Quote
dzrams
Ah ok. I didn't realize you were limiting it to that narrow of a target.
I'm not sure why that makes sense to limit it in such a fashion. I haven't understood Billy's perspective to be narrowly limited to one current pick for one future pick that's a round higher.
I would think something like this would qualify for what I understand of his position of good chess:
Seahawks receive:
» 2016 fifth-round pick (No. 147): Quinton Jefferson
» 2016 seventh-round pick (No. 243): Kenny Lawler
Patriots receive:
» 2016 seventh-round pick (No. 225): Devin Lucien
» 2017 fourth-round pick
The Pats trade a 5th and late 7th for a slightly better 7th and a 4th the next year. That trade is essentially a current 5th for a 4th the next year.
I never placed any limits on the kinds of trades involved. In fact, my entire point was/is -- to borrow overused cliches for a moment -- think outside the box, push the envelope, etc. etc. It's to try new things that make great sense, but aren't done as often as they should be done. To me it's beyond debate that the
absence of X, Y or Z doesn't necessarily prove it's a bad idea. As someone with sixty plus years on this planet, I've seen too many cases of lost opportunities, all too often because they think no one else does it. All too often, it's because the folks in charge are too afraid to do something new, different or rare.
(Think Hollywood, for example. Think about how rare it is for them to really push for seriously unique TV and Movie programming, as opposed to stuff they believe has a track record -- dusty though it might be. This all too often results in stale retreads, instead of successfully appealing to audiences, new or old.)
So, when it comes to trades, you could mix and match in all sorts of ways . . . But, to me, the main objective is always going to be to maximize your choices in this and future drafts whenever possible . . . and always think that doing more
IS possible, cuz it always is.
. . . .
Obviously that means you have to have another GM, or two, willing to work with you. But when it comes to starting the trade, the team wanting to move
this year's pick for next year's is going to be able to draw interest, because
most GMs on Draft Day aren't thinking about next year, necessarily. They want players NOW. Right now. So it's actually the perfect time to stash away better picks via trades. The GM willing to go for 2019 has a major advantage in 2018, because of the dynamic of the Draft. Which then means he'll have more options in 2019, and can try this again.
It's just one of many ways to play better chess, in my view. Another is to try, whenever possible, to trade down within a group of players you and your staff believe are pretty much equal. If you have, say, pick #19, and you really like ten other players available at that point . . . trade down. You can have your cake and eat it too that way. Stockpile more picks -- which means more chances to "hit" on the Draft -- AND you'll still get one of the guys you really want.
That's good chess in my book. It's bad chess NOT to do this if you can make it happen. Two to tango being essential, obviously . . . You can't make trades without willing partners, etc. etc.
