Did the Fins outsmart themselves with draft trades? | Page 12 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Did the Fins outsmart themselves with draft trades?

Dynastybuilder

Club Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2019
Messages
782
Reaction score
959
Age
48
Location
Moncton
Said this right away and good luck with the incoming.

The net net result of the trade was POOR value. Period.

And it will sink in. Sooner or later.

We traded #3 for #6 and got...

An R3 in '22 and and R1 in '23.

That's not even poor. It's horrible.

Picks in the future are significantly discounted in value terms.

The R1 in '23 is effectively the SAME value as an R3 in '21.

The R3 in '22 is effectively the SAME value as an R4 in '21.

So... we trade that super high value pick and EFFECTIVELY got an R3 and an R4 in present value!

Like I said. That BLOWS.

In addition, we also lost value in the mid rounds with a pick swap.

So as great as the swindle was Grier achieved with O'Brien, he BLEW a ton of value...
Its not poor value of you still get the guy you want, I would call it excellent value. If the top playmakers are all gone at 6 I'll eat my words.
 

Dynastybuilder

Club Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2019
Messages
782
Reaction score
959
Age
48
Location
Moncton
Draft picks are at an all time high leading up to the draft. In 2023 that 1st round pick could be worth more than the player selected at #3 this year.

I would bet my house that the Texans would trade Tunsil for the 3rd overall pick this year and a 3rd next year.
 

Aqua Man

Scout Team
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
268
Reaction score
493
This topic is being beaten to death. They didn't move from 3 to 12 back to 6 if they were only targeting one or two players. They would have just stayed at 3

Trust the plan and stop overthinking it.
This thread is already 12 pages long but it could have stopped after this post IMO.

We can beat this thing to death and over analyze it all we want, but this sums up the situation perfectly.
 

BigNastyFish

Super Donator
Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
11,384
Reaction score
23,180
Its not poor value of you still get the guy you want, I would call it excellent value. If the top playmakers are all gone at 6 I'll eat my words.
Based on what you're saying --- the "value" of the trade is contingent on a specific outcome and if that outcome is NOT achieved -- the trade is at least questionable.

That underscores the basic point that trading down (net net) from 3 to 6 needed to be achieved with sufficient compensation to offset the risk of missing your primary target. Otherwise WHY take the risk?

Also and maybe most important -- this draft is very deep in the top 50 range. You trade down from 3 to 6 you better add some '21 picks in that range (at least 1 R2). The pay me in the future crap don't cut it when we're playing another season and then another before you get to "cash in" with that '23 R1.
 

Dynastybuilder

Club Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2019
Messages
782
Reaction score
959
Age
48
Location
Moncton
Based on what you're saying --- the "value" of the trade is contingent on a specific outcome and if that outcome is NOT achieved -- the trade is at least questionable.

That underscores the basic point that trading down (net net) from 3 to 6 needed to be achieved with sufficient compensation to offset the risk of missing your primary target. Otherwise WHY take the risk?

Also and maybe most important -- this draft is very deep in the top 50 range. You trade down from 3 to 6 you better add some '21 picks in that range (at least 1 R2). The pay me in the future crap don't cut it when we're playing another season and then another before you get to "cash in" with that '23 R1.
It tells me the FO is comfortable in a number of players that they deem worthy of a top 6 pick. If not, there will be someone there (QB?) another team covets and they can move down again.

By 2023 we should have a read on our current QB situation. If we need to draft again we have extra capital, if we don't we should be in a situation to challenge for the Super Bowl and if nothing else that pick could be used to add a luxury piece such as a projected top RB for a 5 year window.

We signed up for a 4-5 year rebuild but many fans are becoming impatient after seeing the growth attained in year 2.

Do you really think Pitts, Smith and Chase will all be gone by pick 6? If you don't like Smith (which I think you don't) then Waddle?

