PDA

View Full Version : Trading down from #2 - What would it take?


mkporter
04-26-2011, 04:20 PM
There is a lot of support here for the Broncos to trade back from the #2 pick to get additional picks. I am definitely in this camp. That said, how many would be willing to accept the following?

#2 (2600) for Arizona's #5 (1700) and #38 (520).

It doesn't give us full "value" according to the magical chart, but it seems to me that it would be worth taking less than full chart value here to facilitate a deal. Thoughts?

Dr. Broncenstein
04-26-2011, 04:26 PM
380 points is a mid second round pick. We would be getting screwed.

ZONA
04-26-2011, 04:26 PM
I think the Broncos would jump at this deal. But it won't happen. Mr. Bidwell is an owner that doesn't like to spend. He tends to be on the cheap side. He's let many quality FA's walk in the past and I doubt he would be willing to move up just 3 spots. There's nobody there they prefer. There is no great QB sitting there and that would be the only reason for them to move up. Whoever is going to be left there at #5, they could easily use and would no doubt be a starter next year.

misturanderson
04-26-2011, 04:27 PM
One of Dareus, Peterson and Miller would almost certainly still be there and we would get an extra 2nd which we could either get another player with or use to trade back into the 1st round. Seems like a win-win.

I'd think that they could get at least a 4th and a future pick in addition though.

Old Dude
04-26-2011, 04:28 PM
If the top pick was a QB, then I might very well make the deal - - reason being that one of the following four would necessarily be available at #5: Peterson, Dareus, Von Miller or Fairley. (And maybe even two of them.) Any one of these guys would be a great addition.

But I don't think it's gonna happen.

mkporter
04-26-2011, 04:29 PM
380 points is a mid second round pick. We would be getting screwed.

That's part of the question, really. Would you rather have #2, or #5 and #38? The trade chart itself is somewhat arbitrary. I know a lot of teams use it as a guideline, but what is the real underlying value of the picks? I would make the case that we're a better team dropping to #5 and picking up another high 2nd rounder, and isn't that what we're after? If you couldn't get a better deal, would you stay with #2?

Hercules Rockefeller
04-26-2011, 04:30 PM
Nope.

There's going to be a rookie wage scale when these guys sign their contracts, so I won't buy any cost saving claims that some may make.

I still think at times people don't grasp that this is the 2nd overall. At worst, Denver will have the #2 player on their entire board there for them to pick. The Broncos haven't been in a position like this in almost 20 years, this is a chance to draft an elite talent. You don't just give away the pick, which is what they're doing if they receive only a 2nd to move down.

I'd rather them pick their guy, then trade to #5 and take who other teams don't select out of Dareus, Peterson, and Miller (that's provided Newton goes 1st).

If Arizona is moving up for Gabbert, it means they know he won't make it to #5. That means there will be other bidders or they're trying to jump someone. That's a weak payment for them to move up.

Hercules Rockefeller
04-26-2011, 04:31 PM
That's part of the question, really. Would you rather have #2, or #5 and #38? The trade chart itself is somewhat arbitrary. I know a lot of teams use it as a guideline, but what is the real underlying value of the picks? I would make the case that we're a better team dropping to #5 and picking up another high 2nd rounder, and isn't that what we're after? If you couldn't get a better deal, would you stay with #2?

The trade chart is arbitrary, but that doesn't change that just a 2nd to move up 3 spots in the Top 5 is a terrible deal.

ZONA
04-26-2011, 04:41 PM
Nope.

There's going to be a rookie wage scale when these guys sign their contracts, so I won't buy any cost saving claims that some may make.

I still think at times people don't grasp that this is the 2nd overall. At worst, Denver will have the #2 player on their entire board there for them to pick. The Broncos haven't been in a position like this in almost 20 years, this is a chance to draft an elite talent. You don't just give away the pick, which is what they're doing if they receive only a 2nd to move down.

I'd rather them pick their guy, then trade to #5 and take who other teams don't select out of Dareus, Peterson, and Miller (that's provided Newton goes 1st).

