Poles Rejected The Haul! . . .

[DefNextYear]

No, I wouldn’t trade future picks to move up. I wouldn’t trade a first this year for a first next year. I would trade a first this year for 2 firsts next year.

And everything you said can be applied to you as well.

Well, not many people are sitting on two firsts next year, so you're limiting options. Theoretically, it can happen though and the fact that you can't see why is a problem. Another problem is you think people just randomly offer a trade without an objective. If there comes a point in the draft where the right player is available at the right price, a team may do that kind of trade. But it takes the right player being available and a team having 2 firsts available. You'll probably never find that cause teams don't want to kick all assets into the future. You're more likely to see a 2nd and a future 1st in that case... so your scenario is fairly unlikely.

As for me, nothing I said applies to me. I showed you evidence that teams operate this way. You can do the exercise yourself and prove otherwise... or not do it. I don't care that you don't see it. Ultimately, all you've done is base your stance on nothing besides what you feel would be a good idea. I'm showing you actual trades that disprove your opinion being the actual way teams operate. You're taking no consideration for present vs. future value. It's already been presented to you in this thread in financial terms, but here we are... discussing basic fundamental concepts that are knowns and you believe are wrong.

 

[alswank87]

Well, not many people are sitting on two firsts next year, so you're limiting options. Theoretically, it can happen though and the fact that you can't see why is a problem. Another problem is you think people just randomly offer a trade without an objective. If there comes a point in the draft where the right player is available at the right price, a team may do that kind of trade. But it takes the right player being available and a team having 2 firsts available. You'll probably never find that cause teams don't want to kick all assets into the future. You're more likely to see a 2nd and a future 1st in that case... so your scenario is fairly unlikely.

As for me, nothing I said applies to me. I showed you evidence that teams operate this way. You can do the exercise yourself and prove otherwise... or not do it. I don't care that you don't see it. Ultimately, all you've done is base your stance on nothing besides what you feel would be a good idea. I'm showing you actual trades that disprove your opinion being the actual way teams operate. You're taking no consideration for present vs. future value. It's already been presented to you in this thread in financial terms, but here we are... discussing basic fundamental concepts that are knowns and you believe are wrong.

I’m so sick of talking about this. I was giving a metaphor. I understand not many teams have 2 1sts. I would make trades for more future picks than present picks.

Eh, Nvm. Talking to some of the people on here is like slamming your head into the wall, only more of a headache.

 

[DefNextYear]

I’m so sick of talking about this. I was giving a metaphor. I understand not many teams have 2 1sts. I would make trades for more future picks than present picks.

Eh, Nvm. Talking to some of the people on here is like slamming your head into the wall, only more of a headache.

That was a metaphor?

 

[Myk]

It’d be interesting to see what those teams end up with in this years draft. Looking back at the only trade that has been completed so far (Fields) it looks like the giants royally screwed up the draft picks as they only got Kadarius Toney, Evan Neal, Aaron Robinson and Daniel Bellinger. Had the Giants drafted Drake London and Cristian Darrisaw instead of Toney and Neal, then they would’ve gotten the edge in that trade. Neal and Toney look like trash selections, which is the risk you run in trades like this. Fields wasn’t the answer to anything but bears stop gap QB either. Other than that, your value chart means nothing to me. I know it might be how nfl GMs evaluate draft trades in the moment, but it doesn’t really give you the true value of each pick.

I’m so sick of talking about this. I was giving a metaphor. I understand not many teams have 2 1sts. I would make trades for more future picks than present picks.

Eh, Nvm. Talking to some of the people on here is like slamming your head into the wall, only more of a headache.

Slamming a head into a wall would be talking to you. Or even reading someone talking to you.
The value charts are real and they are applied.
A next year's pick is worth half the middle range of that round. An extremely sucky team could say they historically finish poorly and that could make their future pick more desirable but it's still only worth half the mid range of the round.
A player like Williams could make people over pay to move up for him for various reasons but the value is still what it is. Any over pay is not going to be huge.

This is not up for your rationalizations to satisfy your bias or because of your ignorance.

Only one trade has been completed??? And then you list the one that isn't completed? Fields is a conditional trade.
Poles traded away plenty of 2023 draft picks to TRADE for players that aren't conditional trades.

 

[TheWinman]

1) that's fake 2) the haul is Caleb.

 

[BBBF]

BHVWGHC

Coined in year 1 when it was obvious he was a fraud.

I'm ahead of you brainless meatballs when it comes to analyzing and predicting outcomes for this organization......just like with RB1

@HeHateMe @Chief Walking Stick

 

[Bearly]

ffs. The concept is called present value. The present value of an asset like money, is worth more in your hand now than it is in the future. Trading your second for a first next year is basically a 2nd for 2nd, because you don't get the benefit of using the resource this whole year. Too many people around here want to win at the draft. quantity over quality and continually hoarding future picks and not using your resources are sure ways to keep losing in this league.

Are there examples of team trading away next years 1st for a current 2nd and if so what was the pick differential? I'd wager blind that it was nowhere near a full round and likely less than 1/2 a round.

 

[Bearly]

So essentially 2 2nds. Would have been an awful trade.

2 2nds plus the #2 pick. Imagined scenario but that's the value. From looking at years of these, the devaluation is also not a full round but most of one.

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

That was a metaphor?

A very bad attempt at one imo

 

[HeHateMe]

A very bad attempt at one imo

Usually when you have to tell someone explicitly that it's a metaphor, it is not a good one.

@Chief Walking Stick