Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

This tweet is incorrect, the rich hill chart does not value a future 1st Rd pick at 200 pts. Likewise for a 70pt valuation for a 2024 2nd rd pick. Would be curious where he's getting that from because it's not from any chat I've seen attributed to Hill.

I posted it later. 

5 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

QB. They have a damned good D. 

Doesn’t make much sense with the timing of the trade and giving Winston $21M guaranteed over two years. 

Just now, LeanMeanGM said:

Doesn’t make much sense with the timing of the trade and giving Winston $21M guaranteed over two years. 

Malik is a project and they gave up future capital. If they don’t move up for a QB I’ll be shocked.

Curious if say Atlanta goes WR or DE in round 1 and decides last minute when the Eagles are on the clock at 15 they really want a QB and offer Howie their 2023 pick if Howie would trade down again.

6 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

So the other draft value charts that folks are using to evaluate the trade online today are not modern?

What folks? Not really sure how to answer this. It's ultimately a question of how you quantify the risk of acquiring future draft picks in exchange for current ones. For reference, Howie has been on the flip side of this scenario many times, including the deal that moved us up to 2nd overall in 2017. If we fleeced the Saints now, then we got taken to the woodshed then and other times in the past.

2 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

In all seriousness he’s not someone you want to build around but I think he’s one of the better short term stop gap QB’s. Payton worked enough magic to reign him in to become a game manager, I would think the successors on the same team would take the same approach. 

Maybe, but I feel good betting against Winston, at least to the point that he makes them a team good enough to pick 24 or later. 

Hell, considering this trade, he might not even be starting in 2022. It could be Pickett. 

 

Spoiler: They think the Eagles won the trade.

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

What folks? Not really sure how to answer this. It's ultimately a question of how you quantify the risk of acquiring future draft picks in exchange for current ones. For reference, Howie has been on the flip side of this scenario many times, including the deal that moved us up to 2nd overall in 2017. If we fleeced the Saints now, then we got taken to the woodshed then and other times in the past.

Right, but we’re talking about pick 16 vs pick 2 to trade up for their franchise QB. We know that changes the math. 

And to be fair, I thought we were crazy to make that trade up to 2. 

12 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

To piggyback my previous post. 

Ballparked how? Market value would reasonably be determined by historical trends. Doing so typically wouldn't value at future first that high. Would like to see the analysis behind his estimate. 

But even so, it's back to my original point on this trade basically being a wash at face value. But the vast majority of reactions and hot takes would have you believe we robbed the Saints blind. If that's true, then the Browns obliterated Howie on the 2017 trade.

1 minute ago, D-Shiznit said:

 

Spoiler: They think the Eagles won the trade.

I haven’t heard analyst suggest otherwise, even if by a slight margin. 

4 minutes ago, Texas Eagle said:

Malik is a project and they gave up future capital. If they don’t move up for a QB I’ll be shocked.

I just don’t think they are in a position good enough to get a guy like Willis unless no one above them likes him much. Also feels like teams usually rather have 1st round picks across multiple years than multiple 1st round picks in one year. 

Just now, ManuManu said:

I haven’t heard analyst suggest otherwise, even if by a slight margin. 

That tends to happen when you trade a mid 1st in a mediocre draft for a 1st, 2nd, and a 3rd.

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

What folks? Not really sure how to answer this. It's ultimately a question of how you quantify the risk of acquiring future draft picks in exchange for current ones. For reference, Howie has been on the flip side of this scenario many times, including the deal that moved us up to 2nd overall in 2017. If we fleeced the Saints now, then we got taken to the woodshed then and other times in the past.

Then you are really introducing guns and butter economics - where there isn't one uniform valuation schema because both parties have different utility for current and future picks.

In this case, I would argue the Eagles value a first round pick in 2023 more than 2022 because the utility of that pick to acquire a premier has passed now that Wilson and Watson have been traded.  Better to move that asset into next year and, on a smaller level, relieve some of the cap implications of three first round picks in the same year.

I think the Saints could have Matt Corral in mind.

Just now, LeanMeanGM said:

I just don’t think they are in a position good enough to get a guy like Willis unless no one above them likes him much. Also feels like teams usually rather have 1st round picks across multiple years than multiple 1st round picks in one year. 

