Trading 2014 1st for 2013 2nd

[Superman]

I love this year's draft. Don't know much about next year's draft. But on it's face, no. You'd have to sweeten the deal.

[OJl]

IF there is a guy there whom you are sold on who will pay immediate dividends then sure why not.  But if you make a move like that you put your butt on the line for sure. 

[Warhawk]

If there's a guy they really, really like, then sure.

 

But I really don't see why so many people here are confident they can answer this question in the abstract, either "never do this" or "this is a great idea we should totally do this."

 

It would be a decision that's very specific to the targeted player and, by extension, how the draft falls.  Arguing over whether we should do that at this point is pretty useless.

[New Zealands #1 Colts Fan]

Lord no....

 

But I would consider trading our 2013 1st for a 2013 2nd AND a 2014 1st

Love this idea

[ReMeDy]

Love this idea

 

Best avatar evar.

[Knuckles79]

I would never give up a first . You never know what will happen this year and I see nobody worth it this year especially. And our first could end up the first overall and that surely would stink. Not counting on that but we never know

[Drewbacca]

Tony Ugoh.

[dei254coltsfan]

Should the Colts really be picking a WR in the first? Would be more comfortable with an OLB like Damontre Moore at 24 than a WR. Hopefully, Warmack and/or Cooper drop down into the 20's kinda like Zeitler and DeCastro in last year's draft and we pick one of them(Cooper hopefully) with the 24.

 

If any trade of the 24th pick is to happen would hope it's a trade down or out of the 1st entirely with maybe 49ers(24 for 31&61), Bengals(24 for 37&53), Dolphins(24 for 42,54&111) or Jags(24 for 33,64&their 2nd round next year).

[Valpo2004]

Why would anyone do a straight up trade of a future first rounder for a 2nd rounder?  

[Y2Jared]

We still could use another starting Guard like Larry Warford in the 2nd.

 

I would consider getting Warford with the current late 1st round pick if no big stand out guy is available and you cant trade down.

 

Yeah, I said it. 

[JPFolks]

I would never trade a #1 for a #2 straight up.  Perhaps a 1 for a #2 and a #4 or even a #5 and only IF there was a key player of need that fell into our reach unexpectedly.  As for the argument on our record and likely picking order: 

 

I think even with a BETTER team, we will likely drop to 10-6 or 9-7.  But... I think that might still win us the division.  The reason is the divisions we play this year versus last year.  We went 2-2 against the NFC North and 3-1 against the AFC East.  We also beat the two 4th place teams from the AFC Central (Browns) and AFC West (KC).  Our schedule THIS year is BRUTAL!  We have to play the AFC West where Denver and KC are dramatically improved.  Even if we beat Oakland and San Diego that's 2-2.  Next, we have to play the NFC West.  BRUTAL!  We have Seahawks and Niners, as well as St. Louis, all far superior than they were last year.  I expect 1-3, or if we catch a flyer, perhaps 2-2.  Next, we play the Bengals and Miami.  Cincy is dramatically better than Cleveland and Miami is dramatically better than KC.  It's likely we go 1-1.  Even if we sweep the improved Titans and Jaguars and split with the Texans, That's a likely 9-7 or maybe 10-6.  And that's performing, in my view, at a MUCH higher level than last year to achieve that.  One or two bad breaks and we could easily go 8-8 or even (ack!) 7-9.  

 

We have a brutal schedule folks.  I am hoping for 10-7.  Remember the Texans have to play the depleted Ravens and the Patriots, and would likely go 1-1 against them like we would the Bengals and Dolphins.  We'd have to count on them losing one we don't or perhaps having a dead heat tie.  Unexpected wins and loses usually come with similar frequency, canceling each other out.  Like we lost to the Jaguars and beat the Packers for example last year.  I think expecting to win more than 10 games is unrealistic and even that will require us to be MUCH better than last year.   I hope I am all wrong and we do better, but I fear I am far too optimistic.  

