PDA

View Full Version : Trade Down Quandry...What would you do


Alphaman
04-04-2009, 07:16 AM
For the sake of argument, let's assume that the Lions having missed out on Jay Cutler and realizing none of the top 3 QBs will be available at #20, take Matt Stafford #1 in the draft. Let's further assume that the Rams take Jason Smith at #2.

The Chiefs are on the clock and having had trade discussions all morning long with this scenario in mind, have the following trade offers on the table for the 3rd pick in the draft. Which offer would you take or would you say no to all and draft a player


Offer #1 - Cleveland - #5 and #36 presumably to draft Aaron Curry

My analysis: Good deal for Chiefs. Since they have two 2nd round picks, they may be inclined to really go after Curry. Seahawks would likely take Monroe or Sanchez. If they take Sanchez we could probably still trade down with a team looking for an OT. If they take Monroe, we could have several options available to trade down to a team looking for Sanchez.

Offer #2 - Cincinnati - #6 and #38 presumbly to draft Eugene Monroe.

My analysis: Good deal for Chiefs, but not as good as offer #1. Monroe, Sanchez and Curry would all likely be off the board, so the Chiefs would take Crabtree, Brown or Orakpo. There wouldn't be opportunity for further trade downs.

Offer #3 - San Francisco - #10 and #43 presumably to draft Mark Sanchez.

My analysis: Good deal for Chiefs but not as good as offer #2. SF would likely have to pony up a 2nd next year or a 3rd this year to be in the discussion.

Offer #4 - Denver - #12 and #18 presumably to draft Mark Sanchez

My analysis: Good deal for Chiefs, in fact better than offer #1. However, it would give Denver the opportunity to improve themselves as well, depending on what we think of Sanchez. I'd still be inclined to truly consider this deal. deal could still be available to us if we take offer #1.

Offer #5 - Philadelphia - #21, #28 and #85 presumably to take Eugene Monroe.

My analysis: Definitely better than #2 with Cincy. 3 more picks in the top 100 would be very good for us. Still no 2nd rounder, but an extra first is good.


If I were relatively sure the Browns would take Curry, I would take offer #1, because I think I could still get offer #4 or offer #5 at the 5th pick in the draft. If not those, then other teams would jump in to try to get Sanchez or Monroe, which ever is available at #5.

Coogs
04-04-2009, 07:48 AM
I wouldn't mind several of those options, but I have a hard time seeing any of them happening. We sat in the very same seat as Cleveland is setting in this season, and even had the extra ammo (like Cleveland with the extra 2nd) from the JA trade. We wound up staying at #5, and quite frankely I don't even know if we attempted to move up. IIRC, we didn't because we valued the draft picks more than anything. And even with Dorsey on the board at #5, who many considered to be the absolute best player in the draft, we listened to trade offers to move down and get more picks. And there was at least one offer from the Saints at #10, but they pretty much wanted us to just give them the #5 pick for a song and a dance. My guess is much the same thing is going to happen this year. Everybody wants to keep picks, not trade them, and the top picks just cause teams to give up too much in return. There will be a lot of talk, but when it comes right down to it not much movement in the top 5 to 7 picks.

Ralphy Boy
04-04-2009, 08:49 AM
I wouldn't mind several of those options, but I have a hard time seeing any of them happening. We sat in the very same seat as Cleveland is setting in this season, and even had the extra ammo (like Cleveland with the extra 2nd) from the JA trade. We wound up staying at #5, and quite frankely I don't even know if we attempted to move up. IIRC, we didn't because we valued the draft picks more than anything. And even with Dorsey on the board at #5, who many considered to be the absolute best player in the draft, we listened to trade offers to move down and get more picks. And there was at least one offer from the Saints at #10, but they pretty much wanted us to just give them the #5 pick for a song and a dance. My guess is much the same thing is going to happen this year. Everybody wants to keep picks, not trade them, and the top picks just cause teams to give up too much in return. There will be a lot of talk, but when it comes right down to it not much movement in the top 5 to 7 picks.

Good points, but I think it depends on the year. When a QB is a potential top 5 pick and two QB's as potential top 10, a lot can change. Especially when you throw two top 5 LT's in the mix. There are a ton of teams with ammo to make moves and anything can happen.

