Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Colts trade out of first round


CR91

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Superman said:

 

 

I get what you're saying about the probability of that future pick and its value. But if some team wants #34 for a future pick, it would cost them a first. To get a third rounder for a future pick, that future pick would need to be a second. This is established in draft/trade history. And that's because future picks get devalued by one round, and there's precedent for this. Part of the reason is you don't know where that future pick will land. It could be #33, it could be #64, and those are very different values. 

 

Now as for how an individual or team values present picks versus future picks, that will vary and is probably situational more than anything. The raw value of a future second is definitely higher than the value of a present third, but the value of having another player on your roster this season is worthy of consideration also. 

 

I'm personally not thrilled with the value on this trade. We went back 20 spots for a future second. I would have liked another pick to even it out a bit, maybe a 5th. 

 

But I'm fine with it. I wanted a trade. Kind of talked myself into Sweat or Tillery, but I've never been over the moon about either guy. Having #34 puts us in range for basically anyone we want, so it's not like we're waiting until #46 to make our first pick. Unless Ballard trades again...

My view as well.  Its not the trade out, or picking up next year's second over this year's third that's the issue. Its the idea we should have gotten a little more for either.

 

And I didn't like Sweat at all or Tillery that much.  But WASH appears to have wanted Sweat and probably feels he is better than #26 and fell.  All the more reason why I think we were in a position to get more compensation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hope Ballard was right about all this, and all of these whiner keyboard gms can eat crow again like last year. I’m seeing a lot of username pop up this year that we’re saying Leonard, Turay, smith and Lewis were all big time reaches. I think it’s best if some of these fellers shut up before they look as stupid as they last year.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Maniac said:

Montez Sweat was there...

I was thinking the same thing. If there's one thing the Colts need, it's pass rush. And here you have a player whose pre-draft measurables were off the charts, who shined at the Senior Bowl, who put up good stats in the regular college football season, and who fits the mold to-a-tee of what you're looking for in a 4-3 defensive end, and yet you pass on him?

 

There's a point at which 'more' (picks) isn't always better. Quality matters too. I understand it's a crap shoot when it comes to drafting any player, even high first-rounders. But the same is true of second-rounders. So all things equal, why not take a chance on a defensive end who's arguably the very embodiment of what you're looking for in a 4-3 defense predicated on speed and athleticism?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Agreed.  However, you put yourself in a position of having to value that future pick when you decide to accept it as compensation.

 

Well of course. You become 100% obligated to put an increased value on it. But sitting here today there’s no way to say that it does provide the kind of value for what we have up definitively the way people touting draft charts claim. 

 

Personally I wanted to see us take Tillery there. Tom Telesco drafting him two picks later makes me feel even stronger in that. 

 

Sweat was just too much of a gamble IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, masterlock said:

I was thinking the same thing. If there's one thing the Colts need, it's pass rush. And here you have a player whose pre-draft measurables were off the charts, who shined at the Senior Bowl, who put up good stats in the regular college football season, and who fits the mold to-a-tee of what you're looking for in a 4-3 defensive end, and yet you pass on him?

 

There's a point at which 'more' (picks) isn't always better. Quality matters first and foremost. I understand it's a crap shoot when it comes to drafting any player, even high first-rounders. But the same is true of second-rounders. So all things equal, why not take a chance on a defensive end who is the very embodiment of what you're looking for in a 4-3 defense predicated on speed and athleticism?

The commentators during the draft were saying there are some other concerns with Sweat outside of Medical but they never would say what those concerns were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DougDew said:

A pick this year is always worth more than a pick next year.  So the trade is really the equivalent of picking up a third this year for moving down from 26 to 46. 

 

Pick 26 is worth 700 points and pick 46 is worth 440 points.  So we need 260 points to break even.  260 points is pick 66 this year.

 

So instead of getting pick 66 this year (second pick of the third round), we'll probably get around a mid second round pick next year.

 

Use your judgment to determine if its a good trade.

 

If we didn’t have pick 34, it doesn’t look good at all, imo. But we do have pick 34 so I’m cool with it. :hat:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JPFolks said:

What he actually said was "several of them are still on the board" so he'll get one with #34 and seems happy to pass on the "others" that would have still been there by using the pick.  Seems ill logical, but I think it is something else entirely which he also hinted at without saying directly. 

 

I think he know already that in a four year's we'll be giving max positional money to Leonard, and one year later we'll be giving it to Nelson.  (If they don't resign him early).  That's a minimum of 2 massive resigns.  He also expects we'll have to resign Luck AGAIN to God only knows how much money by that part (maybe 50 million a year by the end of Luck's deal? Nothing would surprise me).  And he also knows at least several of his other picks will be ready to re-up so he is financially making the choice to trade down as much as the exchange rate mentioned by others.   They will likely have a top 12 2nd round pick, maybe better, so it's all good.  The money will be further spread out.  This guy is 4-5 steps ahead of anything we're mulling over. 