 

Anyone disagree with this logic? 

 

Brian

[Buck Showalter]

I would never trade a #1 for a #2 straight up.  Perhaps a 1 for a #2 and a #4 or even a #5 and only IF there was a key player of need that fell into our reach unexpectedly.  As for the argument on our record and likely picking order: 

 

I think even with a BETTER team, we will likely drop to 10-6 or 9-7.  But... I think that might still win us the division.  The reason is the divisions we play this year versus last year.  We went 2-2 against the NFC North and 3-1 against the AFC East.  We also beat the two 4th place teams from the AFC Central (Browns) and AFC West (KC).  Our schedule THIS year is BRUTAL!  We have to play the AFC West where Denver and KC are dramatically improved.  Even if we beat Oakland and San Diego that's 2-2.  Next, we have to play the NFC West.  BRUTAL!  We have Seahawks and Niners, as well as St. Louis, all far superior than they were last year.  I expect 1-3, or if we catch a flyer, perhaps 2-2.  Next, we play the Bengals and Miami.  Cincy is dramatically better than Cleveland and Miami is dramatically better than KC.  It's likely we go 1-1.  Even if we sweep the improved Titans and Jaguars and split with the Texans, That's a likely 9-7 or maybe 10-6.  And that's performing, in my view, at a MUCH higher level than last year to achieve that.  One or two bad breaks and we could easily go 8-8 or even (ack!) 7-9.  

 

We have a brutal schedule folks.  I am hoping for 10-7.  Remember the Texans have to play the depleted Ravens and the Patriots, and would likely go 1-1 against them like we would the Bengals and Dolphins.  We'd have to count on them losing one we don't or perhaps having a dead heat tie.  Unexpected wins and loses usually come with similar frequency, canceling each other out.  Like we lost to the Jaguars and beat the Packers for example last year.  I think expecting to win more than 10 games is unrealistic and even that will require us to be MUCH better than last year.   I hope I am all wrong and we do better, but I fear I am far too optimistic.  

 

Anyone disagree with this logic? 

 

Brian

2-2 against AFC East & 3-1 against NFC North...

[Landrystrong]

trade next years 2nd for 2013 2nd round pick, and maybe a late future pick, 7th rounder, only if theres a player that grigson wants badly , but i expect grigs to wheel and deal and get another pick in this draft somewhere

[The Fish]

Yeah, I wasn't trying to think about the OP too hard..

[Bubba]

No way, not a good deal at all. Off the top of my head I can't think of any players that I would be willing to give up 2014 1st round pick to jump back in to this years 2013 2nd round. That sounds like something the Raiders would do.

[pacolt]

 Not a fan of trading future draft picks.

[MAC]

First of all, the only rational basis for ever considering doing something like this if you feel that the player you are taking now is worth the pick you are giving up. The Davis trade is a fair example, and I thought that that one made sense.

 

The Ugoh trade was disconcerting when it happened, but the argument was that the team expected to need a LT to protect their franchise QB the following season, didn't see one coming up that was any better than Ugoh, and figured it was better to take him now (and give him a year to develop) than wait until their backs were against the wall. That was a mature team which expected to have serious issues when Glenn retired, and ultimately they failed to replace him, and DID have serious issues. It wasn't a good situation, and it wasn't a trade made from a position of strength - regardless of how Ugoh ultimately panned out. 

 

So what exactly would the reason be for the team voluntarily putting themselves in that unpleasant position now other than impatience? The OP thinks we're "close", to which I say "to what?" You seriously think that the Colts are one second round pick away from winning the Super Bowl? I don't see it. You develop a winning team by consistently drafting well, year after year after year. Next years draft will be just as important as this one, and I was under the impression that the talent pool is expected to be better. To already plan now as if they expect the teams chances of winning to go DOWN after Luck's rookie contract expires is ridiculous. The key element in that equation is that Luck should be a dramatically better QB at that point than he is now, and thus the Colts should be a dramatically better team regardless of his salary. If he doesn't improve dramatically than what conceivable difference is "one more player now" going to make anyway? Year two of a rebuilding project is NOT the time for a "we have to win now" mentality.