If Arizona is moving up for Gabbert, it means they know he won't make it to #5. That means there will be other bidders or they're trying to jump someone. That's a weak payment for them to move up.

Move up to get Gabbert? I'm going to say NOT. If there at #5 they might pull the trigger. That's a huge risk, much more so then if somebody like Miller or Peterson was there. I think those guys project much better and the risk of them not panning out is much less the Gabbert being an elite QB. I think the Cards would rather have a Miller or Peterson or Dareus and then maybe sign an Orton or somebody. I think most scouts expect about the same type of production from Gabbert as you would get with an Orton or somebody similar. These QB's in this draft are not projected to be elite in anyway. Moving up to get one near the top of the 1st doesn't seem like it would make a ton of sense. Sure maybe the dollars wont be a big deal with a new scale but the fact you would be missing out on a great player vs getting a average QB is what I'm talking about.

oubronco
04-26-2011, 04:42 PM
It will take more than that for Elway to jump IMO

mkporter
04-26-2011, 04:44 PM
It will take more than that for Elway to jump IMO

Maybe so, but would you do it?

oubronco
04-26-2011, 05:11 PM
Maybe so, but would you do it?

No

LonghornBronco
04-26-2011, 05:20 PM
eehhh... No, I think if the cards make this deal it's to get Miller and it's one less defender to pick from at 5.

HAT
04-26-2011, 05:36 PM
That's part of the question, really. Would you rather have #2, or #5 and #38? The trade chart itself is somewhat arbitrary. I know a lot of teams use it as a guideline, but what is the real underlying value of the picks? I would make the case that we're a better team dropping to #5 and picking up another high 2nd rounder, and isn't that what we're after? If you couldn't get a better deal, would you stay with #2?

Exactly......For example:

If Denver traded #2 for #5 & #38, they'd be under compensated (-380) according to the chart.

If Denver then traded #46 & #67 to say New England's #28....They'd be over paying (+35) according to the chart.

But who in their right mind would not want to go from 4 picks in the first 67 to 4 picks in the top 38? ???

#5, #28, #36 & #38 is FAR greater than #2, #36, #46 & #67 yet technically, Denver lost chart value in both trades.


PS.....I'd actually be all for that second trade since Chicago (29) , NYJ (30) and GB (32) could all be looking DT there.

Drek
04-26-2011, 07:28 PM
Buffalo wanting Gabbert is the only way I'd move back without a future 1st being thrown in. I guess maybe Cincy if they give their second, 4th, and 2nd next year. But AZ and beyond you better start with your 2012 1st.

broncosteven
04-26-2011, 08:25 PM
There is a lot of support here for the Broncos to trade back from the #2 pick to get additional picks. I am definitely in this camp. That said, how many would be willing to accept the following?

#2 (2600) for Arizona's #5 (1700) and #38 (520).

It doesn't give us full "value" according to the magical chart, but it seems to me that it would be worth taking less than full chart value here to facilitate a deal. Thoughts?

I like the idea of moving down 3 spots as long as they feel that the top 4 picks would be Offensive I think having #38 which is high in the 2nd round gives us ammo to move back up into the late 1st if a targeted valued player is still there or keep it to trade back even further and stock pile 3rd and 4th round picks where DL depth is traditionally aquired.

I am hoping we can move down while staying in the top 10 and grabbing 3 - 2nd round picks and getting a top D prospect and the best TE in the draft while still getting DT depth in the mid rounds.

The Moops
04-26-2011, 08:25 PM
Should get a 2nd and a 3rd for that . . . at least

FireFly
04-26-2011, 08:45 PM
I'd like more... but if that's all we could get I'd take it.

We's still get one of the top players in the draft and would have a chance to add more talent to our roster in the 2nd

BroncoMan4ever
04-26-2011, 10:50 PM
There is a lot of support here for the Broncos to trade back from the #2 pick to get additional picks. I am definitely in this camp. That said, how many would be willing to accept the following?

