PDA

View Full Version : What is the Trade value of Larry Johnson?


Mr. Laz
02-15-2007, 09:50 AM
IF larry johnson was to be traded ... what's his approx. value?


not asking if the Chiefs should trade him ... just what his value would be IF they did.

Direckshun
02-15-2007, 09:52 AM
I don't know why we're putting ourselves through this ridiculous exercise.

We would probably get him for a first rounder.

But we're not.

Nor do we really need to.

crazycoffey
02-15-2007, 09:55 AM
I would wish for the Walker variety, but that's not likely to happen, I'd say top 10.

Think the browns, bucs or cards would go for it? Would that be worth it?

HemiEd
02-15-2007, 09:58 AM
I would love to think it could be HW time, but I don't think so.

Low 1st rounder.

Where is Ditka when you need him?!

crazycoffey
02-15-2007, 09:59 AM
I don't know why we're putting ourselves through this ridiculous exercise.

We would probably get him for a first rounder.

But we're not.

Nor do we really need to.


because it's a fun way to pass the offseason!

HonestChieffan
02-15-2007, 10:01 AM
If Carl isnt finding out he is a bigger idiot than i expect

htismaqe
02-15-2007, 10:02 AM
I can't see anyone giving up more than a 2nd for him.

He's a RB with considerable wear and tear after last season. He's worth far more to us playing than on the open market.

Woodrow Call
02-15-2007, 10:05 AM
I'd say a 2nd and a mid rd pick.

Lots of carries last year, contract extension looming, and possible bad attitude. Can't see the Chiefs getting a 1st.

Radar Chief
02-15-2007, 10:09 AM
I can't see anyone giving up more than a 2nd for him.

He's a RB with considerable wear and tear after last season. He's worth far more to us playing than on the open market.

Wow, one year’s wear-n-tear drops’im to a second rounder?
The way I see it, LJ is a guaranteed +1500 yard producer, even with a chitty offensive line, and I would think that’d be worth at least a high first round pick. :shrug:

htismaqe
02-15-2007, 10:11 AM
Wow, one year’s wear-n-tear drops’im to a second rounder?
The way I see it, LJ is a guaranteed +1500 yard producer, even with a chitty offensive line, and I would think that’d be worth at least a high first round pick. :shrug:

It's not just one year of wear-and-tear. He set the NFL record for carries in a season. Only one RB in the history of the game has IMPROVED after carrying the ball that many times.

ck_IN
02-15-2007, 10:16 AM
Probably a low 1st rounder. Some team like the Giants may see themselves as one player away and if they're drafting somewhere in the 20's anyway they may consider it a good gamble.

And yes I do think we should trade him. The team needs to rebuild and I think LJ will go TO on us if we see a 6-10 season in the rebuilding process.

crazycoffey
02-15-2007, 10:16 AM
It's not just one year of wear-and-tear. He set the NFL record for carries in a season. Only one RB in the history of the game has IMPROVED after carrying the ball that many times.



This is exactly why we should be shopping him IMO. Someone could very well decide it's worth the gamble to see if LJ will be the second to improve. I think there are several on the NFC side that need to improve their running game and hold top ten picks. CP should be calling to see if they are interested. If he works on the business side of football anyway.

Mr. Laz
02-15-2007, 10:22 AM
This is exactly why we should be shopping him IMO. Someone could very well decide it's worth the gamble to see if LJ will be the second to improve. I think there are several on the NFC side that need to improve their running game and hold top ten picks. CP should be calling to see if they are interested. If he works on the business side of football anyway.
don't try it ......

htismaqe will never say that a Chiefs player has good market value. Because then he would have to deal with the fact that Carl peterson is a sad sack of crap who couldn't get the trade done.

better to just say "he's worth more to us than the market" so he doesn't have to deal with the emotional stress.

:p :p

Bowser
02-15-2007, 10:25 AM
don't try it ......

htismaqe will never say that a Chiefs player has good market value. Because then he would have to deal with the fact that Carl peterson is a sad sack of crap who couldn't get the trade done.

better to just say "he's worth more to us than the market" so he doesn't have to deal with the emotional stress.

