Who knows... look at what Houston did to the Cardinals. That's why you have to devalue the picks.
I don't know why you'd try to dispute this... it's actually easily verifiable. There's no need to debate it. Do the math and see for yourself. I'll help get the ball rolling.
Justin Fields trade:
NYG: 11 (1250)
Chicago: 20 (850), 164 (25.8),
Fut. 1st (340 for the 24th pick in the
2nd round),
Fut. 4th (27.8 for the 24th pick in the
5th round).
Total 1250 vs. 1243.6
Will Anderson Jr. trade:
Arizona: 3 (2200), 105 (84) - Total 2284
Houston: 12 (1200), 33 (580),
Fut. 1st (450 for the 13th pick in the
2nd round),
Fut. 3rd (68 for the 13th pick in the
4th round) - Total 2298
Total 2284 vs 2298
Same draft, Levis trade:
Houston: 33 (580), 81 (185) - Total 765
Tennessee: 41 (490), 72 (230),
Fut. 3rd (45 for the 27th pick of the
4th round) - Total 765
Total 765 vs. 765
This year trade:
Houston: 23 (760), 232 (1) - Total 761
Minnesota: 42 (480), 188 (16.2),
Fut. 2nd (265 for the 1st pick of the
3rd round) - Total 761.2
Total 761 vs. 761.2
Of the above, all cases show a decrease in value equivalent to somewhere in the next round. Houston was instantly criticized for not getting good value. You can see that they got the equivalent of the 1st pick in the 3rd and we know that the Vikings are better than that.
Also consider, this isn't rigid. It's a ballpark rule of thumb. Each GM is going to pour into it some of their own discretion, tolerance for risk, and predictions. Generally, the logic has to factor in the following:
- Present value is always more than future value. You can be fired tomorrow and you didn't get to take advantage of future assets... that's just a failure to save your job in that case. You're allowing someone else to bring future assets into their current production at your expense.
- You can't know how good a team will do. As I already pointed out, see Houston. If the Cardinals didn't get a whole round extra, they'd have been stuck with Houston's 27th pick and probably assumed it was a mid rounder at worst. So generally, you probably very conservatively estimate a team's future record. That said, they also should be aware of the floor as well and pick the team they expect to be the worst, depending on the offers.
- Competitive bids for a trade can drive the price up and change the math. No competition can possibly do the opposite (see the Bears trade for the rights to Jalen Carter).
- You can try to trade seconds for future 1sts, but the demand to get 2nd rounder is lower and you're unlikely to consistently find teams willing to do that. If the math works though, it's certainly fair game for two sides. Every year you kick a new can in the same way down the road to the next draft though. See the first bullet. If you get fired, you did so without maximizing your product the year you got fired cause you left an asset on the table.
- Further, really bad teams are considerably less likely to give up their 1st for a 2nd... which makes the math hard. You need to trade a late second for a likely late 1st. You're unlikely to see the Panthers give up a future 1st for pick 34 or so. For the late 2nds, you’re probably less likely to find a desperate playoff team that wants to give up a future 1st for a prospect around 65 on the board.