 

I see the WR's people wanted are still available.. (even some no one expected).  Not as sure about the LB/DTs but they were mostly gone before we drafted.  Tillery, Sweat and the Safety (can't think of his name) that went after our pick are all people suggested for us in the 1st/early 2nd so he clearly felt there were better or equal talents that will cost less than those 3.  We'll see tomorrow and Saturday.  And we'll see which of those 8 he picked we're getting soon enough. 

Good points, but I'm not totally sure Ballard is a max contract type

of GM. It will be interesting if he will cough up top cheddar for our

homegrown elite talent or expect them to sign for less or let them 

walk? 

 

Who knows what our Lucky Charms Leprechaun is really thinking

at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, CamMo said:

 

If we didn’t have pick 34, it doesn’t look good at all, imo. But we do have pick 34 so I’m cool with it. :hat:

 

34 was the one I was expecting to be traded. And I still do. I think Ballard will try to turn 34 into a 1st next year. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

 

34 was the one I was expecting to be traded. And I still do. I think Ballard will try to turn 34 into a 1st next year. 

 

That would be interesting. I don’t hate that either. I’d always take a first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dustin said:

 

Trade chart is outdated by about 10 years now. Also a future 2nd is valued as a 3rd rounder not a 2nd

Plus you lose the possible 5th year option of the rookie contract.  It is the team option and only available to the players taken in the 1st round.  We'll see, but this looks like a bad deal.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

 

34 was the one I was expecting to be traded. And I still do. I think Ballard will try to turn 34 into a 1st next year. 

 

Ill be very disappointed if we trade 34. Itd hard for me to accept last nights trade when I'm told the 2nd round talent is ridiculously good only to trade away that ridiculously good 2nd round talent. 

 

We'd essentially swap this years 1st round pick for a different 1st round pick next year. That still equals 2 1st round picks in 2 years if we trade tonight or if we don't. That's not a win. That's losing a year of play from a difference maker. 

 

Sure we gather another 2nd round pick next year but that draft isnt loaded in the 2nd round like this one (so Im told). Thats not a win either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I LOVED the trade down. Was praying Ballard got future picks since they are worth more next year and we can "stack" drafts. That's how you sustain winning.

 

In my mind he turned one good player into two good players.

 

It's just that simple.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

 

34 was the one I was expecting to be traded. And I still do. I think Ballard will try to turn 34 into a 1st next year. 

I don't think there is any chance of him being able to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Myles said:

I don't think there is any chance of him being able to do that.

 

Sure there is, but we'd have to give up our 2ND rounder to do that. This happens a lot, that's how the Packers got their second 1st round pick this year. But we're not rebuilding so the 34th pick is too valuable for us this year..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, icf said:

It seems he moved back way to far, to only pick up a 2nd rd pick next year that "could be" 33 or it could be in the 60s....but most likely  somewhere in between.

 

If he had gotten next years #1 or an extra #3/#4 this year I'd been more of a fan....or if he had only moved down 5-10 spots this year to get the 2nd I'd be more of a fan of the trade.

 

I loved the trade from 3 to 6 last year....but on the surface it almost seems like he made a trade just for the sake of making one.  We won't know for at least a year if this was a good, bad or so-so trade.....

 

Last year's trade was a fleece. But that was a different story. Top picks are in "madness territory". QB trades are unique because QB needy teams are usually willing to give up way more than the pick worths. QB's are soo important in this game, that it overrules any value chart.

 

However, outside the "madness territory" (outside the top 3-4-5-6 picks) deals  tend to cool down. As we go lower, trade tend to very quickly align to the trade value chart, becoming mostly "fair", 50-50 deals. The Pittsburgh trade (they traded up for the #10 with Denver) are already a "cooled down" deal, if you do your math, both sides ended up with approx. the same value on both sides of the deal. The same can be said about the Colts deal. It costed approx. the same for both sides.

 

Of course, because there were 2020 picks involved, you don't know the exact values yet, that's why future picks worth a little less than worst case scenario (e.g. a future 2nd worth a little less than a 2/32). Which probably won't happen, so ultimately, the Broncos and Colts will end up winning the deal on the numbers, but that's the nature of dealing future picks. All in all, both trades were "fair". No fleece, no under or overpayment.

