Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Trade value

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Dallas Cowboys
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dirk Gently


Joined: 04 Jun 2008
Posts: 6238
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:00 am    Post subject: Trade value Reply with quote

Circumstantial evidence about which chart the cowboys are using based on their last two trades:

Claiborne trade -- conventional chart 1550 for 1600, Dallas gains by value of pick 122. Harvard chart 324.8 for 342.4, value difference less than any pick.

Frederick trade -- conventional chart, 900 for 820, Dallas loses by value of pick 107. Harvard chart 249.2 for 321.4, Dallas gains by value of pick 135.

I think it's likely that:
A) Dallas used the Harvard chart, which is why they refused to budge for the Rams and felt fine with the 9ers offer.
B) the decision to not draft Floyd was more about the value of the trade scenario than about dissatisfaction with Floyd.
C) Dallas wanted Claiborne and moved up to get him.
D) The front office had the trade back pre- arranged in case any of the top o-line prospects did not fall to them. When Floyd fell unexpectedly, the argument was about the value of the trade versus the player, not about the GM making some last minute override to undercut his coach and scouts. I believe this is evidenced by the trading partner: the 9ers made absolutely perfect trading partners pre draft for a variety of reasons and I said befor e the draft that they were our best partner for a trade back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dirk Gently


Joined: 04 Jun 2008
Posts: 6238
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trying this again, as my last post failed to generate much interest on TWO separate fora, so I'm thinking I must have done something wrong . I believe I have the correct sequence of events describing the controversial trade and why it was not, as has been consistently portrayed by Media and Realists alike, a case of Jerry swooping in and overruling his Coaches and scouts with a last second power play.

For evidence, I point to the Morris Claiborne trade. We know several things about this trade, Most notably, we know it was arranged in advance, dependent upon a certain order for the draft to fall. We know when it did happen, the Cowboys pulled the trigger on the trade, and, finally, we know that the Rams asked for more compensation and were refused. This shows two important things:

#1 - First Round Trades do NOT happen on impulse. They are planned contingencies, set up hours or even days in advance. Teams are simply not going to throw around valuable picks on a last minute sales pitch by a desperate GM on the phone.

#2 - The Dallas Cowboys are valuing picks based on the Harvard Trade Chart and not the Jimmy Johnson Chart. Dallas targeted Claiborne and traded up to get him. By the Jimmy Johnson chart, their arranged trade was 50 points in favor of Dallas (A late 4th rounder). When you are targeting a blue chip player, you don't skimp on your offer. Typically the team trading up loses value. The Rams (who certainly needed CB help as well) asked for more...and were stonewalled. Now, if teams were still using the Jimmy chart, the Rams could've, and should've, said "fine... we'll take Claiborne". But they didn't... they backed down.

I don't recall anyone crowing about how badly we ripped off the Rams to the tune of a (sound familiar?) 4th round pick, but the bigger point is that the Claiborne trade, by the Harvard Chart, is in favor of the Rams by almost the same pick. I believe this is significant evidence that NFL teams recognize the Harvard Trade Chart as legitimate, and, more specifically, it's the chart the Cowboys use to determine value.

So let's apply these things to 2013.

#1 -- the trade was a prearranged contingency. Given the interest in upgrading the o-line, it's safe to presume that Dallas was primarily interested in the top 5-6 o-linemen. I don't think there's any question that Dallas would've taken one of the top 5 had they been available at 18. Whether they would've taken Fluker or not is debatable, but academic, as Fluker went at #11 to San Diego. So it seems likely that the contingency trade was the opposite in this case-- that should the linemen go early, we trade back. The problem is that there was only one real trading partner looking for the right player with a decent number of picks-- San Francisco. The lack of likely partners points towards, again, a pre-arranged trade based on contingency.

#2 -- the trade was based on value for the Cowboys. The trade back was not about targeting a particular player or position, it was about gaining value. Because while many have talked extensively about how badly the cowboys were ripped off, they are using the wrong chart. Using the Harvard Value Chart (which values mid round picks more highly, seemingly especially appropriate for a draft in which the meat of the value is in the 2nd and 3rd rounds) Dallas was already ahead in value by a high 5th round pick (134 or 135).

So what was the argument about? Easy. The plan was in place, everything was going swimmingly and the 9ers were ready to play ball on a trade... and someone in the scouting department said "hey, this guy was #5 on our board, are we sure we don't want him?" And then the issue of Floyd's value as #5 guy versus the value of a trade netting us extra value becomes the debate. Doesn't it make sense, in those circumstances, if there's real conflict, to toss the question at the Defensive Coordinator? "Hey, Monte, we've got a juicy trade lined up, but we've got a stud DT sitting here in our laps, which do you think is better?"

"Welp," says Monte, "the guy has good measurables, but he seems kinda raw and lacks production. Plus, we like Rat and Hatcher, so he might only end up being a rotational player for us, anyhow."

Decision made.

And yet, we prefer the narrative of the wild-eyed owner swooping in and undermining everyone in the room to show 'em all who's boss on this team because that fits our preconceived notions better.

But be clear, there's absolutely no reason to believe the trade down was a mad, last minute decision and every reason to believe the sudden push to get Floyd was exactly that.... because the trade was in the works from at least pick 11 or, more likely, from days before; while Floyd being there at 18 was the last minute change. Enjoy your narrative if you want, and we may never know what the details of the conversation were. But I would bet large amounts of cash that I have the right of it, here. Particularly if your alternative hypothesis was that Jerry simply got a wild hair and called the 9ers against everyone's wishes.

