ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

I find plenty of fault with both sides, but your analogy isn't accurate. As a result of bargaining in which both sides were represented by high-priced and presumably capable negotiators, a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") was agreed upon by BOTH sides in 2006. It's long and complex, but publicly available. You can read it here: http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/NFL%20COLLECTIVE%20BARGAINING%20AGREEMENT%202006%20-%202012.pdf Before the CBA was signed, the negotiators for BOTH sides agreed that each party would later have the right to opt out of it, and that provision was written into the CBA. It's a whole two sentences long, and you can find it at Article LVIII, Section 3(a) at page 240/301 of the above link. It reads: "(a) Either the NFLPA or the Management Council may terminate both of the final two Capped Years (2010 and 2011) by giving written notice to the other on or before November 8, 2008. In that event, the 2010 League Year would be the Final League Year, and the Agreement would continue in full force and effect until the last day of that League Year, except for the provisions related to the Draft, which would expire as prescribed in Article XVI, Section 1." So it's closer to a situation where your boss walks into your office and says "hey, you know that contract we jointly negotiated and signed so that you could work here? It gave each of us the right to terminate it after you had worked here for a few years just in case either of us later thought it was unfair. Well we have decided to exercise the contractual right you gave us to opt out of it and try to negotiate a new one. We want to give you less money and oh yea you'll be working more!" Now you may find the owners arrogant and greedy for exercising the right you gave them to terminate the original agreement and ask you to work longer for less money, but they're just doing something that you agreed a long time ago that they had the right to do. There are things the owners have done that the players have a right to complain about. Opting to terminate the CBA early according to terms that the NFLPA previously agreed to isn't one of them.

I'm open to well-reasoned arguments on both sides of this issue. If I recall correctly, Mickey has stated in a different post that he is a lawyer with quite a bot of litigation experience, so I would still appreciate getting his response (if he has the time) to my post. Doesn't necessarily mean I will agree with him, but I'd like to get more info from him if he is gracious enough to give me some of his time and share his thoughts. As for your own response: 1. I actually agree with you that here the employers aren't letting the workers work; 2. If you think Mickey specifically countered the owners' argument about the effect of 29 U.S.C. S 178 without even mentioning that statute you're entitled to your opinion. It's certainly possible that the 8th Circuit will conclude that the Norris-LaGuardia Act's injunction bar applies only to strikes and not to lockouts - - I think that's what the players' lawyers are contending. I just don't find the issue as clear cut as you seem to. The only 8th Circuit opinion we have so far in the case was not unanimous (and went against the players to boot), so maybe there's room for more than one point of view here. 3. I don't know what you consider the "main point of the brief." The second sentence of the brief reads - - "Congress long ago determined that, to achieve and secure labor peace, federal courts may not interfere - on either side - in cases involving or growing out of a labor dispute." Now, I'm not saying that the second sentence of a brief necessarily conveys the "main point," but they sure started talking about what "Congress determined" (i.e., Congressional intent) pretty quickly.

Schobel knows that he was too light to play DE in the 3-4, so he's obviously bulking up. Dareus should be a great 3-4 DE and he's what, 319? So Schobel only needs to add another 9 pounds or so and the comeback starts! They just can't sign him till the CBA stuff gets resolved, and they don't want to talk about it so other teams don't get interested and drive up his price. Please make sure you're sarcasm detector is operational before replying to this post.

Word! Here's a link to an actual Canadian lawn mower company. When the site comes up, the top of the page shows sequential pictures of their products in a slideshow type format: http://www.mtdcanada.com/home.asp?SelectedPage=1 If Canadian lawn mowing equipment is so great, how come the pictures only show women handling or riding it? Uh, wait a minute . . . . .

First, I hope the 2011 season is played in full. But I have a few questions about the issues here. As I read the owners' brief in the OP's link, the owners are basing their jurisdictional argument on the statutory language "ceasing or refusing ... to remain in any relation of employment." How do you counter the owners' argument that (1) 29 U.S.C. S 178 exempts certain presidential requests for injunctions against both strikes AND lockouts from the anti-injunction provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, and (2) there would be no reason to include "lockouts" in the text of the 29 U.S.C. S 178 exemption if the Norris-LaGuardia Act's anti-injunction provision applied only to strikes and did not apply to lock-outs? I don't think you need to be a lawyer to understand the logic of the owners' argument here. There may very well be reasons why the owners' jurisdictional argument fails, but your post doesn't seem to address the stronger parts of the owners' jurisdictional argument. Did the owners' brief misrepresent the text of 29 U.S.C. S 178? Is there some reason why that statute should not be interpreted as showing that Congress apparently believed that the existing anti-injunction provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act applied to both strikes AND lockouts? If the plain text of the anti-injunction provision is even a little bit ambiguous, doesn't that evidence of Congressional intent matter? Again, I'm not saying the owners will win the jurisdictional argument. I'm just curious how you would refute the parts of the owners' jurisdictional argument that I find stronger than what you've already addressed.