 

Sweat obviously didn't worth the #26 according for Ballard, otherwise he would've picked him. The Redskins had different grade on him. The fact that Ballard allowed them to pick him indicates, that Ballard thinks that he'll get someone else with the #46 th pick who has better value ther than Sweat was at #26. I agree with him, because watchning my own board at #26, only Tillery and Sweat were available who had 1st round grades. Sweat's health situation concerned me too, and Tillery is still available. So we haven't lost anyone we could've picked while acquired an extra 2nd rounder for next year.

 

I would probably grab Tillery with the #34 tonight. But if Ballard won't, I'll trust his judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, masterlock said:

I was thinking the same thing. If there's one thing the Colts need, it's pass rush. And here you have a player whose pre-draft measurables were off the charts, who shined at the Senior Bowl, who put up good stats in the regular college football season, and who fits the mold to-a-tee of what you're looking for in a 4-3 defensive end, and yet you pass on him?

 

There's a point at which 'more' (picks) isn't always better. Quality matters too. I understand it's a crap shoot when it comes to drafting any player, even high first-rounders. But the same is true of second-rounders. So all things equal, why not take a chance on a defensive end who's arguably the very embodiment of what you're looking for in a 4-3 defense predicated on speed and athleticism?

Supposedly Mortenson was told by A&M coaches that you can’t even yell at Sweat. Now I’m not for berating a guy but if a player can’t handle getting yelled and check his emotions then I want nothing to do with him. Was a tweet from Greg Doyle last night for what it’s worth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

Last year's trade was a fleece. But that was a different story. Top picks are in "madness territory". QB trades are unique because QB needy teams are usually willing to give up way more than the pick worths. QB's are soo important in this game, that it overrules any value charts.

 

However, outside the "madness territory" (outside the top 3-4-5-6 picks) deals  tend to cool down. As we go lower, trade tend to very quickly align to the trade value chart, becoming mostly "fair", 50-50 deals. The Pittsburgh trade (they traded up for the #10 with Denver) are already a "cooled down" deal, if you do your math, both sides ended up with approx. the same value on both sides of the deal. The same can be said about the Colts deal. It costed approx. the same for both sides.

 

Of course, because there were 2020 picks involved, you don't know the exact values yet, that's why future picks worth a little less than worst case scenario (e.g. a future 2nd worth a little less than a 2/32). Which probably won't happen, so ultimately, the Broncos and Colts will end up winning the deal on the numbers, but that's the nature of dealing future picks. All in all, both trades were "fair". No fleece, no under or overpayment.

 

Sweat obviously didn't worth the #26 according for Ballard, otherwise he would've picked him. The Redskins had different grade on him. The fact that Ballard allowed them to pick him indicates, that Ballard thinks that he'll get someone else with the #46 th pick who has better value ther than Sweat was at #26. I agree with him, because watchning my own board at #26, only Tillery and Sweat were available who had 1st round grades. Sweat's health situation concerned me too, and Tillery is still available. So we haven't lost anyone we could've picked while acquired an extra 2nd rounder for next year.

 

I would probably grab Tillery with the #34 tonight. But if Ballard won't, I'll trust his judgement.

You're right he won't take Tillery......That's because San Diego took him last night. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Myles said:

I don't think there is any chance of him being able to do that.

 

All it takes is one Jerry or Gruden to feel froggy and jump. With the emphasized strength of this draft being the second round it makes sense for someone to jump up and hope they can use it to propel them to a 25th or better first round pick next year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something tells me Ballard ships away #34 for an extra 2nd round pick. 4 Possible picks in the 2nd round would be nice. I'm not all that hype about any of the talent left in this years draft. The talent in this years draft is very underwhelming.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope ballard trades our 7th for a first rounder 7 years from now; trades our 6th for a first rounder 6 years from now; trades our 5th for a first rounder 5 years from now...  you get the picture.

 

The second next year was great value!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, GwinnettColt said:

The only thing I'm really mad about is that I stayed up so late and didn't get to see the Colts pick a player.  I think it's a good move.  The three picks in the second round will be nice.

 

 

I was drinking a bit and fell asleep before it got to the Colts.   Got up this morning and fast forwarded through the DVR to get to the Colts pick.   Damn!!

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Matthew Gilbert said:

Ballard wanted to move down and it's likely the best offer he got. 

 

I think he wanted Savage or Andre Dillard because of the value. Once the Packers moved up, he felt the need to move back. 

 

He may have bargained for an extra 4th for all we know but the Redskins know our needs too, and probably did a bit of hard balling with us, unlike the Jets who got fleeced last year. 

 

1 minute ago, GwinnettColt said:

That would be some Round 2 draft drama. 

