Jump to content

Draft Compensation Question: Why is everyone applauding the Fins for their trade down?


Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

I don’t hate their compensation. They will have an extra first in 2023 and an extra third in 2021 for three draft spots. That extra future first allows the Fins to keep flexibility for a future trade up if Tua is a bust while also helping their current fortunes by staying in a position to still get an elite talent in this years draft. 
 

It wasn’t a huge haul but it was a good gain that makes sense for them.

I'm starting to come around to this view.  By previous standards, they didn't get much back, but the trade still makes sense for them if they can get their guy at 6.  They don't need more draft picks this year.

Edited by mannc
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I thought the initial trade with the 49ers was a good deal, but the move back to 6 was eh.   Of course it's the draft, if they get a hall of fame at 6 while picking up a 3rd and a future 1st

I copied and pasted from one of the trade threads:   I will say how I see these trades.   1.  Miami has 8 picks of which 5 are in the Top 81.  They don't need anymore draft capital

Trades will always be evaluated based on the players taken with the picks. What MIA has done is built a solid cache of capital to turn their team quick. Now they have to execute the second part and us

Posted Images

On 3/26/2021 at 9:23 PM, Saint Doug said:

I know this has been posted ad nauseam for YEARS. But, from a fan perspective, it still doesn’t make much sense at all. Maybe to GMs, who have leashes of various lengths (that is, their job security influence their picks). But, fast forward to 2022, the Fins are certainly not going to look at their extra 1st rounder as a 2nd rounder come draft day. 

hence the time element. At time of trade the 1 is like a two.  On draft day the next year it absolutely looks like a 1, but they waited a year to feel that way.

Time element in this context is hard to grasp for all including me. But it is real. I guess?? 😁 I flip back and forth on it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, cba fan said:

hence the time element. At time of trade the 1 is like a two.  On draft day the next year it absolutely looks like a 1, but they waited a year to feel that way.

Time element in this context is hard to grasp for all including me. But it is real. I guess?? 😁 I flip back and forth on it. 

The time element makes sense for a GM. They want the fruits of their labor working to help them keep their job. The truth is, not many GMs are in a situation where they can be patient to have success. It needs to be fairly immediate, and often, or they’ll be sent packing. From a fan’s perspective, a 1st round player is still going to be a 1st round player.
 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2021 at 7:05 PM, IgotBILLStopay said:

The Jests gave the Colts two 2nd rounders in the same draft year and one second rounder the next year to move up from 6 to 3.

The Fins got a 2023 first rounder and a third round comp pick this year.

 

I usually use a rule of thumb where a draft pick next year in round X is roughly worth a draft pick in round X-1 this year unless we are talking about a top 5 or top 10 pick. There is no way a 2023 first rounder (two years hence) is worth more than a second rounder in  the 2021 draft. So the Fins at most landed a second and a late 3rd for giving up a third overall for a sixth overall.

 

Shaking my head since every analyst is lauding the Fins.

 

Not that I am complaining. I do like it when AFCE opponents overpay or under-receive, though I would have liked it if the Colts did not get so manty cheap assets. In contrast, the NFC benefited from the Fins' largesse.

 

Edit: Went over to the Fins' message boards and a good chunk of them hate the Philly trade. Feel the fins were fleeced. The Iggles message board is gaga about the trade. Says something I think.


3 2nds knowing where one was high is equivalent to a 1st and a 3rd. The 1st is the wild card.

 

dolphins betting that SF pick will be the better pick next year than theirs. Miami might be in the 16-22range, SF coukd be that or a top 10 pick.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2021 at 7:21 PM, Southern_Bills said:

I thought the initial trade with the 49ers was a good deal, but the move back to 6 was eh.

 

Of course it's the draft, if they get a hall of fame at 6 while picking up a 3rd and a future 1st you look back and call them geniuses. 

 

The outcome dictates how it's remembered. 

Yup.  The Dolphins going from 12 to 6 for the receiving weapon of their choice is similar to the Bills moving from 9 to 4 for Watkins.  I hope they get the same results.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I tried to run the numbers on each of the trades, as per the attachment below (using the year/round less theory).  Trade value chart: https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp

 

To me, Miami did not get the better of each of those deals if you run it by the numbers...

 

For the SF/Mia trade, by the numbers, SF's compensation for the #3 pick never reaches the 2200 needed.   Also, Miami did not get any additional compensation KNOWING this is for a QB, which is a premium position.

 

THEN, trading back up to 6, again they don't win by the numbers...

 

Overall, they move from 3 to 6 and pickup only 1 additional first rounder.  By the numbers, this does not look like great trade(s).

 

Now, from a non numbers perspective, they trade with SF was a great trade IMO.  You picked up 2 additional #1s.  THEN you trade 1 to philly just to go up 6 spots...  Not a good trade IMO, especially as someone else said, they didn't need to make that trade right now.  They could have waited until the draft or close to it to move up...

