(05-02-2022, 03:18 PM)Mikey Wrote:

(05-02-2022, 02:36 PM)Upper Wrote: 1. Trading the 2 6s for the 5th was a good trade in and of itself. It became bad because we took a guy who was literally over 100 picks farther down the consensus board. We made a big reach for a guy who plays the least valuable position in the sport and one that we have already invested heavily in. That's why that one was bad. If we had taken Waletzko, who went the very next pick, it would have been a nice trade.

2. Your 38-82 range for the points is calculating what the picks are worth as the draft is happening, not a year in advance. In general a year away means it's a full round less valuable. So we traded 28 points and got back around 20.

....or you could state #2 as we spent 28 points this year to get 50-60 next year.

If there were any investment that allowed me to double my capital in one year, I'd take that in a heartbeat. The knock in present-day value accounts for the wait period required to get the full value of the pick. So next year, the other team is short 50-60 points in pick value, but can brag on their year-old 28-point pick(s).

If we had no intention of using the pick this year, even if the pick only nets say, 35 next year, we're still ahead on the deal. It not a loss unless you only look at the immediate value. Think longer term.

Of course I'm thinking long term, so was every other team who has ever traded for a future pick. Yet somehow Baalke is the only one who has managed to do that and not gain serious value by allowing a team to take his pick a year early.

Baalke basically gave the Bucs a loan at a rate far cheaper than any other banker in history. That's bad business.

---