dave mcbride Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 just to set people straight, we did NOTt give up a first, a second, and a fifth round pick for losman - we gave up a 2nd and a fifth. we also swapped our first rounder in 05 for dallas' first rounder in 04. spelled another way, both teams ended up with the same number of first round draft picks in 2004 and 2005 -- 2. (our pick in 05 will be a hair higher than dallas' in 04, but factor in that for a trade made in 04, a first rounder in 04 is worth more than a 1st rounder in 05 (using the draft pick point system that pretty much every team abides by)). again, we gave u a 2 and 5 to get him, not a 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Thank you...and we got the first rounder in a strong draft, Dallas got our first rounder in a weak draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted February 16, 2005 Author Share Posted February 16, 2005 Thank you...and we got the first rounder in a strong draft, Dallas got our first rounder in a weak draft. 241715[/snapback] which the bills apparently knew - a lot of people last year knocked the qb talent in this year's draft, and judging from what i've read, that prediction appears to be panning out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted February 16, 2005 Author Share Posted February 16, 2005 Thank you...and we got the first rounder in a strong draft, Dallas got our first rounder in a weak draft. 241715[/snapback] which the bills apparently knew - a lot of people last year knocked the qb talent in this year's draft, and judging from what i've read, that prediction appears to be panning out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Who didn't get this? Sorry, but I thought it was pretty self explanatory that we simply used our 2005 1st rounder a year early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted February 16, 2005 Author Share Posted February 16, 2005 Who didn't get this? Sorry, but I thought it was pretty self explanatory that we simply used our 2005 1st rounder a year early. 241723[/snapback] i've read about 50 posts and various national media pieces saying this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
respk Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Or to put it another way picking Losman cost the Bills a 1st, 2nd and 5th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted February 16, 2005 Author Share Posted February 16, 2005 Or to put it another way picking Losman cost the Bills a 1st, 2nd and 5th. 241733[/snapback] in the same way that picking evans "cost" the bills a first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 just to set people straight, we did NOTt give up a first, a second, and a fifth round pick for losman - we gave up a 2nd and a fifth. we also swapped our first rounder in 05 for dallas' first rounder in 04. spelled another way, both teams ended up with the same number of first round draft picks in 2004 and 2005 -- 2. (our pick in 05 will be a hair higher than dallas' in 04, but factor in that for a trade made in 04, a first rounder in 04 is worth more than a 1st rounder in 05 (using the draft pick point system that pretty much every team abides by)). again, we gave u a 2 and 5 to get him, not a 1. 241705[/snapback] Agreed! The trade got us great value for JP. i think we got a far better QB with our 2005 1st rounder than we would have gotten if we didn't make the deal and we got a year of traing as a pro the 2005 pick wouldn't have gotten if we had held the pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Good post DM. It needed to be stated...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 just to set people straight, we did NOTt give up a first, a second, and a fifth round pick for losman - we gave up a 2nd and a fifth. we also swapped our first rounder in 05 for dallas' first rounder in 04. spelled another way, both teams ended up with the same number of first round draft picks in 2004 and 2005 -- 2. (our pick in 05 will be a hair higher than dallas' in 04, but factor in that for a trade made in 04, a first rounder in 04 is worth more than a 1st rounder in 05 (using the draft pick point system that pretty much every team abides by)). again, we gave u a 2 and 5 to get him, not a 1. 241705[/snapback] How many spots did we lose in the first round? I thought it was 7, but someone said it was only 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 just to set people straight, we did NOTt give up a first, a second, and a fifth round pick for losman - we gave up a 2nd and a fifth. we also swapped our first rounder in 05 for dallas' first rounder in 04. spelled another way, both teams ended up with the same number of first round draft picks in 2004 and 2005 -- 2. (our pick in 05 will be a hair higher than dallas' in 04, but factor in that for a trade made in 04, a first rounder in 04 is worth more than a 1st rounder in 05 (using the draft pick point system that pretty much every team abides by)). again, we gave u a 2 and 5 to get him, not a 1. 241705[/snapback] thank you dave. i preached this after the draft last year. it's amazing how many people can't comprehend it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Typically teams use a draft pick value chart when figuring trade value. If you go to the draft pick value chart, each pick is worth so many points. Typically they tell you that a pick in the following years draft is worth the same as the current years pick minus one round. Therefore the Bills gave up a first rounder in 05 one year ago. which turns out to be the 20th pick Since they gave it up a year in advance ,you'd use the value of the 20th pick in round 2 or 380 points. They also gave up the 14th pick in the 2nd and 5th round, each worth 440 and 35 points respectively. That totals 855 points. In turn they got Dallas 22nd pick in the first rount which was worth 780 points. So they lost 75 draft points. Considering the Bills were asking for the trade, the only way the other team is going to agree is is they get something positive in return, therefore 75 draft points isn't too bad for either team. Infact 75 points is about equal to ironically the 14th pick in the 4th round. So if you look at what the Bills gave up to make the trade, they lost the value of one mid fourth round pick. I'd be willing to bet that Dallas thought Buffalo's pick was going to be alot higher than it turned out. In fact if The Bills had won the last game and made the playoffs, I know at least St Louis and Seattle would have picked higher and I think one other team. Hence the Bills would have had the 25th pick which was worth 50 points less. All in all I think the trade was pretty even for both teams, considering the Bill's were the team pushing for the trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Who didn't get this? Sorry, but I thought it was pretty self explanatory that we simply used our 2005 1st rounder a year early. 