Jump to content


Improved Trade Chart


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1 Astrobot

Astrobot

    TSW's Draft Droid

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,196 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 09:46 AM

Here is an improved Trade Chart:

http://www.drafttek....tradechart1.asp

I’m sure you’ve all used the NFL Trade Value Chart before to come up with balanced trades involving same year draft picks.

We’ve had one on our site for a while, but we have improved upon its usability in the following ways:

1)    For each selection, in addition to point value we have also listed the team selecting at that pick.  
2)    A “highlighter” feature.  Enter "BF" and all the picks for Buffalo will display in yellow.

Try entering SL and you see St. Louis has two first-rounders. Good trade bait if they want to move up for, say, a RB.

#2 jaybee

jaybee

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 847 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 10:28 AM

No, I've not seen this till now.  What surprises me with it is how quickly the "values" drop.  For example, the Bills at #8 show a value less than half of the #1 pick.  I would have guessed a less precipitous drop off.

I see we don't have a 7th round pick this year.  Is that one we gave up for Tjax maybe ??

Neat !!

Thanks for the link.

jb

#3 mrags

mrags

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,551 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 10:30 AM

I'd definitely take their 16, 46 and 110 picks for our first rounder.

Considering were already cutting a lot of weight, and we might not be able to retain 2 of our best players, we just might be making a lot of moves come draft day this year to make extra picks to full the extra holes.

#4 JohnC

JohnC

    UDFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,537 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 10:55 AM

View PostAstrobot, on 17 February 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

Here is an improved Trade Chart:

http://www.drafttek....tradechart1.asp

I’m sure you’ve all used the NFL Trade Value Chart before to come up with balanced trades involving same year draft picks.

We’ve had one on our site for a while, but we have improved upon its usability in the following ways:

1) For each selection, in addition to point value we have also listed the team selecting at that pick.  
2) A “highlighter” feature.  Enter "BF" and all the picks for Buffalo will display in yellow.

Try entering SL and you see St. Louis has two first-rounders. Good trade bait if they want to move up for, say, a RB.

When you have a stolid GM who believes in staying pat what does it really matter? Nix is an on the wall roto dialing telephone person in a world of iPhones. When there is a consensus that people want their current GM to have less authority to make decisions then you know you are in trouble. Going with people who have gotten you  nowhere is not a good business model. An old-school mind-set has its place in certain environments but it is not a productive approach for a GM in the NFL of today.

#5 NoSaint

NoSaint

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,357 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:09 AM

View PostAstrobot, on 17 February 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

Here is an improved Trade Chart:

http://www.drafttek....tradechart1.asp

I’m sure you’ve all used the NFL Trade Value Chart before to come up with balanced trades involving same year draft picks.

We’ve had one on our site for a while, but we have improved upon its usability in the following ways:

1)    For each selection, in addition to point value we have also listed the team selecting at that pick.  
2)    A “highlighter” feature.  Enter "BF" and all the picks for Buffalo will display in yellow.

Try entering SL and you see St. Louis has two first-rounders. Good trade bait if they want to move up for, say, a RB.

Why would they trade two firsts to get a top ten RB this year? What back are you even implying?

#6 mrags

mrags

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,551 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:24 AM

View PostNoSaint, on 17 February 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:



Why would they trade two firsts to get a top ten RB this year? What back are you even implying?
they wouldn't trade 2 firsts but it just means they have an extra 1st rounder and would be more inclined to give one of them up for a top notch RB. I'm not up to date on the Rams RB situation but I'm assuming that all this talk means that Steven Jackson is going to be a FA or released for $$ issues. If your the Rams and have sucked for about as king as the Bills have and you lose your ONLY star player, you pretty much need to make a splash to make up for that player.

It would be like the Bills losing CJ and not having Freddy in the roster.

#7 NoSaint

NoSaint

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,357 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:31 AM

View Postmrags, on 17 February 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

they wouldn't trade 2 firsts but it just means they have an extra 1st rounder and would be more inclined to give one of them up for a top notch RB. I'm not up to date on the Rams RB situation but I'm assuming that all this talk means that Steven Jackson is going to be a FA or released for $$ issues. If your the Rams and have sucked for about as king as the Bills have and you lose your ONLY star player, you pretty much need to make a splash to make up for that player.

It would be like the Bills losing CJ and not having Freddy in the roster.

I could swear that astro said trade the two firsts and we give up a midrounder in this scenario as recently as yesterday..... But I don't see what top back they are making this move for. No one has separated from the pack with the backs.