My personal favorite so far is, with respect to the draft: "We're all trying to rob the same train." If he ever says that Maybin was "all hat and no cattle" he gets my vote for the Hall of Fame.

Do you happen to know how many of the players from the last two drafts were team captains at their schools? It's not something I've focused on.

Here's a copy of the recently expired 301 page CBA: http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/NFL%20COLLECTIVE%20BARGAINING%20AGREEMENT%202006%20-%202012.pdf I don't claim to have even read much of it yet, much less understand how all of the provisions relate to each other. But because it's in pdf format, you can use the search box at the top of the document to search for key terms to find provisions of interest. While doing that, I found an aspect of how rookies get paid that I did not previously know, and do not recall seeing discussed here. It involves how the money allocated to each team for the purpose of signing rookies gets distributed if a drafted rookie fails to make the roster for an uncapped season. The 2010 season was uncapped, so the part of the recently expired CBA reproduced below applied to how the rookies who made the final Bills roster for the 2010 season got paid: From Article XVII, section 4(m), at page 54/301: "In League Years for which no Salary Cap is in effect, 85% of any amount contracted by a Team to be paid from the Team's Rookie Allocation to a Rookie, but not actually paid by the Team to that player, either as a rookie, or as a re-signed first year player or practice squad player, which amount was not paid because that player was released, will be distributed to all rookies on such Team promptly after the end of the season on a pro rata basis based on the number of downs played." If I recall correctly, Calloway was a 7th round draft pick last year who was cut before the season started. Because it was an uncapped year, 85% of the money that the team had contracted to pay to Calloway in 2010 was instead required to be distributed among the other rookies who made the team, based on how many regular season snaps each one played. The above assumes that the NFL did not exercise its option under Article XVII, section 3, at page 51/301 to "remove the Entering Player Pool" in an uncapped year. 1. I wonder if any new CBA will have a similar provision for paying rookies who make the final roster more than their own rookie contracts require if some other drafted rookie gets cut before the season starts? 2. Which rookie played the most snaps in 2010, and therefore got the biggest share of the extra money?

Nice find! On the other hand, SI's Peter King reported a few years ago that a "Canadian consortium" offered a billion dollars for the Saints after Hurricane Katrina. King never identified the potential buyers, but a Toronto paper speculated that they were from Toronto. Here's the link to the 2006 Canadian article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/archives/article843833.ece Note that the 2006 billion dollar offer for the Saints was before RW made his Toronto deal. Sure seems to me like if the "Canadian consortium" was from Toronto, the Canadians would have at least asked for an option to buy the Bills upon Ralph Wilson's demise as part of the negotiations for the Bills in Toronto series.

If the game is being watched on a US TV station's direct broadcast I don't think it matters where the viewer is sitting - - it's just part of the domestic TV broadcast revenue stream. On the other hand, if the game is being watched on a broadcast that originates from a TV station outside the US, there is reason to think the broadcast revenue is handled differently. Here's a link to the 2006 version (most recent I can find) of the NFL Constitution and Bylaws: http://static.nfl.com/static/content//public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf It's a 292 page document, so I've never read the whole thing, but because it's in pdf format you can use the search box at the top of the document to search it for key words like "international" or "television." If you jump to page 189/292 (or search "1998 Resolution FC-9"), you find a 1998 NFL Finance Committee resolution that specifies how "international television revenue" is to be used every year to fund an "international development effort." I don't see a specific definition, though, of "international television revenue." At present, the league seems to be committed to eventually expanding internationally. For fairly recent comments by Roger Goodell on international expansion, see this interview he gave in London last season: http://nfllabor.com/2010/10/29/commissioner-goodell-%E2%80%9Crestructured-season-would-allow-for-more-international-games%E2%80%9D/

