Horrible NFL Trades

[Captain Cliche]

One thing not mentioned is Branch has durability issues.

Not to be a turd, but I would be surprised if he finishes out the season without missing some games...after missing all that time.

Look how BB has him sit him out the preseason and how they taught him to turtle like Marvin Harrison.

So you traded a first round draft pick for the privalege to overpay a smallish receiver with durability issues to a position that was not a glaring need....mistake.

Someone was going to overpay for the Superbowl MVP Award.

 

[kierkegaard]

The Moss trade is starting to look worse and worse trade everyday. And I thought it was a bad trade to begin with.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Where are you getting "a HIGH 2nd rounder " from

Who is to say that if we traded Deion for a 2nd rounder, it would be A HIGH ONE?

If we traded Deion to Seattle for a 2nd rounder, by your rationale it would be a LOW ONE.

not sure what you are trying to say because it doesnt make much sense.
try rewording it.

So a few minutes ago you're OK with a 2nd round pick but now a high second round pick is back into the realm of the "absurd"?

Maybe I'm the one confused, but when teams are vying to have the "highest" pick in the draft, I think they are usually shooting for as close to #1 as possible. The "lowest" pick is usually synonymous with the worst - Mr. Irrelevant for example is not considered the "highest" pick in the draft.

Apparently you use different definitions of high and low picks so I understand why you are confused.

Let me talk numbers to help you.

A "higher" pick has a "higher" value on the value chart. A "lower" pick has a "lower" value on the chart: http://www.theredzone.org/2006/draft/draftvaluechart.asp

Let's say that Seattle finishes 5 spaces out of the Super Bowl - pretty much a safe bet at the time of the trade, maybe even now.

#28 in the 1st round = 660 pts.

Now conversly, let's if you're a GM you consider that "absurd" - but, you're willing to give up a 2nd round draft choice. Let's say #38 - 10 spots difference = 520 pts.

Not an "abusrd" difference in my book - and again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder as many teams often have different players ranked 10 spots apart.

The only thing I can find "abusrd" is trying to judge a trade before it's judgeable.... you just can't judge this trade until you know what the Patriots are going to do with the pick and even then, its going to be awhile til you know how well that player works out

 

[Keegs]

So a few minutes ago you're OK with a 2nd round pick but now a high second round pick is back into the realm of the "absurd"?

Maybe I'm the one confused, but when teams are vying to have the "highest" pick in the draft, I think they are usually shooting for as close to #1 as possible. The "lowest" pick is usually synonymous with the worst - Mr. Irrelevant for example is not considered the "highest" pick in the draft.

Apparently you use different definitions of high and low picks so I understand why you are confused.

Let me talk numbers to help you.

A "higher" pick has a "higher" value on the value chart. A "lower" pick has a "lower" value on the chart: http://www.theredzone.org/2006/draft/draftvaluechart.asp

Let's say that Seattle finishes 5 spaces out of the Super Bowl - pretty much a safe bet at the time of the trade, maybe even now.

#28 in the 1st round = 660 pts.

Now conversly, let's if you're a GM you consider that "absurd" - but, you're willing to give up a 2nd round draft choice. Let's say #38 - 10 spots difference = 520 pts.

Not an "abusrd" difference in my book - and again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder as many teams often have different players ranked 10 spots apart.

The only thing I can find "abusrd" is trying to judge a trade before it's judgeable.... you just can't judge this trade until you know what the Patriots are going to do with the pick and even then, its going to be awhile til you know how well that player works out

wow you seem pretty frustrated.... and you typed all of that for nothing.

please answer the question.

Where in the hell are you getting a "high 2nd round pick" from??
what team would have traded that high 2nd round pick?

if it was Seattle, it would have been a low 2nd round pick...

can you answer the question?

 

[JoeSixPat]

please answer the question.

Where in the hell are you getting a "high 2nd round pick" from??


can you answer the question?

Your lack of short term memory explains a lot.

He is worth a 2nd rounder TOPS

I take it from your exceptional debating skills that you'd now like to go back and amend your statement to make clear that by saying Branch is "worth a 2nd rounder", that didn't include certain picks in the 2nd round?

How this trade is judged is a matter to be decided well into the future, once we've ACTUALLY USED the draft pick from Seattle.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

 

[Keegs]

Your lack of short term memory explains a lot.



