Trade Scenario, What if the top QB remains at #5? Options

[kcfdx]

One thing that is always fun to speculate about is potential draft day trades. It is difficult to trade down from the top five as we are well aware from our past few drafts. However, if the top QB is still on the board when we are on the clock at #5, we could have one of those rare opportunities.

Both Seattle and San Fran could use a top flight QB. Pete Carroll will be looking for his QB of the future to put his stamp on his new job in Seattle. San Fran is also searching for someone who can finally take control and keep it at the QB position. Both have two selections in the 1st round. Seattle picks right behind us at #6, and later at #14. San Fran has the #13 and #17 picks.

It wouldn't make much sense for Seattle to trade with us, since they could just wait knowing we aren't in the market for a QB. San Fran on the other hand stands to help themselves and hurt a divisional opponent by jumping in front of the Seahawks to select a QB. In addition, they have the proper ammunition to pull off the trade.

In the scenario I'm envisioning, this would be the breakdown with draft pick valuations.

We send #5 to SF = 1,700 pts

We get #13 & SF's 2nd round pick at #49 = 1,150 + 410 = 1,560


Some might want to find some later round picks to even up the point scores, but in reality that is pretty good value to trade out of the high priced top 5 which tends to be over valued by these charts.

Another interesting aspect to this scenario is that we would then have back to back picks at #49 (from SF) & #50 (from ATL). We could use these picks to add 4 top 50 talents from a deep draft class. Or we could package a couple 2nd rounders to get back into the middle of the 1st round, which could be the ideal place to pick up one of the top NT prospects.

No matter how we chose to spend the picks, this trade would put us in a very advantageous position from a value and flexibility standpoint.

[Buck]

One thing that is always fun to speculate about is potential draft day trades. It is difficult to trade down from the top five as we are well aware from our past few drafts. However, if the top QB is still on the board when we are on the clock at #5, we could have one of those rare opportunities.

Both Seattle and San Fran could use a top flight QB. Pete Carroll will be looking for his QB of the future to put his stamp on his new job in Seattle. San Fran is also searching for someone who can finally take control and keep it at the QB position. Both have two selections in the 1st round. Seattle picks right behind us at #6, and later at #14. San Fran has the #13 and #17 picks.

It wouldn't make much sense for Seattle to trade with us, since they could just wait knowing we aren't in the market for a QB. San Fran on the other hand stands to help themselves and hurt a divisional opponent by jumping in front of the Seahawks to select a QB. In addition, they have the proper ammunition to pull off the trade.

In the scenario I'm envisioning, this would be the breakdown with draft pick valuations.

We send #5 to SF = 1,700 pts

We get #13 & SF's 2nd round pick at #49 = 1,150 + 410 = 1,560
Some might want to find some later round picks to even up the point scores, but in reality that is pretty good value to trade out of the high priced top 5 which tends to be over valued by these charts.

Another interesting aspect to this scenario is that we would then have back to back picks at #49 (from SF) & #50 (from ATL). We could use these picks to add 4 top 50 talents from a deep draft class. Or we could package a couple 2nd rounders to get back into the middle of the 1st round, which could be the ideal place to pick up one of the top NT prospects.

No matter how we chose to spend the picks, this trade would put us in a very advantageous position from a value and flexibility standpoint.

You know I love trade-down scenarios. It probably borders on an unhealthy fascination. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/redsmilewinkgrin.gif)

Not a bad idea. You're also right that it is a pretty equitable trade - trying to get those last few points is pretty, well, pointless (no pun intended). SF has been really noncommital over the last couple of seasons on where they stand on their QB situation, but they don't appear to be ready to abandon Alex Smith, so I don't know how motivated they are to part with their picks to move up. They do have the ammo, though, and they have few enough glaring needs that they might go for it.

This post has been edited by Buck: Jan 28 10, 04:57 PM

[kcfdx]

How about this alternate that hinges on the top QB being available?


We give Buffalo #5 = 1700

Buffalo gives us #9 & their 3rd rounder at #72 = 1,350 + 230 = 1,580.


I think I actually like that one better.

[Keygans]

How about this alternate that hinges on the top QB being available?
We give Buffalo #5 = 1700

Buffalo gives us #9 & their 3rd rounder at #72 = 1,350 + 230 = 1,580.
I think I actually like that one better.

I was talking about the exact situation you described to my buddy yesterday. in that scenario we draft either McClain, or Bryant and run to the bank with the extra 2nd or 3rd round pick. If possible we get their 2nd and give them a 3rd in exchange... i think that makes the numbers closer, but I am still all for it!

(Unfortunately the probabity of this happening is slightly greater than 0).

[Mongo]

It is going to be hard to get extra 2nd and 3rd round picks this year since the draft is so very deep. A lot of prognosticators are saying that there will be teams picking around #40 that will get first round value in talent. I know we really wanted the Tony G second rounder last year, but this is an excellent to have that pick.

One way to make trades work this year is to offer a pick for next year's draft, but you would have to bump the round up by one to equate the value. The rule of thumb is that you drop 1 round in value for every year in the future that you trade forward. In essence we got a third round pick for Tony G at the time of the trade, but in reality it may turn out to be the talent of a high second in this year's draft pool.

In the trade scenario suggested here Buffalo would probably be very hesitant to give up a second or third rounder this year - even if we sweetened the pot, but they might go for giving up #9, a fifth round pick, and a second rounder for next year. BTW this is exactly the way that the Patriots under Pioli did business.

[kcfdx]

No matter how you slice it, it's contingent on them wanting #5 overall. I don't see them wanting to move up unless it's for a QB. A lot of people are looking at Buffalo being a good fit for Vick now that Gailey is in charge, because of his work with Thigpen and Kordell Stewart previously. That will be a situation to keep an eye on.

[TCF]

I don't think Buffalo nor the Niners bite on it. Alex Smith looked pretty good when he got the chance to start again.

[kcfdx]

You're probably right about SF. The latest rumors have them getting Alex Smith some protection in the first round.

Cleveland might be worth keeping an eye on also. It depends on what they decide to do with Anderson and Quinn. If they end up trading one or both, it could indicate that they might be looking to draft a new QB of the future. They wouldn't have to give up too much just to slide up two spots. Also, they already have an extra 3rd round pick, and could pick up more with trading away DA, or BQ.

[TCF]

i argued the fact we should have gone after Anderson a long time ago.. i think he would have done quite nicely before he became a brownie.

[kcfdx]

Anderson is gone in Cleveland, and it's looking like a very strong possibility that Quinn will be following him out of town. Despite the fact that Holmgren picked up his former back up, Seneca Wallace, out of Seattle, he probably will be looking for a QB of the future in the draft. If one of the top two QBs makes it to our pick, we could be hearing from Cleveland. It wouldn't take more than a 3rd round pick to move up to our spot. Another 3rd would be nice to have, and sliding two spots may not make much difference on who we draft depending on the options available.