:p :p

You two should just get a room and get it over with.




:D

FringeNC
02-15-2007, 10:27 AM
Probably a low 1st rounder. Some team like the Giants may see themselves as one player away and if they're drafting somewhere in the 20's anyway they may consider it a good gamble.

And yes I do think we should trade him. The team needs to rebuild and I think LJ will go TO on us if we see a 6-10 season in the rebuilding process.

I'm not sure Tom Coughlin and LJ could coexist.

htismaqe
02-15-2007, 10:28 AM
This is exactly why we should be shopping him IMO. Someone could very well decide it's worth the gamble to see if LJ will be the second to improve. I think there are several on the NFC side that need to improve their running game and hold top ten picks. CP should be calling to see if they are interested. If he works on the business side of football anyway.

I absolutely agree that we should be shopping him.

I also don't think anyone should be surprised and/or insulted when we can't get anything worthwhile out of him.

Mr. Laz
02-15-2007, 10:29 AM
You two should just get a room and get it over with.




:D
hehe




what would Tim say? :eek:

htismaqe
02-15-2007, 10:29 AM
don't try it ......

htismaqe will never say that a Chiefs player has good market value. Because then he would have to deal with the fact that Carl peterson is a sad sack of crap who couldn't get the trade done.

better to just say "he's worth more to us than the market" so he doesn't have to deal with the emotional stress.

:p :p

If LJ actually DID have market value, you'd have to finally admit that Carl Peterson ISN'T the sad sack of crap you've made him out to be. How do you sleep at night? :D

Bowser
02-15-2007, 10:31 AM
I'm not sure Tom Coughlin and LJ could coexist.

It would be fun watching them try. Especially since I am not a Giants fan.

Wile_E_Coyote
02-15-2007, 10:36 AM
I disagree, you let the market come to you

Mr. Laz
02-15-2007, 10:39 AM
If LJ actually DID have market value, you'd have to finally admit that Carl Peterson ISN'T the sad sack of crap you've made him out to be. How do you sleep at night? :D
come here Parker ... give daddy a hug.

http://www.uoregon.edu/~nmuntal/images/1%20R,%20T%20hug.JPG

FringeNC
02-15-2007, 10:39 AM
It's not just one year of wear-and-tear. He set the NFL record for carries in a season. Only one RB in the history of the game has IMPROVED after carrying the ball that many times.

That's just part of it. Then add the fact that LJ is a malcontent and is due for a huge contract. We could get something for LJ, but I can't imagine it'd be more than a low first-rounder at best.

Bowser
02-15-2007, 10:41 AM
That's just part of it. Then add the fact that LJ is a malcontent and is due for a huge contract. We could get something for LJ, but I can't imagine it'd be more than a low first-rounder at best.

I'd take it, only with the understanding that we would use both first round picks. Knowing Carl, he'd keep one and trade the other, or package both and trade down.

htismaqe
02-15-2007, 10:46 AM
I'd take it, only with the understanding that we would use both first round picks. Knowing Carl, he'd keep one and trade the other, or package both and trade down.

You'd honestly take one, low 1st-rounder for a guy that holds just about every franchise rushing record there is?

Chiefnj
02-15-2007, 10:50 AM
It's not just one year of wear-and-tear. He set the NFL record for carries in a season. Only one RB in the history of the game has IMPROVED after carrying the ball that many times.

I assume you are referring to Whitlock's quote of:

"nine running backs have accumulated 390-plus carries in a season. Only one, Eric Dickerson, continued to ascend after toting the rock that many times. Everyone else faded quickly."

I'm curious who were some of the others and how many career carries did they have prior to the workhorse season and did they have a history of injuries prior to that season?

FringeNC
02-15-2007, 10:52 AM
I'd take it, only with the understanding that we would use both first round picks. Knowing Carl, he'd keep one and trade the other, or package both and trade down.

I'd take it, too. If LJ was just a malcontent off the field, and a small locker-room problem, I'd say pay him the money....but when I saw New Orleans play and watched much smaller Reggie Bush, another prima donna, pass-block with more effort and with better results in his first freakin year than LJ does now, I say dump LJ. He is a monster running the ball, but is one-dimensional. We already have enough pass protection problems without having to worry about LJ taking passing plays off.

Mile High Mania
02-15-2007, 10:54 AM
I could be wrong, but with the frequency that teams are finding good RBs in the draft and FA... I don't see a R1 pick in return.

I would say something similar to the Portis for Bailey and a R4 pick scenario. Go for a stud player, like a WR... OL ... something and a R3-4 pick.

Hell - make a trade like that and sign a guy like Dom Rhodes for a fraction of the $ that LJ will want and you'll likely come out better in the end.

Radar Chief
02-15-2007, 10:56 AM
I assume you are referring to Whitlock's quote of:

"nine running backs have accumulated 390-plus carries in a season. Only one, Eric Dickerson, continued to ascend after toting the rock that many times. Everyone else faded quickly."

I'm curious who were some of the others and how many career carries did they have prior to the workhorse season and did they have a history of injuries prior to that season?


See that’s my first thought, how many of’em had that many carries in their first full season?
It seems like Jamal “Dirty Bird” Anderson was one, but it wasn’t his first full season and his career ended with a knee injury, IIRC.

htismaqe
02-15-2007, 10:59 AM
I assume you are referring to Whitlock's quote of:

"nine running backs have accumulated 390-plus carries in a season. Only one, Eric Dickerson, continued to ascend after toting the rock that many times. Everyone else faded quickly."

I'm curious who were some of the others and how many career carries did they have prior to the workhorse season and did they have a history of injuries prior to that season?

I assume you're attempting to extrapolate the likelihood of him "fading quickly" or not.

For my purposes, it's largely irrelevant whether or not he WILL fade. Just the fact that the possibility EXISTS and there's ample evidence of it happening decreases his trade value, IMO. It doesn't diminish his value to us nearly as much because we already account for his salary.

Mile High Mania
02-15-2007, 11:00 AM
You can also add TD to that list of RBs in the 390+ carry group that didn't repeat thanks to an injury. Davis had 392 carries, broke 2,000 yds rushing and was hurt the next season.

FringeNC
02-15-2007, 11:01 AM
I assume you're attempting to extrapolate the likelihood of him "fading quickly" or not.

It doesn't diminish his value to us nearly as much because we already account for his salary.

It certainly does when it's time for a new contract.

htismaqe
02-15-2007, 11:03 AM
It certainly does when it's time for a new contract.

Signing him to a new contract is incremental to us, as opposed to signing with a new team.

FringeNC
02-15-2007, 11:13 AM
Signing him to a new contract is incremental to us, as opposed to signing with a new team.

How so? His new contract and salary cap hit will affect us the same way it'd affect any team. Right now, part of his salary might be sunk because of the way the cap works, but certainly none of his new contract could possibly be a sunk cost.

Bowser
02-15-2007, 11:18 AM
You'd honestly take one, low 1st-rounder for a guy that holds just about every franchise rushing record there is?

With the holes this team has and with it looking more and more like LJ is going to be the next Wilbur Montgomery? Yeah, I would.

Chiefnj
02-15-2007, 11:19 AM
I assume you're attempting to extrapolate the likelihood of him "fading quickly" or not.

For my purposes, it's largely irrelevant whether or not he WILL fade. Just the fact that the possibility EXISTS and there's ample evidence of it happening decreases his trade value, IMO. It doesn't diminish his value to us nearly as much because we already account for his salary.

I disagree that there is ample evidence of it happening. People are given a soundbite and go with it without asking questions about previous # of carries, history of injury, age of the back, what about backs that had that many carries once you consider postseason carries, etc.?

htismaqe
02-15-2007, 11:19 AM
How so? His new contract and salary cap hit will affect us the same way it'd affect any team. Right now, part of his salary might be sunk because of the way the cap works, but certainly none of his new contract could possibly be a sunk cost.

