nonniey Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 Surprisingly, looking at the trade value chart the Redskins came out slightly ahead. Pick 25 is valued at 720 points minus 210 for pick # 76, 420 for next years 1st (valued at this years #48) - 34 for next years #4 (valued at this years #144) . Methodology for future picks is the mid pick from this years draft for the next round. Redskins have a 46 point advantage. (Used Huddlereports value chart). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fpickering Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 Originally posted by nonniey Surprisingly, looking at the trade value chart the Redskins came out slightly ahead. Pick 25 is valued at 720 points minus 210 for pick # 76, 420 for next years 1st (valued at this years #48) - 34 for next years #4 (valued at this years #144) . Methodology for future picks is the mid pick from this years draft for the next round. Redskins have a 46 point advantage. (Used Huddlereports value chart). Nice work.. I suppose I don't really agree with the methodology though... although I dont dispute that it is generally acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boy2Der Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 I just hope we make the playoffs because if we don't the broncos are looking at a top 10 pick and a great player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 This is what we've been trying to let people know. From a straight traditional method of viewing trade value, we won out here. If you don't like the traditional method of trade weight, that's fine, but, from what we know, this went in our favor based on how such things are assessed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walking Deadman Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 That makes me feel slightly better, I just hope that pick we give Denver next year is the 32nd overall pick if you get what I mean....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. S Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 i still think that one draft choice for 3 is not that good of a trade, even if we do come out better on paper. On paper, we had some of the best teams for the past few years, and the Patriots had some of the worst, yadda yadda yadda.... However, my anticipation is that saturday is gonna be insane with trade ups and down, more than we on this board have rumored so far, though we could do better. My idea is that we hold a pick ahead of the Jets, and they want Heath Miller, and may give a bunch for him, maybe its a way to get back at them, who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GangstaSkinz Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 we need those picks! the skins have no depth and now we will have even less! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 Originally posted by GangstaSkinz we need those picks! the skins have no depth and now we will have even less! The Skins have very good depth as a general rule, and will improve it substantially with two early picks. But, as the team has suggested, it would not be adverse to acquiring more picks in this draft or the next if the situation allows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 Originally posted by nonniey Surprisingly, looking at the trade value chart the Redskins came out slightly ahead. Pick 25 is valued at 720 points minus 210 for pick # 76, 420 for next years 1st (valued at this years #48) - 34 for next years #4 (valued at this years #144) . Methodology for future picks is the mid pick from this years draft for the next round. Redskins have a 46 point advantage. (Used Huddlereports value chart). Its nice that next years pick is valued as a mid second rounder now but that wont be the case when next years draft comes around. This trade is stupid at best unless we pick in the 28-32 range next year and we will all agree on this in 12 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBeast36 Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 this was a very good read... it calmed my nerves down just a bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzmuda Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 Originally posted by SkinsFTW Its nice that next years pick is valued as a mid second rounder now but that wont be the case when next years draft comes around. This trade is stupid at best unless we pick in the 28-32 range next year and we will all agree on this in 12 months. So, if Denver offered their 2087, 2088, and 2089 1st rounders for the #9 pick in the 2005 draft you'd take it? I mean that's 3 1st rounders for 1! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romberjo Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 So, if Denver offered their 2087, 2088, and 2089 1st rounders for the #9 pick in the 2005 draft you'd take it? I mean that's 3 1st rounders for 1! Uh, no. The reason it's plausible to value next year's first as a second this year is that that's roughly the valuation, historically, when teams have traded picks from future years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted April 20, 2005 Author Share Posted April 20, 2005 Originally posted by SkinsFTW Its nice that next years pick is valued as a mid second rounder now but that wont be the case when next years draft comes around. This trade is stupid at best unless we pick in the 28-32 range next year and we will all agree on this in 12 months. As it turns out, next year if the Redskins traded pick is 11 or lower then the trade was to the Redskins advantage. 9-10 are washes, while a picks 8 or higher will swing the trade in Denvers favour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrongMad Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 I'd feel a bit better about the trade if we smack Denver around during the season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OWUeagleMD Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 Whats the deal with the assessment in the big thread that says the Skins lost out? Did he use the chart wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 Originally posted by OWUeagleMD Whats the deal with the assessment in the big thread that says the Skins lost out? Did he use the chart wrong? No, he used the right chart, and simply didn't realize he was using it incorrectly. And, you, not knowing the simple stuff like this, also didn't know, so you sided with a guy who didn't know something and made yourself look foolish. Don't you feel silly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.