Trade Down, Even Without Value?

[AJ Duhe]

It seems clear now that the Dolphins best move to fill multiple needs is to trade down and acquire more picks. A trade down would allow us to select someone like Bitonio, Moses, or Juwaun James at their proper value levels while acquiring an extra pick.

So here's my question. Do you still trade down even if a team doesn't offer you market value? Let's say someone wants to jump up to 19 but instead of a late 2nd rounder, they offer us their 3rd rounder. Do you still make the trade down? I get why Hickey wants more picks. I think he believes he can add 1 or 2 starters on the o-line within the 2nd round. But should Hickey even be concerned about value. Draft value is a useless measure employed by draftniks like Kiper and McShay so that they can assign a grade to teams.

So what do you do? Trade down and take lesser value or stay put at #19 and select a player with a questionable 1st round grade?

 

[normaniii]

Yes. I would trade with San Fran for their 30th & 77th pick. Reasons why:-

I think Martin & Lewan will be gone. The next RT's are Moses, Kouandijio, Bitonio & J.James, one if which will be available at 30, hopefully Bitonio.

I think there will be a run on CB's, WR's and one or two trading up to get QB's.

With 77th one of Gabe Jackson, Chris Borland, Tiny Richardson, Karvis Landry etc would be available, in my mind it's well worth it.

 

[Buff]

If we keep a first rounder - and pick up a high 3rd rounder (cleveland) or manage 2 extra 2nds, then probably would be ok with that...

 

[HoneyB]

With me it's always about quality not quantity, but if a trade-down can get you essentially the same type guy, then it's a winning move.

 

[rickd13]

Yes, I would trade down without getting so called "value" if the right player is not there for the Dolphins at 19. People should realize that the draft value chart is some arbitrary point value system that Jimmy Johnson made up when he was with the Cowboys. It is not the law. I wouldn't be slavishly beholden to this made up point chart. It can be used as a guide to get a vague idea if you are getting value, but like I said it is really just a made up point system. For example, last year the Dolphins "raped" Oakland, according to the chart, by moving from the 12th pick up to the the 3rd pick and only surrendering a second round pick to do so, but Oakland knew who they wanted (DJ Hayden) and they knew that they could still get him with pick 12 so they took the below "value" trade because it was the best deal that they were offered for the pick. So, would it have been smart for Oakland to refuse Miami's offer because it was below "value" and not get the extra second round pick from Miami, a pick they would not have had otherwise, even though they selected the same player at 12 that they would have selected at 3?

 

[MikeO]

What's value? If you can move down and get the guy you want and add a draft pick to boot its a smart move. The whole "VALUE" thing is overrated and a thing of the past. The "points chart" is outdated

 

[Bumpus]

I think if a team wants to move up in the draft to our pick - they have to pay for it.

I'm not in favor of pissing away assets.

 

[Irishfinfan1]

I think you make a judgement call on who you can have at 19 v who you expect to get with the picks you would trade for, adding a factor for the risk you don't get who you want. So it isn't pure mathematics, like are two players you value at 6.5 better than 1 at 7.5, the decision can't be made in a vacuum.

 

[BlueFin]

What's value? If you can move down and get the guy you want and add a draft pick to boot its a smart move. The whole "VALUE" thing is overrated and a thing of the past. The "points chart" is outdated

The trade chart is a guide, not a rule...a starting point so to speak.

The chart says Miami moving from 19 to 30 with San Fran. Should get us picks 77 &129 from them...sounds about right to me. Of course Hickey could decide to take less.

 

[Fintastic2124]

The trade chart is a guide, not a rule...a starting point so to speak.

The chart says Miami moving from 19 to 30 with San Fran. Should get us picks 77 &129 from them...sounds about right to me. Of course Hickey could decide to take less.

If someone like cooks is there or a corner they think could get them to the SB, then they might do it.

 

[vagrantprodigy]

If San Fran offered that trade, and the top tackles were gone, I'd ask for LaMichael James as a throw in, since he doesn't want to be there anyhow. I'd love to pick up Bitonio at 30, he seems similar to Martin, though with slightly less technique, but is a bit more of an angry player, which can be good on Oline.

 

[KTOWNFINFAN]

I think if a team wants to move up in the draft to our pick - they have to pay for it.

I'm not in favor of pissing away assets.

hmm, let me get this straight. You would rather sit pat and reach for a player than trade back and get that same player and an extra pick, just because you don't want to get "taken"?

 

[Rev Kev]

This is the year to fall back and collect extra picks in the 2nd or 3rd, and this is also why they brought in so many WRs for pre-draft visits -> they also signed a whack of WRs and didn't land Burleson, they want teams to think they are upgrading to unduce a trade for the 19 pick which is prime for a Coooks or M Lee (both have value) I believe they want teams to think they are going play-maker even TE or LB or CB, but either way they have a fall back plan because if Martin falls back he will be selceted I have no doubt, or if a stud CB is there he will be nabbed no doubt even Pryor would give our Smurfs some credibility

 

[roy_miami]

Most of you were making fun of the Raiders for getting fleeced for the third pick last year but now its prudent for us to do the same thing? If the player we're targeting in the trade back ends up being as good or better than the players we passed on then its smart, and if we pass on a few all-pros just to fill a hole on the o-line with a mediocre player then its stupid. Its as simple as that and only time will tell who fleeced who.

 

[FSU Truth]

Most of you were making fun of the Raiders for getting fleeced for the third pick last year but now its prudent for us to do the same thing? If the player we're targeting in the trade back ends up being as good or better than the players we passed on then its smart, and if we pass on a few all-pros just to fill a hole on the o-line with a mediocre player then its stupid. Its as simple as that and only time will tell who fleeced who.

It will all have to do with who is left....I personally believe that players 15 to 35 are all very interchangeable as far as talent and ability meaning if they can move back they will get basically the same player at the point it is just looking for good scheme fit and filling a need.