He already counts against our cap. A new contract would replace the old contract and the old cap hit. If his current contract costs $800K against the cap and his new contract costs $3.2M against the cap, we're actually only using up an additional $2.4M worth of cap space, as opposed to a new team using up the full $3.2M.

In addition, we're not giving up draft picks to sign him.

Bowser
02-15-2007, 11:21 AM
With the holes this team has and with it looking more and more like LJ is going to be the next Wilbur Montgomery? Yeah, I would.

EDIT

Eh, maybe not. A first and a fourth, with us swapping second or third rounders, and giving away a sixth rounder the next year sounds better.

htismaqe
02-15-2007, 11:21 AM
I disagree that there is ample evidence of it happening. People are given a soundbite and go with it without asking questions about previous # of carries, history of injury, age of the back, what about backs that had that many carries once you consider postseason carries, etc.?

The simple fact that it happened is really all it takes to start the ball rolling.

If you think his record-setting season won't weigh on the minds of potential suitors, you're wrong.

Bowser
02-15-2007, 11:23 AM
The simple fact that it happened is really all it takes to start the ball rolling.

If you think his record-setting season won't weigh on the minds of potential suitors, you're wrong.

Wait a minute. Are you saying it's silly to take a low first for him, but suitors won't want to offer that much anyway?

Is a low first better than a second and a fifth, ala Marshall Faulk to St. Louis?

FringeNC
02-15-2007, 11:23 AM
He already counts against our cap. A new contract would replace the old contract and the old cap hit. If his current contract costs $800K against the cap and his new contract costs $3.2M against the cap, we're actually only using up an additional $2.4M worth of cap space, as opposed to a new team using up the full $3.2M.

In addition, we're not giving up draft picks to sign him.

Yeah, but presumably the acquiring team doesn't get an extra roster spot, and will most likely dump a running back, who may just have an 800k salary cap hit.

Chiefnj
02-15-2007, 11:24 AM
The simple fact that it happened is really all it takes to start the ball rolling.

If you think his record-setting season won't weigh on the minds of potential suitors, you're wrong.

I never said it wouldn't weigh in the minds of suitors, I also don't know enough about the previous backs or the other questions I raised to see if it is a fair point or not.

htismaqe
02-15-2007, 11:26 AM
Wait a minute. Are you saying it's silly to take a low first for him, but suitors won't want to offer that much anyway?

That's EXACTLY what I'm saying.

He's worth more than a single, low 1st-round draft pick to the Chiefs, if for no other reason than we already know he can play in the NFL and at a high level. You can't say that about any draft pick with 100% certainty.

Furthermore, it's likely that most teams will offer less than that (ie. the Faulk deal you mentioned) which further reinforces the idea that it would be pretty dumb to trade LJ at this point.

htismaqe
02-15-2007, 11:27 AM
I never said it wouldn't weigh in the minds of suitors, I also don't know enough about the previous backs or the other questions I raised to see if it is a fair point or not.

I understand that. We have two different points.

You're wanting to know if the concern about his future is valid or invalid.

IMO, it doesn't matter if it is or isn't - the simple fact that the info is out there decreases his trade value.

Chiefnj
02-15-2007, 11:33 AM
I understand that. We have two different points.

You're wanting to know if the concern about his future is valid or invalid.

IMO, it doesn't matter if it is or isn't - the simple fact that the info is out there decreases his trade value.


For instance Emmit Smith had 373 regular season carries in his third season in the NFL. That year Dallas won 3 postseason games (including the Super Bowl). I don't have the specific #'s for postseason carries that year, but it is safe to assume in those 3 games Smith easily broke the 400 yard carry mark. He had a lustrious career after that.

The little factoid that Whitlock is throwing around may be used by another GM, but without a detailed analysis of the situation it might amount to nothing and not result in a decrease in trade value.

Coogs
02-15-2007, 11:45 AM
How about this...

