14 hours ago, RememberTheKoy said:

Sixers haven't beat the Celtics in a playoff series since the 1982 ECF. If the Sixers win Game 7 and Embiid has even just a decent game then it will be the top moment of Embiid's career, especially since the Celtics are the #2 seed and won the title just a couple years ago.

The ML was -900 for the Celtics to win the series.

Lost in all of this, the Patriots are doing the Eagles a solid, by waiting til post June 1st, so they wouldn't have to take a massive dead cap hit. Most teams after June 1st have done their roster building and spending for 2026 and you would be stuck with AJ with very few alternatives. Eagles moved on here, pretty clearly by all the moves we've seen and AJ not showing up to camp or saying a peep. There has to be a gentleman's agreement here with Pats for Howie to be so sure of all these moves. Fair trade is somewhere in 25th- 30th pick range or equivalent thereof (on Jimmy Johnson point chart). How that is determined now with potential assortment of picks and players will make this interesting. There will have to be future projection of Pats and Eagles picks in all of this, which makes this tricky. I don't see this being straight up trade for one 1st rounder, whatever year it is. There will be some Howie ingenuity here. Each team will want some schmuck insurance that they can justify in the deal, JIC the deal blows up in their faces. Which could mean getting a conditional 1st rounder only, for AJ.

5 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

There is something you guys are missing though. And I know you can only trade picks so many years ahead. But, hypothetically, youre saying if a GM has security, even a 1st round pick 10 years form now is better than this years 2nd.

Lets also think about this aspect- If a team is not willing to give up a 1st THIS year, what makes them willing to give up a first Next year? According to you guys, they are the same. A 1st is a 1st. The league is showing you that is not correct. The league is showing you that they value future 1sts less. 

And that is another reason why Howie may take this years 2nd if given the option.

No. You are creating a strawman.

We are discussing a second this year vs a first next year. That's all. One year.

4 hours ago, mikemack8 said:

Why does he wear a sports bra?

You should go up to him and ask.

10 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

No. You are creating a strawman.

We are discussing a second this year vs a first next year. That's all. One year.

its not a strawman. The point is that time devalues the asset. Always has. 1 year away has always been worth 1 round less. its always been that way. People are acting crazy right now pretending they never knew this.

30 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

Yeah. That makes sense. But its a two way street. So now look at from the other team's perspective. Why is this year's pick more valuable to them?

They get a player that can help them right now without giving up any current assets. You don't have to create holes in your roster or lose opportunities on other rookies in later rounds.

Then you have all season and some of the off season to figure out if you need to regain a pick in that round and how to do that (player trade, etc)

1 minute ago, paco said:

They get a player that can help them right now without giving up any current assets.

So when Howie repeatedly says he doesnt want to trade away good players, you get the impression that he would like to trade away good players and get a player to replace him 2 seasons from now?

2 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

its not a strawman. The point is that time devalues the asset. Always has. 1 year away has always been worth 1 round less. its always been that way. People are acting crazy right now pretending they never knew this.

It really hasn't. That's been a very loose statement. It's really much less than a round. I don't think I've ever seen a 2nd rd pick past 10 traded for a 1st rd pick the next year. There's certainly some discount but it's really not a full round.

5 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

its not a strawman. The point is that time devalues the asset. Always has. 1 year away has always been worth 1 round less. its always been that way. People are acting crazy right now pretending they never knew this.

Ok. I am curious to what you believe is the "why" it's devalued.

5 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

There is something you guys are missing though. And I know you can only trade picks so many years ahead. But, hypothetically, youre saying if a GM has security, even a 1st round pick 10 years form now is better than this years 2nd.

Lets also think about this aspect- If a team is not willing to give up a 1st THIS year, what makes them willing to give up a first Next year? According to you guys, they are the same. A 1st is a 1st. The league is showing you that is not correct. The league is showing you that they value future 1sts less. 

And that is another reason why Howie may take this years 2nd if given the option.

I think there are teams that value future round picks less than this year's picks. I just tend to think that is likely not entirely rational. I am sure you are likely to agree that a player taken in the first round in 2028 is likely to have more talent than a player taken in the 2nd round in 2027. Where a pick in 2027 does have more value than a pick in 2028 potentially, is how that pick can better help replace the asset lost in a trade. For example, if the trade limits salary cap space to sign free agents going into the 2027 season, it may be more important to get a pick in 2027 to replace the talent. I think teams may have an erroneous view that a 2nd year player may have more value than a 1st round rookie. I would guess that it is likely not supported from a production or roster spot standpoint.

1 hour ago, Sack that QB said:

Eagles sign Bernard and Morris.

I know they want to start Bernard at DT because it's easiest to learn. But I actually think long term he'd be better at Edge and drop some weight. I think it's more of a ceiling for athletes like his. You want them on the Edge.

Please explain to me how a person with 6% body fat loses weight other than muscle. Inquiring minds want to know.

Just now, pgcd3 said:

It really hasn't. That's been a very loose statement. It's really much less than a round. I don't think I've ever seen a 2nd rd pick past 10 traded for a 1st rd pick the next year. There's certainly some discount but it's really not a full round.

split hairs as you might, the fact you are admitting to is that there is always still less value in the future pick

2 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

So when Howie repeatedly says he doesnt want to trade away good players, you get the impression that he would like to trade away good players and get a player to replace him 2 seasons from now?