#2 (2600) for Arizona's #5 (1700) and #38 (520).

It doesn't give us full "value" according to the magical chart, but it seems to me that it would be worth taking less than full chart value here to facilitate a deal. Thoughts?

i have to say #2 for #5, #38 and next year's 1st from Arizona.

unless Arizona throws in another 2nd rounder, we are getting raped in that deal

HAT
04-26-2011, 11:00 PM
i have to say #2 for #5, #38 and next year's 1st from Arizona.

unless Arizona throws in another 2nd rounder, we are getting raped in that deal

So what? Would it change your mind if having three 2nd rounders allowed Denver to trade back into the first? Take that hypothetical NE trade I laid out in post #14. NE is rumored to be shopping it & Denver would be overpaying slightly so it's plausible.

Essentially you'd be moving up.....

From 67 to 38 (29 spots)
From 46 to 36 (10 spots)
From 36 to 28 (8 spots)

Simply for moving down three spots and remaining in the top 5 overall.. Are you saying you wouldn't go for that simply because it doesn't match 'the chart'? That's crazy talk.

Anyone who voted no in this poll, feel free to chime in. ???

TheReverend
04-26-2011, 11:15 PM
In the situation that Cam goes #1 and there's a gentleman's agreement that AZ is taking a QB OR Miller, absolutely.

Buffalo will go after Dareus. Cinci has 2 great corners so should pounce on Green and we get Peterson and with the extra 2nd rounder can package to jump back into the first and assure we land Liuget, while STILL getting a Marvin Austin/Paea.

R8R H8R
04-26-2011, 11:54 PM
Exactly......For example:

If Denver traded #2 for #5 & #38, they'd be under compensated (-380) according to the chart.

If Denver then traded #46 & #67 to say New England's #28....They'd be over paying (+35) according to the chart.

But who in their right mind would not want to go from 4 picks in the first 67 to 4 picks in the top 38? ???

#5, #28, #36 & #38 is FAR greater than #2, #36, #46 & #67 yet technically, Denver lost chart value in both trades.


PS.....I'd actually be all for that second trade since Chicago (29) , NYJ (30) and GB (32) could all be looking DT there.

I'd be all over that scenario. We might even get AZ to throw in a 5th also just to help even out the imbalance.

Assuming Cam goes to Carolina, Gabbert to AZ, Dareus or Miller to Buffalo, & Green to Cincy. That would leave Peterson or maybe Miller to Denver. I could live with this. We could use all the extra picks to really fill holes all over.

BroncoMan4ever
04-27-2011, 12:19 AM
So what? Would it change your mind if having three 2nd rounders allowed Denver to trade back into the first? Take that hypothetical NE trade I laid out in post #14. NE is rumored to be shopping it & Denver would be overpaying slightly so it's plausible.

Essentially you'd be moving up.....

From 67 to 38 (29 spots)
From 46 to 36 (10 spots)
From 36 to 28 (8 spots)

Simply for moving down three spots and remaining in the top 5 overall.. Are you saying you wouldn't go for that simply because it doesn't match 'the chart'? That's crazy talk.

Anyone who voted no in this poll, feel free to chime in. ???

So?

are you kidding? so what if we get raped in a deal?

doesn't match the value isn't a big deal when the value is at the level of a 6th or 7th round pick, but 380 points in value is a 2nd round pick. i don't care if the team can turn around after a bad deal and make positive moves, they would literally be getting fleeced in that trade. a trade like that is near the equivalent of the rapings Shanahan used to give the Redskins

i am all for acquiring more 2nd round and 3rd round picks, but not at the risk of losing a **** ton of value.

the only way your proposed deal should happen is if we can also get at least an additional 2nd rounder in 2012 or preferably a 2012 1st as well.

sure the hypothetical of turning around and trading with NE sounds great on a website, but in reality a deal would never come that easily. not to mention, you don't think Belichick would look at the previous deal and see that Arizona completely boned us, and that he will settle for a near even trade when he sees our triumvirate will bend a whole hell of a lot on the return in trade value?

belichick is a great negotiator. if he sees that Elway, Xanders and Fox, lost 380 points worth of value to the Cardinals, there is no way in hell he accepts a fair deal with Denver, he will be looking to take advantage, and if Elway FOx and Xanders were dumb enough to lose that much value with Arizona, you can be damn near positive Belichick will get the better end of a deal on us as well.

colonelbeef
04-27-2011, 01:45 AM
absolutely, the 2nd and 3rd are where you build your team.

