Contrarian Thinking

[MRMADD]

The NFL has a herd mentality -- if one team is succesful with the 3-4, lots of them go to it. If the West Coast offense succeeds, you see lots more of it.

The same is true with valuing draft picks. Future year draft picks trade at a discount -- a substantial discount -- to this year's picks. The Skins have been on the wrong side of that equation, paying more in tomorrow's picks for today's picks. Every team in the league has their own draft value chart, but they all discount future picks.

What if the Skins reverse that? Trade the #9 pick for two first rounders -- one in '06 and one in '07. Then trade the #25 for the same (I know, that's a stretch, but not impossible given how discounted '07 picks are). There are lots of teams who like the "play now, pay later" model and would love to add a first round pick this year without paying anything this year -- like, unfortunately, the Skins.

The Skins would end up with two first rounders in '06 and 3 in '07. They could trade both '06 first rounders for two more picks in '08 and '09, ending up with 3 first rounders in '07, '08, and '09.

So it looks like this: right now they have 2 in '05, 0 in '06, 1 in '07, 1 in '08, and 1 in '09. If the trade both of this year's picks for two first rounders (in '06 and '07), they'll have 0 in '05, 2 in '06, 3 in '07, 1 in '08, and 1 in '09. Then they trade both of the picks in '06 the same way, netting 3 picks in '07, 3 in '08, and 3 in '09.

The Redskins would have to scrap the "future is now" mentality because, hell, we all know the future ain't now. That's hard, because Gibbs won't be here forever, but imagine if the Skins had started this process in 2000. They'd be stocked with picks, and with a little luck would have some very high picks. Of course, there are salary cap ramifications, but you could trade these picks for players as well.

You'd have to accept two years -- now and next year -- with no first rounders. Could you live with that if it meant 3 first rounders in '07, '08 and '09?

[barry wilburn]

We just traded last year's first for a first this year, why would we all of the sudden turn around and reverse that trade?

One thing you can be sure the Redskins will never do is stockpile future draft picks. They don't value picks, they value stars.

[redrobert]

I think we have to win now, #3 defense in the league last year. Lost several close games. Joe gibbs for a couple of years. Now is the time to gamble, hope we get some help on offense and see what happens.

[Art]

The flaw in what you're saying is suggesting a team that entered the week with a first and a third in this draft is not playing for the future by having two firsts now in this draft. If anything, what the Redskins did was more affirmatively designed to address the future than any other move they could make, because the team maximized it's chances to add young talent NOW, that can grow within the systems in place.

It seems a strange point of view for people to continue to make that the Redskins are somehow trying to win now when the team has accomplished only the ability to get a rookie first round pick. Now, if the team trades their picks for vets, the statement is meaningful.

Until then, it's not.

That said, the Redskins would be foolish to attempt to stockpile picks in the way you suggest because it does nothing to begin the process of developing young players. We all love Gibbs, but, even in our WILDEST dreams, he won't be here but four or five more years.

Making trades that push back the tangible contribution of young players until he's about to retire is silly. Getting players now who are young and can develop over the course of his time here is a much more sensible method of operation.

Last year he added two guys who appear to be long-time starters for his team. With hope, that will at least be matched this year.

[MRMADD]

That said, the Redskins would be foolish to attempt to stockpile picks in the way you suggest because it does nothing to begin the process of developing young players. We all love Gibbs, but, even in our WILDEST dreams, he won't be here but four or five more years.

Right. Gibbs won't be here much longer, so the Skins have to build the best short-term team possible. Just like they've been trying to do ever since Danny bought the team.

So the Skins will fight like hell to build a playoff team now, as they should. But imagine how dominant a team they could build with 3 first round picks 3 years in a row?

Won't happen. I know that. But imagine if they'd started with that kind of long-term thinking in 2000. We'd be at the 2010 stage of this process: having just finished picking 3 times in the first round, 3 years in a row. Imagine what Gibbs could do with that team!


Last year he added two guys who appear to be long-time starters for his team. With hope, that will at least be matched this year.

