Look at it from their perspective. Adam Gase was clearly a factor in how badly the Jets were playing and has now created a pattern where young QBs regress under his tutelage. Even if he doesn't work out, it's a good story to sell to the fans until they can find a QB elsewhere. If you look at the Jets objectively, who would you really hold accountable for the situation?
All this shows is that you have to give up more picks to move up in the draft? And you might not necessarily have those picks in the given year. But it's all good. I respect the fact that you proved what you believe to be right. I just don't think teams use the value chart as a basis. A second round pick is a second round pick and there are likely a couple of factors as to why a team would choose to trade a future second rather than a current one.
regardless what you think the fact is either I'm correct in my assessment or it's 1 giant coincidence that happened every time for the past 2 years to a T. the chart and the devaluation. I do get your point. in the end it's all arbitrary and teams can trade anything for anything. it's all perceived value. but that's how any economy works. the NFL is very traditional in a sense. GMs now have been around the league for 20+ years. since the early 2000s or longer and learned from people who were in the league since the 80s who learned from people in the league since the 60s and so on. A player now is better then a player in the future. it's a win now league. deferring a player for year isn't going to help you win now. especially in a league where you may not be employed to use those picks. GMs with job security may be more inclined to give up assets now for better assets in the future while GMs on a hot seat want to improve ASAP. Not to mention draft class variance and team needs. I'm not saying your point isn't valid. it does have validity to it, but it's just not the way the NFL currently conducts business and probably won't ever be the way.
I initially thought he would take Sewell, he believes in controlling the LOS and having a day one starter with high draft pick. However the more I read, I think it’s important for front office to reset clock on QB.
Don't know what everybody is so freakin happy about....ANY draft QB, I don't care where he's ranked, is at best, a 50/50 proposition that it will take 3 years minimum to shake out. Wilson played well - in college - hasn't played a down in the NFL yet. Whole different animal........ just sayin' Never thought that Darnold was unsalvageable, still don't. Is Wilson > Darnold ? Only time will tell. Guess we'll see at some point this year though. I'm not upset, but I'm not excited either.
While GMs have different timetables and personal thresholds, future picks are absolutely devalued by all GMs based on their maturity date - and rightfully so: you're giving up utility of a current asset for a period of time, with no return, in the hope that the payout down the road will be worth it. The one example that sticks out in my mind was when the Saints acquired the 28th overall pick from the Patriots in the 2011 draft. They traded their 2011 2nd (#56 overall) and their 2012 1st to get back up to #28. I hated that deal at the time, and I'm not defending it - I actually love the idea of trading for future picks in an effort to get a greater return - but future picks are rightfully devalued in trades. If you have the ability and willingness to deal with zero/insignificant return on the asset until your return's maturity, it can really pay off.
I love this deal. 5 picks in the first three rounds this year. 5 picks in the first three rounds next year. JD needs to hit on 60% imo to make this team successful. Of course, he needs to pick the right QB this year or it really doesn't matter.
I have been wanting to respond this for awhile. A 2nd rounder is a second rounder. In this case I would rather the second next year, we already have 2 firsts, a second and 2 thirds this year. If they all live up to their draft status, that could be a lot of rookie contracts coming due at the same time. This way we have 5 picks in first 3 rounds this year and 5 picks in first 3 next year.
Would you rather have $100k today or $100k a year from now? It's always better the sooner the pick is.
It's better, but it is not the same as money. With money if you get 100K now, you can invest, and the sooner you get it, the more compounded interest you get. With picks, the value is really stable. Next draft could be better than this one. Would I rather have 2nd round pick now? Sure, why not, but I would not trade say a 2nd round pick next year for 3d rounder this year. Also, it is not outside the realm of possibility that Sam plays for them like he did for us, and we get early second rounder next year.
You can invest draft picks too; for example, the 49ers invested their picks to trade up to 3 (whether this is a wise investment is another story, but it is an investment). Also, discount factors can exist for other reasons than being able to invest; e.g. a GM whose job is on the line is going to want to win sooner rather than later.
What you are talking about is not the investment akin to compounded interest. As you said - it's a trade, exchange of goods. And 49ers actually offered two future picks for that swap of picks this year. Just like Miami later turned around and gave a future pick in order to exchange picks with Washington. The point is that future picks still are worth a lot. I am willing to agree that identical pick this year may be worth more than next, but I would not want JD to take an inferior pick this year (say a 3d rounder) in exchange for superior pick next year (a second rounder). Also, I know there are a lot of Matt Rhule and Sam's fans out here, but I would not be surprised if this 2nd round pick is a pretty high one next year.
I agree it isn't akin to compound interest; I was just giving examples of why compound interest isn't necessary for a present pick to be worth more than a future pick.
