Long Term Draft Trade Strategy

I've been thinking about this since the draft and wonder what .net might say about it.

This is a long term strategy to continuously trade away a 7th round pick for a higher pick next year and gradually move it up until it is a 1st round pick. Maybe it's too simplistic, but hear me out.

You often see teams trade a this year pick for a next year pick but one round higher, like we gave away next year's 4th for a 5th this year. So what if every year, you trade your 7th to any team that will give you next year's 6th. Then the next year, in addition to trading your 7th, you also trade that 6th that you acquired last year for a next year 5th. And so on, so that over the course of 6 years, you transform that 7th round pick into a 1st round pick.

If you do that EVERY year, then for the first six years you'll only have 6 picks instead of 7, BUT on that seventh year and every year after that your picks will be 1,1,2,3,4,5,6. That would be an awesome existence.
Of course, every year, you're also having to hustle to trade the extra 2,3,4,5 and 6 you've picked up. Other teams would obviously catch on and maybe they collectively stop trading with you. But in the meantime, you'll at least marginally improve future drafts for the price of just a few 7th round picks.

The problem is you have to find a desperate sucker every year. The strategy is not sustainable.

Actually you have to find 6 desperate suckers every year

Not to mention locking yourself into a strategy like that kind of precludes other moves to improve the team.

The Patsies have done well by doing something similar to this. They always seem to have picks higher than their prior year's standing would justify, but maybe that is just a perception.

Anyway, it's an interesting thought experiment, but I'm not sure it's practical IRL.

As a concept taking a long term view is indeed beneficial for the long term but that isn't the only thing we care about. We all devalue future Seahawk success at least a bit. Fans are impatient, management is impatient, and the players are impatient. Life is uncertain and finite and so we pay interest rates on loans and players want upfront guaranteed dollars.

It's true that some people are inclined to take a longer view (low discount rate) than others who are perhaps on a hot seat or feel that they need to make an immediate splash due to moving to a new city (high discount rate). There's a trade opportunity in those cases as in your example where the more patient teams can come away better on paper by making deals with the less patient teams. Whether they are better off in reality as well depends on your own discount rate as a fan.

Personally, as a middle aged STH I have a low discount rate and so would support these sort of trades. I'm not generally a fan of giving up picks in future years or giving out contracts with ballooning dead money down the road.

It's a fun thought. Couple small problems as i see it.

For the strategy to work, you'd need the same decision maker at the help for the 7 years it takes.

If the team starts losing, the people implementing this strategy will be looking for jobs and the trades won't continue.

If the team wins and stays successful, they're likely drafting well and trust their picks and scouting rather than accumulating high rd picks and making the exercise unnecessary.

The framework and upfront plan is solid, but would have to be flexible as to implementation year to year due to the various possible factors listed in this thread in other replies. I don't think this is anything new, unless someone / some team proposes it has to be followed precisely. The reason it's not anything new is that teams are looking to get this sort of value in trade compensation. Not unreasonable. Supply and demand.

It's a fluid proposition though for several reasons. The position of the selection isn't determined yet so you never quite know. It becomes draft currency and there may be reason to package the pick outside of the draft (not during), etc.

Yes, the Patriots seem to have a similar general plan in place. It's always wise to "invest" in the future even though it costs you something in the present. But, it's what teams do with the picks that matter more. Could spend it foolishly and then the ultimate value depreciates. That's how it pans out sometimes, though.

The thing that I would bring up is that while it nets a team more draft currency, it doesn't necessarily mean that a higher pick is a better player. Teams are generally after "their guys" no matter how you slice it. That's why we scoff every year when a team "reaches" for a pick. But, again, the upfront plan is solid because the sooner you can pick "your guy" the better. Just doesn't necessarily mean that other teams don't get their guys either.

Draft selections and the selection meeting itself are pawns in the game. Sometimes it's better to give one up to make a more effective move. But, they are more important than some players understand. That's why I absolutely love the draft. It's so very entertaining to me to see strategy play out. Of course infinitely more important when it comes to the Hawks, but it's also interesting to see what other teams do as well.

Question: Why were the commentators saying that the 2017 4th round pick traded to the Patriots will become essentially a 3rd round pick? Not seeing that. Even if it's a comp pick, that would mean closer to a 5th, not a 3rd. Did anyone else hear them say that?

The odds of being able to pull it off exactly as planned is almost nil.

But trading away a pick this year for a better one next year is a wise strategy and should be employed whenever possible.

As for finding a sucker to make the trade, the Patriots were able to find one: us.

bjornanderson21":2xrp4aq0 said:

The odds of being able to pull it off exactly as planned is almost nil.

But trading away a pick this year for a better one next year is a wise strategy and should be employed whenever possible.

As for finding a sucker to make the trade, the Patriots were able to find one: us.

Click to expand...

If Jefferson rolls like Bennett, who's the sucker?