OCinBuffalo Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) Every year since 2005, for reasons passing understanding, we have to endure misguided posts telling us that we could have traded down. Perhaps this thread will put an end to that. "But...but...but why didn't we trade down?" The answer is: it takes 2 sides to make a trade. Don't be suckered by the usual suspects with their usual, impossible-to-confirm, "stories". Consider: (using this draft chart) Assume the Cardinals are batshit crazy about Peterson, CB, LSU or Newton, QB, Auburn, etc. and they want him at #3, because they don't think he will make it to 5. That alone costs them this year's 1st and 2nd(and maybe we give them our 5th). 2 Spots? Expensive, huh? One hopes expensive enough even for the "trade down"/"Buddy Nix(or insert GM here) sucks no matter what" bots to see reason. Speaking of morons, how about a more likely candidate for this lunacy: Redskins @ 10. The Skins could want to move up for the QB, DT, DE, CB, and even LB positions. But what will it cost them? This year's 1st, 2nd, 3rd and next year's 3rd(trading their entire draft this year doesn't even add up). If there is a team dumb enough for this, it certainly is the Skins. Don't forget: they will be trying to unload Haynesworth . That, plus a 4-3 Wannstedt coaching, who knows? Conclusions: Whoever we don't want at #3 had better be a certain game changer for the team that wants to trade with us to get him. Otherwise, the risk is simply not worth it for them. And, whose to say that they can't get a similar player at their spot? -or- The only teams that have enough value to move up are #s 4-10. I only have 9 and 10 in there because that's the Cowboys and Redskins, and both owners are fond of being "aggressive"(read: stupid). #9 and #10 require Mike Ditka/Ricky Williams buffoonery. There's no feasible trading partner beyond these...unless we are getting a good, proven veteran player as well. -or- This "Blaine Gabbert/Cam Newton is a top 10 pick" thing gets legs and causes massive stupidity. In all cases, the other thing this analysis proves is: Buddy Nix has every reason to be purposely obtuse when speaking, to anyone. Win = an excellent misinformation campaign. Dangle Fairley/Peterson, but then say how you might take either. Talk about AJ Green and then talk about Lee Evans. Talk about trading Roscoe, then talk about trading Evans. Rinse. Repeat. Edited January 14, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 See what needs to happen here is the Bills just need to wait till like 30 seconds left on their time allotted before sending the pick up to the podium..... This would quiet the crowd I think....well....maybe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills(70) Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 You are correct, we didn't have a trading partner the past 10 seasons to trade down with. Or are you? This may be the case some of the time, but I would suspect it wasn't the case everytime. The closest thing we've had to a top 5 pick is this seasons. I believe the 8th pick is the next closest. Some team will consider trading with Buffalo should they decide to trade down (which is what I believe they should do this season). It's simply a matter of want or desire for the 3rd pick overall. There will be a more than willing partner this season I am sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 See what needs to happen here is the Bills just need to wait till like 30 seconds left on their time allotted before sending the pick up to the podium..... This would quiet the crowd I think....well....maybe It might, or it would just make people say, "See, Nix just can't close the deal." They'd think a trade was a definite thing, and somehow at the last second, Nix botched it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 14, 2011 Author Share Posted January 14, 2011 You are correct, we didn't have a trading partner the past 10 seasons to trade down with. Or are you? This may be the case some of the time, but I would suspect it wasn't the case everytime. The closest thing we've had to a top 5 pick is this seasons. I believe the 8th pick is the next closest. Some team will consider trading with Buffalo should they decide to trade down (which is what I believe they should do this season). It's simply a matter of want or desire for the 3rd pick overall. There will be a more than willing partner this season I am sure. Based on what, exactly? Show your work using my value chart, or any other, please. In all cases, thank you for confirming the necessity of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 You are correct, we didn't have a trading partner the past 10 seasons to trade down with. Or are you? This may be the case some of the time, but I would suspect it wasn't the case everytime. The closest thing we've had to a top 5 pick is this seasons. I believe the 8th pick is the next closest. Some team will consider trading with Buffalo should they decide to trade down (which is what I believe they should do this season). It's simply a matter of want or desire for the 3rd pick overall. There will be a more than willing partner this season I am sure. The question will not be if there is a trading partner....the question