Denver/Los Alamos Make Deal

[liquidcrash]

From Los Alamos
This year's 1st round pick

From Denver
This year's 2nd round pick
Next year's 3rd round pick

Denver agrees to this deal. While I could use as many picks as possible with as many holes as I have, moving up into the first for another pick is too much to pass up.

[HWessinmouse]

Los Alamos goes quantity vs. quality in a world of boom or bust.

Good luck!

[ExtremeGamer]

Wow, no offense, but that deal sucks. A 2nd and 3rd round pick (next year to boot) for a top 7 pick in this year's draft?

[Eaglesfan27]

Wow, no offense, but that deal sucks. A 2nd and 3rd round pick (next year to boot) for a top 7 pick in this year's draft?

Yeah, I don't see any team ever trading a 7th pick overall for a 2nd and 3rd rounder, in real life.

[HWessinmouse]

Yeah, upon further inspection it would seem that I struck a poor bargain. I'm not very good at this whole draft pick valuation thing. I suppose thats why I didn't get the call from Jimmy Johnson to be on his staff back in the day.

I guess we'll know in a year or three who got the better end of the deal.

No offense taken.

[Dave]

To quote from the rules....

B. If a trade of questionable fairness occurs, an owner has the right to challenge the trade within one week of the date of the posted transaction. Once a challenge has been communicated to the League Office, it is the administration’s duty to resolve the issue to its best conclusion.

Several owners have approached me about the perceived lopsidedness of this trade and I have to say I agree with their sentiments. It's under review right now by the league office, but based on their initial opinions I have to say that it's not looking likely that this trade will be upheld.

[Andrew]

This might help in looking at draft pick values:

http://www.theredzone.org/2005/draft...valuechart.asp

While it's not set in stone, it's a good place to start.

For this trade (assuming Denver gets the 1st pick):
7th overall = 1500pts
for
33rd overall = 580 pts
65th overall = 265 pts

And that's not even taking into account the 3rd round pick is for next year so will likely be worse than the 65th overall.

[HWessinmouse]

This might help in looking at draft pick values:

http://www.theredzone.org/2005/draft...valuechart.asp

While it's not set in stone, it's a good place to start.

For this trade (assuming Denver gets the 1st pick):
7th overall = 1500pts
for
33rd overall = 580 pts
65th overall = 265 pts

And that's not even taking into account the 3rd round pick is for next year so will likely be worse than the 65th overall.

Thanks! Someday, I'll get the hang of this.

[HWessinmouse]

To quote from the rules....

B. If a trade of questionable fairness occurs, an owner has the right to challenge the trade within one week of the date of the posted transaction. Once a challenge has been communicated to the League Office, it is the administration’s duty to resolve the issue to its best conclusion.

Several owners have approached me about the perceived lopsidedness of this trade and I have to say I agree with their sentiments. It's under review right now by the league office, but based on their initial opinions I have to say that it's not looking likely that this trade will be upheld.

Sorry for the trouble, boss. :oops:

[Guest]

Wow.. I hadn't even seen that deal. And I thought I was offering a decent bargain for my 3rd overall pick. :)

[HWessinmouse]

Speaking of...have the league officials approved the revised deal sent earlier to Skerik for approval?

[Dave]

Speaking of...have the league officials approved the revised deal sent earlier to Skerik for approval?

Ah, this deal. Apologies for not appraising you of the league office's opinion of the revised deal. Using the draft pick value chart, the 6th pick overall is worth 1600 points. Picks 33 and 66 are worth a combined 840 points, which leaves next year's second rounder. It is deemed unlikely that the pick will be a very high one, so if you figure it'll be a mid-round pick it'll be worth somewhere in the neighborhood of 450 points. Which leaves the final tally at 1600 vs 1290.

Imo, a 300 point differential is fairly large when compared to the 1600 point total. I'm hesitant to place any hard and fast restrictions on the value differential required to get a trade approved, but it's the league office's opinion that the 33rd, 66th and next year's second round pick is not enough value in exchange for the 6th overall pick in this year's draft.

Get it within 200 points or so and I'll approve it. But as is, it's still a little lopsided and I'm intent on preserving the integrity and competitive balance of the league. Nothing against either of you, but use of the recently posted draft pick value chart should drastically reduce the number of unbalanced trade proposals.

[Guest]

1600 for 1290 isn't that bad of a deal if you ask me.. If we went by this, my trade with Washington for their 1st, 3rd and 4th rounders this year would probably be ruled unbalanced as well.

310 point difference here,

and in my deal with Washington (going by the chart) there is a difference of 485.

Should we be trying to get closer too?

[Dave]

The Washington/Yuma deal is currently being reworked by those parties, since it also falls outside the boundaries of what I perceive to be acceptable in terms of matching value for value.

Obviously, not all trades in the real NFL are equal and I'm not trying to be anal about matching up the points exactly on every trade made in this league that involves draft picks. But I've been pretty surprised when I've consulted the chart about what the higher picks in the draft are worth when compared to anything past the first round. So I'm not doing this to be a pain in the ass, just to make sure the competitive balance of the league isn't compromised.

I know people like to trade and like to acquire more draft picks in the process, but we all need to be responsible about the process.

[HWessinmouse]

There's nothing wrong with responsibility.

Just as a question for down the line a few years when teams are in various states of financial feast or famine, will their finances at the time be taken into consideration or am I too much under the influence of the McCaskeys?