They could have a 1A and 1B. Someone like Corral will likely be there in the mid rounds.

Just now, Connecticut Eagle said:

Then you are really introducing guns and butter economics - where there isn't one uniform valuation schema because both parties have different utility for current and future picks.

In this case, I would argue the Eagles value a first round pick in 2023 more than 2022 because the utility of that pick to acquire a premier has passed now that Wilson and Watson have been traded.  Better to move that asset into next year and, on a smaller level, relieve some of the cap implications of three first round picks in the same year.

No, I've stated the metric I'm using, Rich Hill's chart. And a valuation degradation of half a round for future picks. If you drop it all the way down to a quarter round degradation, it's close enough to be a wash. I'm really struggling to take anyone seriously if they're saying we clobbered the Saints on this.

https://walterfootball.com/nfltrades.php

As for the Saints, I have no idea what they're doing. With the consensus being that this draft class is weak, why would they want more picks this April? Also, giving away their first-rounder, when it could be used on a potential franchise quarterback, could cripple the franchise. I don't understand New Orleans' plan at all.

Grade for Saints - D
Grade for Eagles - A+

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

No, I've stated the metric I'm using, Rich Hill's chart. And a valuation degradation of half a round for future picks. If you drop it all the way down to a quarter round degradation, it's close enough to be a wash. I'm really struggling to take anyone seriously if they're saying we clobbered the Saints on this.

I wouldn't use clobbered, just favorable to the Eagles and aligns well with their goals.  The transaction makes sense.

 

3 minutes ago, D-Shiznit said:

https://walterfootball.com/nfltrades.php

As for the Saints, I have no idea what they're doing. With the consensus being that this draft class is weak, why would they want more picks this April? Also, giving away their first-rounder, when it could be used on a potential franchise quarterback, could cripple the franchise. I don't understand New Orleans' plan at all.

Grade for Saints - D
Grade for Eagles - A+

I used to hear this draft is stacked and now I keep seeing people saying it’s weak. Who is the real slim shady?

1 minute ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

I wouldn't use clobbered, just favorable to the Eagles and aligns well with their goals.  The transaction makes sense.

I think the Eagles won the trade because I have no problem waiting a year considering the two other premium assets we acquired (if we can call pick 101 that). I think it looks so heavily favored for the Eagles right now because we haven’t seen their full plan unravel. 

1 minute ago, Texas Eagle said:

I used to hear this draft is stacked and now I keep seeing people saying it’s weak. Who is the real slim shady?

The draft was said to be deep, but lacking top end talent.

Just now, Texas Eagle said:

I used to hear this draft is stacked and now I keep seeing people saying it’s weak. Who is the real slim shady?

It's not top-heavy, but deep into day two.

1 minute ago, ManuManu said:

I think the Eagles won the trade because I have no problem waiting a year considering the two other premium assets we acquired (if we can call pick 101 that). I think it looks so heavily favored for the Eagles right now because we haven’t seen their full plan unravel. 

Until the guy the Saints pick at #16 wins ROY.

2 minutes ago, D-Shiznit said:

 

Yep put it this way.  Is there a guy projected at 16 that you wouldn't trade to get a 1 next year, a 2 in 2024 and a late 3 this year?  Beyond that you have pick 15 so if anybody unexpected drops you can snag him there.  You basically have to have 2 guys drop that you had going top 10 and even then you could trade up from 18 in that unexpected case and still come out way ahead

22 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

I wouldn't use clobbered, just favorable to the Eagles and aligns well with their goals.  The transaction makes sense.

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say it doesn't make sense for what they want to do. It's essentially a bet on the saints being a bottom end team for the next two years. A reasonable bet from most perspectives, but if the Saints end up with another high teens pick in 2023, I'm less inclined to call it favorable giving what we historically know about market value for these types of trades.

Again I'll say, the same criteria for valuations should be used when comparing our previous trades involving future picks as this one. We've had many, the most notable being the 2017 one. You can't say we objectively won both of them. Reasoning based on a rationale of what we wanted to do given any particular scenario, or based on stated goals, is by definition not objective. It's subjective based on valuations by one party which diverges from market-based valuations.