will be if that partner will give us equal or greater value for such a premium pick..... I would like to go down a couple spots and hopefully still pick up darius.....and get an additional 2nd rounder? We could pick up LB and OT in the 2nd round if we did that.....just imagine....DE/DT, ROT, LB....all within the 1st two rounds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Lightning Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 The OP has it right. I get sick of hearing how easy it is to trade down and get scads of picks. It ain't. If we can get a game changer at #3 let's just take him and shut the pie holes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 If someone at 10 wants Peterson (for instance) bad enough...they'll trade for him. If we think it worthwhile and are certain that we can meet one of our major needs at ten...we'll be agreeable, given a draft choice or talent that makes it work. Who is to say that such a thing cannot happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Consider: (using this draft chart) Assume the Cardinals are batshit crazy about Peterson, CB, LSU or Newton, QB, Auburn, etc. and they want him at #3, because they don't think he will make it to 5. That alone costs them this year's 1st and 2nd(and maybe we give them our 5th). 2 Spots? Expensive, huh? One hopes expensive enough even for the "trade down"/"Buddy Nix(or insert GM here) sucks no matter what" bots to see reason. Speaking of morons, how about a more likely candidate for this lunacy: Redskins @ 10. The Skins could want to move up for the QB, DT, DE, CB, and even LB positions. But what will it cost them? This year's 1st, 2nd, 3rd and next year's 3rd(trading their entire draft this year doesn't even add up). If there is a team dumb enough for this, it certainly is the Skins. Don't forget: they will be trying to unload Haynesworth . That, plus a 4-3 Wannstedt coaching, who knows? You know that chart is not legally binding, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills(70) Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 The question will not be if there is a trading partner....the question will be if that partner will give us equal or greater value for such a premium pick..... I would like to go down a couple spots and hopefully still pick up darius.....and get an additional 2nd rounder? We could pick up LB and OT in the 2nd round if we did that.....just imagine....DE/DT, ROT, LB....all within the 1st two rounds Absolutely correct John from Hemet. I believe we can trade down to around the 7th or 8th spot and still get an impact player with that extra pick. I would imagine a 2nd rounder would be the compensation, and I'd welcome it for depth purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 14, 2011 Author Share Posted January 14, 2011 If someone at 10 wants Peterson (for instance) bad enough...they'll trade for him. If we think it worthwhile and are certain that we can meet one of our major needs at ten...we'll be agreeable, given a draft choice or talent that makes it work. Who is to say that such a thing cannot happen? Redskins are at 10. As I said above, they don't have the value even if they traded us their entire draft this year. The only way it works is something like their 1,2,3 and 3 next, or 1,2 and 2 next, etc. = insane. Short of that, they have to start handing over players. What's Haynesworth's value at this point? a 3? maybe a low 2? I'm not saying that he won't be back to all-pro level wherever he ends up....I am talking about value on draft day. Who else do they have? It's just not feasible short of a mega-trade that includes us getting Haynesworth and/or McNabb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdub Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 OC, not saying you are wrong with the arguement that other teams probably do not want to trade up, but what you are kind of mis-representing the cost of trade up in you two arguements. Consider: (using this draft chart) Assume the Cardinals are batshit crazy about Peterson, CB, LSU or Newton, QB, Auburn, etc. and they want him at #3, because they don't think he will make it to 5. That alone costs them this year's 1st and 2nd(and maybe we give them our 5th). 2 Spots? Expensive, huh? One hopes expensive enough even for the "trade down"/"Buddy Nix(or insert GM here) sucks no matter what" bots to see reason. They aren't losing two spots in this deal, they are losing 1 sport (the second rounder) to move up from #5 to #3. That move doesn't seem that expensive if they are after someone they really want. Speaking of morons, how about a more likely candidate for this lunacy: Redskins @ 10. The Skins could want to move up for the QB, DT, DE, CB, and even LB positions. But what will it cost them? This year's 1st, 2nd, 3rd and next year's 3rd(trading their entire draft this year doesn't even add up). If there is a team dumb enough for this, it certainly is the Skins. Don't forget: they will be trying to unload Haynesworth . That, plus a 4-3 Wannstedt coaching, who knows? Same thing here, you say that the redskins would be losing this year's first, but they are trading for a first, so they are basically giving up the 2nd, 3rd and next years 3rd. Losing two picks in one draft year isn't exactly trading their whole draft away (though I agree, it would be pretty stupid of them). