Quote:
Originally Posted by kccrow
Based on history, it's at least 50% of this year's pick and that's just a starting point. It's worse the vast majority of the time. Sometimes you hit that 50% ideal, which was the Pat Mahomes trade. The Rich Hill model is a slightly better representation than the Jimmy Johnson model as a whole but neither are perfect.
|
I looked up the values in a current draft chart and if the particulars of that KC-BUF trade were to be applied this year:
1300 points - KC gets #10 overall
680 points - BUF gets #27 overall
136 points - BUF gets #91 overall
xxx points - BUF gets next year's 1st round pick of KC
If that trade is done for "equal" point values, the #1 pick of KC for the following year is valued at 484 points which is approximately equivalent to a #42 overall pick or the 10th pick of the second round.
KC wasn't the threat then that it is now, so they were probably projecting that KC pick to be somewhere around maybe #23, and that would have been 760 points. If that was the case, then they were discounting the pick by about 36%. In fact, that Chiefs pick actually came in at #22 and valued at 780 points. So the Bills got a 38% discount on the pick.
The Chiefs were the team that wanted to make this move. I'm sure that when you contact another team to trade up in the draft there will be a premium demanded in exchange for making the deal, so we don't know what that premium might be, but it seems pretty clear that it exists. Maybe the premium gets bigger based on the size of the jump.
Whatever the case, the Chiefs received 1300 points in draft value and the Bills received 1636 points in draft value. The difference is equivalent to a free low 2nd round pick. That would seem to indicate that the Bills did far better than the Chiefs. The reality is that the Chiefs were the overwhelming winners in this trade.
Broken down to brass tacks the entire deal can be said to show that trading up is expensive and you better know what you're doing when you do it.