How the Seahawks could trade down.
by aws on Apr 1, 2009 10:52 PM PDT
42 comments
With the signing of T.J. Houshmandzadeh and the likelihood of the top two offensive tackles being gone before the Hawks step up to the podium on draft day there really is not a player I am in love with at the fourth pick. John has convinced me that Stafford is a viable choice at four, but he is not a prospect that keeps me up at night thinking about him wearing blue and green. There are however, many players projected to go in the last first to early second who could be huge assets to the Seahawks, such as Duke Robinson, Knowshon Moreno, Patrick Chung, and Brian Robiskie. The lack of top end talent and the overall depth of this years draft has lead me to believe that trading down from the fourth overall pick is the best option for Seattle.
While we cannot know the likelihood of trading down, or another team’s interest in moving up, we can estimate the expected return for the fourth overall pick due to the adherence to the trade value chart (thanks to Nate Dogg for the link) by NFL GMs. I want to state, this is not a prediction of what the Hawks or any other team will do, it is simply a list of trade possibilities following the trade value chart. I did not include the options of trading for future draft picks or current players because their value far too difficult to predict.
The chart says that the fourth pick is worth 1800 points; I tried to undershoot 1800 on the return due to rise in rookie salaries.
My first thought was to start with the teams owning multiple first or second round picks to identify possible trade partners. Detroit and Philadelphia are the only teams with two first round picks. Miami, Cleveland, and the New York Giants have two second round picks, while New England has three.
Trade possibilities include:
Detroit’s 1.20, 2.1 and 3.1 total of 1,695 points.
Philadelphia’s 1.21, 1.28 and 3.21 total of 1,625 points.
New England’s 1.23, 2.2 and 2.26 total of 1,640 points.
Miami’s 1.25, 2.12, 2.24 and 3.23 total of 1,675 points.
New York Giants 1.29, 2.13, 2.28, 3.27 and 4.29 total of 1,569 points.
*I will return to Cleveland later.
Regardless of likelihood, according to the draft chart these are the five teams with the ability to move from the bottom of round one up to the fourth overall pick without including a player or future draft picks. I started this to get an idea how many teams in addition to Philadelphia could be possible trading partners with Seattle that would allow us to pick up multiple picks in the late first to early second range, once I dug into it I became curious about the more likely trade scenario of moving back only a few picks into the early to mid first round range.
The following is what is required for Seattle to trade down to picks five through twelve. The return in these trades is much closer to the 1800 points Seattle is giving up because the salaries jump is much less extreme when only moving a few picks.
Cleveland’s 1.5 and 4.4 total of 1,786 points.
Cincinnati’s 1.6 and 3.6 with Seattle sending the 5.1 along with the 1.4, total of 1,802.5 points
Oakland’s 1.7, 3.7 and 4.26 total of 1781 points
Jacksonville’s 1.8, 2.7 and 4.7 with Seattle sending the 3.4 along with the 1.4 total of 1,740 points.
Green Bay’s 1.9 and 2.9 with Seattle sending the 5.1 along with the 1.4 total of 1,802.5 points.
San Francisco’s 1.10 and 2.11 total of 1,770 points.
Buffalo’s 1.11, 2.10 and 5.11 total of 1,762.6 points.
Denver’s 1.12, 2.16 and 3.15 with Seattle sending the 5.1 along with the 1.4 total of 1,777.5 points.
Excluding the five teams I named earlier it is nearly impossible for Seattle to trade lower then 12 without including something other then 2009 draft picks. Washington at 13, New Orleans at 14 and San Diego at 16 do not have second round picks. The New York Jets at 17 do not have a third round pick. Houston could make the trade but would have to send Seattle their picks in the first four rounds. Chicago at 18 and all the teams drafting after them do not have enough total points in the entire draft to match the 1800 of the fourth overall pick.
These are all the possible trade partners for Seattle, I know we have thrown Philadelphia out there quite frequently but do any of the other teams make sense?
A place to bury strangers.
0 recs |
42 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Total and complete personal preference here...
I still like the Philly trade (especially if 3.21 is involved). I think the strength of this years draft is between the late first and mid 3rd. Any combo that delivers more picks here is a preferable situation.
It has already been stated that any thread containing mock drafting will be deleted so I will copy and paste a couple of your scenarios into the open thread for mock drafting.
Could it be defined as a mock draft?
I don’t see any mock draft with predictions for a certain player to be drafted at a certain pick or in any such scenario, just a number of different trades that would congregate based on a numbers chart, none of which are predicting an actual trade.
Weez the juice!!
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 1, 2009 11:45 PM PDT up reply actions
I know Philadelphia keeps been broaght up due to their two first-rounders
But are they even interested? If us and other teams seem to think that two low first rounders are better then one top five, why wouldn’t they also think the same way?
I personally don't think they'll be interested.
But if they’ve really locked onto Crabtree or Monroe, then I guess they could be.
