Results 1 to 9 of 9
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By general counsel

Thread: Real numbers on rams trade

  1. #1
    OldRamsfan's Avatar
    OldRamsfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Fort Mohave, AZ
    Posts
    886
    Rep Power
    12

    Real numbers on rams trade

    Evaluating the Rams and Redskins Trade for Robert Griffin III


    Baylor's Robert Griffin III

    On Friday night, reports emerged that the Washington Redskins had agreed to give the
    St. Louis Rams their first and second round picks this year, along with their 2013 and 2014 first round picks in exchange for the second overall pick. While there are a number of storylines in this trade, this post examines the expected value that the Redskins sacrificed to get the second overall pick. Because I grew up in Washington, this post is Redskins-centric. If you are wondering how it affects the Rams, just flip all of the analysis below.

    Using my previous analysis of the draft, this post examines two things: first, how much the Redskins actually paid for Robert Griffin III, and second, how well RGIII has to perform to justify this price. Because this trade involves future draft picks whose exact overall number is impossible to know, we must assign some value to them. Since teams cannot know what draft position they will have the following year, I assume that the expected value of those picks is the average of the picks in that round. For example, a future first round pick is worth the average value of all picks in the first round. Using this assumption, I evaluate this trade and compare it to the Julio Jones and Ricky Williams trades from previous years.

    From an expected value perspective, the Redskins definitively lost this trade (to put it mildly). The second overall pick carries an expected Career Approximate Value Over Average (eCAVOA) of 435.4. The 6th and 38th overall picks have a combined eCAVOA of 525.1. If the Redskins had given up just these picks, they would have lost 89.7 eCAVOA, which is the equivalent of the 114th overall pick (the middle of the 4th round).

    If this price had been the extent of the trade, it would have been defensible. A 525.1 eCAVOA translates to a CAV of 78.7, essentially equaling Matt Hasselbeck’s CAV. So RGIII would have only had to equal Hasselbeck for this trade to be equal.

    However, the Redskins gave much more: their next two first round draft picks. The average expected value of a first round pick is 276.8 eCAVOA, which brings the total eCAVOA the Redskins gave up to 1078.7. The Rams only gave up 435.4 eCAVOA, giving them a net gain of 643.3 eCAVOA, equivalent to the first and 57th overall draft picks.

    However, the above calculations assume that picks this year have equal value to picks in the future. Since that assumption is false, we have to discount the value of those draft picks. We can calculate the discount rate the Redskins placed on their future first round picks by setting the values on each side of this trade equal to each other, with r equal to the discount rate:

    6th pick + 38th pick + 2013 1st Rounder + 2014 1st Rounder = 2nd pick +surplus value

    341.5 + 183.7 + 276.8/(1+r)n + 276.8/(1+r)n+1 = 435.4 + surplus value

    276.8/(1+r)n + 276.8/(1+r)n+1 = -89.8 + surplus value

    This equation cannot be solved where surplus value = 0. Even if r equaled infinity, this equation would not balance without a surplus. The only way it could be possible would be if the Redskins negatively valued their future first round draft picks. Given their previous willingness to trade away picks, this may not be far off. However, assuming that having first round picks is actually good for your team, this trade is awful for the Redskins.

    But just how bad was this trade? In The Loser’s Curse, Cade Massey and Richard Thaler found that teams discount future draft picks at a rate of 173%. I agree with the authors’ comment that this discount rate is “staggering”, but it is much less clear what rate teams should use. With this value, our equation becomes:

    276.8/(2.73) + 276.8/(2.73)2 = -89.8 + surplus value

    138.5 = -89.8 + surplus value

    228.3 = surplus value

    An eCAVOA of 228.3 equates to the 22nd overall pick. So with this trade, the Redskins lost the expected value equivalent to the 22nd overall pick.

    But let’s not jump to conclusions. RGIII could be better than the average second overall pick. In fact, he could be the best second overall pick ever. So how good does RGIII have to be to justify this trade?

