Would it be allowed to trade down from #21 to wherever,only then to trade for player?

[michael_33]

I don't know the ruling on this,so could someone clear this up for me....?

EXAMPLE:

Lets say that the Redskins found a trading partner within the week or sometime soon....

Lets say Jacksonville (pick #28) decided they wanted to move up because there are 3 or 4 candidates they want,that they didn't believe would last to the 28th pick?

Of course they throw in picks to the Redskins for the move....Say a 2nd 08' and a 4th in 09'...(hypothetically people!)

So here we are with that #28th pick with still well over a month 1/2 to go...

All of a sudden...Deangelo Hall or some other star player is being dangled for a trade...But it will cost that teams 1st round pick to get him....!

Can we make the trade?

Or can we not because it was not our original draft pick?

If someone can clear that up for me,I would appreciate that?

If this is something we could do,then why not try a move like this if the possibility presented itself...?

(Note:I wouldn't bash me yet...my crap has a way of coming true!)

[DirtySkin21]

we can trade whatever picks that are ours, no matter waht team we get the picks from. after they are traded to us they are ours to whatever with.

just like a player..

[CoachingWinsChampionships]

That would be allowed. The picks are ours in every way to do whatever we want with. However it is unlikely to happen like your example because the Jaguars would probably want to wait and see what happens on draft day and the trade might be contingent on a particular prospect or two being available at #21. But it could happen... if you remember we traded for the #25 pick from Denver to get Campbell several days before the draft.

[michael_33]

That would be allowed. The picks are ours in every way to do whatever we want with. However it is unlikely to happen like your example because the Jaguars would probably want to wait and see what happens on draft day and the trade might be contingent on a particular prospect or two being available at #21. But it could happen... if you remember we traded for the #25 pick from Denver to get Campbell several days before the draft.

Then this is what I would recommend,if the Redskins are eager to trade for a big name....Of course I've heard that we are not going for any big splashes in FA so who knows?

But I wouldn't be against it....!

We would have (2) 2nd round draft picks and a 4th in 09'...So basically,we would get a star player for a 1st round pick that would start immediately...recieve an extra 2nd rounder (2 total) for whatever needs and depth we wanted...

Now I'm sure we could grab a player that falls out of the 1st round and possibly get another stud as well....Plus our original 2nd rounder...

We could grab a DE or DT with one of those 2nd rounders...As deep as the DE/DT are in the draft....I think it would be a brilliant move!IMO....

We would basically be trading from the #21st pick to the 2nd round pick for a Deangelo Hall or whatever player we traded for!BRILLIANT!

[Laxpunk2006]

It would be allowed but is an unrealistic scenario. Very few teams make trades for just draft picks before the draft. Pretty much only we are 'intelligent' enough to do that. Most teams will just way untill draft day and see how things are going before pulling the trigger.

[DiscoBob]

The unlikely portion is a pick for pick trade before draft day. Teams typically wait until there is a certain player they are targeting that they want, then trade up during the draft to get that player.

I can't remember a pick for pick trade prior to the draft - I'm sure it's happened, but not very frequently....

[nightbird]

Well the only problem with your proposal is you can't force teams to make stupid trades.

For one thing, it's VERY difficult to move back in the draft for more picks (unless it's Vinny who wants to trade up).

You have to have the perfect storm of a player, almost always a quarterback, slipping down the draft board. Then you need a qb desperate team to get anxious enough to trade into a spot to get the player they want. It happened with Cleveland last year.

But it's just very unlikely that someone will be so hot to trot over the 21st pick that they'll give up several valuable picks to move into our position.

It may happen with Matt Ryan, but who knows.

[DirtySkin21]

Yeah, there is really no point in trading picks before the draft unless it was the !st overall pick, because then you know who will be on the board when you pick and you know what you are getting..

I don't think there has ever been a before draft trade like that guy was saying,

You dont know who will be drafted where so you HAVE to wait to see what happens before you do that. ( unless like i said you are trading for a number 1 overall pick,

[Rufus T Firefly]

The unlikely portion is a pick for pick trade before draft day. Teams typically wait until there is a certain player they are targeting that they want, then trade up during the draft to get that player.

I can't remember a pick for pick trade prior to the draft - I'm sure it's happened, but not very frequently....

You actually don't have to look far back for an example. Two years ago, Atlanta traded down with Denver and traded that 1st for John Abraham. Denver drafted Jay Cutler with the pick.

I know the OP stressed it being hypothetical, but just to be clear- there's no way we could get a 2nd and a 4th to move down 7 spots. That's way too much. And Jacksonville picks 26th, not 28th.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

It's not easy to find trading partners. People just assume that you can find any team to trade down with.