Personally I think Chase or maybe even Pitts will be there at 6. I hated the idea of drafting any of them at #3 but moving down 3 spots and having maximum flexibility on draft day while already having an extra couple of picks in the bank is how you build sustained winning football teams.
 

BigNastyFish

Super Donator
Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
11,384
Reaction score
23,180
It tells me the FO is comfortable in a number of players that they deem worthy of a top 6 pick. If not, there will be someone there (QB?) another team covets and they can move down again.

By 2023 we should have a read on our current QB situation. If we need to draft again we have extra capital, if we don't we should be in a situation to challenge for the Super Bowl and if nothing else that pick could be used to add a luxury piece such as a projected top RB for a 5 year window.

We signed up for a 4-5 year rebuild but many fans are becoming impatient after seeing the growth attained in year 2.

Do you really think Pitts, Smith and Chase will all be gone by pick 6? If you don't like Smith (which I think you don't) then Waddle?

Personally I think Chase or maybe even Pitts will be there at 6. I hated the idea of drafting any of them at #3 but moving down 3 spots and having maximum flexibility on draft day while already having an extra couple of picks in the bank is how you build sustained winning football teams.
Who we can pick is not related to the value of the trade we made -- which in net terms was trading down from pick #3 to pick #6.

I assume there will be a player they like on the board -- and I'm sure they'll sell it hard regardless of who it is.
For example if both Pitts and Chase are gone and they take Waddle then we'll be led to believe HE was their #1 target all along. Basic CYA.

I get the fact there are innumerable ways to justify the trade -- I'm just NOT happy about the fact we turned
that absolute golden nugget @3 into ZERO additional premium picks in '21. Bottom line, that sticks in my throat
like a splintered chicken bone.

Like I said about the trade right away ----------- we lost ground in immediate terms. I expected MORE
immediate impact out of such a rare commodity.
 

Dynastybuilder

Club Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2019
Messages
782
Reaction score
959
Age
48
Location
Moncton
Who we can pick is not related to the value of the trade we made -- which was net pick 3 to pick 6 trade down.

I assume there will be a player they like on the board -- and I'm sure they'll sell it hard regardless of who it is
and who was their #1 target. For example if both Pitts and Chase are gone and they take Waddle then we'll be
led to believe HE was their #1 target all along. Basic CYA.

I get the fact there are innumerable ways to justify the trade -- I'm just NOT happy about the fact we turned
that absolute golden nugget @3 into ZERO additional premium picks in '21. Bottom line, that sticks in my throat
like a splintered chicken bone.

Like I said about the trade right away ----------- we lost ground in immediate terms. I expected MORE
immediate impact out of such a rare commodity.
I think the trade value is absolutely measured by who will be available at your pick.

For instance, in any draft year you have tiers of players. Some years the top tier might be 4 guys, the next year 8 for example. As long as you stay within the range of that top tier then you really haven't dropped much. The premium comes from moving up/down a tier, or moving up/down for a QB.

In this case, I think we've safely stayed within the top tier considering the expected run on QB's. If only say 2 QB's are drafted top 5 and all of the other picks are skill players we're still looking at a franchise tackle or a trade back with another premium.

I get that you want a pick this year, I would have like one as well. However, we do have 4 picks in the top 50 to fill our immediate needs. That should provide us with an Edge, WR, LB, C without any further trade downs of any of our top picks.

Let's say for example we get Smith, Paye, Collins, Dickerson and get a RB round 3. Would you not be ecstatic? Hell, I'd be happy if we got 3 of those guys and picked a CB.
 

Ray R

Club Member
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
5,377
Age
74
Location
High Point, NC
Who we can pick is not related to the value of the trade we made -- which in net terms was trading down from pick #3 to pick #6.

I assume there will be a player they like on the board -- and I'm sure they'll sell it hard regardless of who it is.
For example if both Pitts and Chase are gone and they take Waddle then we'll be led to believe HE was their #1 target all along. Basic CYA.