    Given the discounted value of the future draft picks, the total price the Redskins paid was 753.5 eCAVOA. That price translates to a CAV of 113.0, comparable to Tom Brady’s current production to date (109 CAV). For the Redskins to get the equivalent value from RGIII as they spent acquiring him, he must produce at least as much as Tom Brady. If RGIII merely lives up to his eCAVOA, he’ll finish his career having slightly outperformed David Garrard (61 CAV). Because all-time-great quarterbacks are rare commodities, the Redskins likely lost value both on paper and in reality.

    This trade is very comparable to some of the most lopsided trades from the past few years. Last offseason, the Atlanta Falcons gave the 26th, 69th, and 124th, overall picks along with their 1st and 4th round picks this year for the 6th overall pick, which they used on Julio Jones. The calculations below determine the value they lost from this trade.

    26th pick + 69th pick + 124th pick + 1st rounder + 4th rounder = 6th pick + surplus value

    216.1 + 132.7 + 82.5 + 276.8/2.73 + 91.9/2.73 = 341.5 + surplus value

    224.9 = surplus value

    This calculation shows that the Falcons sacrificed almost the exact same value to acquire Jones as the Redskins did for RGIII. For the Falcons to get the same value from Jones as they spent drafting him, he must perform similarly to Keyshawn Johnson (78 CAV).

    For what it’s worth, the Redskins trade is still much better than the Saints’ trade for Ricky Williams. In 1999, the Saints traded the 12th, 71st, 107th, 144th, 179th, 218th, along with a first and fourth rounder the following year for the 5th overall pick.

    665.7 + 276.8/2.73 + 91.9/2.73 = 357.1 + surplus value

    443.7 = surplus value

    That surplus is almost exactly double what the Falcons and Redskins gave up in their trades. For the Saints to get the production that they paid for out of Williams, he would have had to perform as well as Barry Sanders (CAV of 122). A Hall-of-Fame career is too much to expect from any draft pick.

    Regardless of the rationale behind this move, the Redskins lost a tremendous amount of value in this trade, potentially setting the team back for years. If RGIII does not pan out – whether because of talent or injury – Washington would be left with no quarterback and no first round draft picks for the next two years. Regardless of RGIII’s future, the Redskins lost about as much expected value as the Falcons gave up last year to acquire Julio Jones. While RGIII will bring excitement to Washington, the conclusion here is clear. This trade was a bad move by the Redskins, and one of the worst moves in recent history.


  2. #2
    AtlantaRamFan's Avatar
    AtlantaRamFan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Age
    24
    Posts
    822
    Rep Power
    22

    Re: Real numbers on rams trade

    Interesting take from a Redskins perspective since most Skins fans are excited about the trade. The problem with this and the draft value chart is that it doesn't take into consideration who the player is. If it were Luck, the Rams would have been able to get even more. Point is, I don't know that you can say "Draft spot 1 is always worth 556 magic draft points". Some years it'll be Andrew Luck, other years not so much. Yeah the Redskins will be without a first round pick, but only for 2 more years. The jury will still be out on RGIII by then. If he's a bust, they'll try again in 3 or 4 years. If not, he'll definitely be worth the trade.

  3. #3
    tomahawk247's Avatar
    tomahawk247 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Essex, England
    Age
    27
    Posts
    4,649
    Rep Power
    57

    Re: Real numbers on rams trade

    I do love me some made up mathematics

    How do they assign Career Approximate Value to players careers? The article is quite useless without this piece of information

  4. #4
    Truck is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Haven, MO
    Posts
    62
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Real numbers on rams trade


  5. #5
    general counsel's Avatar
    general counsel is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    atlanta, georgia
    Age
    52
    Posts
    5,516
    Rep Power
    80