#8 KOKBILLS

KOKBILLS

    Master of My Domain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,263 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:41 AM

View PostJohnC, on 17 February 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

When you have a stolid GM who believes in staying pat what does it really matter? Nix is an on the wall roto dialing telephone person in a world of iPhones. When there is a consensus that people want their current GM to have less authority to make decisions then you know you are in trouble. Going with people who have gotten you  nowhere is not a good business model. An old-school mind-set has its place in certain environments but it is not a productive approach for a GM in the NFL of today.

It's kind of like the definition of insanity, is it not? ;)

#9 JPS

JPS

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,722 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:46 AM

View PostJohnC, on 17 February 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

When you have a stolid GM who believes in staying pat what does it really matter? Nix is an on the wall roto dialing telephone person in a world of iPhones. When there is a consensus that people want their current GM to have less authority to make decisions then you know you are in trouble. Going with people who have gotten you  nowhere is not a good business model. An old-school mind-set has its place in certain environments but it is not a productive approach for a GM in the NFL of today.
Yeah, my guess in the pick will be in about 9 seconds after the Bills are on the clock and we'll all been screaming NOOOOOOOO!!!!

#10 3rdand12

3rdand12

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,527 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:57 AM

View PostJPS, on 17 February 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

Yeah, my guess in the pick will be in about 9 seconds after the Bills are on the clock and we'll all been screaming NOOOOOOOO!!!!
I think we would all be surprised at Nix and his counters come draft day.
But keep in mind Doug Whaley is taking the reins after being Buddy's stable boy.
we might all be surprised this draft as i have been with recent releases and the timing of them with the "new " regime.

#11 mrags

mrags

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,551 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 12:20 PM

View PostNoSaint, on 17 February 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:



I could swear that astro said trade the two firsts and we give up a midrounder in this scenario as recently as yesterday..... But I don't see what top back they are making this move for. No one has separated from the pack with the backs.
i didn't give much stock into 2 first rounders for a first. That just doesn't happen in the same year. It might happen if your talking a first this year and then another next year.

As far as a top back that has separated himself from the pack. I don't follow much college so I really don't know, but I can easily say that if you lose a RB that has been pretty much the only bright spot on your team in the last decade, you better be ready to pull the plug and draft a stud RB early to show your fan base you are moving forward.

#12 Whitewalker Merriman

Whitewalker Merriman

    Professional Kool-Aid Drinker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,524 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 12:54 PM

I would be rather happy if we traded back with Saint Louis for their 16th and second round pick, since those seem to have roughly equivalent value. If anything, if we are planning on playing the waiting game to grab a QB in the 2nd round this gives us some maneuvering room to get a shot in on someone early.

Of course, does anyone think that SL has any reason to want to trade up?

#13 NoSaint

NoSaint

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,357 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 12:59 PM

View Postmrags, on 17 February 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

i didn't give much stock into 2 first rounders for a first. That just doesn't happen in the same year. It might happen if your talking a first this year and then another next year.

As far as a top back that has separated himself from the pack. I don't follow much college so I really don't know, but I can easily say that if you lose a RB that has been pretty much the only bright spot on your team in the last decade, you better be ready to pull the plug and draft a stud RB early to show your fan base you are moving forward.

A lot of mocks don't have a back going in the first round, yet alone top 15. They could stand put and it'd still be a big reach in the books of most, unless someone is lights out for the next month.

#14 JohnC

JohnC

    UDFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,537 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 02:04 PM

View PostKOKBILLS, on 17 February 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

It's kind of like the definition of insanity, is it not? ;)

What irks me the most about the prior Nix drafts is not that he didn't make deals to trade down and acquire more picks but that he didn't even consider it. He basically ran up to the podium when there was still time on the clock to listen to offers. This is the same bumbling GM who traded Lynch to Seattle for a fourth round pick and then it was learned that other teams offered more for him.

I realize that it isn't so easy to make downward trades to acquire more picks. But if the Bills have a qb that they are interested in then it would make sense to try to get their favored qb prospect at a lower point in the first round and then garner another high quallity pick to address another one of their many needs.

I like Tyler Wilson as a qb prospect a lot. Would he be a smart selection at the eight spot for us? Probably not. But a deal down to the 20s with added picks would make him or another favored prospect selection lower in the round a very reasonable approach to take.  Without a doubt this losing franchise is not known for its creativity. Compare Nix's inflexible approach to the Ravens who in Flacco's draft year were unwilling to take him high in the first round but were willing to deal back into the round to select him. How has that type of smart maneuvering approach worked out for them?