Hey Alpha, nice thread.

bdeg
04-04-2009, 10:59 AM
If I were relatively sure the Browns would take Curry, I would take offer #1, because I think I could still get offer #4 or offer #5 at the 5th pick in the draft. If not those, then other teams would jump in to try to get Sanchez or Monroe, which ever is available at #5.

Agree. That would be amazing.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-04-2009, 12:11 PM
I would stay put and draft Stafford or Sanchez.

Messier
04-04-2009, 08:49 PM
I would stay put and draft Stafford or Sanchez.

But we have our Qb.

The Bad Guy
04-04-2009, 08:59 PM
But we have our Qb.

Not according to some on here.

HerculesRockefell
04-04-2009, 11:16 PM
Detroit offered at least the 1st overall for Cutler, Denver turned them down.

Denver sent no scouts to USC's Pro Day.

If McDaniels loved Sanchez as much as everyone says he does, he takes the trade that puts him in the best position to draft the guy and the size of the contract be damend.

Add in that Denver also turned down deals that would have netted higher 1sts (Washington and the Jets), I just don't see the trade up happening.

KCrockaholic
04-04-2009, 11:35 PM
Offer number 1 would be very nice. We only get moved down 2 spots, and we pick up that 2nd rounder that weve been missing. Almost like the 2nd we gave for cassel and vrabel would have never happened.

KCrockaholic
04-04-2009, 11:37 PM
Not according to some on here.

Paying 14 mill to Cassel and drafting Stafford or Sanchez would be ridiculous.

Reaper16
04-04-2009, 11:54 PM
Paying 14 mill to Cassel and drafting Stafford or Sanchez would be ridiculous.
We've got hella dough to spend this season...

KCrockaholic
04-05-2009, 12:00 AM
We've got hella dough to spend this season...

When I say that exact same thing people immediately start lecturing me about how "spending a lot this year will hurt us in the long run" BS. It pisses me off. Damn flip floppers.

ChiefsCountry
04-05-2009, 12:42 AM
When I say that exact same thing people immediately start lecturing me about how "spending a lot this year will hurt us in the long run" BS. It pisses me off. Damn flip floppers.

One big difference though - quarterbacks are the golden goose. More you have the better value you can get for them if they are worth a damn.

KCrockaholic
04-05-2009, 12:48 AM
One big difference though - quarterbacks are the golden goose. More you have the better value you can get for them if they are worth a damn.

....im too tired for a response...im gonna go :banghead: and fall asleep

Saccopoo
04-05-2009, 02:21 AM
I would stay put and draft Stafford or Sanchez.

Holy crap...I mean, wow, just wow.

Alphaman
04-05-2009, 07:02 AM
Detroit offered at least the 1st overall for Cutler, Denver turned them down.

Denver sent no scouts to USC's Pro Day.

If McDaniels loved Sanchez as much as everyone says he does, he takes the trade that puts him in the best position to draft the guy and the size of the contract be damend.

Add in that Denver also turned down deals that would have netted higher 1sts (Washington and the Jets), I just don't see the trade up happening.

While the Jets and Washington may have offered a higher #1, were they willing to include a 3rd this year AND a 1st next year. Likely not, thus the Broncos took the best overall value on the table.

Chiefnj2
04-05-2009, 07:05 AM
Pioli and Haley aren't going to start a QB controversy with their first pick of the draft.

milkman
04-05-2009, 07:48 AM
When I say that exact same thing people immediately start lecturing me about how "spending a lot this year will hurt us in the long run" BS. It pisses me off. Damn flip floppers.

I'm going to take a wild guess here that when you say that you are discussing drafting a LT #3 overall.

You aren't talking about spending "a lot this year".
You are talking about investing long term contracts into two positions on the O-Line with Albert and #3 overall.

Big difference, and I'm betting you actually knew this.

milkman
04-05-2009, 07:49 AM
Pioli and Haley aren't going to start a QB controversy with their first pick of the draft.

As much as I hate it, I agree.

philfree
04-05-2009, 08:41 AM
I'm going to take a wild guess here that when you say that you are discussing drafting a LT #3 overall.