241723[/snapback] Your new avatar is making me want to vomit! Please change ASAP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted February 16, 2005 Author Share Posted February 16, 2005 Typically teams use a draft pick value chart when figuring trade value. If you go to the draft pick value chart, each pick is worth so many points. Typically they tell you that a pick in the following years draft is worth the same as the current years pick minus one round. Therefore the Bills gave up a first rounder in 05 one year ago. which turns out to be the 20th pick Since they gave it up a year in advance ,you'd use the value of the 20th pick in round 2 or 380 points. They also gave up the 14th pick in the 2nd and 5th round, each worth 440 and 35 points respectively. That totals 855 points. In turn they got Dallas 22nd pick in the first rount which was worth 780 points. So they lost 75 draft points. Considering the Bills were asking for the trade, the only way the other team is going to agree is is they get something positive in return, therefore 75 draft points isn't too bad for either team. Infact 75 points is about equal to ironically the 14th pick in the 4th round. So if you look at what the Bills gave up to make the trade, they lost the value of one mid fourth round pick. I'd be willing to bet that Dallas thought Buffalo's pick was going to be alot higher than it turned out. In fact if The Bills had won the last game and made the playoffs, I know at least St Louis and Seattle would have picked higher and I think one other team. Hence the Bills would have had the 25th pick which was worth 50 points less. All in all I think the trade was pretty even for both teams, considering the Bill's were the team pushing for the trade. 242056[/snapback] excellent post! thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Typically teams use a draft pick value chart when figuring trade value. If you go to the draft pick value chart, each pick is worth so many points. Typically they tell you that a pick in the following years draft is worth the same as the current years pick minus one round. Therefore the Bills gave up a first rounder in 05 one year ago. which turns out to be the 20th pick Since they gave it up a year in advance ,you'd use the value of the 20th pick in round 2 or 380 points. They also gave up the 14th pick in the 2nd and 5th round, each worth 440 and 35 points respectively. That totals 855 points. In turn they got Dallas 22nd pick in the first rount which was worth 780 points. So they lost 75 draft points. Considering the Bills were asking for the trade, the only way the other team is going to agree is is they get something positive in return, therefore 75 draft points isn't too bad for either team. Infact 75 points is about equal to ironically the 14th pick in the 4th round. So if you look at what the Bills gave up to make the trade, they lost the value of one mid fourth round pick. I'd be willing to bet that Dallas thought Buffalo's pick was going to be alot higher than it turned out. In fact if The Bills had won the last game and made the playoffs, I know at least St Louis and Seattle would have picked higher and I think one other team. Hence the Bills would have had the 25th pick which was worth 50 points less. All in all I think the trade was pretty even for both teams, considering the Bill's were the team pushing for the trade. 242056[/snapback] Add to that the fact that it gives us the money we'd be spending on an unproven rookie first rounder to use in free agency, and it's an even bigger win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2003Contenders Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 It's all about semantics, isn't it? After all, there is a subtle difference in saying that we "gave up" picks vs that we "invested" draft picks. With that said, it is a true statement that we INVESTED a 1st round, a 2nd round, and 5th round draft pick on JP -- just like we invested a 1st and a 4th round pick on RJ back in 1998. Let's hope our investment works out better this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodnarb Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 If I had a dollar for every time I had to explain this over the past year, I'd have about twenty-six bucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernMan Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 just to set people straight, we did NOTt give up a first, a second, and a fifth round pick for losman - we gave up a 2nd and a fifth. we also swapped our first rounder in 05 for dallas' first rounder in 04. spelled another way, both teams ended up with the same number of first round draft picks in 2004 and 2005 -- 2. (our pick in 05 will be a hair higher than dallas' in 04, but factor in that for a trade made in 04, a first rounder in 04 is worth more than a 1st rounder in 05 (using the draft pick point system that pretty much every team abides by)). again, we gave u a 2 and 5 to get him, not a 1. 