Deadskins wrote:markshark84 wrote:Deadskins wrote:markshark84 wrote:Even still -- giving up 2 firsts...
Dude! What is it you don't understand about swapping 1st round picks this year? Any time you draft a player you give up a pick. In this case, the price for swapping first round picks is 1 first rounder next year + the other round picks involved. We are NOT giving up 2 first round picks, we will be using one of those to draft RGIII.
I understand the concept, but this is how I rationalize it: RGIII in exchange for our first this year (being used to select RGIII) and our first next year (plus the other picks). Yes, I understand we would be using STL's pick on RGIII in a first round swap -- so at the end of the day we will only be losing one first round pick
. Sorry, that's how I feel when giving up picks -- regardless of the situation (which, more or less, provides better insight into my stance on trading picks in exchange for any player). But honestly, did you not think I understood that??? Sorry, I just assumed people understood my concept.
When I evaluate picks I typically ask myself the question (e.g., we draft a player 41st in the second round): "would you trade "insert selected NCAA player" for the 41st pick"? I find this type of question/rationale to be a solid tool for purposes of understanding value on draft day -- both for the player and pick.
So, if RGIII were to fall to us at #6, we would still be giving up a first rounder for him, no? That's all I'm saying. There's no point in adding in the pick that you are using to draft the player to the cost. You were saying we would be giving up 5 picks in the top three rounds, when under your scenario, it's really only 4. And more than likely, it's really only two or three tops.
I believe you should add the pick you are using to the cost because that is part of what you are giving up. Taking it from an economics perspective, the opportunity cost of drafting RGIII is this year's first and second, and next year's first and third. If you don't take into account the 2012 first, you are discounting a portion of the opportunity cost -- since in the alternative you would have been able to use that pick on another player. So, I see it as part of the total cost.
Also, I actually like your second sentence, since that is exactly what I am doing. I am placing a price tag on the pick. Just as if I am buying a TV at Best Buy, I would ask myself "is that particular TV worth the $X amount on the price tag?" If no, the TV is OVERVALUED, therefore I will not buy it. Applying the draft, if a certain player is not worth the price/picks you are using to acquire his rights, then you have not received adequate value in that player.
Therefore, if we traded our 2012 first, 2012 second, 2013 first, and 2013 third in exchange for STL's 2012 first which we would use to draft RGIII --- you would then ask yourself:
"is RGIII > or = to:
(1) the #6 pick, plus
(2) the #39 pick, plus
(3) a (assuming) 2013 top #20 pick, plus
(4) a (assuming) 2013 #70-85 pick pick?"
Because ultimately that is what you are giving up for RGIII. The scenario is RGIII vs. the opportunity cost of picks (1)-(4). That is how I like to determine value.
Of course, like any draft, what is considered "value" is subjective in accordance to your player preferences, but I like to do this because it forces you to apply complete value to each of your picks. Going back to the Best Buy scenario -- just because you have a $100 gift card (here, the #6 pick) doesn't mean the TV is any cheaper -- since you could use the $100 gift card on an Xbox (here, an OT) or something else you may want.
Oh -- also, we aren't going to give up only 2 picks in exchange for the #2. That is just crazy stupid. I have heard STL has already rejected our first, second, and third this year (which would be 2 in your eyes) and would like our 2012 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and next years 1st.
So most likely we are going to give up at least 4 picks (3 in your eyes since you discount the cost by what we receive) in exchange for their #2.