 

BTW, with the year/round theory, I would gladly trade my 2nd round pick every year for a 1st in the next year (since they are equivalent)....  DO you think any other GM would be willing to do that for us??? :)

 

 

Untitled.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2021 at 5:15 AM, jeremy2020 said:

 

Their trade to move back seemed good to me...to move up again was a head scratcher. If you're not picking a QB...who are you targeting there? 

 

 

IMO they're set to pick up one of the top two players on their board.

 

They wouldn't have made this trade if they wanted whoever will be the 3rd and 4th QBs picked. Probably would not have done it if they wanted Penei Sewell either, as he's very likely to go at #5.

 

So if they don't want a QB or Sewell, they might get a shot at their #1 choice, whoever he is. TE Pitts? WRs Chase or Smith or Waddle? CB Surtain? LB Parsons? Most likely one of those. Perhaps even Mac Jones, though I doubt it.

 

But say it's Pitts, Chase, Smith, Waddle, Surtain or Parsons.

 

If the first four picks are QBs and Sewell goes 5th, they get the #1 guy on their board.

 

The only other likely alternative first five picks is three QBs instead of four and Sewell.

 

In that case, one guy will be gone from that group of six, maybe Pitts or Chase? So as long as they have two guys they are thrilled with there, they will get one of their top two and a bunch of picks besides. And a very solid chance of being able to pick their #1 guy.

 

Whereas at #12 all or nearly all of those six would probably be gone. This trade, both parts of it, makes total sense to me. Before the second trade they would have been able to be pretty sure to be able to pick one of their top seven. After the second trade they are almost sure to be able to pick their #2 pick and maybe even their #1.

 

If you have a very good chance to pick the same guy at #6 that you would have picked at #3 ... and you can then pick up an extra 1st rounder down the road and a couple of others ... man, do it.

Edited by Thurman#1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

IMO they're set to pick up one of the top two players on their board.

 

They wouldn't have made this trade if they wanted whoever will be the 3rd and 4th QBs picked. Probably would not have done it if they wanted Penei Sewell either, as he's very likely to go at #5.

 

So if they don't want a QB or Sewell, they might get a shot at their #1 choice, whoever he is. TE Pitts? WRs Chase or Smith or Waddle? CB Surtain? LB Parsons? Most likely one of those. Perhaps even Mac Jones, though I doubt it.

 

But say it's Pitts, Chase, Smith, Waddle, Surtain or Parsons.

 

If the first four picks are QBs and Sewell goes 5th, they get the #1 guy on their board.

 

The only other likely alternative first five picks is three QBs instead of four and Sewell.

 

In that case, one guy will be gone from that group of six, maybe Pitts or Chase? So as long as they have two guys they are thrilled with there, they will get one of their top two and a bunch of picks besides. And a very solid chance of being able to pick their #1 guy.

 

Whereas at #12 all or nearly all of those six would probably be gone. This trade, both parts of it, makes total sense to me. Before the second trade they would have been able to be pretty sure to be able to pick one of their top seven. After the second trade they are almost sure to be able to pick their #2 pick and maybe even their #1.

 

If you have a very good chance to pick the same guy at #6 that you would have picked at #3 ... and you can then pick up an extra 1st rounder down the road and a couple of others ... man, do it.

This.  They will most likely draft the player that they wanted at 3 and got an extra 1st for free. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2021 at 7:10 PM, ColoradoBills said:

I copied and pasted from one of the trade threads:

 

I will say how I see these trades.

 

1.  Miami has 8 picks of which 5 are in the Top 81.  They don't need anymore draft capital this year.

2.  If their GM/HC has 3 non QBs players on their board that they want then the trade down doesn't matter.

3.  Next year they could trade that 1st and 3rd which will be worth a lot more than right now.

4.  If they save them for 2023 it's a 1st and a 3rd no matter what anyone says they are worth now.

     If Tua fails they will want those future picks.

 

Seems to me they are planning long term and that doesn't make me happy.

I hope they pick a few busts!

 

Maybe they will draft a QB, and use one in the first half, then another in the 2nd half

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2021 at 7:05 PM, IgotBILLStopay said:

The Jests gave the Colts two 2nd rounders in the same draft year and one second rounder the next year to move up from 6 to 3.

The Fins got a 2023 first rounder and a third round comp pick this year.

 

I usually use a rule of thumb where a draft pick next year in round X is roughly worth a draft pick in round X-1 this year unless we are talking about a top 5 or top 10 pick. There is no way a 2023 first rounder (two years hence) is worth more than a second rounder in  the 2021 draft. So the Fins at most landed a second and a late 3rd for giving up a third overall for a sixth overall.

 

Shaking my head since every analyst is lauding the Fins.

