Browns want to trade up

[ysleblanc]

I would love this...a combination of 2018 1st plus 2017 3rd for 12th overall...

Michael Silver‏Verified account @MikeSilver · 9s10 seconds ago


I can now update my report yesterday: The Browns have contacted at least four teams with top 8 picks about possibly moving up from 12.



0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes

[mmmc_35]

Let's do it.

[UOK]

Would not shock me in the slightest if the Browns go 1-2 in this draft, Garrett 1 and Trubisky/Watson 2.

[wab]

I think, basically, the Niners are going to say "if you want Trubisky, you are going to have to trade with us, or we are taking him".

[CRM 114]

How do the Browns trade up from 1? I knew the Browns were dysfunctional but this is a new low. Smh.

[Nanky]

How do the Browns trade up from 1? I knew the Browns were dysfunctional but this is a new low. Smh.

They also have the #12 pick this year . . .

[wab]

How do the Browns trade up from 1? I knew the Browns were dysfunctional but this is a new low. Smh.

I'm tiring of this.

[CRM 114]

How do the Browns trade up from 1? I knew the Browns were dysfunctional but this is a new low. Smh.

They also have the #12 pick this year . . .

Oh that's right! I forgot! Silly me.

[CRM 114]

How do the Browns trade up from 1? I knew the Browns were dysfunctional but this is a new low. Smh.

I'm tiring of this.

Tiring of what? An honest mistake? I forgot Cleveland was picking #12 overall as well.

[Mikefive]

Let's say the Brownies want to move up to #3 for #12 and #33. That's a really light deal for Cleveland to move up that far. The infamous pick value chart says that's us trading 2200 points for 1780, short by the value of a mid 2nd round pick, which sounds historically about right to me, value for value.

However, circumstances are what they are. Once you get beyond Garrett at #1, the relative value of the top 10 players seems to be lower than usual and fairly flat with lots of teams looking to trade down seemingly as a result. Decreased demand for any good (picks 2-7) lowers the economic value, even though the pay is the same. Furthermore, the number of teams looking to trade down looks pretty great, so to make the deal, you'll have to offer the best price to underbid your competitors in the market.

So with that downward pressure on the value of our pick, would you take the above deal as a way to get that extra pick? If not, how low would you go?

[malk]

Let's say the Brownies want to move up to #3 for #12 and #33. That's a really light deal for Cleveland to move up that far. The infamous pick value chart says that's us trading 2200 points for 1780, short by the value of a mid 2nd round pick, which sounds historically about right to me, value for value.

However, circumstances are what they are. Once you get beyond Garrett at #1, the relative value of the top 10 players seems to be lower than usual and fairly flat with lots of teams looking to trade down seemingly as a result. Decreased demand for any good (picks 2-7) lowers the economic value, even though the pay is the same. Furthermore, the number of teams looking to trade down looks pretty great, so to make the deal, you'll have to offer the best price to underbid your competitors in the market.

So with that downward pressure on the value of our pick, would you take the above deal as a way to get that extra pick? If not, how low would you go?

I don't think Pace could do that, he'd catch too much flak even though your analysis is pretty much bang on. I do think that they'd be willing to make it a little sweeter, with at least a 4th or something from 2018. I really liked the idea of the #12 and their 2018 1st. With a rookie QB that could still be pretty high.

[LacertineForest]

I really liked the idea of the #12 and their 2018 1st. With a rookie QB that could still be pretty high.

I'd do that in a second. I can't see the Browns or the Bears picking outside the top-10 next year (as much as it pains me to say), so you'd be set up very well in that scenario.

[wab]

Only way I move back to #12 is if it involves the #33rd pick and the Browns 1st next year.

[Moriarty]

Is that the "original" not very good Trade Chart? Kinda looks like it.
If it is, better ones have been made that flatten it (lower values on high picks, higher on later).

