RSS Feed
NOW ON SALE
Click here to buy PDF version
.Click here to buy printed copy.
STILL AVAILABLE
Click here to buy PDF version
.Click here to buy printed copy.
16 Jul 2009
Redskins Select Jarmon In Supplemental Draft
The Washington Redskins selected Kentucky DE Jeremy Jarmon in the third round of today's Supplemental Draft.
As a result, the team loses their third-round pick in the 2010 NFL Draft.
No word on the other players who were available.
24 comments, Last at 20 Jul 2009, 1:42am by ygold
Most Recent FO Features
» Wisdom of Crowds in Review: WR, TE
Our final Twitter review shows that the crowds did their best work predicting wideouts and tight ends, pegging near-exact numbers for players like Andre Johnson and Santonio Holmes.
Most Recent Extra Points
Comments
Re: Redskins Select Jarmon In Supplemental Draft
Seems like a reasonable gamble for a team who has needed a DE for a while.
Don't teams theoretically discount picks about one round per year? If so, this deal would effectively cost them a 2009 fourth rounder, since they'll have Jarmon for this season.
Re: Redskins Select Jarmon In Supplemental Draft
Teams do seem to discount future draft picks, but it's completely illogical -- stupid, in fact. This pick costs the Redskins a 3rd Rounder effectively, theoretically, and actually.
Re: Redskins Select Jarmon In Supplemental Draft
I will admit that the discounting of future picks is something that smart, patient teams have the ability to take advantage of. That said, there is a value to lost or gained time. Time value exists in nearly every kind of transaction. Why wouldn't it in those involving draft picks?
Re: Redskins Select Jarmon In Supplemental Draft
False.
There are at least two proofs that next year's picks are worth less than this year.
One is the following offer: if time does not discount the value of picks, I'll give you all of my picks from 2100AD to 2200AD for all your picks next year. It's 100 to 1! In fact, I'll give you all my picks from 2200AD to 2300AD for next year's picks. Hell, when 2100 hits, I'll give you all of my picks from the year 12000 to the year 13000 for all of yours (which include all of mine because of our earlier trade, of course). It's 1000 to 1!
The other proof I can think of is more complex. The general outline is showing that winning has a direct impact on monetary value, and then showing that drafting helps winning. This then maps to basic finances, with interest rates, etc. -- today's dollar is worth more than tomorrow's.
The grandparent poster is correct.
Re: Redskins Select Jarmon In Supplemental Draft
I'll side with Poster #4: there is a real discount because of opportunty cost and uncertainty of positioning, but the way teams supposedly go about it -- cropping a round off the pick automatically -- is, as the original poster said, senseless and idiotic.
Proof: I'll give you my seventh-rounder in 2010 for your first-rounder in 2016. No coach would take that trade, because that first-rounder in seven years will likely give you more quality football than one seventh-rounder will. Heck, I might have gotten more football (and thus more winning, and thus more profit) out of him by 2017 than you get from your seventh-rounder for his entire career.
Imagine a team with an extra first-rounder trading one of them for a third and net year's first, and then next year doing it again, and again, and again. They can keep that up until the Last Trump, get an endless string of third-rounders, which are not a negligible value, and soon they come out ahead even without ever spending the first-round pick. Something, somewhere, has got to be nonlinear.
The real discount should depend on a whole variety of factors, from how many spots you expect to be open for rookies to how you ranked the people likely to be available at the spot and so on. Possibly where in the draft you're making the trade, but I'm not sure abou that one; where the pick values cluster together more, the player values ae low, and where the player values are high, the pick spacing may make up for it.
Regardless, I think a whole round is likely too much unless there's a guy you desperately want to get. Consistently trading like that, a la Denver and Carolina, is a sucker's game; you end up with far less, averaged over the series of transactions, than you would have by simply eating the opportunity costs and picking next year.
Re: Redskins Select Jarmon In Supplemental Draft
Well, what the original poster actually said was that discounting picks AT ALL is stupid, which is easily refuted. I agree with you that a whole round MIGHT be too much of a discount, but it's pretty hard to deal in fractions of a round, because most teams have only one pick per round. It's true that instead of trading a 2nd this year for a first next year, you could trade a 2nd this year for something like a 2nd and 5th next year. But does that properly adjust for the discount?
There's also the matter of uncertainty about exactly what "one round" is going to end up meaning. If I have the #33 pick this year (a 2nd rounder) and trade it for a 1st rounder next year, that pick I've just acquired has a theoretical slot anywhere from #1 (huge trade up) to #32 (negligible improvement).