 

Yeah, I looked up the values - even if it is a 2nd and 3rd from the Dolphins, we would get good value. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Im not reading that it would be a shock to anyone if Cooper went in the first.  Just likely the bottom third of the first.  Perhaps after pick 20.   He’s likely the best LB in this class. 
    • Honestly, it wouldn't shock me to see Edgerrin Cooper drafted on Day 1.  He is one of those players that has the "it factor" enough for a team to draft on Day 1.  Each year we see it happen and so-called professionals nowhere close to all those mock drafts.  
    • That's fair.   So, let's say AR pans out - are we serious Super Bowl contenders then? As the roster is right now, with a high-level AR?   I don't think so. I think our roster - disregarding the QB - is a ways behind other contenders. And even worse, I think the roster is just built wrong. This year Ballard has spent a lot of money making sure our defense can defend the run while everyone else are building to stop the passing game. Everything Ballard does is just contradictory to what works in the modern NFL.   So what about the other 9 guys I mentioned?   Wilkins would've been a Buckner level DT to seriously improve the pass rush up the middle. Huff had at least 28% more pressures than ANY of our guys (Buckner highest) while playing 161 FEWER pass rush snaps. And he was signed for a hair over $17m/year and you have "no idea why I'd think Ballard should have considered the 4 big name players who Ballard didn’t pursue"?   Do you think Geno Stone and Frankie Luvu are "bright lights"? I think they are affordable players who would improve this roster in areas of weakness. Same with the other 7 affordable guys I mentioned. The times the McLeod signings work out are so far between it's laughable, but the few who do workout somehow always make people forget the tens of 1 year jags he signs that don't.   We do know, but we also all see the results and that's what people want to see change.   I respect your opinion on this and I don't want to come off as harsh towards you (or anyone else). 👍  But I very much disagree that what Ballard is doing is working.
    • Kind of my own assessment as well with this year's RB Class.  What one lacks another has and so on. Not one complete back and maybe one worthy of being drafted on Day 2, none on Day 1. 
    • I think this is probably deserving of it's own thread, but I'll leave this initial response here. I'm happy to continue the conversation in another thread.   There are a couple of pertinent details that I don't think you're considering.   First, signing bonuses are due upon signing. They aren't necessarily paid upon signing. This article suggests signing bonuses can be paid over the course of 12-18 months. Some signing bonuses are paid in installments. So just because a player contract includes a $20m signing bonus doesn't mean the team is paying the player $20m the day he signs; the player might not receive that $20m for several months, a year, or longer. The pay dates for signing bonuses are almost never reported.   Second, a more comprehensive look at the contracts you mentioned would include roster bonuses. For example, while Buckner's contract did not include a signing bonus, it did include an $11m roster bonus. Spotrac shows the roster bonus was due to be paid on 3/20/2020, which was four days after Buckner's contract was signed. For cash flow purposes, there isn't necessarily a difference. (Ryan Kelly, $10m roster bonus; Kenny Moore, $8m; Mo Alie-Cox, $5.1m.)   Take a closer look at this. Buckner signed a four year extension for $84m, on top of his 5th year option, for a total value of five years, $96.4m. No signing bonus, but the $11m roster bonus, plus a base salary of $12.4m in 2020. The total cash paid to Buckner in the first year was $23.4m. The same day the Colts signed Buckner, the Niners signed Arik Armstead. His contract was five years, $85m, and included a $17.5m signing bonus (no details on the pay dates of the signing bonus). His base salary in 2020 was $2.5m. So the cash paid to Armstead in the first year was $20m, and that's assuming all of his signing bonus was paid out in 2020. In both cases, the Year 1 cash was about 24% of the total value of the contract.   Another example from the same year: Myles Garrett signed for five years, $125m, and his signing bonus and salary totaled $22m, less than 18% of the total value. The previous year, Frank Clark signed with the Chiefs for five years, $104m, with a $19m signing bonus, and a salary + incentives of $1.3m, totaling $20.3m in Year 1 cash, less than 20% of the total value.    There's also the funding rule, which requires that deferred money and fully guaranteed money is placed in escrow when the contract is signed, minus $15m. So if the Colts were offsetting lower signing bonuses with a higher percentage of guaranteed money, they would still need to fund the guaranteed money upfront. So there's really no cash flow benefit to the team; in fact, it would potentially cost the team more to fund the larger guarantees.    All of this put together, I don't think that the Colts are avoiding signing bonuses for cash flow reasons. I'm sure Irsay doesn't have the cash flow of the Rams or Broncos, etc., but I don't think the Colts are using contract structure to help cash flow. 
  • Members

    • NewColtsFan

      NewColtsFan 20,793

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • OhioColt

      OhioColt 385

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NFLfan

      NFLfan 16,969

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Solid84

      Solid84 6,065

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Kirie89

      Kirie89 6

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Zoltan

      Zoltan 3,102

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Superman

      Superman 20,075

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...