Yeah, he added two youngsters in Cooley and Taylor, and lost three: Smoot, Pierce, and Coles. They need more than two starters out of this draft to keep pace with the Eagles and Cowboys, unfortunately. The Skins have gotten worse this offseason (so far). Can they do so much better tomorrow than the Eagles and Cowboys to make up the difference?

[Art]

I'm not sure your point on losing three is all that appropriate.

If you're counting free agent losses of young or fairly young starters into the equation, then you have to COUNT the addition of free agent players or traded players who ARE starters and not terribly old, like Washington, Griffin, Portis, Rabach perhaps, heck, even Moss.

So, I think we should attempt to avoid this in making your point because on the whole, we actually have added more quality players than we've lost since Gibbs came on board, and we were kind of talking draft here, I thought.

Yes, I can see your point about how we might be a very good team way down the road if we stockpiled many picks, but, as you agree it is unlikely given we have to get young players now who can play for Gibbs rather than young players who are potentially in high school now to play for the guy after Gibbs, I think we agree here.

I do think we define building for the future a bit differently still.

[illone]

It's a pipe dream, but better than talking about potential draft scenarios again so I'll play along.

First round draft picks doesn't mean squat. There are always quality guys in the 1st round but having a stockpile of 1st rounders doesn't guarantee anything except a bigger risk and higher payroll for those players.

Sometimes there are gems in the later rounds, too. You want to risk more money on guys that have just as much potential to bust?

Doesn't make much sense to me unless it's a LOCK that our talent guys are 100% in scouting. That's impossible, by the way.

Also, if we got it to work other teams would follow anyways:D

[MRMADD]

That's true, illone, but you can imagine the snowball effect: if you had 3 first rounders, you could certainly trade down and stockpile midround picks or add veterans.

It's a nice dream.

The funny thing is that if you study the way financial markets work, this is exactly how you get truly rich: exploit obvious valuation mismatches. The whole league thinks next year's picks are worth less than this year's. If you believe the opposite, you can pick them up on the cheap!

[Mr. S]

though it seems pretty unlikely, the idea of stockpiling 07 picks isnt a bad one, they do seem discounted. Too far off, but I guess if you think of the long term impact, it could work for you in the end. However, none of us have patiente.

[Romberjo]

Yeah, I agree that the league as a whole overvalues current picks relative to future picks. I'll also throw in the mix that this is really only true for the discount on high future picks. If, however, you trade next year's fifth for a guy you really like in the sixth round this year, the marginal detriment of going from a fifth to a sixth round pick is trivial, and is swamped by the benefit of avoiding the year's delay. That's not true of the value gap between a first and a second-round pick, which is much bigger in absolute terms, and thus swamps the benefit of getting the extra year.

Thus, what the Skins should do to take advantage of the NFL's crude future devaluation metric (one round down fits all) is to trade for future first round picks and look to trade away our future 5th and 6th round picks for current 6th and 7th round picks whenever there is someone we value particularly highly on the board.

[tex]

Contrary thinking? Ok I’ll bite.

If the draft is truly the crapshoot that many say it is why not trade your 1st and 2nd round picks for a bunch of 3rds and 4ths? The more numerous body counts should increase the odds of drafting a keeper no?

[Grinder]

Originally posted by tex
Contrary thinking? Ok I’ll bite.

If the draft is truly the crapshoot that many say it is why not trade your 1st and 2nd round picks for a bunch of 3rds and 4ths? The more numerous body counts should increase the odds of drafting a keeper no?

Sure, particularly if your scouting dept. is on the ball.

However, as the rounds go on the gems exponentially dwindle, making it harder and harder to "separate the wheat from the chaff" until you're almost looking at blind luck at the end of the draft in finding someone to contribute.

Ideally, IMO, the round to stockpile picks in is the second. You're looking at players with possible first round talent who may have been downgraded by a measureable (height, weight, 40 time, etc...) rather than playing ability.

There is some cap-friendly talent there every year for a saavy organization to build with...if they're inclined to do so.