Dolphins working on a trade for offensive tackle Branden Albert

[ShowtimeSBMVP]

Branden Albert trade won’t happen unless he lowers his price
Posted by Michael David Smith on April 21, 2013, 6:46 PM EDT
Branden Albert AP

The much-discussed potential trade of Branden Albert from the Chiefs to the Dolphins doesn’t appear likely at the price Albert is currently seeking.

Although the Chiefs and Dolphins can probably agree on compensation — the Dolphins sending a second-round pick to Kansas City — the hangup is that Albert wants the kind of money that the Dolphins aren’t willing to spend. Specifically, according to Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports, Albert wants between $8 million and $9 million a year on a long-term deal.

In other words, Albert is looking for the same kind of contract that left tackle Jake Long got from the Rams — the very contract the Dolphins wouldn’t give Long, which is why he left Miami for St. Louis.

If the Dolphins weren’t willing to pay Long that kind of money, it’s hard to see why they’d be willing to give up a second-round draft pick for the privilege of paying Albert that kind of money. So the Dolphins may need to look elsewhere for a left tackle. And Albert may have to settle for playing this season for the Chiefs, making $9.8 million, and hitting free agency next year.

[caligula]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Albert is worth $9MM a year but left tackles aren't worth 1.1.

i like non-sequiturs too...

but you should give up trying when that's all you have left

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Albert is worth $9MM a year but left tackles aren't worth 1.1.

Carl Nicks is worth nearly 10m/season, but I wouldn't take a guard #1 either.

[ct]

Albert is not worth $9M a year, but we don't have to take LT 1.1

I think we could find a starting LT (or RT and let's start Stephenson on teh left) in 2nd for whichever pick we get for albert

Take Jordon #1, a guy who could truly make a difference game in game out

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by Wonton Prejudice

You're comparing apples to oranges.

You're also ignoring a pretty basic tenet of fandom:

No one gives a **** what a player is earning if he's doing his job reasonably well.

No one on this forum has ever complained because we paid a player 20 percent too much.

You are full of shit.

Each position has a value. You sure as **** aren't paying your long snapper or punter $9MM a year are you?

LT have gone 1st in the draft several times before, its a position of value.

I am not the one confused here talking in circles.

If you think Albert is worth $9MM a year you think that is a position of value. Or you are an idiot if you are willing to pay $9MM a year to a position that does not add value. Take your pick.



Now go back to your basement.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by ct

Albert is not worth $9M a year, but we don't have to take LT 1.1

I think we could find a starting LT (or RT and let's start Stephenson on teh left) in 2nd for whichever pick we get for albert

Take Jordon #1, a guy who could truly make a difference game in game out

Outside of whatever QB's end up being good from this class, Austin will be the guy that we look back at and realized we screwed up not taking because he didn't fit the mold of a 1.1 guy and we already have a piss poor man's version in McCluster.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

Outside of whatever QB's end up being good from this class, Austin will be the guy that we look back at realized we screwed up not taking.

BTW I am not advocating that I necessarily want to draft a LT at 1.1.

The difference is if we were going to pay Albert $9MM a year long term he would have a contract already. That tells me we will very soon need a LT whether its this year or next.

In other words, we NEED a LT because Albert will be gone soon enough.

[keg in kc]

Or it means that Albert's coming off a back injury and they would prefer to evaluate him for a year before they give him the long term deal he wants.

[caligula]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

Outside of whatever QB's end up being good from this class, Austin will be the guy that we look back at and realized we screwed up not taking because he didn't fit the mold of a 1.1 guy.

or Jones from Georgia, or -gasp- richardson...

just like 2009....harvin, nicks, cushing, matthews, etc.

this is where your GM has to have some balls

for mediocre drafts, teams in the mid-first are, sort of perversely, protected from the pressure of having to take someone 'worth' the #1 pick (OL)

once we destroyed the purpose of having a #1 pick - drafting a QB - we should have basically done anything to get out of it

[TEX]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Or it means that Albert's coming off a back injury and they would prefer to evaluate him for a year before they give him the long term deal he wants.

Yep. Exactly the strategy I'd choose.

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Or it means that Albert's coming off a back injury and they would prefer to evaluate him for a year before they give him the long term deal he wants.

This.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

If you think Albert is worth $9MM a year you think that is a position of value. Or you are an idiot if you are willing to pay $9MM a year to a position that does not add value. Take your pick. .

You are completely confused.

LT is a position of value.

Albert may or may not be worth $9 million.

Do you really give a **** if he's paid $9 million a year or $6 million a year? Do you? If he does his ****ing job and gives up one sack?

**** no. You don't give a shit.

[caligula]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

You are full of shit.

Each position has a value. You sure as **** aren't paying your long snapper or punter $9MM a year are you?

LT have gone 1st in the draft several times before, its a position of value.

I am not the one confused here talking in circles.

If you think Albert is worth $9MM a year you think that is a position of value. Or you are an idiot if you are willing to pay $9MM a year to a position that does not add value. Take your pick.



Now go back to your basement.

there's no value to a LT when we already have one

there rest is just gibberish

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Or it means that Albert's coming off a back injury and they would prefer to evaluate him for a year before they give him the long term deal he wants.

I would have preferred that.

Pay Albert for this year and play 1.1 at RT for a year.

The rookie gets experience and you find out what you have on the field before you let Albert go. Then you can always tag-n-trade Albert next year and slide 1.1 over to LT.

For 1 year you have IMPROVED the offensive line and have two damned good T's. Instead we'll have a rookie at LT, garbage at RT, and we'll have taken a step back in the short term.

Joekel may end up twice the LT Albert is but he won't be in year 1...

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Or it means that Albert's coming off a back injury and they would prefer to evaluate him for a year before they give him the long term deal he wants.

I don't see it but If thats the case fine then they aren't drafting a LT.

[RunKC]

Originally Posted by Wonton Prejudice

You are completely confused.

LT is a position of value.

Albert may or may not be worth $9 million.

Do you really give a **** if he's paid $9 million a year or $6 million a year? Do you? If he does his ****ing job and gives up one sack?

**** no. You don't give a shit.

You should care if he can play 16 games a year, which he's only done once.