The Joker
04-27-2011, 04:24 AM
It all really depends on how they've graded Peterson, Miller, Dareus and Fairley.

If they have one of them graded significantly higher than the others, you take him at #2 and don't look back unless someone offers something absolutely massive to move up.

However if they feel those four aren't seperated by much then you do that move in a heartbeat and pick up one of those players and an additional early 2nd round pick. You could probably squeeze a 2012 Day 2 pick out of them too without much problem.

We have to be careful not to move down too far though. Any further than #7 would be too far IMO. If we can trade down with either of them we'll still be able to land one of the big 4 defensive prospects and stockpile some nice picks. (I'm assuming the only way San Fran moves up is for Gabbert.)

UberBroncoMan
04-27-2011, 04:48 AM
In a heartbeat. That's not a shabby 2nd round pick either. It's near the top. We'd be guaranteed a top defensive prospect at #5 too.

Maybe they'd throw in a 4th as well :P.

mkporter
04-27-2011, 08:51 AM
So?

are you kidding? so what if we get raped in a deal?

doesn't match the value isn't a big deal when the value is at the level of a 6th or 7th round pick, but 380 points in value is a 2nd round pick. i don't care if the team can turn around after a bad deal and make positive moves, they would literally be getting fleeced in that trade. a trade like that is near the equivalent of the rapings Shanahan used to give the Redskins

i am all for acquiring more 2nd round and 3rd round picks, but not at the risk of losing a **** ton of value.

the only way your proposed deal should happen is if we can also get at least an additional 2nd rounder in 2012 or preferably a 2012 1st as well.

sure the hypothetical of turning around and trading with NE sounds great on a website, but in reality a deal would never come that easily. not to mention, you don't think Belichick would look at the previous deal and see that Arizona completely boned us, and that he will settle for a near even trade when he sees our triumvirate will bend a whole hell of a lot on the return in trade value?

belichick is a great negotiator. if he sees that Elway, Xanders and Fox, lost 380 points worth of value to the Cardinals, there is no way in hell he accepts a fair deal with Denver, he will be looking to take advantage, and if Elway FOx and Xanders were dumb enough to lose that much value with Arizona, you can be damn near positive Belichick will get the better end of a deal on us as well.

Throw out the value chart for a minute, and think about the real value of the picks we are talking about. If this was the only deal we could make, do you really feel being at #2 instead of #5 is worth a high second round pick? What if we switched the scenario, and we had the #5 and #38, and AZ had #2. Would the trade up to #2 be worth it to you?

Hercules Rockefeller
04-27-2011, 09:10 AM
Throw out the value chart for a minute, and think about the real value of the picks we are talking about. If this was the only deal we could make, do you really feel being at #2 instead of #5 is worth a high second round pick? What if we switched the scenario, and we had the #5 and #38, and AZ had #2. Would the trade up to #2 be worth it to you?

Absolutely. Too many people here think it's acceptable to take any deal just to move down and take who falls, and are enamored with accumulating more picks. There is a value in getting the guy you want in the 1st.

The absolute worst thing that can happen tomorrow night if the Broncos don't trade is that they select the 2nd rated player on their entire board. Again, that's the worst thing that can happen tomorrow night. If Carolina takes Cam, Denver is going to get their top overall guy. Denver should not trade out of the 2nd overall pick just to make a trade, you only make the trade if you're getting over compensated for the pick.

mkporter
04-27-2011, 09:22 AM
Absolutely. Too many people here think it's acceptable to take any deal just to move down and take who falls, and are enamored with accumulating more picks. There is a value in getting the guy you want in the 1st.

