TRADE!!! - Vikes have two first-rounders (11 & 23)

Making this trade over a month before the draft clearly indicates that the Vikings are building ammo to offer a package to get one of the top QBs in the draft. Although it feels as if Minnesota would target Drake Maye or J.J. McCarthy in a trade-up scenario, we can’t know the exact player they are targeting at this point. But we can look at what it would cost to move up in the draft, considering the Vikings’ resources and historical trade options. With that information, we can determine whether or not we think each QB is worth the price.

The recent trade with Houston is another example to look at. Let’s look at how the Vikings did based on the various charts:



On its face, you could say the Vikings made a bad trade, particularly from an analytics perspective. They lost the equivalent of a third- or fourth-round pick in value for the trade. However, the market disagrees. The difference on Jimmy Johnson‘s chart is essentially the loose change of a late-round pick, and Rich Hill’s chart suggests that the Vikings won the trade by about the cost of a late fourth-round pick.

I generally prefer the analytical value charts and would typically see this as a bad trade. But analytical charts come with a caveat, and that is for quarterbacks. If a team is trading up for a quarterback, it should be generally seen as good value because of the position’s importance.

As Baldwin puts it:

I haven’t seen a draft value chart that satisfies the following two conditions:
1. Is made with publicly available code and data
2. Shows a draft value curve when excluding quarterbacks

The latter point is especially important. If one combines quarterbacks and non-quarterbacks when constructing a draft value chart, one ends up much too rosy on the value of the top picks in the draft when these picks are not used on a quarterback. This is due to quarterbacks being very valuable, and quarterbacks selected high in the draft tending to have higher hit rates.

This PFF article illustrates the probability differences between drafting a quarterback and drafting a position player. Before the 2020 draft, they theorized that if the Washington Commanders planned to take a position player, they would benefit from trading down from No. 2 and asking for just No. 7 and No. 38 in return. However, the return on trading up for a QB was so massive that the Miami Dolphins could have sent picks No. 5, 16, and 26 in that draft and still won the trade.

It’s generally smart to win on the analytics side of trades. But in the case of trading up for a QB, which the Vikings plan on doing if they can trade up, we should be more concerned with the market value of the trade package than the analytical value. Given that, I would argue that the Vikings came out slightly ahead in their trade with the Texans.

Finally, there is another option if the Patriots decide it is their time to take a QB at No. 3. The Vikings could move up to No. 4 with the Arizona Cardinals or No. 5 with the Los Angeles Chargers. The cost should decrease in this case because neither team is in the market for a QB. That makes trading just pick No. 11 and No. 23 feasible. The team trading out gets good value, while Minnesota retains its future picks. Let’s take a look at a potential trade up to No. 5.



First-round picks aren’t the only pieces the Vikings can send, but it’s hard to predict a different combination before a trade actually happens. The firsts will get Minnesota in the ballpark and later picks to even out the trade can be added later.

In all, it’s going to be difficult for the Vikings to “win” a trade up for a quarterback based on the traditional value of draft picks. But even if they have to spend No. 11, No. 23, and a 2025 first to trade up for a quarterback, remember the conclusion from the PFF article above — a quarterback with a profile that suggests he’s worth an early pick overrides a vast overpay in moving up.

Now the Vikings just need to determine which QBs in the draft are worth moving up for.