241705[/snapback] When you break it down, it comes out like this: The Bills gave up a 2nd and 5th rounder in order to get a year's head start for Losman. This has also afforded them the opportunity to save money by 86ing Bledsoe. With the money saved, they should be able to buy FAs at least equal to the two draft choices lost last year. I don't know much about this year's QB class, but I wonder if Losman would have been one of the top 2 or 3 taken. Only Losman's preformance will determine whether this was a good deal, but on paper, it looks like the Bills made a good trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasoninMT Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 What we gave up... is correct, our 2nd and 5th round pick... If you were looking in terms of trading for Bledsoe - we gave up a 1st for him... because he was a vet and we weren't getting a "draft pick" which we used for a player... Now, could someone picked with those 2nd & 5th round picks have helped us THIS year? I don't want to go there... Maybe someone with a better crystal ball can answer that question. But that's what we gave up, and I agree that we gained a lot by having the rookie QB for a year (even injured and mostly holding a clipboard). When you factor in that '05 is a weak draft... it makes even more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 thanks dave, i have had this arguement with numerous people over the past few months...nice to have someone back me up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 What we gave up... is correct, our 2nd and 5th round pick... If you were looking in terms of trading for Bledsoe - we gave up a 1st for him... because he was a vet and we weren't getting a "draft pick" which we used for a player... Now, could someone picked with those 2nd & 5th round picks have helped us THIS year? I don't want to go there... Maybe someone with a better crystal ball can answer that question. But that's what we gave up, and I agree that we gained a lot by having the rookie QB for a year (even injured and mostly holding a clipboard). When you factor in that '05 is a weak draft... it makes even more sense. 242762[/snapback] The way you express it is a technically accurate way of expressing it, but it does not reflect the full reality of the situation. The Bledsoe trade provides an even clearer indication of this becaise the 2002 season is in the books and Bledsoe's career as a Bill is done. I think TD really has hit upon an approach to the draft that really reflects the reality of the ultimate in fantasy league activities. It is best seen by adapting your question to the reality of the situation. Specifically: How does Bledsoe's contribution to the 2002 Bills match-up against how our 2003 1st round pick would have contributed to the 2002 Bills if we had not made the trade? The answer is that our 2003 pick would not have contributed anything to the 2002 Bills if we had kept it, Trading Bledsoe for the future consideration was by far the right thing to do if Bledsoe provided any contribution to the 2002 team at all. In fact, by playing QB to an 8-8 record which represented one of the largest improvements in NFL history by a team in W/L and by him qualifying for the Pro Bowl (if you think someone else deserved the reserve Pro nod more that year feel free to name 'em) and doing this in exchange for a resource that would have contributed nothing to the 2002 team TD came as close as one can get to getting a lot for nothing as you can get. The equation gets more complex in the outyears as Bledsoe's production is now compared to the woulda/coulds/shoulda of who the Bills might have taken with the choice, or by who the Pats took with the choice, or even who the Bills took with the choice they materialized out of the PP trade which gave the Bills a 1st eound pick. Deciding how you want to look at it (there are not unreasonable arguments for each of these views) one can compare Bledsoe to Warren who I think NE took with the pick, Bledsoe to whatever QB was available if that is who you allege we would have picked, or lump Bledsoe and WM together as the players acquired by the Bills using the 1st round of the draft resource, Still, all in all I think this was perhaps the best use of the 1st round draft resource by a GM that I have ever seen when one looks at the Bills use of the 2003 1st round. The numeric method used in a post above which assigns a value to picks and discounts them over time tries to get at this, but I think it also fails to describe reality. In general it treats all drafts as being of equal value (a 2nd round pick in the middle of the 1st round is worth x points regardless of the year) but at least does attempt to take time into account by skewing the value of a traded pick by giving it value skewed by 1 round. However, this fails to recognize the reality that one year's draft may be stronger or weaker than the next year's draft and a choice in the middle of the 1st round may be worth a lot one year but have a totally different worth the next year. Not only does this method of discounting not really reflect the differences in player quality from year to year, but there actually can be significant variation within a draft by need so that a 1st round choice in a draft may actually produce a lesser player than a later choice or that the comparison of values is not logarythmatically consistent within a draft. What I mean by this is best seen in the 2003 draft. The Bills had a clear need on their team for a DE, We had switched with GW ro a 4-3 froma 3-4 and made this more intensive DL usage switch at the exact same time as we were losing Wiley to FA, Big Ted and Bruce the year before as cap casualties and Hansen to retirement. We had chosen Denney in the 2002 draft but he had disappointed being inactive most of his first year. Most pundits had the Bills taking a DE in 2003 and talked about us taking Chris Kelsay as a reasonable 1st round choice for us who might be there for our 20 something pick even if there was the expected rush on DEs in this talented DL draft. Surprising to virtually all we took WM which seemed off to folks since though WM was viewed as a top-5 talent before the injury that left him there for us, we had an RB coming off a Pro Bowl berth, Fortnately TD is not a believer at all in the draft methodology that assigns particular values to particular slots. He not only chose WM specifically because TH was so good at RN we could afford not rush WM's development along, but he also recognized that because 8 other teams before the Bills had chosen DL players, they were quite unlikely to devote the salary a second round pick would be slotted to bring to another DL player. As it turned out, Kelsay whom if TD had taken him with the pick used for WM would have complained (mostly folks would have whined he should have traded up to get one of the top 4 DLs chosen) he instead was able to have his cake and eat it to by getting the man our board showed as the best player available and also filled our need at DE, Again as good as our use of the 1st round resource was in 2003 in terms of benefits for the team its hard to imagine doing better than adding a player who became a starter for out 2nd ranked statistically D in his second year with our second round choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts