Unnamed team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick

[spacecrime]

Re: Unnamed Team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick.

Just want to re-post something I noted upthread:

BB is willing to make a trade before the draft without having a specific target in mind.

I'm not saying he's the one making the offer, but he could be.

He has said before that it is senseless tradng draft picks to move up or down in a draft until you know who is available. He said he SETS THE PARAMETERS to do so with several teams, but it is pointless to make the actual trade before the pick comes up.

I could see him trading a player or for a player or even trading between years for next year's first or second round, but where did you hear that he was willing to move up and down in a draft beforehand?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Re: Unnamed Team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick.

He has said before that it is senseless tradng draft picks to move up or down in a draft until you know who is available. He said he SETS THE PARAMETERS to do so with several teams, but it is pointless to make the actual trade before the pick comes up.

I could see him trading a player or for a player or even trading between years for next year's first or second round, but where did you hear that he was willing to move up and down in a draft beforehand?

From BB himself:

Q: You mentioned potentially talking trade with some teams. Have there been any discussions thus far?

BB: Again, I think at this point in time it’s a lot of preliminary conversations. You talk to a team, see whether they are interested in talking to you, whichever way it goes. Are they interested in moving a certain pick and/or are you interested in moving a certain pick? You’re just trying to get some parameters. Some teams are at a certain point in the draft where they say they don’t want to move. Well, then you know on draft day that if you were interested in moving to that spot, that’s probably not as good of an option as [it would be to deal with] other teams that tell you they would love to consider something if the one or two guys they are looking for aren’t there. Well, great if it comes to that point and you are looking to move to that position then that’s the team you would contact. So, it’s more along those lines. If you look at the number of pre-draft draft choice trades – not player for draft choice, but straight draft choice trades – you won’t find very many of them. Probably the last one would be when Jimmy Johnson and I made one in 1992 or 1993, a couple days before the draft. Teams don’t like to do it. I am personally comfortable doing it, but most teams don’t like to do it.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: Unnamed Team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick.

At the time of the trade it was said that BB chose the 2011 1 instead of the 2010 1 because of the rookie pool changes. It was never stated anywhere I saw that the 2010 1 wasnt the orignal offer, that BB changed to the 2011 1. If any one has a link to other facts, please provide.

Lombardi reported this first and Bill later confirmed it on WEEI. I believe (judging by Al's comments as well) that the choice was not one he gave us but rather an alternative we presented him because it suited both sides (we already had multiple 2010 picks and he didn't want to lose his 2nd in a potentially deep draft).

There is a reference to it on BSMW because of what Breer stated when he recently commented on the trade and claimed BB chose a 2011 1st over a 2010 1st. Breer never backed up his contention. Bruce says he has also confirmed there was never a 2010 1st on the table.

Boston Sports Media Watch Bruins Fall To Sabres, Retain Playoff Lead

I'm going to quote the salient points from that BSMW column from yesterday...

At first, this deal was being framed around a two in 2010, but it moved to a one because the Raiders wanted to keep their draft alive next year. Michael Lombardi

Reply mike says:
March 30, 2010 at 2:10 pmThey were not offered a 1st round pick this year. It was a 2nd this year and the Raiders didn’t want to do it so they offered a 1st rounder next year. (per interview with BB on WEEI at somepoint last year)

Reply
Bruce says:
March 30, 2010 at 3:09 pmYes, thank you.

I’ve also confirmed separately that the 2010 first rounder was never on the table.

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Unnamed Team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick.

As far I can remember, there was never indication that the Raiders were offering their 2010 first. It was always that the Pats were interested in the 2011 first. My guess is that if the Raiders were willing to give up the 2010 first, Belichick would have gotten more than just the 2011 first because a 2011 pick has around a round less value than than a 2010 pick.

If I was to lay money, I would bet that the Raiders offered their second in 2010 or their second in 2010 and some other value. Even if Belichick always wanted the 2011 pick, it wouldn't stop him to get fair value.

The story at the time was that the Raiders offered the 2010, but BB wanted the 2011 because he thought it was more valuable, with the idea that it may cost 10mill rather than 50mill when the new rules go into place There was a lot of commentary then about how no one even wanted top 5 picks before the changes.
I havent looked up links either, but that was the story being told. The assumption that a 2010 is more valuable than a 2011 ignores the rule changes that are certainly going to happen.
The Raiders would have been better off trading the 2010 pick especialy when they are capped out on all the other failed high picks.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Re: Unnamed Team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick.

The story at the time was that the Raiders offered the 2010, but BB wanted the 2011 because he thought it was more valuable, with the idea that it may cost 10mill rather than 50mill when the new rules go into place There was a lot of commentary then about how no one even wanted top 5 picks before the changes.
I havent looked up links either, but that was the story being told. The assumption that a 2010 is more valuable than a 2011 ignores the rule changes that are certainly going to happen.
The Raiders would have been better off trading the 2010 pick especialy when they are capped out on all the other failed high picks.

It's a variant of what economists call "time value of money": would you rather get $100 this year, or $110 a year from now?

Here, you might pay a lot more to the #10 pick this year than next year, but you get that player a year sooner.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: Unnamed Team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick.

It's a variant of what economists call "time value of money": would you rather get $100 this year, or $110 a year from now?

Here, you might pay a lot more to the #10 pick this year than next year, but you get that player a year sooner.

Except as I just confirmed for you guys the first round 2010 pick was never on the table... It's likely that was what we first countered Al's inquiry with, but knowing he wouldn't do it and having him offer the second instead, BB likely countered that offer with the first in 2011 because it represented an opportunity to not only replace the level of player Seymour was, but to do it at a dramatically discounted rate. The second in 2010 was never going to provide that value, no matter how much sooner the player arrived...

 

[Nonentity]

Re: Unnamed Team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick.

I think the disagreement is that I and others believe the offer was the 2010 1, and BB requested the 2011 1 instead, because he did not want the 1 under these cap rules but under the new cap rules, where it would be much more valuable. Do you have a link to back up your version?

I'm pretty sure I remember reading that we were offered the 2010 2nd and we asked for the 2011 1st instead, and got it. I read Lombardi regularly so it might have been from there.

 

[signbabybrady]

Re: Unnamed Team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick.

I think the disagreement is that I and others believe the offer was the 2010 1, and BB requested the 2011 1 instead, because he did not want the 1 under these cap rules but under the new cap rules, where it would be much more valuable. Do you have a link to back up your version?

I am pretty sure I heard it on talk radio which makes it no more or less valid than if someone posted it here.

But what made it valid to me is that it makes sense. As it is a fairly common line of thinking that a pick this year is equal to a pick one rd better the following year (IE a 2010 2nd rd pick is equal to a 2011 first rd pick).

Sure this is a general rule of thumb. And that with the changing economic climate in football particularly the rookie pay scale this general rule may soon be obselete if not already with the assumption of the change.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Unnamed Team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick.

McNabb is going to be 34 in November and is in the last year of his deal. You really think the Eagles could get a first rounder for him? I think think they are going to have a tough time getting a top 44 pick like they are asking. McNabb is a top talent, but he is in his mid-30s, has been injured a lot in the last few years, and is a free agent in 2011.

They could have gotten a first, but they were playing games with all the QBs. They should have been shopping McNabb when there was still an active QB market, instead of playing cute about Vick.

How many years does he have left? Remember he is a guy who throws better on the run than standing still and has only been healthy enough played a 16 game season one season (2008) since 2004 (he sat out one game in 2004, but I think it was to rest not health issues). I am guessing 2-3 years. Why would someone like the Raiders ever give up a top 10 pick for a guy who's career may be done before they actually become a Super Bowl contender.

1.) I don't know, but he's certainly not had more major injuries than Brady in the past few years.