[gacker65]

I would consider getting Warford with the current late 1st round pick if no big stand out guy is available and you cant trade down.

 

Yeah, I said it. 

I do not  think I would.  Would prefer to trade down and get extra picks.

[IndyColtScout]

First of all, the only rational basis for ever considering doing something like this if you feel that the player you are taking now is worth the pick you are giving up. The Davis trade is a fair example, and I thought that that one made sense.

The Ugoh trade was disconcerting when it happened, but the argument was that the team expected to need a LT to protect their franchise QB the following season, didn't see one coming up that was any better than Ugoh, and figured it was better to take him now (and give him a year to develop) than wait until their backs were against the wall. That was a mature team which expected to have serious issues when Glenn retired, and ultimately they failed to replace him, and DID have serious issues. It wasn't a good situation, and it wasn't a trade made from a position of strength - regardless of how Ugoh ultimately panned out.

So what exactly would the reason be for the team voluntarily putting themselves in that unpleasant position now other than impatience? The OP thinks we're "close", to which I say "to what?" You seriously think that the Colts are one second round pick away from winning the Super Bowl? I don't see it. You develop a winning team by consistently drafting well, year after year after year. Next years draft will be just as important as this one, and I was under the impression that the talent pool is expected to be better. To already plan now as if they expect the teams chances of winning to go DOWN after Luck's rookie contract expires is ridiculous. The key element in that equation is that Luck should be a dramatically better QB at that point than he is now, and thus the Colts should be a dramatically better team regardless of his salary. If he doesn't improve dramatically than what conceivable difference is "one more player now" going to make anyway? Year two of a rebuilding project is NOT the time for a "we have to win now" mentality.

3rd paragraph- Im playing Devil's advocate here, but just cause a guy isn't a 1st round pick, doesn't mean he can't be a franchise changing pick. Scouting is an inexact science. This can prove AND disprove my point but for the sake of this post I am going to use it to my benefit.

Russell Wilson was a complete franchise changer in the 3rd round. I know it's a QB but it proves the point. If the Colts see someone they feel can put them over the hump, then take a chance. Who thought the Seahawks were title contenders last pre-season? At least in this conversation the Colts just made the playoffs so technically we are "close" and we may very well be one extremely good pick away from achieving the goal.

And for those saying they would give next years 2nd & another pick for a 1st this year, that's just not how it works. You HAVE to give better future value to get immediate return in a scenario like this.

[JPFolks]

Buck, thanks, I saw that I had switched the records accidentally, but couldn't see a way to correct the error.  Do you get the ability to self edit once you have enough posts? And I wanted to make that second part a new post but don't qualify yet.  

 

Do you see us going better than 10-6 with next years schedule? 

 

Brian

[New Zealands #1 Colts Fan]

Best avatar evar.

 

 

Thankyou. Absolutely love this guy in the gangnam style video

[BlueShoe]

Would you do it? Lets say we don't get a WR for some reason at #24.

Would you give up that 2014 1st to hop back into the top 10 of round 2 & secure a playmaker?

I'm curious to how people feel after what happened w/ Ugoh.

It all depends on how that first round shakes out, but me personally if I knew we were adding 2 starters/impact players I wouldn't hesitate. I think this team is real close & I feel we should be aggressive while we have Luck on his rookie deal.

 

I have never been a fan of trading away a first next year for a second this year. I would be a fan of trading away a second this year for a first next year (if we had a second). The only reason we did that in 2006 is because Polian wasn't prepared for Glenn retiring and he took a gamble on Ugoh in the draft.

 

The only trade I can see good for us is; moving back into the second and picking up some more picks. That said, anything can happen.

[RTTRUTH]

Would you do it? Lets say we don't get a WR for some reason at #24.

