Originally Posted by infantrycak
Not sure how you get 4000. They gave up #6 (1600), #39 (510), a 1st this year which had to be assumed mid-round and is treated as equivalent to a same year 2nd (420) and a 1st 2 years out treated as 3rd round same year pick (190) = 2720. Not a gross disparity value wise by the chart.
#7 (1500), #25 (720), #40 (500) and next year 1st/mid 2nd this year (420) = 3140.
Neither scenario is wildly outside the chart.
Why would a 1st next year be treated as a mid-2nd round pick and why would a 1st in two years be treated as a mid-3rd? Sure it's not in the same draft, but it's still a 1st round pick. Why is the value of it significantly worse?
I will probably do a terrible job explaining my reasoning but here goes....
I agree that both picks have to be valued at assumed mid-round because there is no way to know where they fall. All we know is that they will fall IN the 1st round. So I valued both future 1st's with the same value as the #16 pick. That's mid-1st. I don't agree with the reasoning that you would value those future picks at a MUCH lesser value than what they will actually be worth just because they are 1 & 2 years down the road.
#6 (1600 pts), #39 (510 pts), 2013 1st (1000 pts), 2014 1st (1000 pts) = 4110 pts. The original #2 pick they traded for was worth just 2600 pts.
The Washington pick last year was #22 overall (780 pts) and the pick this year is in line right now to be #2 (2600 pts). That means the two future 1st round picks that you value at a meager 630 pts (420 + 190) actually end up being worth 3380 pts. You're valuing 2 future 1st round picks as just one #29 overall when in actuality they ended up with #22 AND #2.
In the end, Washington traded 2012 #6, 2012 #39, 2013 #22, and 2014 #2 (totaling 5490 points) for 2012 #2 (valued at 2600 points).