St. Paul/Phoenix Trade

[Matt]

St. Paul sends:

1.2
4.3

Phoenix sends:

1.7
1.27
5.7
5.27
6.26
7.25

2022 1st
2022 2nd

Good working with you Strick. I'll probably regret for years not getting a QB but this team is a lot more than one piece away from winning. Good luck with the pick.

[Aston]

Great :(

[Guest]

Confirmed

i tried dealing up earlier but just couldnt come to an agreement,

damn draft chart you know i really REALLY hate that thing it makes no fricken sense cause pick value is realtive i mean if i put together enough picks then it doesnt matter what the quality of the picks are?


then the peices fell into place. Thanks matt for working with me and im glad things worked out better than i orginally planned. i overpaid a bit but i think im good espacially with tom skeen holding me up for 10 mil a year for 3 years for an extension

[nouvelle_vague]

if you're using the draft value chart, I HIGHLY recommend reading scorecasting

http://www.amazon.com/Scorecasting-H...7076153&sr=8-1

theres a good chapter in there about that chart on how its worthless/outdated and basically a scam created by Jimmy Johnson

[Guest]

if you're still using the draft value chart, I HIGHLY recommend reading scorecasting

http://www.amazon.com/Scorecasting-H...7076153&sr=8-1

theres a good chapter in there about that chart on how its worthless/outdated and basically a scam created by Jimmy Johnson

YES THE VOICE OF REASON!!!

ive hated that stupid draft chart from day one and one other deal i was workign on that owner held fast to the draft chart values needless to say negotiations didnt go well thanks NV

[BradZ]

Trade completed in-game (picks already swapped in utility by teams).

[Aston]

YES THE VOICE OF REASON!!!

ive hated that stupid draft chart from day one and one other deal i was workign on that owner held fast to the draft chart values needless to say negotiations didnt go well thanks NV

Uhhh, I thought what n_v meant was that the draft value chart undervalued picks.

[Guest]

theres a good chapter in there about that chart on how its worthless/outdated and basically a scam created by Jimmy Johnson

sorry when i see the word scam i think bad thoughts i still think its crap, because you cant put a value on future picks because we dont know who will be in the draft to wit.

NO teal will trade out of #1 this year because of andrew luck now if you had approached ANY bottom feeding team last year (2010) to trade for thier 2012 pick there is no way they woudl have dont it because of the chance of gettign andrew luck


but we have no way of knowing whos coming out

[nouvelle_vague]

Uhhh, I thought what n_v meant was that the draft value chart undervalued picks.

quoting from Scorecasting (emphasis mine)

"For a franchise willing to ignore convention and depart from the chart (or improve it), the payoff can be huge. A team that discovered that the chart was flawed - that it overvalued top draft picks - could trade its high picks for many more lower picks. It wouldnt be taking the sexy picks and exciting fans by drafting Heisman Trophy winners and standouts at the NFL combine, but as Massey and Thaler's research shows (EDIT - read the book), it would field better teams and win more games. If you look at the teams that did trade down in the draft or traded current picks for a greater number of future picks, the researchers showed that those teams improved their winning percentages significantly over the four years after each trade."

[Aston]

Ah. Yeah, oops, got it backwards.

I still think it is a good rule of thumb (the trade value chart). Going purely by its numbers, one thing it doesn't factor in is the advantage of quantity of picks as you get into trading one pick for 3 or 4. So that's something you have to consider as well. Usually in FOF what I have found though is that trading up often requires me to pay over chart value, sometimes a lot. The draft is just more of a sure thing in the game than it is in real life. So while the value chart overvalues for the NFL, I think it is much less of a problem in FOF. Particularly near the top of the draft.

[Guest]

ahhh the voice of reason yet again NV

i do agree that most times you draft in the top 5 say youll USUALLY get a stone cold lock stud but the chart undervalues picks in the 2nd-3rd rounds where many GOOD teams (steelers, pats) find a ton of starters and the same can be true of FOF astute drafters like jugghead (gino wodden 2.27) myself (monty lester 3.16 mo lyon 2.6) and julio (3 of his 5 starters on the oline are 3rd rounders and all 45/45 or higher)

but just as the article people are looking for the sexy picks and thus overvalue top picks. myself included (this year) i could have stayed at 1.7 got the guy i wanted AND another starter. added 2 50ish players and still had my 1st next year.

and as nutah said matt could have held me up for much more but i think he knew like i did that i shouldnt have traded but i opened my mouth before i took a GOOD look at the draft class

[Aston]

You could not have stayed at 1.7 and gotten Oglethorpe.

In my opinion, in FOF, be prepared to pay over value if you want to move up. Either that or be OK with not getting the guy you want. It works out fair in the end. This was a pretty even deal for both of you and I don't think you can say you overpaid...it is 1.2, after all. Even later in the draft, if you get the guy you want, it is worth it.

And don't you mean overvalues? Because that's what NV is saying.

[Guest]

oh yeah i know i wouldnt have gotten the 5 foot asassin but i would have gotten a decent QB or even a stud de at 1.7 like who LA got and a qb at 1.27