Would you give up that 2014 1st to hop back into the top 10 of round 2 & secure a playmaker?

I'm curious to how people feel after what happened w/ Ugoh.

It all depends on how that first round shakes out, but me personally if I knew we were adding 2 starters/impact players I wouldn't hesitate. I think this team is real close & I feel we should be aggressive while we have Luck on his rookie deal.

No I wouldn't, not for any receiver in this draft. If a guy like Johnathan Hankins or Desmond Trufant were sitting there at pick 38-40 and someone would take the trade I would do it. Only legit, "safe" first round pick caliber players. And the word safe is a relative term, I get that. That's why there aren't any receivers I would do it for in this draft. There's no AJ Green in this draft.

[colts_mp]

First of all, the only rational basis for ever considering doing something like this if you feel that the player you are taking now is worth the pick you are giving up. The Davis trade is a fair example, and I thought that that one made sense.

 

The Ugoh trade was disconcerting when it happened, but the argument was that the team expected to need a LT to protect their franchise QB the following season, didn't see one coming up that was any better than Ugoh, and figured it was better to take him now (and give him a year to develop) than wait until their backs were against the wall. That was a mature team which expected to have serious issues when Glenn retired, and ultimately they failed to replace him, and DID have serious issues. It wasn't a good situation, and it wasn't a trade made from a position of strength - regardless of how Ugoh ultimately panned out. 

 

So what exactly would the reason be for the team voluntarily putting themselves in that unpleasant position now other than impatience? The OP thinks we're "close", to which I say "to what?" You seriously think that the Colts are one second round pick away from winning the Super Bowl? I don't see it. You develop a winning team by consistently drafting well, year after year after year. Next years draft will be just as important as this one, and I was under the impression that the talent pool is expected to be better. To already plan now as if they expect the teams chances of winning to go DOWN after Luck's rookie contract expires is ridiculous. The key element in that equation is that Luck should be a dramatically better QB at that point than he is now, and thus the Colts should be a dramatically better team regardless of his salary. If he doesn't improve dramatically than what conceivable difference is "one more player now" going to make anyway? Year two of a rebuilding project is NOT the time for a "we have to win now" mentality.

When Luck's 2nd contract kicks in and we have to pay him Flacco dollars, won't we have a lot less cap room to pay other good players and keep them on the team?  Seems like that, by itself, is enough to make the winning chances go down.  Of course that depends on how Grigson handles all the contracts.

 

Also, why does everyone assume that Luck will even be resigned?  He might want to play for another team - maybe one that pays more or has a better chance at the SB.  Brady, Manning, and possibly Brees will be retiring then and those would be 2 very attractive teams to play for.

[Superman]

When Luck's 2nd contract kicks in and we have to pay him Flacco dollars, won't we have a lot less cap room to pay other good players and keep them on the team?  Seems like that, by itself, is enough to make the winning chances go down.  Of course that depends on how Grigson handles all the contracts.

 

Also, why does everyone assume that Luck will even be resigned?  He might want to play for another team - maybe one that pays more or has a better chance at the SB.  Brady, Manning, and possibly Brees will be retiring then and those would be 2 very attractive teams to play for.

 

 

It's very rare that franchise level quarterbacks ever even reach unrestricted free agency, much less switch teams (and when I say "rare," I'm being generous). If Luck is as good as we hope he is, we'll do whatever it takes to keep him from free agency. We can option him in Year 5, then tag him in Year 6. I hope it doesn't come to that; it would be nice to reach terms before Year 5. But we're not just going to let the biggest piece of the puzzle -- the guy we got rid of Manning for -- walk in free agency. Not so long as we can help it.