I take it from your exceptional debating skills that you'd now like to go back and amend your statement to make clear that by saying Branch is "worth a 2nd rounder", that didn't include certain picks in the 2nd round?

How this trade is judged is a matter to be decided well into the future, once we've ACTUALLY USED the draft pick from Seattle.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Seattle is the team we traded him too
NOBODY ELSE

If it was to Seattle for a 2nd rounder, it would have been a LOW 2ND ROUNDER

This isn't rocket Science....

I still fail to see what your point is.

Mine is simple, He is worth a 2nd round pick but not a 1st round pick.
Obviously the 2nd round pick would be Seattle's since we didn't trade him to anyone else.

I see the loophole you are trying to expose.....
that "a second round pick" could include a very high 2nd round pick.....
But you knew damn well what i meant... we are/were talking about the SEATTLE SEAHAWKS.

Deion is not worth a 1st. That is my opionion but soon enough it will be proven as a fact.. If you don't like that, too bad.

But don't put words into my mouth and mesh together 2 rounds of a draft to make it look like there is little difference between the 1st and 2nd rounds..Especially with the pats track record of first round picks.

that is ridiculous. If you have to do that to make yourself look better, than i'd say that your argument is pretty damn weak.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

So am I the only person who thinks that trades involving draft picks should be judged w/o looking at who gets drafted with that pick?

Lets say with Seattle's first rounder the Pats draft a bust. It is viewed as a bad trade. But if the Pats draft a pro bowler it is now viewed as a great trade by the Pats. What part of the trade has changed?

Who the pick turns into is a seperate personnel decision. Whether or not the personnel department does a good job is outside the scope of the trade. You can argue that draft picks are more valuable to teams with better personnel departments and factor that into the trade, but that value (draft picks to a good personnel department) doesn't really change whether the pick is successful or not.

Also, Seattle would most likely make a different selection with the same pick. Lets assume the Pats draft a pro bowler with Seattle's pick: Pats win and Seattle loses. What if the trade never happened and Seattle instead drafts a just-another-guy: Seattle still loses because they would have been better off trading the pick for Deion.

Unless it is draft day and you're trading a pick that is on the clock draft picks are nuggets of probability. At the time of the trade they do not represent a player, they simply represent the probability of turning into a bust, a good player, a pro bowler, etc. Trading Deion for a pick that has a fairly low probability of being a bust, a good probability of being a good player, and a fairly low probability of being a pro bowler (and reguardless what he becomes, he'll be cheap) is a good deal.

Doesn't this make sense? Or does it make more sense to judge a trade involving a draft pick based on how well the personnel department does its job, or whether you get simply lucky or unlucky?

What if the Raiders traded a first rounder for Peyton Manning? A steal! The greatest trade ever! What if after 2 games he loses his legs in a freak car accident? It's suddenly a bad trade because you gave up a first rounder for two games of Peyton Manning, even though every other GM in the game would have made it too?

One thing I'll gladly admit is that my thinking makes trading for draft choices risky because not only do you need to make a good trade for the pick but you also must utilize that pick properly. It is much safer to simply trade for a proven player, as you eliminate the risk of a poor personnel decision. The more steps involved in player acquisition the more risky it is.

 

[Aqua4Ever04]

I just think the Seattle/branch trade was putrid though.

It's not like he is going to single handedly bring them a title.

They wasted a first, he is not worth a first. No way in hell.

I just don't see him making that big of a difference.

So he had a big game with 2 tds during a blowout..... EVERY RECEIVER on the team had at least 1 td that game... it was a joke.

I just don't see him being worth it.

and i am thrilled we got a number 1...

now comes the fun part, seing how bad they end up.

I'm just curious if you even watch football out side of the Patriots?

 

[Keegs]

I'm just curious if you even watch football out side of the Patriots?

Yeah actually i do,

what's it to you Troll?

that's all you got scumbag??

make a point or shut your mouth.

 

[Keegs]

So am I the only person who thinks that trades involving draft picks should be judged w/o looking at who gets drafted with that pick?

Lets say with Seattle's first rounder the Pats draft a bust. It is viewed as a bad trade. But if the Pats draft a pro bowler it is now viewed as a great trade by the Pats. What part of the trade has changed?