2.) Two words: JaMarcus Russell

I think if the Eagles get the Raiders' second rounder, it is coupe for the Eagles. I think Davis would be stupid to trade for McNabb because word is that he will not do a new deal for the Raiders and the Raiders would be forced to franchise him next year which could cost them close to or potentially over $20 million for one year (not sure what the franchise number for QBs will be next year since Brady, Brees, and Manning will all probably have new deals by then). That is a lot of money for a QB who will be 35 at the end of the season and has had only one injury free year in five season prior to acquiring him.

So, given your above comments, you must be opposed to the Patriots re-signing Brady, correct?

If McNabb was 30 and willing to redo his deal with the Raiders, I think it would be a coupe for the Raiders. At 33 (34 in November) and not willing to redo his contract in the last year of the deal, I don't think the Raiders win in a trade like that. Trade a high second rounder for potentially an one year rent a player who might get them to 8-8 or 9-7. Sounds like a trade Davis would do, but most GMs with their faculties wouldn't.

The Raiders have been in the hopper for years, having not won more than 5 games in a season since they took that beating in the Super Bowl. It's bad enough there that they have to throw ridiculous sums of money at players in order to bring them in and/or keep them. Just by getting to the point of respectability, they can begin to change the perception of the franchise. Moves like the Seymour deal and a McNabb deal would be excellent stepping stones. Other moves, like not drafting stiffs the like of Russell, would be better in the long term, but I don't know how long-term Davis can afford to be thinking at his age.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Re: Unnamed Team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick.

Except as I just confirmed for you guys the first round 2010 pick was never on the table... It's likely that was what we first countered Al's inquiry with, but knowing he wouldn't do it and having him offer the second instead, BB likely countered that offer with the first in 2011 because it represented an opportunity to not only replace the level of player Seymour was, but to do it at a dramatically discounted rate. The second in 2010 was never going to provide that value, no matter how much sooner the player arrived...

I'm with you, in that I don't think that choice ever existed. My point was simply that you could make a valid argument in this specific case for choosing a 2011 1 over a 2010 1 (that logic, obviously, would fail badly for a 2010 1 versus a 2009 1).

 

[SHOWTIME15]

let's look at this from the Raiders point of view. Why would they trade a top 10 pick this year for probably a top 25-30 pick next year plus a 2nd rounder this year? They need help immediately. If they add McNabb, which they most certainly want to do, they need to protect him - they have no OL. It just doesn't make sense from their perspective.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

let's look at this from the Raiders point of view. Why would they trade a top 10 pick this year for probably a top 25-30 pick next year plus a 2nd rounder this year? They need help immediately. If they add McNabb, which they most certainly want to do, they need to protect him - they have no OL. It just doesn't make sense from their perspective.

Supposedly they might be able to trade their second-rounder (since Philly allegedly wants a pick no later than #42) to get McNabb.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: Unnamed Team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick.

They could have gotten a first, but they were playing games with all the QBs. They should have been shopping McNabb when there was still an active QB market, instead of playing cute about Vick.

What I hear is they were playing games period all along and their rookie GM was asking for way too much and some interested teams moved on and now they will be lucky to get a 2nd.

1.) I don't know, but he's certainly not had more major injuries than Brady in the past few years.

When you respond like that to a very well thought out post you're just behaving like a troll. He doesn't play well through his injuries, some of which Brady suffered in the same season only we never knew it until months later because he'd played so well... Brady missed a season due to the timing of his ACL. McNabb has missed parts of 4 seasons and nine more starts than Brady overall. And since his bread and butter is mobility you're comparing apples and oranges, not to mention they are not in the same league overall, Brady's a lock HOF'er and McNabb won't get a sniff unless he manages to win at least one ring on the back nine which is appearing unliklier by the season...

2.) Two words: JaMarcus Russell



So, given your above comments, you must be opposed to the Patriots re-signing Brady, correct?

