Trade DB for #2. Crazy not to. - New England Patriots Forums

***mcbee*** · 09-04-2006, 10:31 AM

End the distraction once and for all.

As far as "he's worth more than a #2". Look at it this way. DB wants FA money. AFter the season, teams will have their choice to pick up FAs for FA money and won't have to pay ANY DRAFT pick. So why should they pay both FA and a #1? It's a little crazy.

Right now the pats can take advantage of the immediate need for a WR and the FA market being over. When the FA market is back in swing, then it's tag a player you don't want and hope to get a good draft pick for him. They might only get a 2nd again.

They could end this nonsense now with one phonecall. Crazy not to.

And no, DB, is absolutely not coming back this year under his own volition. He doesn't want to be here and the pats, rightfully don't want to pay him his demands. If he does, it'll be week 10, he won't play hard and prob. wont' see the field. Lucky if we don't have a TO situation. See Terry Glenn.

hobbsownscoles · 09-04-2006, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcbee

End the distraction once and for all.

As far as "he's worth more than a #2". Look at it this way. DB wants FA money. AFter the season, teams will have their choice to pick up FAs for FA money and won't have to pay ANY DRAFT pick. So why should they pay both FA and a #1? It's a little crazy.

Right now the pats can take advantage of the immediate need for a WR and the FA market being over. When the FA market is back in swing, then it's tag a player you don't want and hope to get a good draft pick for him. They might only get a 2nd again.

They could end this nonsense now with one phonecall. Crazy not to.

And no, DB, is absolutely not coming back this year under his own volition. He doesn't want to be here and the pats, rightfully don't want to pay him his demands. If he does, it'll be week 10, he won't play hard and prob. wont' see the field. Lucky if we don't have a TO situation. See Terry Glenn.

They shouldn't do this because they can always franchise him in the offseason

upstater1 · 09-04-2006, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hobbsownscoles

They shouldn't do this because they can always franchise him in the offseason

Yeah, +1. Make him lose the year and the $$ because if it's distractions you're worried about, you're just inviting a lot more of them in future years by making a panic trade.

patsox23 · 09-04-2006, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcbee

End the distraction once and for all.

As far as "he's worth more than a #2". Look at it this way. DB wants FA money. AFter the season, teams will have their choice to pick up FAs for FA money and won't have to pay ANY DRAFT pick. So why should they pay both FA and a #1? It's a little crazy.

Right now the pats can take advantage of the immediate need for a WR and the FA market being over. When the FA market is back in swing, then it's tag a player you don't want and hope to get a good draft pick for him. They might only get a 2nd again.

They could end this nonsense now with one phonecall. Crazy not to.

And no, DB, is absolutely not coming back this year under his own volition. He doesn't want to be here and the pats, rightfully don't want to pay him his demands. If he does, it'll be week 10, he won't play hard and prob. wont' see the field. Lucky if we don't have a TO situation. See Terry Glenn.

STOP THE MADNESS. Let THIS post be the last of this thread. The Patriots can franchise Branch in the off-season. But even if they DO move him for a 2nd, there is so little new ground being broken in this thread, it needs to sink to the bottom, but fast.

If I'm wrong and others want to continue it, feel free. But my hope is that we can find this exact same idea in about a million posts in other threads. no offense.

***BelichickFan*** · 09-04-2006, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hobbsownscoles

They shouldn't do this because they can always franchise him in the offseason

The extra advantage in trading the player now is it leaves the Franchise tag available for Graham in the offseason.

***mcbee*** · 09-04-2006, 10:42 AM

I haven't heard anyone say we should dump him now for a #2.

It's "DB will come back for x $", or "We deserve 2 #1s". Maybe if DB had 3 years remaining at 1M per and was willing to play for that it'd be 2 #1s.

Or Franchise him for at least a #1 (no guarantee).

scott99 · 09-04-2006, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsox23

STOP THE MADNESS. Let THIS post be the last of this thread. The Patriots can franchise Branch in the off-season. But even if they DO move him for a 2nd, there is so little new ground being broken in this thread, it needs to sink to the bottom, but fast.

If I'm wrong and others want to continue it, feel free. But my hope is that we can find this exact same idea in about a million posts in other threads. no offense.

I agree, too many Branch threads, but you can't bunch them ALL up in one thread. Some usefull info will be lost that way. Plus, what if he finally get's signed/traded/cut/shot/get's a sex change etc, do you want that info on page 130 of a thread ?

upstater1 · 09-04-2006, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

The extra advantage in trading the player now is it leaves the Franchise tag available for Graham in the offseason.

I think the idea is you franchise him and then lift it right before you move him for a #2 (if that's the least you're going to get) right before the draft. Either way, you haven't lost anything, but you might have actually gained a little bit by playing hardball.

You don't lose the tag if you lift it by a certain time, and I'm not too sure anyone would use a franchise tag on Graham anyway.

PatsFanSince74 · 09-04-2006, 10:56 AM

the jets have two number 2's next year...i'd be willing to bet that we could have worked out a 1--2 or 2--2 deal with them if they weren't in the Division...the two 1's had to be a going-in negotiating position...