View Full Version : Did I miss something??
03-16-2001, 09:34 AM
God I hate to post a topic dealing with Green...sorry. I thought that we offered the Lambs a swap of 1st's and a 3rd for Green. Clayton says otherwise. Not that I think everything Clayton says is guaranteed fact. Here's the article:
CLAYTON: EXPECT DELAY IN KC-STL TALKS
by NFLScoop.com News Wire
Posted on 03/16/2001
ESPN's John Clayton reports: "Expect a long stalemate on the Trent Green trade talks. Chiefs president Carl Peterson and coach Dick Vermeil will attend the Iowa workouts Friday. Knowing that the Rams will be holding to the demand of first- and third-round choices, the Chiefs will go about their business and apparently not worry about it even though all they have at quarterback is Todd Collins. It seems as though the best the Rams were willing to do was a swap of first-rounders and a third, similar to the Matt Hasselbeck deal in Seattle. If those sides are that far apart, it will be hard for things to come together quickly knowing that the Rams lost $500,000 of cap room giving a roster bonus to Green on Thursday."
My guess is that it's a typo and where it says "It seems as though the best the Rams were willing to do..." it should say "the best the Chiefs were willing to do..." Who knows...
keg in kc
03-16-2001, 09:39 AM
That actually makes sense if the rumor that we offered a swap of firsts but no third is true. And then Zygmunt comes out and mentions the Hasslebeck deal the next day, lending even more credence to that possibility.
03-16-2001, 10:41 AM
In various other press accounts the Chiefs offered the Rams a swap of firsts and a third or a first and third and got back the Chiefs second. There was some talk of spreading it out over two drafts but that may have been only posturing.
You also see accounts where we are interviewing wrs to possibly replace Morris, instead of beefing up the 3rd wr slot.
The comments out of the Rams are contradictory or misquoted.
keg in kc
03-16-2001, 10:56 AM
Yeah, that's the real problem here, Donald - there's so many discrepancies in the information filtering out of St. Louis, and the Chiefs aren't really saying anything at all.
I think a lot of the so-called "experts" don't really know much more than we do, and they post speculation and try to pass it off as factual information.
Like I said before, who knows...
03-16-2001, 11:30 AM
One of the Chiefs proposals was the swap of firsts and the Rams denied that....so I don't know what the deal is...a swap of first and one of our thirds is acceptable to all concerned...but again, according to the paper the other day, the Rams denied this...they want 1 and 3rd and give us nothing but Green...bastards...
03-16-2001, 11:38 AM
The Rams have said all kinds of things. They said if the Chiefs had offered a first and just a 5th they would have taken it. And the Chiefs said if the Rams had offered to give back the Vermeil second they would have jumped on it.
Yes, it is very difficult to know what was really offered. And when the Rams talk that the trade should be like Johnson rather than Hasselback, means to me that swapping of firsts was not acceptable.
Of course many of the pundits do not yet know we do not have a 2nd rd!!
My own sense of this nonsense is that the Rams were covering their butts having the deadline bluff called and spoke in confusing metaphors and what could have been.
03-16-2001, 11:46 AM
A first and a fifth wouldn't be too bad, at least we still have two thirds...
If I were CP I'd offer my first for next year and a third for this year...the Rams are being jerks...and I think Carl is making them sweat because they need the cap space more than we need Green...we have other options...Aikman, Beuerlein...who won't be released until before the draft...so Grbac the Rams...let 'em squirm...they don't have any money so they will have a hard time signing any FAs let alone their rookies...
IMO, you are looking at this from the wrong perspective.
Let us say, hypothetically, that the Rams wanted to move up in the draft. They are at #20 and want to move up to #12. What compensation would you want from STL for this deal?
Would you accept a broken-kneed backup QB who was not good enough to win back the starting QB position from a former bag boy and arena football refugee? I would scoff and sneer at such a proposal.
And yet, here we are talking about giving up the #12 pick for that same broken-kneed QB without any compensation at all. Some of us are even eager to throw in ANOTHER draft pick for this QB.
We are willing to hurl draft picks at STL even though we know they are crunched against the cap and will be unable to make the FA signings needed to prop of their dismal joke of a Defense [it hurts a Defense Homer like me to even call that travesty a Defense, but letís not choke that chicken right now] until they unload some salaries.
This is a painfully bad idea that should never have gotten this far.
Our #12 for Green and the Ramsí #20. The only reason I make this deal is because we need a QB and do not think I could stand the incessant whining that would result from signing Dilfer.
apparently over-values the #12 pick in the draft.
keg in kc
03-16-2001, 12:09 PM
My thoughts nearly exactly, Gaz. That's why I've been less harsh on the Green homers lately. But only if we swap picks. I would, however, unlike you, agree to throwing in a third, because, in my opinion, the precedent was set with the Hasslebeck deal.
To be honest, I also would give up the 3rd, although I would grumble loudly and incessantly about it. I would give up the 3rd if that was the deal-breaker simply because Vermeil and Saunders really want Green and I am willing to give up a little bit to keep my HC and OC happy.
reluctantly giving in.
03-16-2001, 12:43 PM
OK, just trying to understand a couple of things. 1st. Do we have to have the QB situation done before we can hire Holmes? I read were they liked him, but couldn't offer a contract or anything till the QB. postion was take care of first. Also that Aikman wasn't going to be a dealing coin in the factor of Green for the Chiefs. If they are bringing in people and like and see that they fit with the team...this is where I am lost. Why do all of that if they can't offer them something. I think we know Green will be the QB. and I think that is good. But really, wait until the last of April to sign???????? Lord there is going to be no one left then. Rookies are good though. We got Cat and Wesley!
03-16-2001, 01:01 PM
Hoping I'm on the correct thread this time. I think Green is worth a 2nd at the utmost. But I would not get him because its going to rain qbs next year and getting him would once again put us buying something at the top when a little patience will yield winning results. And if we have paid too much for him we will not bench him. We seem to be out of whack with where the strength is in draft after draft. This is a dt, cb, wr, ot, deep draft. Even rb is turning out better than expected.
03-16-2001, 01:17 PM
Gaz, I must admit that I had never thought of it that way... You are absolutely correct. Now, look at it through Green's eyes. This guy is stuck on the bench behind Warner for two more years of what should be his prime. By the time he becomes a UFA, barring serious injury, he will have experience similar to what he has now and will be 2 years older!!! If I were him, I'd be going nuts clammoring for my immediate trade or release!!! This may be the one chance he has to truly define the rest of his career. I'd slit a throat if that's what it took....Well, maybe not, but you get the point.
vBulletin® v3.8.8, Copyright ©2000-2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.