LOL - troll provocateur is all you are these days DI.



The Raiders have been in the hopper for years, having not won more than 5 games in a season since they took that beating in the Super Bowl. It's bad enough there that they have to throw ridiculous sums of money at players in order to bring them in and/or keep them. Just by getting to the point of respectability, they can begin to change the perception of the franchise. Moves like the Seymour deal and a McNabb deal would be excellent stepping stones. Other moves, like not drafting stiffs the like of Russell, would be better in the long term, but I don't know how long-term Davis can afford to be thinking at his age.

Absent a long term deal for Seymour and a contender, that trade was ridiculous. Same deal with McNabb. Ditto his deal with Nnamdi. And all the other overpays he's wasted seasons on. Not to mention the coaching gafs. Al ain't getting any younger or any smarter probably. You make a play for a top tier player, potentially even an overpay, when you believe it makes you a legit contender. If Al believes anything will make the Raiders one at this juncture, he's not just senile he's delusional.

 

[spacecrime]

Re: Unnamed Team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick.

It's a variant of what economists call "time value of money": would you rather get $100 this year, or $110 a year from now?

Here, you might pay a lot more to the #10 pick this year than next year, but you get that player a year sooner.

Well, you also get to keep the player a year later on his rookie deal. So it is more like $100 a year for five years starting this year or starting next year.

Definitely this year. The complications come in when it is a second round this year or a first round next year. Would you rather have $100 a year for five years starting this year, or $200 a year for five years starting next year. It would depend on how badlyl you needed money this year. A coach who might be fired this year if he doesn't win is going to take the money now (lesser pick now). Ditto if there is exactly the player you've been waiting for. But if your job is secure and the players availble in the second round aren't as exciting as those in the first round next year, then hold off a year.

Also, you can have the player for 5 years instead of 4 (first round rules vs second roulnd rule) on a rookie contract.

But then a first round pick costs more to sign.

But then they are generally a LOT better than second rounders.

 

[spacecrime]

Re: Unnamed Team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick.

From BB himself:

If you look at the number of pre-draft draft choice trades – not player for draft choice, but straight draft choice trades – you won’t find very many of them. Probably the last one would be when Jimmy Johnson and I made one in 1992 or 1993, a couple days before the draft. Teams don’t like to do it. I am personally comfortable doing it, but most teams don’t like to do it.

Interesting quote. Directly contradicts something he said a couple years ago, but your source is impeccable

 

[condon84]

Re: Unnamed Team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick.

hopefully they don't waste it on Tebow

If they do, that would be a spectacular move.



And when I say "spectacular," I mean this type of spectacular:

 

[vyrago]

Re: Unnamed Team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick.

If they do, that would be a spectacular move.



And when I say "spectacular," I mean this type of spectacular:

Where is that clip from and who is that poor dufus?

 

[Kontradiction]

Re: Unnamed Team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick.

If they do, that would be a spectacular move.



And when I say "spectacular," I mean this type of spectacular:

LMFAO!! That's awesome. What is that from?

 

[condon84]

Re: Unnamed Team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick.

It's from a show called "So You Think You Can Dance" from a couple of years ago.

Talk about hard headed.

YouTube - Faceplant of Death

 

[PatsFanSince74]

This sure sounds like the Pats......

SFGate: Raiders Silver and Black Blog : Raiders' first pick in demand



The Patriots have 3 second round picks in 2010 & 2 first round picks in 2011.

The Patriots are in a better position than any other team to offer this
trade. We also have a history of dealing with the Raiders.

One of our second round picks in 2010 & The Patriots (Not Raiders) 1st round pick in 2011 for the #8 overall pick in 2010?

We would then have 2 first round picks (#8 & #22) and 2 second round
picks (not sure which one we would give the Raiders).

I could see that happening on Draft Day when they were sure that a player they wanted was available, but, given the possibility that other teams could make similar trades, why would the Pats do something like that this far in advance?