    Re: Real numbers on rams trade

    Here is one thing that is completely off in this analysis. THe julio jones trade and the rgIII trade were made under very different collective bargaining situations. Thus, comparing the rgIII trade to prior deals is apples and oranges to some extent. True, a deal was ultimately reached on the collective bargaining agreement last year, but at the time of the jones trade, there was certainly great uncertainty in that area. Let's put it this way for us non-math people. For the trade to work out for the redskins, rgIII better be darn good and darn good for a long time. For the trade to work out for the rams, the rams need to make good choices with those picks. A trade can look good on a value chart or via a mathmatical formula, but at the end of the day, the trade works or doesnt work based on the performance and longevity of the guys that get picked (ie see picking up a high #3 for trading back from 10 to 17, allowing the rams to still get "their guy" in Tye Hill while grabbing a first round talent in El Kabong Wroten, while Jay Cutler is a solid qb.

    ramming speed to all

    general counsel
    RAMarkable likes this.


  6. #6
    RAMarkable is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Age
    59
    Posts
    2,088
    Rep Power
    41

    Re: Real numbers on rams trade

    Quote Originally Posted by general counsel View Post
    Here is one thing that is completely off in this analysis. THe julio jones trade and the rgIII trade were made under very different collective bargaining situations. Thus, comparing the rgIII trade to prior deals is apples and oranges to some extent. True, a deal was ultimately reached on the collective bargaining agreement last year, but at the time of the jones trade, there was certainly great uncertainty in that area. Let's put it this way for us non-math people. For the trade to work out for the redskins, rgIII better be darn good and darn good for a long time. For the trade to work out for the rams, the rams need to make good choices with those picks. A trade can look good on a value chart or via a mathmatical formula, but at the end of the day, the trade works or doesnt work based on the performance and longevity of the guys that get picked (ie see picking up a high #3 for trading back from 10 to 17, allowing the rams to still get "their guy" in Tye Hill while grabbing a first round talent in El Kabong Wroten, while Jay Cutler is a solid qb.

    ramming speed to all

    general counsel


    gc,

    This is totally the case. As Rams fans so painfully learned in the Eric Dickerson trade fiasco it doesn't matter how many picks you get if you mess up and draft junk then your "great deal" goes down in flames.

    The "real numbers" on this trade won't be available for years to come. So let's hope that Fishnead does a much better job than previous FOs.

    I still have nightmares about the ED trade....


    WHAT SAY YE?

  7. #7
    ramsflow is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    16
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Real numbers on rams trade

    We got it so good on this trade, we don't need math to see that.

  8. #8
    C-Mob 71's Avatar
    C-Mob 71 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    S. Illinois
    Posts
    1,506
    Rep Power
    45

    Re: Real numbers on rams trade

    sigh, you can throw the trade value chart out the window as far as this trade goes. The Redskins needed a potential elite franchise QB, they received a potential elite franchise QB. The Rams didn't need said QB, but needed as many draft picks as they could get, and they got more than many people expected. It was a win win for both sides... as long as we don't screw up our picks as GC said.

  9. #9
    Goldenfleece's Avatar
    Goldenfleece is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    3,586
    Rep Power
    60

    Re: Real numbers on rams trade

    If the Rams go on to draft the same person that they would have at no. 2--and that is a distinct possibility if we wind up drafting someone like Blackmon or Kalil--there is almost no way for this to not be a good trade for us. If we get any value at all in addition to what we would have gotten otherwise, it's a net plus. Of course, we want to make it count, but there's almost no down side for us. I agree with the gist of the argument, though, that Robert Griffin, III has to be more than just an above average quarterback to justify the value the Redskins gave up for him. The value they placed on him is the kind of value you would trade to land an All-Pro.

Similar Threads

  1. By the numbers: Why the Rams will win Sunday
    By Judaxi in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: -10-27-2010, 10:48 PM
  2. New Rams by the Numbers
    By dgr828 in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: -07-19-2010, 03:25 AM
  3. New Rams by the Numbers
    By dgr828 in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: -07-11-2008, 07:52 PM
  4. It's in the numbers for the Rams
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -12-18-2007, 09:51 PM
  5. Some cap numbers for the rams
    By general counsel in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -04-21-2005, 05:28 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •