Clark Judge: Rating smartest, boldest, scariest offseason moves

[DaneMcCloud]

Rating smartest, boldest, scariest offseason moves
May 13, 2009
By Clark Judge
CBSSports.com Senior Writer

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/11743195

Five boldest moves

Kansas City hiring Scott Pioli

Some people automatically put this one in the win column. Not me. Not after Charlie Weis fizzled at Notre Dame and Romeo Crennel bombed out in Cleveland. OK, so they were former New England coaches, and Pioli was a decorated GM. They still fall from the same tree. The question I have is this: How much was Pioli responsible for what happened in New England? "I guess we're about to find out," said one NFC general manager.

The good news is that Thomas Dimitroff had New England ties, too, and he circled the bases in his first turn as a GM in Atlanta. The bad news: Pioli's first draft with Kansas City: There are reaches everywhere. He also reversed the team's Get Young Now policy by adding 30-something discards like Bobby Engram, Zach Thomas, Monty Beisel and Mike Vrabel. You can do that when you're at or near the top, like New England. But this is a team that lost 23 of its last 25, for crying out loud.

Five biggest gambles

Kansas City acquiring Matt Cassel

I know what he did with New England. But that was the Patriots, and tell me where you find Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Richard Seymour and Bill Belichick in the 816 area code. Cassel was surrounded by a raft of talent on the field and on the sidelines in New England, and I'm still looking for that support group here. So he produced a couple of 400-yard passing games and won 10 of 15 starts. That was nice. But I want to see him reproduce it here. OK, I know what you're thinking: What do the Chiefs have to lose -- especially when all they surrendered for Cassel and Vrabel was a second-round draft pick? Try this: They're paying Cassel $14.65 million in guaranteed salary. If he turns out to be the next Scott Mitchell I know some bean counters in red suits who will demand explanations.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

OK, I think I see a place where we're differing at. I don't see any difference between taking Cassel and passing on Sanchez. For all intents and purposes, they are the very same thing. The acquisition of Cassel WAS a pass on Sanchez.

You're making a deliberate leap of logic there that I'm not willing to make. It's ENTIRELY possible that even without the Cassel trade, the Chiefs pass on Sanchez. The two are related by circumstance only. There's no facts to suggest otherwise.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

Even if Sanchez doesn't become a top 10 QB, if Cassel doesn't either, then the trade was awful.

Precisely.

Because the two are completely unrelated, except in some fans' minds.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

Htis, I think what the other folks are trying to describe is opportunity cost.

If you don't take Sanchez, you're missing out on the oppotunity to gain the benefit of his employment with the Chiefs. I'm pretty sure that's what the other guys are after.

There is an arguement of risk with opportunity costs. If we don't take him, then we risk losing his potential production. It's all a matter of what if's but it's just like anything in the financial world. If you think there is a certain percentage chance you can make a yield a quantified amount, that becomes your opportunity cost. I believe the same can be said about football players. By not taking him, you risk losing his potential production, whatever you have projected that to be.

We never had his potential, therefore it's not ours to risk.

I completely agree with the notion of opportunity cost, but this isn't the stock market. Opportunity cost - the risk of losing out in FUTURE revenue - is QUANTIFIABLE. Suggesting that project his potential production is subjective to the point of being almost absurd.

The "value" of Mark Sanchez can't be determined before he steps on the field, and I would argue can NEVER be determined because he never suited up for THIS team under THESE circumstances.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Raised On Riots

I know and have accepted who the Quarterback of this team is. My expectations are for him to lead this team to 5 wins in 2009. I'm NOT being unreasonable.

Isn't it ironic that I, who am probably viewed as a Cassel apologist, expects MORE out of him than you, a well-known hater?

I expect at least 6 if not 7 wins out of this team next year. He's played in the NFL, NO excuses.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

Considering the alternative is a pack of vicious n00bs ready to add to the Mecca, Hamas, et al body count, yeah.

Let's be completely honest here - there was ALOT of name-calling and vitriol coming from the people you're painting to be victims.

That doesn't mean I think it's right - matter of fact I wish they'd both come back - but there's no innocent parties here.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Because trading a second for Cassel gave the Chiefs the opportunity to use the #3 pick on a player that wasn't a QB.

Therefore:
-Mark Sanchez PLUS guy they would have taken with 2nd round pick

must be compared to:

-Tyson Jackson PLUS Matt Cassel

People forget that passing on Mark Sanchez gave us the opportunity to draft Tyson Jackson. If we don't trade for Cassel, we don't get Jackson.