Here's a seemingly informed and previously posted article about Thigpen's current status with the Phish: http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports_football_dolphins/2011/03/miami-dolphins-place-tender-on-tyler-thigpen.html

The Constitution and Bylaws of the NFL govern territorial rights for existing franchises. That document typically gets amended at the annual league meetings every year. The most recent version I have been able to find on-line is the 2006 revision. You can read it at this link (if you have a couple days of free time): http://static.nfl.com/static/content//public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf See Article IV (starts at page 12), entitled "Territorial Rights." It defines the "Home Territory" of the Bills as the geographic area within 75 miles in every direction from the corporate limits of the City of Buffalo. I don't claim to be familiar with the entire Constitution and Bylaws document, but it spells out the rights of each franchise within its "Home Territory." Just my opinion, but I don't see why any owner of the Bills (current or future) would be required to pay any type of relocation fee to have the Bills play in any stadium that is located within 75 miles (as the crow flies) from any part of the City of Buffalo. Seems like there is a compelling argument that if the Bills play in the Rogers Center, or any future stadium built on Canadian soil that is also within 75 miles of any part of Buffalo, the Bills are still playing in the same "Home Territory" that they have always played in. Again, just my opinion, but this seems to give any Toronto bidders a bit of an advantage in any future bidding war for the Bills' franchise. Somebody who wants to buy the Bills and move them anywhere that is more thsn 75 miles outside the Buffalo city limits will be required to pay a franchise relocation fee. A Toronto bidder who wants the team to play in the Rogers Center, or any future new stadium within 75 miles of Buffalo, won't have to pay that fee if I am interpreting the document correctly. Anybody have a logical rationale for a different interpretation of the Constitution and Bylaws document? I don't know if the "Territorial Rights" provision has been amended since 2006, but it seems unlikely. It appears to have survived from 1970 through 2006 intact. I would hate to see the Bills move, but the NFL Constitution and Bylaws document seems to govern any current or future team owner's rights with respect to franchise territory.

Sounds to me like you're big enough to play tuba in the Rose Parade! The lyrics in this music video are a hoot!

At the link papazoid already provided: http://as-camps.com/testimonials/

For me, it's a question of HOW you reach higher. Taking a QB at #3 is a reasonable approach if you believe that the guy will eventually be great. But Fitz is a serviceable QB for now. In general, QBs get too much credit when a team wins, and take too much blame when a team loses. Gailey has a reputation for getting the most out of whatever QB you give him - - based partly on what he got out of Thigpen in KC. Why not take advantage of that coaching strength, and allocate our limited draft pick resources to positions of greater need? We have a defensive coordinator who may or may not have a clue. I'd rather give him the stud #3 and #34 picks for the front 7, because unlike Gailey with QBs, he may need a stud front 7 player to make the 2011 defense effective. Same with the OL - - our OL coach may need a stud ROT to make the OL effective in 2011. And if we don't draft a QB at #3, we are in a very favorable position to trade down with AZ at #5 or some other team in the top 10 that wants to leapfrog Cincy to draft a QB. If we can do that, we can use an extra relatively high pick to grab a ROT. So yeah, my plan for 2011 would be Fitz, Thigpen and Brown at QB, with our first two picks going to front 7 defenders (plus a ROT if we get a chance to trade down from #3). When I eventually do draft a QB to replace Fitz, I want him to be behind an OL that won't get him killed. If Fitz gets killed this year, Thigpen would be a serviceable insurance policy. And because he presumably would have a relatively short learning curve to pick up the offense of a coach who was previously his OC, Thigpen would be an especially good choice for back-up QB this year. Delay in getting the next CBA signed might greatly shorten the time our back-up QB, whoever he winds up being, has to learn Gailey's offense for the 2011 season.

