ThisGuyFawkes wrote:dice wrote:jnrjr79 wrote:
This may be how you feel about it, but it’s been a longstanding rule of thumb for NFL transactions that a pick in the future year is worth 1 round fewer than it would be in the current year.
so a 4th round pick 5 years from now is negative value?
the rule of thumb is for the exact reason i specified. a GM's priority is his job security. so his team priorities are very skewed to the present. those w/ long-term job security should not be thinking like that
not to mention that NFL, and sports in general, are very slow to move on from conventional wisdom
I have to disagree. Firstly, no team trades picks beyond 1-2 years in the future
generally not. but why is that? hint: already answered by me
so the premise of a 4th round pick in 5 years is a little over the top and disingenuous.
it's not. you're just not thinking it through using logic most people are taught in middle school: the transitive property
if a 7th in 2025 is the equivalent of a 2026 6th rounder, AND
a 2026 6th rounder is the equivalent of a 2027 5th rounder, AND
a 2027 5th rounder is the equivalent of a 2028 4th rounder, AND
a 2028 4th rounder is the equivalent of a 2029 3rd rounder, [all of which are "the way things are done], THEN
a 2025 7th rounder must be the equivalent of a 2029 3rd rounder
which is preposterous...except to the current GM, who at the moment doesn't give a damn about a 2029 3rd rounder. again, for obvious reasons already explained
Secondly, if we just look at the market, that's how NFL teams have been valuing picks. To say that there's no time value of draft picks is disproven immediately by tons of trade history. You may disagree with the notion, but that doesn't negate how things actually work.
did i just not say that the NFL has a history of stupidly mis-valuing things? GMs are mostly lemmings. examples:
-for many decades it was assumed that all offensive line positions were of equal value
-for longer than that it was assumed that the running back was way more valuable than it should have been
-at his peak steve young was rightfully the highest paid QB in the league...making 13% of cap. criminally underpaid. now, 30 years later, the highest paid QBs make around 25% of cap, probably approaching their actual value. and what is a common reaction to that? "OMG, what to do about exploding QB salaries? do we need a separate cap [defeating the purpose of the cap]?" because...the conventional wisdom has been shaken up
-it took decades for nba GMs and coaches to come around to the idea that shooting a lot of 3s...and acquiring players of all sizes who have that skill...is highly conducive to winning
-and as far as baseball goes...well, most of us have seen 'the blind side' (the title itself another fallacy, because left and right handed QBs have exactly the same field of vision!)
use of the lazy logic "well, the proof is that it's always always been done that way" is exactly why things continue to be done the wrong way! because the vast majority of people are comfortable just going along w/ conventional wisdom. as evidenced by the 4 'and 1s' given to your post
I understand your logic. I'm just saying that it doesn't really matter if 32 NFL GM's don't follow that logic on a historical basis.
i'm clearly arguing that the way things ARE actually done is illogical...at least for the GM on the wrong side of the logic! anyone trading a 4th rounder next year for a 5th this year is losing the trade. it's simply not smart unless there's an extremely pressing need in a closing contention window. which i'm not sure ever exists when discussing mid-round picks