[PlayAction]

I know the OP stressed it being hypothetical, but just to be clear- there's no way we could get a 2nd and a 4th to move down 7 spots. That's way too much. And Jacksonville picks 26th, not 28th.

The point differential between the 21st pick and the 26th pick is 100pts or the equivalent of the third pick in the 4th round. That's not too expensive if they wanted a particular player that wouldn't make it to the 26th pick. I'd love for the Skins to pick up a 4th in a slight trade down. There's a few Guard/Center prospects that may be available in the 4th round. Pick trades are more likely for the Skins this year than last because the level of compensation required for the trade is much cheaper.

[turbodiesel#44]

I have never heard of trading picks for picks like that except on draft day. I don't believe it has ever happened. It would be a really stupid thing to do the way players rise and fall in the draft. You trade like that to get better value out of your situation, which is unknown until your number is called.

A first rounder is a first rounder, no matter how you got it. But #28 does not have the same value as #21.

[Veretax]

I'm not sure trading a 1st after trading down is a great idea, and I still dont' think D-Hall is worth a 1st Rounder.

[heatman28]

Interesting that we pick at #21 wouldn't you say?

R.I.P. Sean Taylor #21

[Romberjo]

Here's a moneyball/football & economics rumination.

It's true that it makes more sense to trade on draft day than before, b/c when one of the relevant picks is on the clock, it's much easier for both teams to assess the relative value they place on that pick, and thus to determine whether a mutually beneficial trade exists.

But it would make sense, even pre-draft, for some teams to make trades. For example, it would likely be rational for us to trade down and another team to trade up (e.g., our first for two seconds, or for a second this year and first the next): we have less cap space than any other team (and thus a relative disincentive to draft an expensive first-rounder), and we likely have relatively more need for capable starters than for a single potential "star" (especially if one folds in the relative revenue premium to an owner - but not to a team - of a star over two capable starters; Snyder's revenue stream, unlike most other owners', is at a point where it's likely more amenable to increase through improving our record, rather than generating fan excitement from a top draftee, b/c we've had more than our fill of excitement as it is).

Also, it seems to me that teams are irrational in not trading as often as they should on draft day, probably b/c of the "endowment effect" -- people tend to value more highly what they have and could lose than what they might get. People on this board -- sensible people -- often talk about how hard it is to find a partner with whom to trade down. That doesn't make any sense, unless the NFL is irrational (which may well be the case): a well-developed market in picks should have arisen such that teams should be, on average, indifferent to trading up or down, and it shouldn't be terribly hard to determine many instances in which a trade would be beneficial -- e.g., a player one covets has fallen quite far but may well be gone by the time one picks, then look to trade up; one is on the clock and there is no one available you particularly value (or at least not at a position one has any need for, if one doesn't wholly subscribe to BPA), then look to trade down. The well-developed market is in effect what the draft value chart is, or at least is supposed to be: if it actually reflected the average value of each pick, teams would be indifferent to trading up or down.

I suppose there are two potential brakes on trading picks. Most importantly, given the fact that there are relatively few picks that each team has, it's not easy to put together a package of picks that are basically equivalent on each side. Recommendation: Someone at Redskins Park -- maybe that new offensive assistant who was the head coach at St. Olaf's who's strong on data analysis -- should put every team's picks into a database that can instantly generate, on draft day, potential equivalent packages if we want to trade up or are looking to trade down.

Second, there might be some very slight effect from information cost at the top of the draft, where teams may have invested more time into evaluating players likely to be available at their assigned draft slots, but a) this would only apply to the top of the draft in any event, and my understanding is that most teams have a draft board with at least a rough, full set of desires in descending order, w/o gaps, even in stretches of the draft that they don't expect to pick, so the information cost effect should be negligible.

[turbodiesel#44]

But it would make sense, even pre-draft, for some teams to make trades. For example, it would likely be rational for us to trade down and another team to trade up

How could it make sense to the other team? They may be trading up for a player who ends up falling to their original pick. Like I said, you have to wait till your number is called to know where you stand. Can you name an instance where picks were traded for picks prior to draft day?

[Romberjo]

How could it make sense to the other team? They may be trading up for a player who ends up falling to their original pick. Like I said, you have to wait till your number is called to know where you stand. Can you name an instance where picks were traded for picks prior to draft day?

1) For example, our pre-draft day trade to get the 25th pick, where we took Campbell.

2) How would a pre-draft trade make sense to the other team? If, for example, their needs were the flip side of ours. They have a whole lot of cap space, empty stadium seats that are relatively likely to respond to fan interest in how a potential star pans out, no particular hope that a pair of capable starters will make an appreciable difference, and a glaring need at a glamour position in which high picks are relatively more valuable (perhaps cb and qb, and not OG or S). Sure, the player they originally wanted might fall to their original pick, but that's irrelevant; the question is whether the expected value of the pre-draft trade is higher than the expected value of staying where you are.