They have a team with a lot of win now talent
And need a offensive tackle that can start right away.
I'll piggy back off this comment if I may...
…and also throw in that if it is philly making this move, #4 may be the only target that makes sense for them.
A. 1,2,3 are too expensive in terms of value chart
B. 5 isn’t a good enough shot at one of the tackles (assuming a scenario like stafford, smith, curry)
Unfortunately, trading out of the top-5 is rare
IIRC, it’s only happened 1-2 times the past decade. Now, obviously that doesn’t mean it CAN’T happen, but the odds are slim. The high price of the picks on the value chart + the large contracts they get just scare too many teams off. There’s usually movement between the teams clustered together, but it’s unlikely that a team trades from the middle or bottom third of the draft into the top.
Maybe if Stafford slips, we start to field offers, because other teams tend to get desperate and overpay for QB’s. Of course, that goes right back into the argument of why we should select Stafford ourselves while we have the chance.
The other possibility is if Curry slips. Then you could see stuff like Cincy wanting to leapfrog Cleveland to get him. Seattle could use that opportunity to slide back 1-2 picks. Then start fielding offered to do it again. Ultimately, if we do trade down, I think that’s how it will have to happen – a series of smaller deals that slide us down into the middle. And we’d probably have to be willing to take less than full value for the 4th to make it happen and entice other teams into the deal.
Totally impossible but fun to think about scenario.
Cinci wants Curry. We move back to 6 and get a 2nd rounder. San Fran wants Stafford/Sanchez. We move back to 10 and get second rounder. Houston wants Malcom Jenkins, we move back to 15 and pick up 2nd rounder.
With the 15th pick we get Michael Oher, and with our 4 2nd rounders, we get Chung, Laurinaitis, Duke, and Robiskie.
Shoot, just getting all those 2nd rounders is a conservative estimate, say we get a couple of 3rd or 4ths in there somewhere. We bundle something up and trade those for a 2nd rounder and get Alex Mack. 3 OL guys, but 3 that I really want.
I'd give a toe to make that happen.
Not a big one, definitely one of the little ones. Actually, I’d give someone else’s toes, I’d prefer to keep mine.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Apr 2, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
You want a toe? You want a toe?!?
I can get you a toe, believe me. There are ways, dude. You don’t want to know about it, but there are ways. Hell, I can get you a toe by 3 o’clock this afternoon. Fucking amateurs….
Alas, it is always darkest before the dawn, and there is now a new dawning for Washington sports. Believe it!!!
by whiskey chainsaw on Apr 5, 2009 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions
heck ya!
Probably the most randomly quotable movie to come out since caddyshack!
I mean, c’mon… a perfectly place lebowski quote due to a comment about giving a toe.
It’s just too perfect! ;)
Alas, it is always darkest before the dawn, and there is now a new dawning for Washington sports. Believe it!!!
by whiskey chainsaw on Apr 6, 2009 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions
If I'm not mistaken, Cincy's first and a later pick would be enough for equal value, not their second.
Same should theoretically hold for Houston.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 2, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions
You are correct. I was doing two things.
A) overvaluing the picks because it was just a foolish dream.
and
B) hoping that the teams would feel a greater sense of urgency to leapfrog other teams to get specific players.
I feel you, brother.
At first when it seemed like drafting Crabtree was a lock I had dreams of Oakland trading up with their first and second picks for him.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 2, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions
And I completely agree that we'd be much better off with a plethora of second round picks rather than an early first.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 2, 2009 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions
That scenario
is nice, but wouldn’t work if the team is targeting QB (Stafford/Sanchez). Otherwise, those 2nd-rounders in this draft are looking very good talent and depth-wise. .
I could be wrong here, but doesn't this assume...
…that the teams over the last decade have wanted to trade back and couldn’t? Maybe the lack of movement over the last decade is more a reflection of teams wanting to trade up INTO the top 5 not being able to do so, as opposed to teams IN the top 5 wanting to trade back and couldn’t.
Just a thought.
I'd rather trade our #4 for a 2nd this year and a 1st next year
Gives us additional 1st round pick next year so we can target the QB of the future in a better QB class, and gives us additional 2nd this year where, as has already been pointed out, the value in this draft lies. Maybe use 1 of those 2nds along with 3rd to trade back up into the bottom of the 1st for the player we really want (Nicks, Brown, Moreno, etc…) and use the remaining 2nd on Mack or Unger. Then go after Chung with 3rd, or burn 5th or 6th to package with 3rd to trade up into late 2nd to get him. If we wound up with Nicks or Brown, Unger and Chung this year, and two 1sts coming next year, I’d be googoogawgaw.
I just watched NFL Live on ESPN and the QB scramble seems to be heating up
I think this bodes well for Seattle’s potential to trade out of the #4 spot for teams that are desparate to land a QB this year.
