Grade the trade

[Shelterdog]

I think that is a separate evaluation. There are 2 evaluations in a draft pick trade:

1. Did you increase the chances of getting value
2. Did you execute the picks in a way that got you value.

I mean, there is no way to know who they would have picked at 23, the 3 guys you listed may well not have been at the top of their board (I bet Queen wasn't on it at all, Bill never picks LBs that small). I feel pretty confident that the average performance of picks say 37-45 and 71-78 will be better than the aggregate performance of 23-31. Now choosing the right guys within that slot is a separate analysis.

You're likely right on Queen although they have been flirting with a super big safety for years (didn't they really look into Su'a Cravens in the draft? Then there are the corpses of Tank Williams, John Lynch, Adrian Wilson, Barrnett and the weird use of guys like Eric Alexander in random games).

I don't think it's a separate question because your projections on what kind of players are available in the mid 30s and the early 70s. If your evaluation of the draft board is that the talent is so bad that you should take a special teams role player early in the 3rd because that does fit a game day need and there's no one else who can help the team more, well then maybe you shouldn't drop down in the first place so you make sure that you don't lose someone you really like between 23 and 37 when the Lions/Dolphins/Titans and their NE style organizations are also picking.

I have almost total faith in BB so I'm not too worried--I strongly suspect he doesn't see a material difference between Murray and, oh, Willie Gay (or Ruiz and Jonah Jackson) and he is going to add a bunch of potentially pretty useful players in rounds 2-4 and planned the trades accordingly--but I do want to see how it plays out.

 

[Soxy]

I disagree with some of this. I think the draft chart here is the only way to gauge a trade without all the players selected. For that matter, if you are then going to evaluate the players traded, then you really need to look back after a couple of years at least. I don't see how you can give a trade any grade based on players without seeing performance first. That's why I looked at it through that specific lens.

I do think every draft is different, of course, and presumed player value will affect why a team might move up or down. The ultimate barometer of the move though is the player performance each team receives from those picks. Again, we're not going to know that for a while.

That's not really the way I view things. My line of thinking is more in line with what @Cellar-Door posted.

If they draft two kickers at 37 and 71, that doesn't mean it was dumb to trade down and accumulate an extra pick. It means they made dumb picks.

 

[Cellar-Door]

You're likely right on Queen although they have been flirting with a super big safety for years (didn't they really look into Su'a Cravens in the draft? Then there are the corpses of Tank Williams, John Lynch, Adrian Wilson, Barrnett and the weird use of guys like Eric Alexander in random games).

I don't think it's a separate question because your projections on what kind of players are available in the mid 30s and the early 70s. If your evaluation of the draft board is that the talent is so bad that you should take a special teams role player early in the 3rd because that does fit a game day need and there's no one else who can help the team more, well then maybe you shouldn't drop down in the first place so you make sure that you don't lose someone you really like between 23 and 37 when the Lions/Dolphins/Titans and their NE style organizations are also picking.

I have almost total faith in BB so I'm not too worried--I strongly suspect he doesn't see a material difference between Murray and, oh, Willie Gay (or Ruiz and Jonah Jackson) and he is going to add a bunch of potentially pretty useful players in rounds 2-4 and planned the trades accordingly--but I do want to see how it plays out.

I get this thought process, but I think you can value opportunity separately from player evaluation.

So to me, the worth of pick 23 is the players you would have had to be around 23 to draft (so basically the average value that picks 23-31 produce as players) and the worth of 37 and 71 is the same, the value of the players you have to be there to draft (37-45 say and 71-79).

So when you look back in a few years you'll say 2 separate things....

1. What was the value of the guys we drafted at 37 and 71. This tells you how well talent was evaluated/developed.
2. What was the aggregate value a team ON AVERAGE would get in those two slots vs. the AVERAGE value a team could get at 23. This tells us if the trade was a good one based on the quality of those segments of the draft if you were an average evaluator of talent.

I graded this trade highly because I project out that the average team picking at 37 and 71 in this draft gets more value than a single average pick at 23. Now I may be wrong, but the exact value of the players picked in the 2 slots is a reflection to me of something different than the true value of the trade, because you are trading opportunities rather than specific players.