[turbodiesel#44]

1) For example, our pre-draft day trade to get the 25th pick, where we took Campbell.

That was a stupid trade for us. JC would have likely fallen to 2nd round anyway. The fact that the price we are paying for those mistakes is great and stretches over years seems to be lost on this board. Gibbs gave away picks like grandpa giving out candy. I like JC, but do not feel he was worth a 1st, 3rd & 4th pick.

Redskins get: Denver's first-round pick (No. 25), which is used to select QB Jason Campbell.

Broncos get: Washington's third-round pick (No. 76) they used to select CB Karl Paymah, and first- and fourth-round picks in next year's draft.

I thought that was a draft day deal anyway. Am I mistaken?

[Romberjo]

It was not a draft day deal.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2217-2005Apr19.html

And the question of whether you thought that particular deal was wise for us given circumstances at the time (and even more so, how you think it's worked out over the last few years) is pretty much beside the point. (And for what it's worth, in hindsight, I am delighted we got Campbell in exchange for the following year's first [generally ascribed the value of a 2d], a 3d, and the following year's 4th [the value of a 5th]. But my assessment is pretty much beside the point, too.)

But my thesis isn't that it's generally wise for a team to target a particular player and thus make a trade pre-draft. It's that other considerations may sometimes suggest a pre-draft trade. And, more to the point, that teams should be doing much more trading on draft day.

Special bonus football and economics draft thought: I think teams, notably including us, signfiicantly undervalue next year's picks, at least in the higher rounds (e.g., valuing next year's first as equivalent to this year's second). For example, after 10 years, assuming a possible trade each year of this year's second for a first in the following year, would you rather have had 9 first-round picks or 10 second-round picks?

[[[ghost]]]

I don't want to trade any 1sts or top 10 2nds (assuming we acquire one before the draft). Any later, and I'm all for it.

The potential of a 1st/early 2nd rounder is off the charts. While plenty of players who come out much later than that are Great, its just a rarity. A good coaching staff will evaluate good talent and put it to use.

its one of the reasons why our earlier picks have panned out so well the past few years.

[Aireskoi]

To see if your scenario works when planning trades, use the Draft Value Chart that GMs reference to balance out trades. The chart is everywhere, but here is one link.

http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/features/valuechart.html

[turbodiesel#44]

It was not a draft day deal.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2217-2005Apr19.html

I think teams, notably including us, signfiicantly undervalue next year's picks, at least in the higher rounds (e.g., valuing next year's first as equivalent to this year's second).

I can understand the confusion sent out from our camp, not wanting to tip our hand. But the fact that this deal was done ahead of time makes it even more foolish, IMO.

Since Ditka, I think we are the only ones who totally whiff on seeing the importance of picks for a teams long term success. I think Gibbs recognized what he had done, and that's one of the main reasons he decided to fall on his sword. IMO.

[chaz13]

You can trade picks any way you want in the NFL except supplemental picks, those you cannot trade. PFT was saying that several teams are coming up with a new draft value chart b/c of the crazy salaries of the early picks in the first round. Sometimes it's a curse to have the 1st pick and have to shell out 35m in guarantees for a player that has proven nothing in the NFL. They need to address this w/ some type of slotting system like the NBA has. No more rookies becoming the highest paid at their position before they play a snap and it would also end holdouts.

[skinsince72]

I normally do not post in Draft threads because I do not keep up with too much college ball. But I have to say, I am learning more and more about drafting theory from ES. Thanks guys!

It was said earlier in the thread that we would maybe consider trading down for our first pick. That does seem smart considering our cap space. Typically, wouldn't it be beneficial to trade with someone that picks very early in the second round. Our 1st for their 2nd? That way we do no slide too far and can still have a shot at someone we targeted for the 1st. Also we would undoubtedly pick up a 3rd rounder or another 2nd next year.

[Romberjo]

Since Ditka, I think we are the only ones who totally whiff on seeing the importance of picks for a teams long term success. I think Gibbs recognized what he had done, and that's one of the main reasons he decided to fall on his sword. IMO.

I tend to agree with you -- I generally think the draft value chart wrongly overvalues the top half of the first round (particularly given salary cap implications). And we've often drafted very high recently, mostly b/c we've been awful in the prior year, but on occasion through trade, and always through lack of trading down. (And for what it's worth, we've generally drafted very well with our high picks, which has blunted the effects of the lack of wisdom you note.)

But whether the Skins in particular have made wise trades of picks is an analytically distinct issue from whether teams in general should trade more often than they do, particularly on draft day, to maximize their expected value from the draft. The answer: yes.