[GoColts8818]

It's very rare that franchise level quarterbacks ever even reach unrestricted free agency, much less switch teams (and when I say "rare," I'm being generous). If Luck is as good as we hope he is, we'll do whatever it takes to keep him from free agency. We can option him in Year 5, then tag him in Year 6. I hope it doesn't come to that; it would be nice to reach terms before Year 5. But we're not just going to let the biggest piece of the puzzle -- the guy we got rid of Manning for -- walk in free agency. Not so long as we can help it.

i can think of three that dis it in the last 10 years that did it when they were still stars. Brees, Favre, and Peyton and all three did it because their team got a new younger star QB. Heck even with Peyton and Favre there were strange circumstances that lead to it. So Brees is probably the only true example that moved by free agency and is one the top five QBs in the league just to further your point superman.

[IndyColtScout]

I have never been a fan of trading away a first next year for a second this year. I would be a fan of trading away a second this year for a first next year (if we had a second). The only reason we did that in 2006 is because Polian wasn't prepared for Glenn retiring and he took a gamble on Ugoh in the draft.

The only trade I can see good for us is; moving back into the second and picking up some more picks. That said, anything can happen.

First paragraph- Trades don't work that way in the draft.

A) you can trade down and receive multiple but lower picks in the same draft. Why? Most likely you are a team with many needs filled immediately.

B) you can trade a higher future pick for a lower present year pick. Why? Because you are a team of few needs wanting to make a run immediately.

These are the only two trade realistic trade scenario for the Colts.

Think about this: unless you are the 49ers or Pats, why would any team accept a 2nd in the future & give up a 1st in the present? 98% of the league isn't in a position to wait a year for return on investment when it comes to extremely valuable picks & hope for a stacked draft. Plus you are talking about possibly losing 32 spots.

Teams who know they will not contend this year may be willing to wait on return on investment because they already know they won't win the SB. The value of having pick 15-25 next year may very well be worth giving up pick 40 in a less talented draft (for a low level team). On top of that the team would have their own 1st rounder giving themselves ammunition to move up for a franchise player in the next draft.

[Jay Kirk]

Moves like that is what starts a franchises decline,its a move of desperation,IMO this franchise is just fine ,on solid ground heading down the right road.Lets not screw it up!

[IndyColtScout]

It's little different than the Vontae Davis trade.

When we traded for Vontae we were giving up what was projected to be around 35th-40th pick for young CB who had potential but had never made a pro bowl. We lucked out & didn't have to give up that high of a pick. So by the same standard that could be classified as a move of desperation. But guess what, scouting paid off.

The trade I'm proposing has the exact same gamble. Unless Luck is hurt I doubt we finish with a worse record. And even then we could still have a worse record, make the playoffs, go to a SB and have the 31st or 32nd pick. And guess what if it doesn't work it's not like the player goes away. We receive the player drafted a year in advance & get a year to coach up & let our 2014 1st round pick play n get better.

There isn't much risk I highly doubt we pick before the 20th pick in 2014, and if there is someone out there that can make an impact in the 2013 2nd on this team (which there is) I'm willing to gamble. But I'm not the GM I just want to share my thoughts.

[BlueShoe]

First paragraph- Trades don't work that way in the draft.

A) you can trade down and receive multiple but lower picks in the same draft. Why? Most likely you are a team with many needs filled immediately.

B) you can trade a higher future pick for a lower present year pick. Why? Because you are a team of few needs wanting to make a run immediately.

These are the only two trade realistic trade scenario for the Colts.

Think about this: unless you are the 49ers or Pats, why would any team accept a 2nd in the future & give up a 1st in the present? 98% of the league isn't in a position to wait a year for return on investment when it comes to extremely valuable picks & hope for a stacked draft. Plus you are talking about possibly losing 32 spots.

Teams who know they will not contend this year may be willing to wait on return on investment because they already know they won't win the SB. The value of having pick 15-25 next year may very well be worth giving up pick 40 in a less talented draft (for a low level team). On top of that the team would have their own 1st rounder giving themselves ammunition to move up for a franchise player in the next draft.

 

You obviously did not read what I wrote, so you need to go back and read it again.

 

Comprehension has never been Colts fans strong points.

[IndyColtScout]

You obviously did not read what I wrote, so you need to go back and read it again.