I don't know, the QB scramble always seems to heat up.
But then sometimes the #2 QB for whatever reason seems to drop further than is warranted (ARod and Brady Quinn, I’m looking at you two). Which is weird, because in these two particular cases, I personally preferred the #2 QBs at the time.
How could you guarantee that 1st rounder next year
to be a top 10 pick? Also, while I would do the same thing, What if the Seahawks tanked and went 5-11 next year. That’s great that you have an extra first next year, but you (assuming you’re the GM) might not be the guy to make the pick. Job security is a bit of a conflict of interest when it comes to the team’s interest, but it has to be on every GM’s mind.
I'm perfectly OK with that.
I’m more excited about the 2nd round than I am about the 1st round this year, anyway.
Weez the juice!!
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 2, 2009 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions
I think maybe the Giants...
they only really need RB,WR,LB (not in that order) Crabtree should be there at four, outside chance that Curry is. They have two picks in the second and two in the third (only one can be traded other is comp.)
Now I don’t think it would be anything close to above but their high second and third and a second and fifth next year. They get an extra pick in the first don’t lose ability to pick in each round and Hawks get two picks added for two years.
I haven’t looked to close at next year but in this years draft I think two guys in the second and third round will be cheeper and better than a grossly overpaid guy at a position we don’t really desperately need at this time.
Agreed
It’s all about value (as far as the draft anyway). Consensus is that the top of the 1st round is actually a detriment to bad teams as they are forced to pay too much for a rookie. The real value is late 1st through early 3rd.
Just seems to me...
..that first rounders are hit or miss. Either they are great or considered a bust because of the amount invested. Second and third rounders either hit and make the staff look like genius’ (Lofa,Carlson,Mebane,etc.) or they are given time to develop (less money up front makes that possible) without the same kind of pressure placed on them.
This draft is extremely deep at alot of positions and with the way Ruskell has set up for it if they can somehow get a bunch of picks in two and three for the #4 they could set up for years without breaking the bank.
Could you imagine if they could get Donald Brown, Patrick Chung, Brian Robiskie, Tyrone McCenzie, and Antoine Caldwell. Between that and one of those T-shirts I suggested on the Cutler blog with the Russell Quick Grit Picture (forgot who posted the image but it is outstanding) my season would start as close to perfect as I dare dream.
The fact that
all the people with comments on this thread, are mostly all differerent, kinda has a lot to say about how the GMs think also. YOU don’t know who they think or rank the players and so you can’t make an intelligent decision. (and neither can I). But, I think the first thing you can do is get away from that board. GMs only use that as a guideline, I doubt very much if the points are 1855 – 1743, that a deal will fall thru. That just isn’t logical, What is logical is that the team trading down and the team trading up, both agree on who the players/numbers/picks will be involved and then proceed. I look at some of these mocks and trading down ideas and rarely do I find the same basic results. May be fun, but, it sure gets boring fast.
Now, what about Tory Holt? Why isn’t any team interested in his services? Does anyone know? To much $$$ is the only thing I can think of, but, I have seen or read nothing that says how much he should go for, or what he may be asking. Just a thot
Apparently, the Titans, Panthers, and Bears are all interested.
But teams are wary about signing a stopgap who might not be effective while also blocking younger players’ playing time.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 3, 2009 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Panthers would be a good fit ....
…with Steve Smith and Mushin Mohammid (sorry , I know I spelled that wrong) he can play the slot . I think the draft being so deep at WR and the fact that alot of the teams that need a WR need a #1 have really stalled teams out right now , till after the draft.
I suppose he could be asking alot but I haven’t seen anything about him going to meet with teams or teams talking with his agent or anything?
If I'm not mistaken, he met with the Titans yesterday and the meeting allegedly went well.
The Panthers would theoretically be a good fit until we realize Delhomme has an inability to throw to anyone other than Smith and, on occasion, Moose.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 3, 2009 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions
`
YOU don’t know who they think or rank the players and so you can’t make an intelligent decision. (and neither can I).
A friendly warning, but try to stay away from saying things like this. This is an appeal to authority and is against the rules of the commenting guidelines, which you can read here.
It's actually the exact opposite.
YOU don’t know who they think or rank the players and so you can’t make an intelligent decision. (and neither can I).
Is ad hominem: to imply that a claim is false because the asserter lacks authority or is otherwise objectionable in some way.
If it were an appeal to authority, BUSTINHEADS would be have been citing an authoritative source as proof of argument.
You're right, that's the one I was going after.
I still would stay away from using the above quote, however.
Absolutely!
They are both logical fallacies. You were on it. Just wanted to clear up the actual fallacy to add to the common knowledge of this blog (which is heads and shoulders above your average blog-site).
Ah.. i got your drift.
It really goes to show you how having a command of the language is so important in various aspects of life. Two intelligent people derived two diametrically opposed meanings from the same sentence.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