View PostJPS, on 17 February 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

Yeah, my guess in the pick will be in about 9 seconds after the Bills are on the clock and we'll all been screaming NOOOOOOOO!!!!

The challenge isn't making a good selection with our high first round pick. Any dork can do that. The bigger challenge is to put together a deal that will make your roster stronger than if you stood pat. If an attractive deal can't be made then so be it. At least explore opportunities instead of ignoring opportunities.

Edited by JohnC, 17 February 2013 - 01:57 PM.


#15 mrags

mrags

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,551 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 03:02 PM

View PostNoSaint, on 17 February 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:



A lot of mocks don't have a back going in the first round, yet alone top 15. They could stand put and it'd still be a big reach in the books of most, unless someone is lights out for the next month.
regardless what mocks say, if you lose a RB that has gained over 1,000 yards every season he's been in the league, and one of the only positive point on your team in a decade, you better replace him or be scolded. They will take whoever they think is the best RB in this years draft. The HC will make sure of that with his past teams RBs he's had in his career. Look for them to take either Lacy, Gillislee, or Ball. That's my personal opinion.

#16 NoSaint

NoSaint

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,357 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 03:14 PM

View Postmrags, on 17 February 2013 - 03:02 PM, said:

regardless what mocks say, if you lose a RB that has gained over 1,000 yards every season he's been in the league, and one of the only positive point on your team in a decade, you better replace him or be scolded. They will take whoever they think is the best RB in this years draft. The HC will make sure of that with his past teams RBs he's had in his career. Look for them to take either Lacy, Gillislee, or Ball. That's my personal opinion.

That's well and good but they won't have to trade up to the top ten to do that. In fact they might be able to trade back and still get the first off the board.

They also took one in the second round last year, and then took another late rounder that averaged nearly 5ypc on about 100 carries last year.

Context of that roster as well as this draft point towards them not trading with us to get a RB. Maybe a different position.

#17 Offsides Number 76

Offsides Number 76

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,901 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 07:13 PM

Astro, nice stuff, but it would be a little easier if three-letter abbreviations were used.  I had to wrap my head around JT rather than the NYJ I'm used to, "MM" still isn't apparent to me, etc.  Just a friendly suggestion.

#18 San Jose Bills Fan

San Jose Bills Fan

    San Jose Bills Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,764 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 07:40 PM

View PostOffsides Number 76, on 17 February 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

Astro, nice stuff, but it would be a little easier if three-letter abbreviations were used.  I had to wrap my head around JT rather than the NYJ I'm used to, "MM" still isn't apparent to me, etc.  Just a friendly suggestion.

And a good suggestion too.

#19 Astrobot

Astrobot

    TSW's Draft Droid

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,196 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 07:51 PM

View Postjaybee, on 17 February 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

No, I've not seen this till now.  What surprises me with it is how quickly the "values" drop.  For example, the Bills at #8 show a value less than half of the #1 pick.  I would have guessed a less precipitous drop off.

I see we don't have a 7th round pick this year.  Is that one we gave up for Tjax maybe ??

Neat !!

Thanks for the link.

jb
TJ Graham cost us a 7th.

View PostOffsides Number 76, on 17 February 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

Astro, nice stuff, but it would be a little easier if three-letter abbreviations were used.  I had to wrap my head around JT rather than the NYJ I'm used to, "MM" still isn't apparent to me, etc.  Just a friendly suggestion.
Great idea. I'll suggest it, and if I get a bonus, I'll claim it was my idea.

View PostWhitewalker Merriman, on 17 February 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

I would be rather happy if we traded back with Saint Louis for their 16th and second round pick, since those seem to have roughly equivalent value. If anything, if we are planning on playing the waiting game to grab a QB in the 2nd round this gives us some maneuvering room to get a shot in on someone early.

Of course, does anyone think that SL has any reason to want to trade up?
I understand they want a RB, WR, LB, Warmack, or Vaccaro. Staying put, I would think they would net two of those.

#20 simpleman

simpleman

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 708 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 07:57 PM

View PostAstrobot, on 17 February 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

TJ Graham cost us a 7th.
Now I'm confused. I thought we gave up the 7th last year for TJ, did we give up the 7th in 2012 and  the 7th 2013 for TJ?