This is a question for JDB (or anyone else who has the answer).

Why is the "trade value" of the 1.1 pick more than the "trade value" of the highest rated player in the draft pool?

I would think the value of the 1.1 pick would fluctuate from year to year based on the top player available that year. It shouldn't matter what the quality of players in previous draft pools has been.

The pick values are static based on this formula:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/draft/draft-trade-chart/

Player values are mapped against where their values are in relation to that, which is why it gets interesting.

I understand that is what you use to determine the value of draft picks, and I'm sure it makes it easier for you to calculate the value of future picks since the player pool is not yet determined.

But why do you use this formula for the current draft without taking the actual players available into consideration?

Regardless of whatever formula NFL GMs usually use, the 1.1 pick in the draft is worth more when Peyton Manning is the best player available than if it happened to be Mark Sanchez.

If the best player available is no better than a 2nd rounder in a "normal" year, the 1.1 pick is NOT as valuable as it is in a "normal" year.

In addition, the 1.1 pick has a trade value of 3000. The highest trade value I have been able to find for any player is 2700, for this player: https://cust10.myfootballnow.com/player/5130.

Admittedly I didn't review every player in every league, but I did look at the top 20-30 players with less than 6 years of experience in about 4 leagues.

It doesn't make sense to me why any draft pick would have a higher trade value than the highest trade value for an actual player in the league.

I seriously doubt anyone would have thought it was a smart move for IND to trade Andrew Luck and a future first (and maybe more) for the Rams 1.1 pick in the 2016 draft.

Maybe I am in the minority, but I don't think the pleasure of making the #1 pick is worth more than the player you can get with it, which is only reason why the most valuable trade asset in the league is a single draft pick.


By the way, I'm not complaining about this, I am just curious as to why you feel this is the best option or makes the most sense.

Being able to see the trade values is great, but it has raised some questions for me.

Thanks

Any thoughts?

A couple of concerns I have about making the draft pick values relative:

1) That is almost more of a subjective value than the player value, and the calculation to make it equitable would be impossibly difficult. Sure, a 100-rated QB might change the value of the 1.1, unless the team picking at 1.1 already had a young 100-rated QB and wants to take the 90-rated RB instead, in which case the 1.2 is now worth what the 1.1 should have been. Then, the value of the 100-rated QB is relative to the overall value in the league - if all 32 teams already have great QBs then he won't be as sought after.

2) What about future years' picks? Unless or until the future drafts are released early (which I'm not inclined to do as I'm concerned I'm concerned it would incentivize tanking) it would be impossible to place a realistic value on those picks.

Thanks for the response.

I was only asking about the current year's draft, since those are the only players that are known. I don't want to see draft classes for future years.

It just doesn't make any sense to me that the trade asset with the highest value in the whole MFN universe is a single draft pick.

The pick values are set to the standard just because that gives some objectivity; the players' value, though, makes it tough to equate - because if I make a 100-rated QB worth the 1st pick then it would be impossible to trade him. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Maybe it's a good thing, but it used to be more that way and there was a lot of users taking issue with that.