 

[NomarsFool]

Agreed. If they draft a PK with the 37 pick it doesn't mean the trade was a bad one

 

[DourDoerr]

That's not really the way I view things. My line of thinking is more in line with what @Cellar-Door posted.

If they draft two kickers at 37 and 71, that doesn't mean it was dumb to trade down and accumulate an extra pick. It means they made dumb picks.

Sure, that's fine - Cellar-Door makes a lot of sense. If you're following that line of thinking though, I don't understand how you're giving the trade a grade when you couldn't have known how they executed those picks. If, as you say, they pick 2 kickers, then you can't possibly consider the trade an A, as it does look dumb on the surface. If one of those kickers turns out to be another AV, well then we can re-evaluate, but that's a couple of years down the road. Grading on execution right after a trade or post-draft team grades ARE fun - I get it - but also somewhat pointless.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Sure, that's fine - Cellar-Door makes a lot of sense. If you're following that line of thinking though, I don't understand how you're giving the trade a grade when you couldn't have known how they executed those picks. If, as you say, they pick 2 kickers, then you can't possibly consider the trade an A, as it does look dumb on the surface. If one of those kickers turns out to be another AV, well then we can re-evaluate, but that's a couple of years down the road. Grading on execution right after a trade IS fun - I get it - but also somewhat ridiculous.

Yeah, it's all projection.

I just think that when we go back to see if the projection is right, the way to evaluate the trade is "did you create better opportunities" rather than "did you pick better players" so it could be a "good" trade even if we pick 2 busts, if those 2 busts are surrounded by players who are on average more valuable than the players in the 20s.

 

[Soxy]

Sure, that's fine - Cellar-Door makes a lot of sense. If you're following that line of thinking though, I don't understand how you're giving the trade a grade when you couldn't have known how they executed those picks. If, as you say, they pick 2 kickers, then you can't possibly consider the trade an A, as it does look dumb on the surface. If one of those kickers turns out to be another AV, well then we can re-evaluate, but that's a couple of years down the road. Grading on execution right after a trade IS fun - I get it - but also somewhat ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous? We do this kind of thinking all of the time in daily life.

If somebody shrewdly invests a bunch of money in the stock market and makes a killing, I don't think anybody is going to tell them: "I can't evaluate whether or not you made a good investment until I see how you spend the money."

 

[Ale Xander]

Why is it ridiculous? We do this kind of thinking all of the time in daily life.

If somebody shrewdly invests a bunch of money in the stock market and makes a killing, I don't think anybody is going to tell them: "I can't evaluate whether or not you made a good investment until I see how you spend the money."

Money buys things directly
Picks don't buy wins or championships directly

 

[DourDoerr]

Yeah, it's all projection.

I just think that when we go back to see if the projection is right, the way to evaluate the trade is "did you create better opportunities" rather than "did you pick better players" so it could be a "good" trade even if we pick 2 busts, if those 2 busts are surrounded by players who are on average more valuable than the players in the 20s.

I think we're saying the same thing basically. Once you're looking back though, you're now judging the the FO's overall performance. Did they make good trades? Did they get good players with those picks? The trade can definitely be good even if you pick busts, but overall it's a bad job by the FO.

 

[DourDoerr]

Why is it ridiculous? We do this kind of thinking all of the time in daily life.

If somebody shrewdly invests a bunch of money in the stock market and makes a killing, I don't think anybody is going to tell them: "I can't evaluate whether or not you made a good investment until I see how you spend the money."

Yeah I changed "ridiculous" to "pointless" along with another edit, but I guess you guys got the earlier version. I thought "ridiculous" was a somewhat personal term and thus unfair.

Regarding the stock market - I think it'd be more accurate to say if someone buys, for example, Tesla at $50/share and - based on the metrics (assets, debt, etc.) - it's valued at $50 a share, then I'd give their investment a solid B. If - down the road - they're able to cash out at $800/share, then that's an A+++ investment. We won't know where the Pats cash out until a couple of years from now.

FWIW - I was responding to the Poll Question - "What grade do you give the Pats for trading 23 for 37 and 71?." It doesn't say any thing about grading players.

 

[Shelterdog]

I get this thought process, but I think you can value opportunity separately from player evaluation.

So to me, the worth of pick 23 is the players you would have had to be around 23 to draft (so basically the average value that picks 23-31 produce as players) and the worth of 37 and 71 is the same, the value of the players you have to be there to draft (37-45 say and 71-79).