Swap #23 and LJ to the Texans for #8 and #39.

#8 Could land us a top player at one of several positions. And 2 second rounders could fill what is left over from not being taken at #8.

htismaqe
02-15-2007, 11:47 AM
For instance Emmit Smith had 373 regular season carries in his third season in the NFL. That year Dallas won 3 postseason games (including the Super Bowl). I don't have the specific #'s for postseason carries that year, but it is safe to assume in those 3 games Smith easily broke the 400 yard carry mark. He had a lustrious career after that.

The little factoid that Whitlock is throwing around may be used by another GM, but without a detailed analysis of the situation it might amount to nothing and not result in a decrease in trade value.

How could it not decrease his trade value? A GM is either

1) going to believe it and offer less because he truly believes LJ is damaged goods or

2) use it as leverage to lower the asking price

#2 is probably more likely, but I don't see any way one of those 2 scenarios aren't satisfied.

KurtCobain
02-15-2007, 12:05 PM
Let's go madden here, Johnson for a pats first rounder AND tom brady.

boogblaster
02-15-2007, 12:12 PM
Top 10 .. he's far from worn out .. probably the next Earl Campbell work-horse type back ..at least another 5 to 6 years left ....

Crashride
02-15-2007, 01:48 PM
Are we really talking about trading our most dominate player....wow

PastorMikH
02-15-2007, 02:33 PM
Let's see, if LJ were on another team and Carl were trading FOR him, he'd be worth a first, second, and swaping thirds.

Since he's with us, if Carl were to try and trade him, we'd probably end up getting a conditional mid-rounder in the '08 draft - and the condition would be that if LJ got hurt next season, the draft pick is forfieted.



The thought of trading LJ doesn't bother me as much as it should. His attitude does bother me a bit. The biggest problem I have with trading him is that this team has no threats at WR and at RB we have a guy that has been out for a year and a half with injury talking about maybe trying to play, one that is flat out no good, and another that was hurt off and on last year and got outran by one of our OL in a stupid footrace. I sure don't like the thought of losing our main offensive thread with the only other real threat we have being Tony Gonzo.

HemiEd
02-15-2007, 03:18 PM
I sure don't like the thought of losing our main offensive thread with the only other real threat we have being Tony Gonzo.

Offense? Offfense!? We don't need no stinkin' offense! [/herm]

PastorMikH
02-15-2007, 04:17 PM
Offense? Offfense!? We don't need no stinkin' offense! [/herm]


Uhm, yes we do. According to Herm, the offense's purpose is to hold on to the ball long enough for the D to rest.

Now, keep in mind that nothing else really matters, only that they are able to keep the ball long enough for the D to catch it's breath.


:)

Skip Towne
02-15-2007, 04:33 PM
Uhm, yes we do. According to Herm, the offense's purpose is to hold on to the ball long enough for the D to rest.

Now, keep in mind that nothing else really matters, only that they are able to keep the ball long enough for the D to catch it's breath.


:)
Yep, we're going to shut out everybody.

Logical
02-15-2007, 04:57 PM
In today's NFL we would be lucky to get a low 1st rounder, that is not right, just the way it is.

Mr. Laz
02-15-2007, 06:21 PM
Offense? Offfense!? We don't need no stinkin' offense! [/herm]
win every game by a safety

Mr. Laz
02-15-2007, 06:22 PM
In today's NFL we would be lucky to get a low 1st rounder, that is not right, just the way it is.
didn't the broncos just give up a 1st rounder for a wide receiver?

Phobia
02-15-2007, 06:24 PM
That's just part of it. Then add the fact that LJ is a malcontent and is due for a huge contract. We could get something for LJ, but I can't imagine it'd be more than a low first-rounder at best.

You make the trade contingent upon a contract extension.

Bill Parcells
02-15-2007, 06:46 PM
didn't the broncos just give up a 1st rounder for a wide receiver?
And the Seahawks gave up a 1st rounder for a mediocre receiver (Deion Branch).

Halfcan
02-15-2007, 07:43 PM
First and second.