Comprehension has never been Colts fans strong points.

Yea I did smartbutt. You said if we had a 2013 2nd you would trade that for a 2014 1st. And I said no one would accept that trade. Y u gotta be a dick?

[BlueShoe]

Yea I did smartbutt. You said if we had a 2013 2nd you would trade that for a 2014 1st. And I said no one would accept that trade. Y u gotta be a dick?

 

Then I have made a mistake to give you the benefit of the doubt, because teams have traded a first the following year for a second in the current year. We did it in 2006. Remember Ugoh? 

 

So YES, a team would do it if they needed the pick bad enough.

[IndyColtScout]

We traded a 1st for Ugoh to pick him in the 2nd.

[BlueShoe]

We traded a 1st for Ugoh to pick him in the 2nd.

 

Now we are back to you not comprehending.

[IndyColtScout]

It was a future first to fuggin google u *

[BlueShoe]

It was a future first to fuggin google u *

 

Am I on candid camera?

 

Feel fee to call me names when you struggle with reading anything else in the future.

[IndyColtScout]

Your words:

"I would be a fan of trading a second this year for a first next year (if we had a second)."

The year we live in is 2013. Next year is 2014.

Tony Ugoh drafted 2nd round 2007. We traded our 2008 1st round pick.

I'm suggesting we trade out future 2014 1st for a 2013 2nd.

You are high as hell dude. Read & comprehend your own thought before trying to troll me.

[BlueShoe]

Your words:

"I would be a fan of trading a second this year for a first next year (if we had a second)."

The year we live in is 2013. Next year is 2014.

Tony Ugoh drafted 2nd round 2007. We traded our 2008 1st round pick.

I'm suggesting we trade out future 2014 1st for a 2013 2nd.

You are high as heck dude. Read & comprehend your own thought before trying to troll me.

 

Are you for real? This is becoming quite hilarious.

 

Go back and read what I wrote and really think about it for a minute. Take a breath, and then think some more. It will come to you. It should anyway.

[IndyColtScout]

It won't come to me because I'm obviously too stupid and never comprehended reading. I cheated my way through grade, middle, and HS. I had a twin brother that was thankfully smart and took all my classes at IU for me in my name. He also thankfully did my grad program at Purdue. If it wasn't for my twin I wouldn't I have my nice job. I really wish he was here right now because I am a really dumb & I can't understand how calenders work so I look super dumb on the Colts forum. I am publicly embarrassed & I might be too ashamed to ever post again. Since I'm so dumb can you enlighten me from post A til where we are now?

[BlueShoe]

It won't come to me because I'm obviously too stupid and never comprehended reading. I cheated my way through grade, middle, and HS. I had a twin brother that was thankfully smart and took all my classes at IU for me in my name. He also thankfully did my grad program at Purdue. If it wasn't for my twin I wouldn't I have my nice job. I really wish he was here right now because I am a really dumb & I can't understand how calenders work so I look super dumb on the Colts forum. I am publicly embarrassed & I might be too ashamed to ever post again. Since I'm so dumb can you enlighten me from post A til where we are now?

 

My words - I have never been a fan of trading away a first next year for a second this year. I would be a fan of trading away a second this year for a first next year (if we had a second).

 

You’re words - Trades don't work that way in the draft.

 

My words – See the Ugoh trade.

 

Your words – You’re a smart*** turd

 

My words – Feel free to call me names when you have trouble reading in the future.

 

Your words - We traded a 1st for Ugoh to pick him in the 2nd.

 

My words - Am I on candid camera?

 

I will post my original response again and see if it sets in.

 

“I have never been a fan of trading away a first next year for a second this year. I would be a fan of trading away a second this year for a first next year (if we had a second). The only reason we did that in 2006 is because Polian wasn't prepared for Glenn retiring and he took a gamble on Ugoh in the draft.

 

The only trade I can see good for us is; moving back into the second and picking up some more picks. That said, anything can happen.”