So when you look back in a few years you'll say 2 separate things....

1. What was the value of the guys we drafted at 37 and 71. This tells you how well talent was evaluated/developed.
2. What was the aggregate value a team ON AVERAGE would get in those two slots vs. the AVERAGE value a team could get at 23. This tells us if the trade was a good one based on the quality of those segments of the draft if you were an average evaluator of talent.

I graded this trade highly because I project out that the average team picking at 37 and 71 in this draft gets more value than a single average pick at 23. Now I may be wrong, but the exact value of the players picked in the 2 slots is a reflection to me of something different than the true value of the trade, because you are trading opportunities rather than specific players.

I think where we differ is how much one should consider the available talent pool in a particular year. 23, 37, and 71 don't have the same value every year. The art of it is figuring out if in a particular year with your particular needs the value of what you get at 37 and 71 is likely to be better than what you get at 23. We certainly don't know what the Pats think about the talent pool buf if they were to pick a tavon wilson type at 71 I would infer that they don't actually think the talent in the third is all that hot-which would make the trade seem less valuable.

 

[Soxy]

Yeah I changed "ridiculous" to "pointless" along with another edit, but I guess you guys got the earlier version. I thought "ridiculous" was a somewhat personal term and thus unfair.

Regarding the stock market - I think it'd be more accurate to say if someone buys, for example, Tesla at $50/share and - based on the metrics (assets, debt, etc.) - it's valued at $50 a share, then I'd give their investment a solid B. If - down the road - they're able to cash out at $800/share, then that's an A+++ investment. We won't know when the Pats cash out until a couple of years from now.

FWIW - I was responding to the Poll Question - "What grade do you give the Pats for trading 23 for 37 and 71?." It doesn't say any thing about grading players.

No worries, I didn't take it personally or anything. It's an interesting discussion.

I think a closer analogue would be somebody using historical data that says the stock market always goes up in the long run, so they decide to invest a ton of money in the stock market. I'm no expert investor by any stretch, but that would seem to be a questionable decision given the current market conditions. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns, as they say.

Historical data can only tell you what already happened. It doesn't tell you what's going to happen, which is what we're ultimately concerned with here. Anybody can look back and evaluate things with the benefit of hindsight, but that's not what drafting players (or picking stocks) is all about. You need to make a projection, based on all of the available information, of what you think is going to happen.

The draft value chart is based on historical data. It's a data point, and an important data point, but one still needs to put it into context of the current environment and market conditions. In this case, there seems to be a stronger than typical pool of talent in this part of the draft, which the draft value chart will fail to account for. That's the main reason a lot of us were pretty bullish on the Pats move to trade down, regardless of what they end up doing with those picks.

I feel comfortable passing judgement on their decision. Accumulating capital and then spending that capital are two different things. They still need to spend wisely, but they've made good investments. Which is a good start.

 

[JM3]

I'm surprised the premise of this is all based on the Jimmy Johnson chart, which was based on what teams actually did pre-analytics & not the type of value picks actually produce.

According to the Stuart Chart, they gave up 14.6 points of value, & received back 19.1 (11.6 + 7.5).

According to the Fitzgerald-Spielberger Chart , they gave up 1,411 points & got back 2,010 (1,170 + 840).

According to the Harvard Chart, they gave up 228.4 points & got back 289.2 (167.7 +121.5).

So they definitely increased their expected value from any given draft by making the trade, & in this particular case maybe even more so based on the distribution of prospects & the myriad needs for cheap, young talent. The downside is I don't believe any of the charts really factor in the value a 5th year option provides teams.

I would give the trade a B+ (which rounds to a B) because it's not a huge value win & just a good trade on the margins, but I'm generally happy with it & think it's a good piece of work.

 

[j44thor]

can I change my grade to F? This guy is the one outlier thus far in the 2nd rd

 

[Mugsy’s Walk-Off Bunt]

Duggar was universally a solid second round pick.

 

[RorschachsMask]

can I change my grade to F? This guy is the one outlier thus far in the 2nd rd

How exactly is he an outlier? He was considered a 2nd round pick by a majority of draft people. Also was looked at as a guy with a really high ceiling.

Is it a slight reach? Maybe. But nothing crazy.