Who the pick turns into is a seperate personnel decision. Whether or not the personnel department does a good job is outside the scope of the trade. You can argue that draft picks are more valuable to teams with better personnel departments and factor that into the trade, but that value (draft picks to a good personnel department) doesn't really change whether the pick is successful or not.

Also, Seattle would most likely make a different selection with the same pick. Lets assume the Pats draft a pro bowler with Seattle's pick: Pats win and Seattle loses. What if the trade never happened and Seattle instead drafts a just-another-guy: Seattle still loses because they would have been better off trading the pick for Deion.

Unless it is draft day and you're trading a pick that is on the clock draft picks are nuggets of probability. At the time of the trade they do not represent a player, they simply represent the probability of turning into a bust, a good player, a pro bowler, etc. Trading Deion for a pick that has a fairly low probability of being a bust, a good probability of being a good player, and a fairly low probability of being a pro bowler (and reguardless what he becomes, he'll be cheap) is a good deal.

Doesn't this make sense? Or does it make more sense to judge a trade involving a draft pick based on how well the personnel department does its job, or whether you get simply lucky or unlucky?

What if the Raiders traded a first rounder for Peyton Manning? A steal! The greatest trade ever! What if after 2 games he loses his legs in a freak car accident? It's suddenly a bad trade because you gave up a first rounder for two games of Peyton Manning, even though every other GM in the game would have made it too?

One thing I'll gladly admit is that my thinking makes trading for draft choices risky because not only do you need to make a good trade for the pick but you also must utilize that pick properly. It is much safer to simply trade for a proven player, as you eliminate the risk of a poor personnel decision. The more steps involved in player acquisition the more risky it is.

no i agree with you completely.

Some people on here thinks its a steal for us, some people think it's even...

and some REFUSE to admit that Deion Branch is not worth a 1st round pick...... it has nothing to do with who the pats will draft or not... We might even trade the pick, nobody knows.

DEION IS NOT WORTH A FIRST ROUND PICK

IT WAS A GOOD TRADE FOR THE PATS

YOU DON'T HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE WHO WE DRAFT TO SAY THIS

 

[JoeSixPat]

Seattle is the team we traded him too
NOBODY ELSE

If it was to Seattle for a 2nd rounder, it would have been a LOW 2ND ROUNDER

This isn't rocket Science....

I still fail to see what your point is.

Mine is simple, He is worth a 2nd round pick but not a 1st round pick.
Obviously the 2nd round pick would be Seattle's since we didn't trade him to anyone else.

I see the loophole you are trying to expose.....
that "a second round pick" could include a very high 2nd round pick.....
But you knew damn well what i meant... we are/were talking about the SEATTLE SEAHAWKS.

Deion is not worth a 1st. That is my opionion but soon enough it will be proven as a fact.. If you don't like that, too bad.

But don't put words into my mouth and mesh together 2 rounds of a draft to make it look like there is little difference between the 1st and 2nd rounds..Especially with the pats track record of first round picks.

that is ridiculous. If you have to do that to make yourself look better, than i'd say that your argument is pretty damn weak.

me think thou dost protest too much

But let me see if I can help further illustrate my "weak" point...

Tell me Keegs - seeing as you're able to see the future and declare this trade a slamdunk idiotic abusrd trade favoring the Patriots, from your vantage point was the 2007 draft a success?

....and while you're at it I'm dying to know how their 2008, 2009, and 2010 draft works out.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

me think thou dost protest too much

But let me see if I can help further illustrate my "weak" point...

Tell me Keegs - seeing as you're able to see the future and declare this trade a slamdunk idiotic abusrd trade favoring the Patriots, from your vantage point was the 2007 draft a success?

....and while you're at it I'm dying to know how their 2008, 2009, and 2010 draft works out.

The drafts haven't happened yet. The trade has. Only a fool would would weigh in on something that hasn't happened yet. And I'm starting to think only fools require hindsight in order to grade a trade.

whether they draft a bust or a star the trade, when it occurred after week 1, was a great deal for the Pats. grading it based on who is later drafted is asking a GM to see the future. so you mock keegs for what you attribute to be his ability to see the future, while expecting your GM to do so when dealing for picks?

