How good were our trades?

by: Chris Sullivan

Let's assume for a second some worst case scenarios for 2010. The Denver Broncos win the Super Bowl and the Hawks go 0-16 and wind up with the #1, 33, 65... etc, picks. How good were Ruskell's trades from a trade-value chart perspective?

Trading our #37 pick (530 points) for the #32 pick (590 points) nets us a bare minimum of +60 points. If the Broncos were to pick at the same place they are this year, that would be a net gain of 670 points. The Hawks then traded their #68 (250 points) and #101 (96 points) picks for the #49 pick from the Bears (410 points). That's a net gain of 64 points. Finally, the Hawks traded up for the #91 pick (136), giving up our 5th and 7th pick (40 pts + 13 pts = 53 pts) and our 2010 3rd round pick (remember, we're dead last so that's 265 points). Thats a net loss of 182 points. For the day, in a worst case scenario, the Hawks are down 58 total draft trade value points.

(But wait! The Hawks may also have gained a compensatory pick if Leroy Hill does indeed leave in free agency, in addition to the other one we'll likely get from Leonard Weaver (who will almost certainly be a lot "better" statistically than his replacement, as we will be using the fullback in a different manner) and perhaps a few more along the way. On the whole, we likely break at least even -- if Hill is a bottom of the third round compensation pick, that would be about 116 points, doubly accounting for our lost points.)

In reality, we should look at the Hawks and Broncos as mid-round finishers. If the Broncos wind up at #16 and #17, assuming no ties, the Broncos #1 would be worth 1,000 points and the Hawks third round (#81) would be worth 190 points. Doing the same math as above we are +470 on the Broncos trade, +64 on the Bears trade, and -102 on the final trade of the day. On the whole, in a relatively realistic look at things, the Seahawks would be +432 points of trade value, equivalent to the #47 draft pick (Connor Barwin). Not bad.

END