You aren't talking about spending "a lot this year".
You are talking about investing long term contracts into two positions on the O-Line with Albert and #3 overall.

Big difference, and I'm betting you actually knew this.

I don't know if this matters much or not. All they have to do is work out a contract for a player that's front loaded and long term friendly. To get a better grip on this though one would need to look at the numbers of top 5 rookie contracts to see how they're written. I guessing that the rookie contracts this year will be all about signing bonus and guaranteed money so it may be front loaded. That said I still wouldn't draft an OT with the 3rd pick this year.

PhilFree:arrow:

HerculesRockefell
04-05-2009, 09:19 AM
While the Jets and Washington may have offered a higher #1, were they willing to include a 3rd this year AND a 1st next year. Likely not, thus the Broncos took the best overall value on the table.

Washington had 2 1sts on the table.

It was also well known that Denver wanted 2 1sts+ for Cutler, if those 3 teams were still calling up to the end to try to acquire Cutler, I'd bet that the Jets and Bucs also were willing to put 2 1sts on the table too.

This wasn't an Internet trade where fans massively overvalue their draft picks or think they can lowball a team because someone has to be traded. Denver told everyone what they wanted, and mulitple teams were willing to meet that price.

Mile High Mania
04-05-2009, 09:29 AM
I think there will be interest in the #3 pick, but it depends on which team is hungry enough to give up what it would take and pay the big contract. Feel free to scratch Denver from that list.

Cap-wise, they wouldn't be able to make it happen based on what I've read. Plus, I think X and McD would wind up missing if they traded Cutler for picks, then packaged them to move up like that.

htismaqe
04-06-2009, 08:54 AM
Washington also reportedly had Jason Campbell on the table and Denver didn't want him.

DaKCMan AP
04-06-2009, 09:39 AM
Options #1 and #4 are the only two that net us equal or greater value. We lose some on option #2, but not much. The other two we get taken behind the woodshed.

Chiefnj2
04-06-2009, 10:01 AM
Options #1 and #4 are the only two that net us equal or greater value. We lose some on option #2, but not much. The other two we get taken behind the woodshed.

Forget the chart for a moment. Which option do you prefer?

KC stays at #3 and picks Curry or Monroe, or

KC does the trade with Philly and picks up your choice of of players at 21 and 28. Perhaps a definite blue chip starter like Mack and someone else.

DaKCMan AP
04-06-2009, 10:05 AM
Forget the chart for a moment. Which option do you prefer?

KC stays at #3 and picks Curry or Monroe, or

KC does the trade with Philly and picks up your choice of of players at 21 and 28. Perhaps a definite blue chip starter like Mack and someone else.

Of those listed, I only like options 1, 2 or 4.

Pestilence
04-06-2009, 10:15 AM
Offer #2.

The Browns aren't going to trade up if they know that we're not going to take Curry. And if they're going to try and trade up to get Curry....it's going to be with the Rams.

htismaqe
04-06-2009, 10:37 AM
Forget the chart for a moment. Which option do you prefer?

KC stays at #3 and picks Curry or Monroe, or

KC does the trade with Philly and picks up your choice of of players at 21 and 28. Perhaps a definite blue chip starter like Mack and someone else.

I'd rather have the latter, but that's just me.

If you had said just Curry in your 1st scenario, I might have thought about it harder. But I don't want Monroe for any reason.

BigCatDaddy
04-06-2009, 11:02 AM
I think some form of #3 is the most likely. Maybe throw in another pick next year of something to even it up a bit.

kcbubb
04-07-2009, 11:44 AM
I think trade #2 is the most likely to happen. It is still not likely but I would guess that it is the most likely. Those other trades are real long shots.

Woodrow Call
04-08-2009, 10:45 AM
Looks like Cleveland may also have interest in Sanchez. If the Chiefs don't want him I'm really starting to like our trade down chances......

www.rotoworld.com

Beat writer Tony Grossi hears the Browns are "smitten with" USC QB Mark Sanchez.

It's the same word ESPN's Michael Smith used Monday to describe the league-wide interest in the USC quarterback. Sanchez may be available at No. 5, but the Browns have plenty of other holes to fill as well.