Based on what I've heard since the draft, I'm 100% convinced that even if we hadn't taken Cassel we would have taken Jackson anyway.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

To use this as a tangent....

The problem with arguments made by people arguing in the same vein Dane and yourself is that they are really not arguments based in logic as much as they are arguments by people pissed off that the team didn't draft Sanchez. Just for one example, you're sitting here harping on this "better chance with a top pick", but you rebel against the statistics about the number of starts a QB has before getting to the NFL. The reality is that, if you go by the "first round" stuff and other relevant numbers, you'd have wanted to avoid Sanchez at all costs.

He does have a point here. The history of 1st-round QB's with less than 25 college starts is pretty freaking bad.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by THISmaqe

We never had his potential, therefore it's not ours to risk.

That's where the arguement of risking potential gains comes into place.

Originally Posted by THISmaqe

I completely agree with the notion of opportunity cost, but this isn't the stock market. Opportunity cost - the risk of losing out in FUTURE revenue - is QUANTIFIABLE. Suggesting that project his potential production is subjective to the point of being almost absurd.

As far as the stock market goes, while you can quantify it, you can also be wrong. The opportunity cost for getting out of stocks and going into Bonds is much different than it was a year ago. Shit is dynamic. Things change. We can be wrong.

I agree that it is much more difficult to do with personnel, maybe even to the point that we cannot glean any value from it, but we can debate oppotunity cost of players. In fact, we do it all the time.

Originally Posted by THISmaqe

The "value" of Mark Sanchez can't be determined before he steps on the field, and I would argue can NEVER be determined because he never suited up for THIS team under THESE circumstances.

Understood. And agreed for the most part. But we could project his production. Its just like any other decision. You weigh what you think you can get for a player vs. What you can get out of another. Its just like any other business decision. Cabela's just opened a store in Billings MT. They have projected the store sales, but they don't know what it will be until it actually hits the market. The shit could burn down tomorrow and we get no sales (I'm looking at you Ryan Sims). But there were also other stores we could have built. We forecasted their sales and determined that the opportunity cost for not building in Billings was higher. We could be wrong. The other store may have been a world beater, but based on our forecasts, we chose Billings.

I contend that the same things can be done with personnel. It is a lot harder because there are so many variables, but that doesn't mean we CAN'T think along those lines. We could project the value he would provide with wins/losses, yards, etc. We'll never know what wee might have gotten, but Cabela's won't know what that store would have done either, but that doesn't mean there is no opportunity cost.

As for the argument that opportunity cost can be risked, meh. That's just debatable. I'd have to think on that some more.
Posted via Mobile Device

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

I contend that the same things can be done with personnel. It is a lot harder because there are so many variables, but that doesn't mean we CAN'T think along those lines. We could project the value he would provide with wins/losses, yards, etc. We'll never know what wee might have gotten, but Cabela's won't know what that store would have done either, but that doesn't mean there is no opportunity cost.

I guess if you really want to think along those lines, then you can certainly come up with logic to justify it. It just seems like such an incredible waste of time and the only people that want to do it are the ones that are still stinging from not taking Sanchez. It seems to be a 100% emotional response but they spend alot of time cooking numbers to make it seem justified.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by THISmaqe

I guess if you really want to think along those lines, then you can certainly come up with logic to justify it. It just seems like such an incredible waste of time and the only people that want to do it are the ones that are still stinging from not taking Sanchez. It seems to be a 100% emotional response but they spend alot of time cooking numbers to make it seem justified.

No arguement there. I am certainly not advocating its effectiveness, but it is possible.

Heh. Coincidentally, Mecca goes down that road a lot..."We could have had antonio cromartie".

Same shit, different day.
Posted via Mobile Device

[MahiMike]

Albert Haynesworth just signed for a bizillion dollars in DC and he can't even throw a pass. I think Cassel was the bargain of the decade.

[dj56dt58]

dumping Carl for Pioli was a HUGE risk let me tell you..

[CoMoChief]

Originally Posted by blaise

I give anyone that didn't draft Mark Sanchez an F- for the offseason.

Hey whats up Mecca.

[CoMoChief]

Originally Posted by MahiMike

Albert Haynesworth just signed for a bizillion dollars in DC and he can't even throw a pass. I think Cassel was the bargain of the decade.

Haynesworth also played like the best defensive player in the NFL, not saying he deserves it, but positional value I guess can be argued one way or another.

[Hootie]

I never thought I'd see the day a drafturbator would start posting threads referencing Clark ****ing Judge