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 14, 2011 Author Share Posted January 14, 2011 You know that chart is not legally binding, right? You know that chart, or something similar, has been used by GMs to determine trade value for at least the last 15 years, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills(70) Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Based on what, exactly? Show your work using my value chart, or any other, please. In all cases, thank you for confirming the necessity of this thread. So, in essence what your implying is that due to people such as myself who not only believe its possibe but actually believe if the Bills reach out to each of the teams on draft day 1, we are dead wrong and that you, and people such as yourself who believe no trade can happen no matter what, are correct? This is the jist of what I'm getting here. I believe a trade partner can be found. You believe they cannot find one. History is on my side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 It it tough for a team near the top to trade down for the reasons you stated. To trade down from maybe #3 to 5 or 6 can be done for not too many picks but in your example of the Redskins at #10 to move up to #3 would take alot of picks. I've always read the when dealing with the following years picks, you subtract one rounds worth of points away since the team isn't getting the pick right away and the uncertainty of where the pick wil lbe so. Using that value, they'd have to trade #'s 1 thru 3 this year and their second round from next year for the numbers to work out. I do agree with the other poster, there will be someone willing to trade up, wil lthey give us fair value based on draft pick points, maybe not, but it may depend on how desperate we are for extra picks. The Redskins could just offer up rounds 1 thru 3 for this year and hope we bite. We wouldn't be getting fiar value, but if we really want extra picks this year, nothing to stop us from doing it other than 100 posts ripping the Bills for not getting fair value. But the poster is correct, there likely will be people offering us something. Maybe not a good deal though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 You know that chart, or something similar, has been used by GMs to determine trade value for at least the last 15 years, right? No, actually they haven't. Just add up the point total of recent trades if you don't believe me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills(70) Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 I firmly believe this is total BS. And here is my lone fact to back that up, and mind you, it cannot be disputed. The product on the field is proof itself. FACT: The Buffalo Bills have so many roster as well as depth needs that trading down, even to the middle of the 1st round would greatly benefit this teams roster as well as depth problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 14, 2011 Author Share Posted January 14, 2011 OC, not saying you are wrong with the arguement that other teams probably do not want to trade up, but what you are kind of mis-representing the cost of trade up in you two arguements. They aren't losing two spots in this deal, they are losing 1 sport (the second rounder) to move up from #5 to #3. That move doesn't seem that expensive if they are after someone they really want. Same thing here, you say that the redskins would be losing this year's first, but they are trading for a first, so they are basically giving up the 2nd, 3rd and next years 3rd. Losing two picks in one draft year isn't exactly trading their whole draft away (though I agree, it would be pretty stupid of them). I'm saying that way, because that's what they are giving us(and helping those people along who actually want to use the chart, that every NFL GM uses ). I am fully aware that they are trading picks with us. Thanks for the help though. Re-read what I said: "trading their entire draft this year doesn't even add up" and have a re-think. Does any of this make the the Reskins trading up to #3 make any sense, on any level, without including players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 The chart is a guide, if a tema is desperate to move up, they will over pay as if a team is desperate to move down, they wil ltake les than the cart says they should get. If some team is totally in love wit hsome player at #3, they'd likely pay extra, but does that player exist this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 This year, it's definitely going to be tough to trade out of #3. But I think it's hard to believe that the Bills have had no willing trade partners, for any of their picks, for ten years. You can trade down in the 2nd and 3rd rounds too, you know. Or later. Take a look at the trades in just last year's draft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_NFL_Draft#Trades Over 150 picks traded hands, including several picks traded more than once. Granted, some of these were for players, but the Bills still are entirely absent from that market before the 6th round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts