Great stuff here. I especially enjoy the discussion of the different ways to value trades.
Surely the Fitzgerald criteria is better right? It makes sense to me to value draft pick trades in terms of the players that those picks are liable to turn into, instead of just what the trade market has said they were worth before.
I think the Rich Hill (can we just pretend it's the pitcher?) criteria is good for valuing your GM, and how good he is at this particular aspect of his job, but ever since it came out, when looking at trades my default is always Fitzgerald to see if we've won or lost.
Thanks! I think the Fitzgerald chart's theoretical approach is closer to my own thinking and maybe to "reality," but it definitely started to feel reductive over the course of this series (it basically always favors the team trading down, because picking later is almost never as bad as picking more is good). At a certain point, I just want my team to trade down and am confident that as long as they're doing so, it ends up being worth it from the Fitzgerald perspective. At that point it's a question of price, where the Rich Hill model is more favorable. This might change assuming NFL teams get better at actually valuing the "correct" price to trade up.
Yeah. I know all about saying the same thing over and over. That's great statistically, but we're substack writers. It can get a little dull.
I am no draft trade
expert. I don't know if you are either, but you do operate a page here about trades, so you're my expert for now. I've always heard in draft trade circles ''if you're going to trade up, ensure it's for a QB.' That implies that most of the trade up value exists because you can get a QB. Is this true?
It seems like it could be true, because the difference between the 2nd and 3rd best QB (for example) is almost certainly bigger than the difference between the third and second best LB. What's your opinion though?
Great stuff here. I especially enjoy the discussion of the different ways to value trades.
Surely the Fitzgerald criteria is better right? It makes sense to me to value draft pick trades in terms of the players that those picks are liable to turn into, instead of just what the trade market has said they were worth before.
I think the Rich Hill (can we just pretend it's the pitcher?) criteria is good for valuing your GM, and how good he is at this particular aspect of his job, but ever since it came out, when looking at trades my default is always Fitzgerald to see if we've won or lost.
Is this the right way of thinking?
Thanks! I think the Fitzgerald chart's theoretical approach is closer to my own thinking and maybe to "reality," but it definitely started to feel reductive over the course of this series (it basically always favors the team trading down, because picking later is almost never as bad as picking more is good). At a certain point, I just want my team to trade down and am confident that as long as they're doing so, it ends up being worth it from the Fitzgerald perspective. At that point it's a question of price, where the Rich Hill model is more favorable. This might change assuming NFL teams get better at actually valuing the "correct" price to trade up.
Yeah. I know all about saying the same thing over and over. That's great statistically, but we're substack writers. It can get a little dull.
I am no draft trade
expert. I don't know if you are either, but you do operate a page here about trades, so you're my expert for now. I've always heard in draft trade circles ''if you're going to trade up, ensure it's for a QB.' That implies that most of the trade up value exists because you can get a QB. Is this true?
It seems like it could be true, because the difference between the 2nd and 3rd best QB (for example) is almost certainly bigger than the difference between the third and second best LB. What's your opinion though?