And that's really the heart of the matter. What's really being traded here is certainty for uncertainty. The team giving up the supposedly higher price is usually the one that initiates these kind of trades. Why? Because there's a specific player sitting there that they want. The team taking on the pick next year doesn't know when that pick will be, or who will be available when it comes. So they want something for their trouble, which is a minimum assurance that the pick they're trading for is going to be earlier than what they're giving up. Considering the way teams bounce around the standings from year to year, the only way to do that for sure is to make the pick a round earlier. If I give up this year's #33 (a 2nd) and end up with next year's #64 and #160 (a 2nd and 5th), I think I've lost that deal pretty badly.
Re: Redskins Select Jarmon In Supplemental Draft
Yeah, my understanding of devaluing a future year's pick is just to account for that future uncertainty. Lowering it one round is just a rule of thumb, which is why it breaks down when you examine it too closely, like the posters above me are doing. A slightly more accurate measure would be to devalue it to the last pick of the round in question. That way you are saying "Even if this team makes the Super Bowl, we are getting x value from their pick."
Re: Redskins Select Jarmon In Supplemental Draft
It's not just that. NFL players appreciate: an average 4th round player in year X should perform better than an average 4th round player in year X+1 - probably more like a 3rd round player. So if you trade your 3rd round pick in year X+1 for a 4th round player in year X, his contribution to the team will be better in year X (assuming it's above replacement level), about the same in year X+1, etc.
Obviously you do give up something - the 4th round player on average won't have as high a peak, and so his contribution might be a bit worse in year X+2, or X+3, but the added information you also get (you know more about the player's possible contribution in year X+1 than you would if you had drafted him in year X+1) about balances it out.
Re: Redskins Select Jarmon In Supplemental Draft
Also worth bearing in mind, though, is that the degree of alignment of the interests of the team and the GM is not constant from team to team, and is never perfect. A trade might be in the interests of the man authorised to make it without being in the interests of his team. I strongly suspect that general managers whose jobs are or could be in jeopardy are likely to discount future picks more heavily than the likes of Belichick or Polian.
There is also the matter of teams having some awareness of a draft's strength or weakness. Even before the 2005 draft took place, it was widely acknowledged to be a weak class, and widely presumed that 2006 would be a strong one. Rationally, that ought to have decreased the discounting of 2006 picks in 2005, while 2007 picks in 2006 ought to have been more heavily discounted.
Re: Redskins Select Jarmon In Supplemental Draft
Jimmy Johnson, I think, once commented that he figured draft value of future picks by bumping a pick exactly one round later for each year of delay.
I would disagree with VarlosZ. I think picks do have a time value, just as money does. Agreeing to pay a dollar next year costs me a dollar effective, theoretically, and actually, but I would still rather pay the dollar next year than this year, because if I keep it for a year, I can theoretically invest it somewhere and grow it. Similarly, if I pick a player in the 3rd round this year, I can develop him and hopefully by next year he'll be worth more than a 3rd round pick. What would you rather have at the time of the draft next year, a player with a year of experience, or a 3rd round pick?
However, I would agree that getting Jarmon now isn't worth as much as getting him in the real draft, because he's three months behind all the other rookies in OTA's, learning the system, etc.
Re: Redskins Select Jarmon In Supplemental Draft
"and actually, but I would still rather pay the dollar next year than this year, because if I keep it for a year, I can theoretically invest it somewhere and grow it."
yeah, but dollars don't expire after a couple years. Players talent does.
Re: Redskins Select Jarmon In Supplemental Draft
Exactly.
Players get better over time, but then they subsequently decline. If the average player has (say) a 6 year career, you are simply moving that forward in time. Whereas a dollar keeps on growing.
Another reason to take money today not tomorrow is inflation, which (almost always) devalues money over time. But there is no inflation in the draft. The 33rd pick in 2011 will get you the 33rd best player in that draft - just like the 33rd pick in 2010.
The only advantage to that shift forward is the second rationale in post #5: "The general outline is showing that winning has a direct impact on monetary value, and then showing that drafting helps winning." But as the poster rightly says, that is a pretty complex analysis. There is also a question of what we are measuring here. The theory he is positing is that getting your picks early will help the monetary value of the franchise - which is doubtless one of the goals of many owners. But in a league with a salary cap and floor it is not clear to what extent (if at all) enhancing a franchise's financial value causes winning (which is what most fans and FO readers are concerned with).
The first "proof" in Post 5 seems to depend on two points. First, that there is a likelihood that in 2100 the draft won't be there in the same form - so you don't really want those draft picks. That is true, but unrealistic - we are talking about whether the draft will be there in one or two years' time. So if there is an uncertainty premium it is quite low.
Second, I think the implication may be that because the specific GM/Owner will not be there in 100 years' time (and often not in 5 years' time) there is a premium because they want to "win now". That probably IS true and may be the real driver for the phenomenon we are discussing, and it does affect the market price of picks. However, it is not really a reason why later picks should be "worth less" in the sense of what they give to a franchise.
So I would say that (i) taken from the point of view of a franchise as a whole (as distinct from a particular GM/Head Coach/Owner) and (ii) with a focus on winning not making money, there does not seem to be any good reason to pay more for immediate draft picks.
Re: Redskins Select Jarmon In Supplemental Draft
But players do have a growth curve: which means you actually aren't really hurting yourself in the next year's draft. Your hurting yourself a little bit maybe a few years after the draft, when the higher-round player peaks a bit higher than your lower-round player, and then maybe a lot when your earlier-picked player's career ends a year earlier - but that's not for 6 years in the future.
The other thing to consider is that the "boost" that you get is relative: the boost you get in year 1 is a lower-round talent compared to a replacement level. The drop you get in year 6 (say) is "higher-round talent in year 5 relative to whomever you can replace him with."
This may still seem like a bad deal: but you have to consider the fact that you can plan for the replacement need in the future, but otherwise you're screwed in the current year. With good planning, the player's career ending earlier can be less of a blow than not having the player at all the first year.
I'm not saying "trade all your future picks away" of course, but if your team has a serious hole, trying to shore it up with future draft picks isn't a bad idea. You sacrifice a bit of peak value that you could get for the pick to ensure that you're not wasting the value of the team you currently have.
Re: Redskins Select Jarmon In Supplemental Draft
Matt Millen figured the value of draft picks by looking at Jimmy Johnson's chart and changing everything to a '0'.
Re: Redskins Select Jarmon In Supplemental Draft
Zing!
Re: Redskins Select Jarmon In Supplemental Draft
Solid pickup for the Skins. Their defense looks sick yet again, but I have my concerns about the offense. . .
Bah, concerns are for another day. This is a good draft pick.
Re: Redskins Select Jarmon In Supplemental Draft
I think because of the minicamps and off-season time Jarmon has already missed, he won't count fully this season. It will get him more time to get up to speed than players selected in April.
Jared Gaither was a non-factor for the Ravens in his first year (arguably the Ravens still had Ogden).
My understanding of the "future discount for draft picks" is that if you wanted an additional THREE in THIS years draft, you would need to pay one of your TWOs from NEXT year's draft. Based on this formula, the Redskins arguably paid a two, not a three. Since it is hard to tell whether the Redskins will be top or bottom of the division, hard to say how much it is worth. It is not hard to tell that if they will be bottom, Zorn will be done.
Re: Redskins Select Jarmon In Supplemental Draft
No, your logic is incorrect. Here's how it works: It would take next year's 2 to get a 3 this year. But the Skins only gave up next year's 3 to get a 3 this year, so it was discounted relative to the going rate.
Re: Redskins Select Jarmon In Supplemental Draft
Either way, its still just a third. Its the draft for players who screwed up, I'm fine with the 'skins spending a third on a guy that might pan out OK. Also depth for Orakpo or Carter going down, and undoubtedly for when Daniels does.
Re: Redskins Select Jarmon In Supplemental Draft
Schefter is saying that Jarmon was the only player picked, and a couple of teams wanted him in the 4th. Snore.
Re: Redskins Select Jarmon In Supplemental Draft
Are you not familiar with the supplemental draft? What you've described is how it works. It's for players who lost their college eligibility after the regular draft.
Jarmon was ruled ineligible for his senior season after testing positive for a banned substance.
http://johnclay.bloginky.com/2009/05/23/liveblog-uk-press-conference-at-...
He might have been the only guy in the draft (or the only one worthy of being drafted). Each team is given the opportunity to make a draft pick, otherwise they pass. Teams had to know that he was a 3rd or 4th round value. Washington apparently valued him, so they took him in the 3rd before anyone else could.
Re: Redskins Select Jarmon In Supplemental Draft
Anyone know how a bot gets through the Captcha filter? I find it simultaneously annoying and impressive. Surely it can't just be brute force guessing of words.
Re: Redskins Select Jarmon In Supplemental Draft
I have a theory: they auto-farm it out. that is, you get an infected PC, and when that person goes to visit a normal site (say google), it acts like google triggered its spambot detector and asks them to prove they are a real person, via a captcha. Only its not google, it is a faux page made to look like google, and the captcha image is one captures and sent directly to the window they get, which they then fill out and continue to google. The faux page then relays it back to the bot which uses it to get past the site they are trying to get through.
Re: Redskins Select Jarmon In Supplemental Draft
In the supplemental draft there's more to just comparing the value of a pick this year versus next year. In the regular draft teams are trading draft picks but not specific players. The Redskins got a particular player they valued and had an immediate need for, for an unknown player next year, at an unknown draft position, and have no idea whether they will like or dislike anyone at that spot. This seems like a no-brainer for the Skins.
Post new comment