And it was the right choice. There's no question we needed o-line help more than d-line help. There's no question that Frederick and Williams combined are worth more than Floyd. And there's no question that those are questions that matter when discussing this trade.

Calculations:

Claiborne Trade --
Johnson Chart: Cowboys 1550, Rams 1600 Dallas owes rams pick 122

Harvard Chart: Cowboys 424.8, Rams 342.4 Rams owe Dallas pick 118

Reid Trade --
Johnson Chart: Cowboys 900, 9ers 820 9ers owe Dallas pick 107

Harvard Chart: Cowboys 249.2, 9ers 321.4 Dallas owes 9ers pick 135
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WizardHawk


Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 10506
Location: Hawkeye State
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dirk Gently wrote:
And it was the right choice. There's no question we needed o-line help more than d-line help. There's no question that Frederick and Williams combined are worth more than Floyd. And there's no question that those are questions that matter when discussing this trade.


Getting the cart ahead of the horse. We hope Dallas got it right. Floyd turns out to be an All-Pro and Frederick/Williams end up as just adequate players or fizzle out then, obviously it was wrong.

As for the trade value, personally I think the TVC or any similar chart have been phased out for the most part. Especially when the rookie cap came into play. Actually do we really even know how much they ever came into play in NFL front offices? Seems more like something for the fans and media to use to drum up conversation.

My feeling trade value is all relative and nothing more than a given team's perspective on how they value picks. No charts. No specific number value attached to picks. Honestly, can't picture Johnson's chart/any chart being anything more than a rough estimate. It's definitely not some universal tool used by all NFL teams, right? Every FO has their own opinion/philosophy.

Look at the opinions just here in the forum. I didn't hate the Claiborne trade, preferred the Jags offer, simply based on 2 top 40 players > than one top 10 player, imo. Some people were OK, with the value received from the #18 pick. Personally I think Dallas should have gotten another pick (4th rder preferably, 5th rder would have been ok). Dallas didn't.

Moving away from Dallas bias, let's look at the Skins/Rams trade from two yrs ago. Using any chart, Washington got fleeced. They viewed Griffin as a must have and threw everything but the kitchen sink to STL. to get him. Not a move I'd ever make, but they deemed it fit and pulled the trigger.

It's all about perspective.
_________________

Ace5 wrote:
OH GOD ITS ALL OVER THE WALLS.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dirk Gently


Joined: 04 Jun 2008
Posts: 6238
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WizardHawk wrote:
Dirk Gently wrote:
And it was the right choice. There's no question we needed o-line help more than d-line help. There's no question that Frederick and Williams combined are worth more than Floyd. And there's no question that those are questions that matter when discussing this trade.


Getting the cart ahead of the horse. We hope Dallas got it right. Floyd turns out to be an All-Pro and Frederick/Williams end up as just adequate players or fizzle out then, obviously it was wrong.


Agreed that it's all potential at this point.... we really don't know and won't for several years. Remember when everyone said Merriman was so much better than Ware after one year ?

BUT

We have guys who can take snaps for and eventually replace Ratliff (and/or) Hatcher on the roster. Not that we should settle for them, but there aren't actual holes there. We didn't have guys that can anchor the middle of the o-line and we didn't have anyone (pending Coale's health and possible development) to take over the deep outside threat from Miles Austin when his hammies act up and, possibly more importantly, when he starts costing $10mil+ a year.

The potential to address those two situations is more valuable than the potential to address Ratliff's (or Hatcher's) replacement.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Justin Hoover82


Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Posts: 2530
Location: Ft.Worth Texas
PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't care what anybody or any chart says. We should have got at least a little more than we did. At least their 31st pick of the 2nd rd would have been better. I mean we dropped from 18 all the way to 31. Look what the pats got when they dropped down. They got 4 picks we only got 1. Still though, You do have to look at it as Frederick and T.Williams vs just S.Floyd. Crossing my Fingers Floyd is not the next W.Sapp!
_________________
AMERICA'S TEAM and 5x SB CHAMPIONS = DALLAS COWBOYS!!!!!

Joe_is_the_best on the sig!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dirk Gently


Joined: 04 Jun 2008
Posts: 6238
PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Justin Hoover82 wrote:
I mean we dropped from 18 all the way to 31
13 spots in the back of the first round of a draft that was long on 2nd and 3rd rounders and notoriously short on first round talent.

That's a relatively insignificant movement, further evidenced by the fact that we managed to land 3 of our top 25 picks.

Quote:
Look what the pats got when they dropped down. They got 4 picks we only got 1.
The pats moved down from 29 to 52... that's almost twice as far as we did. In return they got a late 3rd, a late 4th and a 7th. In fact, by the old chart, the Pats lost value on their trade to the tune of a late 5th. It's only a huge win for the Pats if you look at the new Chart.

Looks to me like the Pats used the new chart and Vikes used the old one, because they balked at trading for 18 and, had they offered what they offered for 29, Dallas would've unquestionably taken it. But that might have backfired for us, if (as some have suggested) the Titans took Frederick in the second round. We'd've needed to trade back up ahead of them to be sure to get him (and I think we would've worked hard to do so).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Dallas Cowboys All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group