Regardless,
Agree it's light
Agree that you have to vary values by year/situation and this is a year where a move down in that area isn't as valuable
A trade down would be nice

The thing is, I'd really prefer to trade down to 7-9, because at least 1 of the guys on your list to consider at 3 will still be there. 12 might be too far to get any of those guys, in which case, I'd probably end up trying to move down again to 18-25ish. And I'm not sure I want to go that far. And the little bit you're gaining from the CLE deal isn't enough to trade back up to 7-8 and have anything worthwhile left over, either.

If you could engineer a 3-way, where CLE ends at 3, we get 7-8 + R2, and 7-8 gets 12 + R3, now I'm more interested.

[Moriarty]

I really liked the idea of the #12 and their 2018 1st. With a rookie QB that could still be pretty high.

I'd do that in a second. I can't see the Browns or the Bears picking outside the top-10 next year (as much as it pains me to say), so you'd be set up very well in that scenario.

Well, sure, but I consider that a pretty lopsided deal that they'd be foolish to do.

[UOK]

@JasonColeBR
Two teams in the QB chase believe Trubisky will be the No.1 pick OR Cleveland will pay a truckload to move up to the 2 or 3 spot

[wab]

I think they are sufficiently paranoid enough about missing on him that they just might take Biscuits #1.

[mmmc_35]

I think they are sufficiently paranoid enough about missing on him that they just might take Biscuits #1.

The Browns are going to Browns this up huh. Poor Mitch. He seems like a good dude. Probably had a notch below Carlson Palmer career ceiling, Christian Ponder career floor. Then the Browns draft him. That floor becomes a reality.

[malk]

They can find out what it will take for the 49ers before they make their pick. We're going to see what the haul could have been right before our eyes

[wab]

The Browns are trying to rebuild that team, and I think with all those picks, they are happy with getting a bunch of pretty good players that will change the culture, than one great player that really doesn't want to be there.

The reason I could see them taking Trubisky #1 is because good or bad, he really WANTS to play for the Browns. As a GM, I'd probably go for a less talented player that wants to be there than a more talented player who doesn't...and the latter may never play to his ability because of it.

The thing with Garrett is that he wants to go #1, just not #1 to Cleveland.

To me, a supremely talented player who is apprehensive about playing for me and already has questions about his commitment and motor isn't worth the #1 pick. To me...as a fictional GM.

[malk]

Is there really that much danger SF takes Mitcheese and Biscuits at #2?

[Mikefive]

Let's say the Brownies want to move up to #3 for #12 and #33. That's a really light deal for Cleveland to move up that far. The infamous pick value chart says that's us trading 2200 points for 1780, short by the value of a mid 2nd round pick, which sounds historically about right to me, value for value.

However, circumstances are what they are. Once you get beyond Garrett at #1, the relative value of the top 10 players seems to be lower than usual and fairly flat with lots of teams looking to trade down seemingly as a result. Decreased demand for any good (picks 2-7) lowers the economic value, even though the pay is the same. Furthermore, the number of teams looking to trade down looks pretty great, so to make the deal, you'll have to offer the best price to underbid your competitors in the market.

So with that downward pressure on the value of our pick, would you take the above deal as a way to get that extra pick? If not, how low would you go?

I don't think Pace could do that, he'd catch too much flak even though your analysis is pretty much bang on. I do think that they'd be willing to make it a little sweeter, with at least a 4th or something from 2018. I really liked the idea of the #12 and their 2018 1st. With a rookie QB that could still be pretty high.

Forget next year's #1. That isn't going to happen. But if as you said, they give me 12, 33 and throw in another pick even next year, I think I'm in with this deal. I just like the idea of getting one of the top 3 QBs AND a DB, edge guy or TE at 33 over Adams, Allen or Thomas.

[UOK]

Browns will take Garrett #1 overall & try to trade up to get Trubisky from 12.

[docc]

Close..

If Trubisky hits,,we got hope..if not..we got dick