It's conceivable. We got Spiller and Cordero Howard because Gailey liked what he saw in person at Ga. Tech. Gailey got better than expected results from Tyler Thigpen at KC. Although nobody is focusing on free agency yet, there is a reasonable chance that Thigpen, most recently with Miami, will be a free agent when the next CBA is eventually signed, per this link: http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports_football_dolphins/2011/03/miami-dolphins-place-tender-on-tyler-thigpen.html Assuming the Bills don't take a QB at #3 or #34, and you're Thigpen, would you rather try to compete with 2nd round pick Chad Henne in Miami, or with former 7th round pick Fitz in Buffalo where the head coach is a guy who previously had you start? I know that the lock-out rules now prevent player-coach contact, but maybe Thigpen or his agent break the rules to see if Gailey has any interest. I can see Thigpen as a free agent signing to back up Fitz. If that happens, we either keep Levi Brown as #3 or replace him with a late round developmental project Gailey likes better. Personally, I don't think we know yet what Brown can do. I've read he was drafted because of his raw physical tools, and in limited action he looks like he's got a gun. If we have a preseason, let's see how much he learned in a year before we go get another raw tools guy.

1. Cameron Jordan 2. Cameron Heyward 3. Jordan Cameron Play 'em all at the same time, and hope to create some confusion.

I don't know if the NFL considered it, but there is some evidence that terrorists sometimes plan anniversary date attacks to "celebrate" earlier ones. Perhaps not the most authoritative link, but it discusses the phenomenon: http://www.keystosaferschools.com/Terrorism_and_Anniversaries.htm Maybe the NFL didn't want to create a tempting anniversary date target in the NYC area when there was no need to do so - - if you're living in a cave in Afghanistan you might not realize such a game would actually be played in New Jersey.

Best guess - - Nix is thinking that Cincy and AZ might not be willing to part with the draft picks necessary to either trade up to #2 (letting Dareus fall to us) or trade up to #3 (letting us still get a stud front 7 guy), especially if Cincy and AZ think that they can still get a serviceable QB prospect near the top of round 2. But if he can make Cincy and AZ believe that ALL of the top 6 QBs are off the board by then, they are more likely to trade up to #2 or #3. Less likely possibility - - Ralph has told Nix to take a QB at #3 and Nix has already come up with rational-sounding explanation for why he didn't go front 7 defender at #3 and then pick a QB at #34. I really hope it's the Cincy/AZ bluff theory.

I don't know anything about his efforts to diversify use of the stadium, but I think he's probably only getting to keep TV revenue if the NFL season is played. It doesn't get as much publicity as the Brady antitrust suit involving the lockout, but there is a separate lawsuit pending in Minnesota federal court involving the NFL's renegotiation of TV broadcast contracts. Judge Doty already decided that the NFL breached a contractual duty of good faith to the players when the NFL renegotiated TV broadcast contracts to ensure that certain TV revenues would be received by the NFL even if NFL games were cancelled because the players were later locked out. See pages 5 and 21 of Judge Doty's March 1. 2011 opinion and order, signed about 10 days before the lock-out started, at this link: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/minnesota/mndce/4:1992cv00906/57169/675/ The "Historical Context" section of the opinion at pages 3-5 gives an overview of events that have happened since 1992. What I found most interesting was the opinion's finding about why the NFL renegotiated the TV broadcast contracts. Judge Doty says that the NFL was concerned that the NFL's lenders could declare that an "event of default" had occurred if the NFL owners later locked out the players and did not receive TV broadcast revenues as a result. I'm no business loan expert, but it seems at least possible to me that the terms of an NFL loan (which I have not seen) would give the lending bank the right, when an event of default occurs, to call the loan making the full amount owed by the NFL immediately due and payable. Also, note that Judge Doty's 3/1/11 order (at the very last page of the above link), requires that a hearing be held to consider the players' request for injunctive relief and monetary damages caused by the NFL's breach of the White Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, as amended in 1993, 1996, 2002 and 2006. I suspect the NFL and Jerrah will easily find the funds needed to pay any damage award and repay any outstanding loans, but I don't think they will be doing it with broadcast TV revenues if the 2011 season isn't played. The OP's thought was projecting what might happen if the 2011 season doesn't get played (even if you think that's unlikely).

This is just my 2 cents - - WEO cna be both stuuborn and abrasive at times (we all have our warts, including me), but he's not totally illogical, and although I haven't tried to verify his math, I'll take his word for it about the calculations he did. There are a lot of links posted in this thread that I admittedly have not read yet (and real life is about to intrude on my Bills' addiction for a few days), so I'm a little hesitant to post. So somebody help me out here - - why does the SI link talk about 52.9 % of "incremental revenue" instead of just "revenue" or "total revenue" or "all revenue?" 52.9% of the DELTA over a four year period could be a far different number than whatever the percentage would be of total revenue in a single year. I/m not saying WEO's right, but the "incremental" adjective in the part of the SI link you quoted leaves me unconvinced that you've proved him wrong. Maybe the remainder of the article does. Again, if the answer is in the previously quoted links my apologies. I just don't have time to read 'em today. I'll check back here in a few days. Thanks in advance for any answers.

Interesting questions that I did not know the answers to, so I decided to see what I could find. Turns out that as a result of a three way deal between the County, the State and the Bills in 1998, there are several related documents, including the Stadium Lease, available at this Erie County website: http://www.erie.gov/billslease/stadium.phtml Based on a very quick review - - the documents are lengthy - - it looks like the County leased the stadium to the Empire State Development Corporation (the "ESDC"), and the ESDC in turn sub=leased the stadium to the Bills. The ESDC doesn't pay rent to the County, but provided $63,250,000 to refurbish and renovate the stadium, which the County owns. The Bills' obligation to pay rent to ESDC is described below. The copy of the Stadium Lease has a few unfilled blanks, but my guess is that it is otherwise accurate. The text of the document includes a requirement at Article 30.13 that it be recorded in the real property records of Erie County, so if that provision survived in the document that was actually signed, there should be a copy of the fully signed lease available to the public at the Erie County Recorder's office just like recorded property deeds are. I can't think of any reason why the County would post an inaccurate copy of the lease on its website. The rent provision is at Article 3. It requires that the Bills pay 1/2 of "Net Ticket Revenue" (as defined in the Stadium Lease) to the ESDC, but only if and to the extent that "Net Ticket Revenue" exceeds "NFL Average Net Ticket Revenue" (as also defined in the Stadium Lease). The County website has no info about what the "NFL Average Net Ticket Revenue" is, but based on the chart in this link recently posted by papazoid: http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2011/2/21/2005431/nfl-lockout-2011-the-haves-and-have-nots-of-the-nfl it seems likely that the Bills have never had to actually pay any rent under the terms of this Stadium Lease. BTW, there's some interesting stuff at Articles 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Stadium Lease about what would happen if RW sold the franchise.

Maybe if I was sleep deprived enough and had finished doing my taxes - but hey, I can be a little twisted at times. Seriously, though, I need more information to answer your question: 1. What position is Ralph playing? 2. Ralph is wearing more than just shoulder pads, right, or do you have to be over 18 to get in? 3. Is the TN owner who flipped the bird at the Bills sideline that time also playing? 4. Do I have to cross the Peace Bridge to get there? 5. We're talking AMERICAN football here, not that sissy European "football" stuff that the rest of the world watches, right? 6. Outside on grass, like what I like to call the OldFL, or inside on artificial turf? 7. If Ralph plays well enough to get elected to the NewFL Hall of Fame, who's gonna fact check his induction speech?

I actually find the example posed by New Era pretty thought-provoking. What WOULD it take to trade up from #32 to #1? - - More about that in a minute. It's pretty easy for all the arm-chair expert GMs around here to give an instantaneous off-the-cuff reaction to a hypothetical trade, and do it not only without trying to look up what draft pick trades have been made in the past for reference, but in many cases without even reading the full text of the OP. There's room for intelligent debate about the extent to which the draft value chart can be used to predict what draft picks a team could probably get for trading down in the first round. Don't believe me? Read this link: http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2011/2/21/2004303/dispelling-myths-about-nfl-draft-trades I haven't tried to fact check the author's work, but the article makes a pretty compelling case for how the draft value chart is surprisingly accurate in predicting what you can get in return for trading down, at least where the trade down is one with some sort of historical reference point. In other words, with a few exceptions, pretty much all of the draft pick trades THAT ARE ACTUALLY MADE do seem to fall reasonably close to what the chart predicts as fair value. New Era makes a good case for the values at the top of the chart being "whack" - - so much so that lots of us took whacks at him. In a different thread, he posted an even more comprehensive article that accumulated 16 years of draft pick trades. Here's the link: http://adamjt13.blogspot.com/2009/04/nfl-draft-pick-trade-history.html So based on 16 years of empirical data, what WOULD it take to move up from #32 to #1? Not immediately obvious, because at least for the 16 year period from 1992 to 2008, nobody EVER moved up to #1 from anywhere close to as low as #32. Opinions are like noses - - everybody has one (that's the PG-rated version). Here's some actual facts based on the 16 years of real trade data: 1. The biggest trade down from #1 overall was a move back of only five slots, down to #6. The down-trading team got picks 6, 67, 102 and 207 in return. 2. The two biggest jumps from a starting point in the first round to obtain a single higher pick were: (a) From #30 to #10 - - the down trading team got 30, 94, 119 and the next year's first rounder in return; and (b) From #26 to #8 - - the down trading team got 26, 71, 89, and 125 in return Over the 16 years of actual data, nobody jumped all the way from #32 to #1. So let's see if we can figure out what it would take to put together a series of trades to accomplish the same thing. To avoid arguments about what next year's first rounder might be worth, let's include 2(b) above along the way - - a move back of 18 slots. 3. Here's an actual trade to add to the series: (a) From #6 to #8 - - the down trading team got 8 and 104 in return. 4. So what would it take to make the final trade down from #26 to #32? Closest actual trade in the data is this: (a) From #25 to #32 - - the down trading team got 32, 96 and 129 in return. Summary - - so if you model the hypothetical trade posed by New Era with a series of ACTUAL trade downs in smaller steps instead of 1 giant leap, here's the sequence of steps. Step 1 - Give up #1 to get 6, 67, 102 and 207; Step 2 - Give up newly acquired #6 to get 8 and 104 - - you now have 8, 67, 102, 104 and 207; Step 3 - Give up newly acquired # 8 to get 26, 71, 89 and 125 - - you now have 26, 67, 71, 89, 102, 104, 125 and 207; I don't have an actual trade data point to get from #26 to #32, but I do have a trade from #25 to #32. Using it will VERY slightly overstate what you get from the series of smaller trade downs, but not by much. Let's assume that it's the same: Step 4 - Give up newly acquired #26 to get 32, 96 and 129. Here's what you wind up with: 32, 67, 71, 89, 96, 102, 104, 125, 129 and 207 Here's the same list with the round in parenthesis (assuming 32 picks per round with no compensatory picks to screw up my math): 32(1), 67(3), 71(3), 89(3), 96(3), 102(4), 104(4), 125(4), 129(5) and 207(7). That's admittedly less than two full drafts, but it's quite a bit more than one full draft. Now you can snipe at this all you want - I'm combining trades from different years, I had to assume that #26 = #25, there would not be that many players worth trading up for in a single year, etc. But maybe the reason nobody trades up from #32 to #1 is because (i) it really would take a huge number of picks, and (ii) no GM who wants to keep his cushy job is willing to risk trading his entire draft for a guy who turns out to be the next Ryan Leaf or Tony Mandarich (I know that neither was taken #1 overall, but they were close). Anyway, seems to me like there's plenty of room for debate about just how useful the draft pick trade value chart really is. I can already feel the love.

Personally, if I was the GM, I would probably not trade my 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks to move up from 8 or 9 to #3. There are too many examples of college players that were labeled "Can't Miss" who later wound up being labeled "Can't Play," and nobody knows who they ALL are in advance. I was pretty happy we drafted OT Mike Williams at (#4?) on draft day, but that didn't turn out so well. I would have felt worse if we had given up a lot of other picks to move up to #4 to get him. But I can see how some people might make such a trade, especially if they thought they were on the verge of making a deep play-off run if they could just fill a particular hole on their roster. On the other hand, if I was looking to trade down, I wouldn't care too much if I got as much value in return as the chart says I should get. As long as I could trade down and still get the player I most wanted to fill a position of need, I'd try to squeeze as much out of my trading partner as possible. But in the end, I'd be jazzed about getting the player I wanted and one or more extra picks. I'd be especially inclined to trade down if there were several players who appeared to have roughly equal ability at the position I needed. I think you're right about how the value of a given pick should vary from year to year depending on what player is available at that spot. Seems to me like it should also depend on how big the drop off is from the BPA at a given position to the next best player at that same position, and how many teams want to draft a player at that same position. That will change from year to year, too. That's why I'm surprised by how often the trade value chart appears to be a roughly accurate predictor of what a given draft pick is likely to fetch in trade. Regardless of how we logically analyze the situation, though, the empirical data shows that the chart is USUALLY a fairly accurate predictor of what you can get in return for trading down. Thanks for the link - it's an interesting accumulation of draft pick trade data. The way they are listed makes it easy to see what other teams have gotten in the past for trading down out of any particular spot, like down from our #3 this year.