 

[Keegs]

The drafts haven't happened yet. The trade has. Only a fool would would weigh in on something that hasn't happened yet. And I'm starting to think only fools require hindsight in order to grade a trade.

whether they draft a bust or a star the trade, when it occurred after week 1, was a great deal for the Pats. grading it based on who is later drafted is asking a GM to see the future. so you mock keegs for what you attribute to be his ability to see the future, while expecting your GM to do so when dealing for picks?

yeah what he said.

I will never admit that Branch is worth a 1st rounder.

p.s. i know he's just giving me trouble because my name is "keegs" and he doesn't like me.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I'm starting to think only fools require hindsight in order to grade a trade.

I think you've nicely captured the different "logic" that's at work here.

I didn't need to take any time at all to know that only a fool would grade a trade without knowing what player the team traded for.

To me, that's kindof a crucial bit of information one would need to truly offer a valid judgement.

If that's just impossible to comprehend, I don't think anything short of professional help will suffice.

Now, to use a Red Sox analogy, I take it you would have judged trading Jeff Bagwell for Larry Johnson to be a bonifide success given how it appeared at the time... a minor leaguer for a proven pitcher?

We wouldn't want that pesky "hindsight" to enter the equation like those other "fools" who recognize this as one of the worst trades of all time, would we?

Nah you're right... only a fool would need hindsight to judge a trade.

 

[Keegs]

I think you've nicely captured the different "logic" that's at work here.

I didn't need to take any time at all to know that only a fool would grade a trade without knowing what player the team traded for.

To me, that's kindof a crucial bit of information one would need to truly offer a valid judgement.

If that's just impossible to comprehend, I don't think anything short of professional help will suffice.

Now, to use a Red Sox analogy, I take it you would have judged trading Jeff Bagwell for Larry Johnson to be a bonifide success given how it appeared at the time... a minor leaguer for a proven pitcher?

We wouldn't want that pesky "hindsight" to enter the equation like those other "fools" who recognize this as one of the worst trades of all time, would we?

Nah you're right... only a fool would need hindsight to judge a trade.

wow you have managed to sidestep another comment..

what is that garbage that you just wrote??
is that how you always argue on here? you should be ashamed of yourself.
that was pathetic. I refuse to believe you are stupid enough to misunderstand what he said. I believe you sidestepped his comments on purpose and typed in that pointless garbage out of frustration. Could you possibly backpeddle in a more pathetic manner?

The fact remains a first round pick is worth way more than Deion Branch. You argument rests on the assumption that the pats won't draft a good player with the 1st round pick. What a load of crap. You can't assume something like that.. You take the trade RIGHT NOW for what it is worth.

Deion is not worth a first.

Do you always go down swinging like this????

 

[JoeSixPat]

wow you have managed to sidestep another comment..

what is that garbage that you just wrote??
is that how you always argue on here? you should be ashamed of yourself.
that was pathetic. I refuse to believe you are stupid enough to misunderstand what he said. I believe you sidestepped his comments on purpose and typed in that pointless garbage out of frustration. Could you possibly backpeddle in a more pathetic manner?

The fact remains a first round pick is worth way more than Deion Branch. You argument rests on the assumption that the pats won't draft a good player with the 1st round pick. What a load of crap. You can't assume something like that.. You take the trade RIGHT NOW for what it is worth.

Deion is not worth a first.

Do you always go down swinging like this????

I can't compete with what I think are attempts at insults so won't even try.

Not that anyone cares at this point but I've never said this was a good or bad trade. I've said you can't judge until the facts are in.

Clearly this is something you just choose to overlook..

Now, not to insult you, but I think you've all but said you weren't born at the time of the Jeff Bagwell for Larry Anderson trade.

But do you understand the point that people thought that was a good trade at the time it was made - and IN HINDSIGHT it was the among the most lopsided trades of all time?

Or are you just going to ignore that point yet again with a rejoinder that you probably think demonstrates your irrefutable logic.

If you don't remember it or understand this point, perhaps you should ask that "deep thinker" of your family, your father.

 

[Keegs]

I can't compete with what I think are attempts at insults so won't even try.

Not that anyone cares at this point but I've never said this was a good or bad trade. I've said you can't judge until the facts are in.

Clearly this is something you just choose to overlook..