The absolute worst thing that can happen tomorrow night if the Broncos don't trade is that they select the 2nd rated player on their entire board. Again, that's the worst thing that can happen tomorrow night. If Carolina takes Cam, Denver is going to get their top overall guy. Denver should not trade out of the 2nd overall pick just to make a trade, you only make the trade if you're getting over compensated for the pick.

I get your point, and if there was a player at 2 who we felt was miles better than a player we could get at 5, then I would agree. IMO, I don't believe that to be the case, and you can get another very good player at #38.

listopencil
04-27-2011, 09:45 AM
The absolute worst thing that can happen tomorrow night if the Broncos don't trade is that they select the 2nd rated player on their entire board. Denver should not trade out of the 2nd overall pick just to make a trade, you only make the trade if you're getting over compensated for the pick.

Yep. That's exactly how I see it. If a team comes along and offers the proverbial deal you can't refuse, and if that deal gives them a set of picks that match certain sweet spots in the draft, then go for it. Other than that no deal. I don't like the idea of trying to dump the #2 pick like it's some sort of horrible STD that the Broncos caught from McD before firing him. It's an opportunity to make the team better. I hope they use it.

listopencil
04-27-2011, 09:49 AM
I get your point, and if there was a player at 2 who we felt was miles better than a player we could get at 5, then I would agree. IMO, I don't believe that to be the case, and you can get another very good player at #38.

Yeah, maybe so. But the idea is to trade with teams who do feel like moving a few spots is a make-or-break decision. Take advantage of the situation.

WolfpackGuy
04-27-2011, 09:51 AM
So where's the drop off point in this draft where the talent level starts to decrease significantly?

6? 7?

RocBronc
04-27-2011, 10:03 AM
I'd take it too... If we're at 5, even if Dareus, Miller and Petersen are gone that guarantees us two of the top 2 QB's and/or Green will be there and we can get a great deal for someone that wants one of those guys and probably end up with 4 2nd round picks or 3 2nd's 2 3rd's plus a later round pick or two.

The Joker
04-27-2011, 10:12 AM
So where's the drop off point in this draft where the talent level starts to decrease significantly?

6? 7?

Dareus
Peterson
Miller
Fairley
Green

If we assume that Newton is going early too I'd say trading any lower than 6 (maybe 7 if we know San Fran wants to move to move to #2 for Gabbert) probably moves us into the second level of talent in the draft.

sgbfan
04-27-2011, 11:36 AM
I'd take it too... If we're at 5, even if Dareus, Miller and Petersen are gone that guarantees us two of the top 2 QB's and/or Green will be there and we can get a great deal for someone that wants one of those guys and probably end up with 4 2nd round picks or 3 2nd's 2 3rd's plus a later round pick or two.

I totally agree. We need at least 2 DT's (unless we don't get both MT and JB back), 2 starting LB's, at least one starting S (2 if McBath can't stay healthy), and possibly one starting CB for the future. Also, we need a RT, TE, and a second RB.

If we move down to the 5th pick, we should have Miller, PP or Dareus available. If all of them are gone, we end up with Fairley or trade down and likely get another second round pick. Say we trade back with Washington for them to get Gabbert. We are still sitting at the tenth overall pick, better than we started out in last year's draft with 2 or 3 extra picks. Or we get one of the 3 top defenders and an extra second.

Chris
04-27-2011, 11:54 AM
I want more picks and Fairley. I think that's what will happen.

NUB
04-27-2011, 12:02 PM
I would take that deal and pick the inevitable remaining player out of Dareus, Peterson, Miller and Fairley. I agree with other posts on this though: if Denver is locked into one of the players and believe in him, then they should just go with him and not bother trading back unless the deal is huge.

OBF1
04-27-2011, 01:25 PM
I am reporting from the light rail, talk around here is that Denver is NOT going to trade down. There you have it, end thread.