Trade Down Quandry...What would you do

[Alphaman]

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.

[Alphaman]

Originally Posted by HerculesRockefell

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]

Pioli and Haley aren't going to start a QB controversy with their first pick of the draft.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by kcrockaholic4life

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]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

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]

Originally Posted by milkman

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

[HerculesRockefell]

Originally Posted by Alphaman

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]

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]

Washington also reportedly had Jason Campbell on the table and Denver didn't want him.

[DaKCMan AP]

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]

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

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]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

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.

[The Franchise]

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]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

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]

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]

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.