17 minutes ago, WentzFan11 said:

You think because you can’t find him on a quick google search and he’s from Nigeria that they don’t know when he was born?

Yes. He does not seem to have an exact date of birth. If you can find otherwise, let me know.

The only place you can find any mention of his birth date is an Athletic article which gives the ambiguous answer of born sometime in 2004 or 2005.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7168307/2026/04/03/uar-bernard-nfl-draft-prospect-nigerian-village/

1 minute ago, paco said:

Ok. I am curious to what you believe is the "why" it's devalued.

because of time....

Howie has a window to win right now. He doesnt want to trade an all pro WR and wait 2 years for the payout.

2 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

So when Howie repeatedly says he doesnt want to trade away good players, you get the impression that he would like to trade away good players and get a player to replace him 2 seasons from now?

I'm not even sure how that is a response to my reason why a team would be willing to trade a higher future pick for a current pick to draft a player they covet.

Just now, Connecticut Eagle said:

wrong....

4 minutes ago, pgcd3 said:

It really hasn't. That's been a very loose statement. It's really much less than a round. I don't think I've ever seen a 2nd rd pick past 10 traded for a 1st rd pick the next year. There's certainly some discount but it's really not a full round.

Agreed. And it would have to be a very high 2nd pick too. The value of going up half a round in the first is WAY greater than say the 4th.

More often you see a team trade their late first and a future first for a higher current first.

1 minute ago, paco said:

I'm not even sure how that is a response to my reason why a team would be willing to trade a higher future pick for a current pick to draft a player they covet.

because you just said the reward for the team trading for the current pick is to get a player who can help now.

Go back to Howie's comments on trading Brown, and apply the same basic principles to our real world scenario.

1 minute ago, HazletonEagle said:

because you just said the reward for the team trading for the current pick is to get a player who can help now.

Go back to Howie's comments on trading Brown, and apply the same basic principles to our real world scenario.

Howie can say "AJ Brown is a member of the Philadelphia Eagles" until he is blue in the face. But the second a team offers value for him, he's going to take that deal. And by drafting Lemon, signing Hollywood, trading for Wicks..... it's almost like he anticipates getting value for AJ.

If, next year, a team offers their 1st and 2nd in 2027, 2028, and 2029 for [Insert the player you value the most here], you bet your 🍑 he's taking it.

8 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

split hairs as you might, the fact you are admitting to is that there is always still less value in the future pick

There is definitely less value of a future pick. I never argued otherwise. It's just not a full round

10 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

Yes. He does not seem to have an exact date of birth. If you can find otherwise, let me know.

The only place you can find any mention of his birth date is an Athletic article which gives the ambiguous answer of born sometime in 2004 or 2005.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7168307/2026/04/03/uar-bernard-nfl-draft-prospect-nigerian-village/

So because you can’t find it online you think he’s lying about his age?

1 minute ago, paco said:

Howie can say "AJ Brown is a member of the Philadelphia Eagles" until he is blue in the face. But the second a team offers value for him, he's going to take that deal. And by drafting Lemon, signing Hollywood, trading for Wicks..... it's almost like he anticipates getting value for AJ.

If, next year, a team offers their 1st and 2nd in 2027, 2028, and 2029 for [Insert the player you value the most here], you bet your 🍑 he's taking it.

It doesnt matter that he says he is a member of the philadelphia eagles.

It matters that Howie wants to keep talent on the team. Not make talent a hypothetical vision that can be attained 2 years down the road....

If a team offered a 1st this year, Howie would take it in a heart beat. Why do you think it might be that a team would offer a next year 1st vs a current 1st? Ill give you a hint. Its because future picks are not valued the same as current picks. Its always been that way, and we all used to know that. Now that Howie might just get a future 1st, I guess we were supposed to pretend that was never the case. I didnt get the memo to act clueless.

https://overthecap.com/discounting-of-future-nfl-draft-picks

Discounting Of Future NFL Draft Picks

Posted on April 30, 2024 by Jason Fitzgerald

We had a little discussion over the last few days about discounting of future draft picks. The consensus is that in the NFL when a team trades up and includes a future pick that pick should be discounted by a full round (i.e a 2^nd round pick in 2025 would be valued as a 3^rd round pick) due to the uncertainty of the future.

7 minutes ago, pgcd3 said:

There is definitely less value of a future pick. I never argued otherwise. It's just not a full round

As a rule of thumb, its always been...

Now, on your opinion if there is less than a full round of difference in value between the current 2nd, and the future 1st. Isnt it a much better value to get the current second, + a starter (Boutte, or Woodson) instead of the future 1st?

51 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

GMs without job security will always value current-year picks over future ones. That's where "Always" applies.

GMs with job security will take advantage and do what's best for the franchise in the long-term. What is more valuable? A second-round talent on a four-year deal or a first-round talent on a five-year deal.

Depends on the position. We just say Detroit decline Jack Campbell’s fifth year extension because ILBs are lumped with OLBs in the fifth year valuation.