Now, not to insult you, but I think you've all but said you weren't born at the time of the Jeff Bagwell for Larry Anderson trade.

But do you understand the point that people thought that was a good trade at the time it was made - and IN HINDSIGHT it was the among the most lopsided trades of all time?

Or are you just going to ignore that point yet again with a rejoinder that you probably think demonstrates your irrefutable logic.

If you don't remember it or understand this point, perhaps you should ask that "deep thinker" of your family, your father.

Wow... you have the stones to say that i am overlooking something when all you have been doing is ignoring points I make (and the other dude) and then just saying whatever you want....

1st round picks hold value before a player is drafted with them. I'm sorry if you refuse to believe this but it is the truth. You don't need to see who is drafted to say RIGHT NOW that Seattle got the crap end of this trade.

RIGHT NOW we got a 1st round draft pick for a player that isn't worth a 1st round draft pick

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT WHO WE WILL DRAFT WITH THE PICK. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS POST.

I'm sure you'll choose to ignore this again, it's been working decent for you so far so why stop now?

 

[JoeSixPat]

Wow... you have the stones to say that i am overlooking something when all you have been doing is ignoring points I make (and the other dude) and then just saying whatever you want....

1st round picks hold value before a player is drafted with them. I'm sorry if you refuse to believe this but it is the truth. You don't need to see who is drafted to say RIGHT NOW that Seattle got the crap end of this trade.

RIGHT NOW we got a 1st round draft pick for a player that isn't worth a 1st round draft pick

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT WHO WE WILL DRAFT WITH THE PICK. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS POST.

I'm sure you'll choose to ignore this again, it's been working decent for you so far so why stop now?

I think, the reason why you'll never get it, is because football is a man's game

People will treat you with a lot more respect around here if you don't call other people's opinions idiotic or absurd.

I'll tell you what though - I know you've probably got a few more insults you're working on as we speak... because you've clearly demonstrated your exceptional football knowledge gained over your 23 years, let's just accept your premise, that this was one of the worst trades of all time in the NFL because the Seahawks gave up a 1st rounder when you think a 2nd rounder was more appropriate, as fact, and call it a night.

Whether the Patriots draft an all-pro or the biggest bust in the history of the NFL has no bearing whatsover in determining whether this was a good trade or a "horrible" trade.

I'm hoping this helps your self esteem.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

I think you've nicely captured the different "logic" that's at work here.

I didn't need to take any time at all to know that only a fool would grade a trade without knowing what player the team traded for.

To me, that's kindof a crucial bit of information one would need to truly offer a valid judgement.

If that's just impossible to comprehend, I don't think anything short of professional help will suffice.

Now, to use a Red Sox analogy, I take it you would have judged trading Jeff Bagwell for Larry Johnson to be a bonifide success given how it appeared at the time... a minor leaguer for a proven pitcher?

We wouldn't want that pesky "hindsight" to enter the equation like those other "fools" who recognize this as one of the worst trades of all time, would we?

Nah you're right... only a fool would need hindsight to judge a trade.

The Patriots didn't receive a player from Seattle. They received a draft pick. I can grasp this. Why can't you?

The player they acquire will determine whether the use of the pick was a success. The acquisition of the pick, from Seattle for Deion, is already a success.

Also, a good trade can have a bad outcome. The Bagwell trade is a bad example because it was simply a bad trade with a bad outcome. Lets use the Coco trade as a more recent example. The Sox were able to deal a prospect who wouldn't be able to help the team this year to fill a gaping hole in center, and in doing so acquired a good young player under inexpensive contractual control for 3 years. It was a good trade. Coco got hurt and had a crappy year (reversing all trends) and hurt the Sox in a disappointing season. The result (so far) has been bad.

Was it a bad trade? No. Did it have a bad outcome? Yes. The only way for Theo to have forseen this result would have been an ability to see the future.

And I would really like you to answer my Peyton hypothetical. If, this offseason, Oakland traded a 1st for Manning and he lost both legs after two games, was it a bad trade?

 

[Minnesota Mike]

As a Viking fan I would say it would be tough to top the Hershall Waker trade. The Vikes traded 5 players and 6 conditional Draft picks (including 3 1'sts) for Walker. Complete details of the extremly complicated trade are here.

http://vikings.scout.com/2/11653.html