 

Not that I am complaining. I do like it when AFCE opponents overpay or under-receive, though I would have liked it if the Colts did not get so manty cheap assets. In contrast, the NFC benefited from the Fins' largesse.

 

Edit: Went over to the Fins' message boards and a good chunk of them hate the Philly trade. Feel the fins were fleeced. The Iggles message board is gaga about the trade. Says something I think.

 

Are you talking about trade down with the 49ers to 12? 

 

You have the compensation wrong. They flipped picks this year, and got 2022 and 2023 first round picks as well as a 3rd round pick this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

IMO they're set to pick up one of the top two players on their board.

 

They wouldn't have made this trade if they wanted whoever will be the 3rd and 4th QBs picked. Probably would not have done it if they wanted Penei Sewell either, as he's very likely to go at #5.

 

So if they don't want a QB or Sewell, they might get a shot at their #1 choice, whoever he is. TE Pitts? WRs Chase or Smith or Waddle? CB Surtain? LB Parsons? Most likely one of those. Perhaps even Mac Jones, though I doubt it.

 

But say it's Pitts, Chase, Smith, Waddle, Surtain or Parsons.

 

If the first four picks are QBs and Sewell goes 5th, they get the #1 guy on their board.

 

The only other likely alternative first five picks is three QBs instead of four and Sewell.

 

In that case, one guy will be gone from that group of six, maybe Pitts or Chase? So as long as they have two guys they are thrilled with there, they will get one of their top two and a bunch of picks besides. And a very solid chance of being able to pick their #1 guy.

 

Whereas at #12 all or nearly all of those six would probably be gone. This trade, both parts of it, makes total sense to me. Before the second trade they would have been able to be pretty sure to be able to pick one of their top seven. After the second trade they are almost sure to be able to pick their #2 pick and maybe even their #1.

 

If you have a very good chance to pick the same guy at #6 that you would have picked at #3 ... and you can then pick up an extra 1st rounder down the road and a couple of others ... man, do it.

Apparently according to Albert Breer, he’s hearing that the Bengals are taking chase at 5

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trading back and accumulating picks is a good idea in theory, but if you don't hit on them it doesn't matter. The Sammy Watkins trade for example. The Browns got a future 1st in that deal. Everyone thought it was great.

 

Browns Haul: 

 

Justin Gilbert

Cam Evring

 

Browns Passed on:

 

Khail Mack

Jake Mathews 

Mike Evans

 

If the Dolphins hit on all these, good for them. But they already screwed up last year by picking Tua over Herbert and now they are going to be going to jacoby Brissett as their relief pitcher 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Captain Hindsight said:

Trading back and accumulating picks is a good idea in theory, but if you don't hit on them it doesn't matter. The Sammy Watkins trade for example. The Browns got a future 1st in that deal. Everyone thought it was great.

 

Browns Haul: 

 

Justin Gilbert

Cam Evring

 

Browns Passed on:

 

Khail Mack

Jake Mathews 

Mike Evans

 

If the Dolphins hit on all these, good for them. But they already screwed up last year by picking Tua over Herbert and now they are going to be going to jacoby Brissett as their relief pitcher 

 

 

 

The rg3 trade came to mind with the Rams.

 

 

 

They turned it into:

Brockers

Jenkins

Pead

Ogletree

Bailey

Robinson

 

3 1st round picks - and some change.  None of these players were the main catalyst for turning the franchise around.  Robinson was an outright bust at #2 overall.

 

Then the rams moved up for Goff - and Tennessee got Corey Davis, Henry, conklin, Austin Johnson.  

 

These big trades are also confusing as hell to follow since they almost always have further trades either up or down.

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

Apparently according to Albert Breer, he’s hearing that the Bengals are taking chase at 5

 

 

Hmm, interesting. I certainly wouldn't believe that this time of year, but it's absolutely possible.

 

Certainly a very good chance the Bengals take Sewell, but yeah, not a certainty. Decent chance they go elsewhere, though I personally doubt it as they wait for Burrow to recover from his injury.

 

Same point, though. There is a major difference between what will be available at #6 and at #12. They may or may not want Chase, though he'd be one of my top two guesses. 

Edited by Thurman#1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Hmm, interesting. I certainly wouldn't believe that this time of year, but it's absolutely possible.

 

Certainly a very good chance the Bengals take Sewell, but yeah, not a certainty. Decent chance they go elsewhere, though I personally doubt it as they wait for Burrow to recover from his injury.

 

Same point, though. There is a major difference between what will be available at #6 and at #12. They may or may not want Chase, though he'd be one of my top two guesses. 

Apparently per Breer, Burrow really wants him (obviously they played together). It would be very bengals-y to skip taking the best OT and go with a WR. I mean Chase would be a great pick but they really need to protect burrow and it’s a deep WR draft. Plus Higgins was pretty damn good last year.

Edited by YoloinOhio
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...