Only they know what’s best for their team. An outsider can’t evaluate it. This is what stuck out when I read it.
Draft picks don't devalue. The 40th pick in 2012 is the same as the 40th pick in 2013. JJ is applying artificial valuation. There are no outside conditions that cause one year's 40th overall pick to be less desirable than another year's 40th overall pick. And since most NFL teams now use JJ's artificial valuation, teams that actually know what the hell they're doing tend to take advantage of them. Reference the manner in which the Patriots continue to accumulate draft picks.
How about another team offer us two first round draft picks for Jake long. in 2030 and 2031. Extreme example I know. But it refutes your position that draft picks don't devalue.
It's a matter of perception. This year you have Vontae Davis on your team (if you're the Colts)... that 2013 2nd round pick isn't available until after he's selected and signed. It's the year difference that lowers the current value of the pick. A team like the Patriots can make those moves because they are deep (supposedly) and afford to lose the current year since that player if selected currently would have minimal playing time as compared to your average team.
No, it doesn't. No one will take that deal not because an extra two 1st round picks in the future aren't desirable, but because they don't compensate the loss in a timely enough manner. The GM who makes that trade won't be around to make those picks; what does he care about 2031? Saying that draft picks have equal value doesn't mean that it becomes acceptable to wait 20 years to exercise them.
Setting JJ aside... The 2008 Falcons were an up and coming team? The 2007 Falcons were nearly as repugnant as the 2007 Dolphins! And Roethlisberger and Flacco both made their teams better. The 2007 Ravens lost to the freaking 2007 Dolphins; Flacco took them to the AFC Championship Game. Roethlisberger did the same thing, but went 15-1 in the process. Dierdorf really has no clue.
I hate Dierdorf, he always always seemed to be so anti Miami for whatever reason. Going back to the Marino days.
So what do you drive? I'll give you 6% off the value of what it's worth in 1 year today. Then in 1 year you'll have the book amount, just put it in the bank today. To me it's flawed thinking. I'll stick with the non make believe value to start with.
Exactly, b/c behind closed doors [with all of us watching via Hard Knocks], we saw Philbin saying Vontae's up and down and not sure if he'll ever get where they want him to be, and then there was Ireland mentioning how he was uncertain Vontae fit the plans for the future. We primarily traded him for those reasons, not just b/c Indy sent us a 2nd & 6th. If a team doesn't think a recently demoted player is a part of its future, then a 2nd & 6th could very well be deemed as unprecedented.
I think past practice indicates they do change in value over time. For example, on the morning of the 1998 draft, Jimmy traded his 1999 1st rounder to Carolina for their 1998 2nd rounder. The pick he used to take Pat Surtain. He got a good player and one year of use of out that resource, before he had to pay for it. Several times, Bobby Beathard would see a player he wanted in the 2nd and had a 1st round grade on, and would trade the next year's 1st for a 2nd in the current draft. One example was the pick he used on Natrone Means
If you're in the midst of the 2012 draft though, and wanted to trade for the 40th overall pick coming up to take a player you really wanted, if you offered the team holding it your 2013 2nd round pick, they'd laugh at you. To get that 40th overall pick as it was about to come up, in the form of using future draft picks only, would cost you your 2013 1st rounder.
Also, let's say Davis played for Miami in 2012 and had a season that was about the average of his 3 previous seasons. If the Colts called in March 2013 and asked to trade for him, there is no way you'd get a 2nd round 2013 pick for him. It would more likely be a 3rd or 4th. The reason being Miami would have gotten one more year of use out of that resource. The way it happened, Miami gets a season less use and Indy gets him a season sooner. That's why he is worth a premium price at this time of year
The Patriots do the opposite of what JJ did, and they routinely have a plethora of draft picks. They can't draft worth a damn, but they give themselves every chance. I would rather be the team that takes the 1st rounder in trade. Getting a 1st round pick for a 2nd round pick is a steal.
We just didn't get rid of him for nothing. We replaced him with a CB who outplayed him so far. AND received two future picks. Is he talented? Yes. We were going with another CB as the starter. We received a 2nd for a nickle back. I know he would be in on alot of snaps, but I'm not complaining.
We're still down a good corner though. At the time we signed Marshall I thought he was either replacing Will Allen or Yeremiah Bell, depending on where he played. Since he ultimately replaced Davis, we are short one good corner. Unless there is another corner signed before the season or somehow Quinten Lawrence or Vince Agnew blossoms very quickly.