I get the fact there are innumerable ways to justify the trade -- I'm just NOT happy about the fact we turned
that absolute golden nugget @3 into ZERO additional premium picks in '21. Bottom line, that sticks in my throat
like a splintered chicken bone.

Like I said about the trade right away ----------- we lost ground in immediate terms. I expected MORE
immediate impact out of such a rare commodity.

About 1/2 of those "rare commodities" (early 1st round picks) are not success stories.

Even the ones that are good often take 2-3 years to reach their basic NFL potential and then often grow from there.

Your lack of use of the knowledge that 50% of early 1st round draft picks fail in the NFL in your calculation leaves it overstated and biased towards your personnel opinion.

All the verbiage in the world isn't going to change that.
 

fin415

Club Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
797
Reaction score
587
Said this right away and good luck with the incoming.

The net net result of the trade was POOR value. Period.

And it will sink in. Sooner or later.

We traded #3 for #6 and got...

An R3 in '22 and and R1 in '23.

That's not even poor. It's horrible.

Picks in the future are significantly discounted in value terms.

The R1 in '23 is effectively the SAME value as an R3 in '21.

The R3 in '22 is effectively the SAME value as an R4 in '21.

So... we trade that super high value pick and EFFECTIVELY got an R3 and an R4 in present value!

Like I said. That BLOWS.

In addition, we also lost value in the mid rounds with a pick swap.

So as great as the swindle was Grier achieved with O'Brien, he BLEW a ton of value...
You keep pointing this out. But for some reason, you don’t point out the other side of getting the extra first in ‘23. That’s the year we have to go all in on Tua OR his replacement. If Grier and Flores are sold on the rookie, but not yet sold on his second contract value, laying in some extra ammo to trade up and out just in case is damned smart.
 

BigNastyFish

Super Donator
Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
11,384
Reaction score
23,180
You keep pointing this out. But for some reason, you don’t point out the other side of getting the extra first in ‘23. That’s the year we have to go all in on Tua OR his replacement. If Grier and Flores are sold on the rookie, but not yet sold on his second contract value, laying in some extra ammo to trade up and out just in case is damned smart.
OBVIOUSLY we got the R1 in '23.

How that plays out is beyond speculation at this point!

That's WAY in the future.

You and others keep missing the basic point we LOST value in immediate terms.

And the season coming up is '21 not '23.
 

Aquaaiea

Scout Team
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
Messages
400
Reaction score
183
In fact I want chase and pitts gone so we only have Smith to choose from. Please make this happen!
 

fin415

Club Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
797
Reaction score
587
OBVIOUSLY we got the R1 in '23.

How that plays out is beyond speculation at this point!

That's WAY in the future.

You and others keep missing the basic point we LOST value in immediate terms.

And the season coming up is '21 not '23.

Actually, I didn’t miss your point at all, which for some reason you think by posting over and over and over makes it THE point.

I just think that a team that plans in multi-year time frames will be more successful over all. Which interestingly enough was the point you missed.

One more thing, I’m going all in on the bet that there will be a professional football team called the Miami Dolphins playing in 2023. Crazy, I know
 

E30M3

///Member
Super Donator
Club Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2018
Messages
1,649
Reaction score
2,353
Location
Everywhere
OBVIOUSLY we got the R1 in '23.

How that plays out is beyond speculation at this point!

That's WAY in the future.

You and others keep missing the basic point we LOST value in immediate terms.

And the season coming up is '21 not '23.
 

Dynastybuilder

Club Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2019
Messages
782
Reaction score
959
Age
48
Location
Moncton
Thanks for that.

Those were among my very first posts and I still believe it's true almost 2 years later.
 

72champagne

the annual ritual
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
5,480
Reaction score
136
Location
in a bottle
Since any of them can bust, be mediocre or get hurt I like the get more and more picks strategy when you already have your QB.
 
Top Bottom