Peter King on Cassel's trade value

[T-ShirtDynasty]

Give me that #17 and Revis and Cassel's their QB.

I want what you're smoking.

 

[JSn]

I want what you're smoking.

It only grows in snow watered with Molson.

 

[amazinPats]

I don't see the Pats going below pick 20 and in my mind they will ask for a 1st and more in this year's draft.

Exactly. First rounder plus a second or third. They will take no less, and teams will be willing to offer this.

 

[SVN]

king bought a great point about gm's moving in the league like pioli doing all scouting trips under the krafts for the past 1 yr and now he is just going to take all those expense paid info to KC.

 

[stevedogc]

I don't think the Pats trade w/anyone ahead of SF at 10. Buffalo @ 11, Denver @ 12, Washington @ 13, Saints @ 14, Houston @ 15, San Diego @ 16 don't need a QB. The Jets @ 17 will not happen. Chicago @ 18, Tampa Bay @ 19 and Detroit as mentioned @ 20 are good spots. So the most likely trading partners in my mind are SF @ 10, Chicago @ 18, Tampa Bay @ 19 and Detroit @ 20. I don't see the Pats going below pick 20 and in my mind they will ask for a 1st and more in this year's draft.

You left out a team. The Vikings at 22. They need a QB. They are just a good QB away from being a serious contender in the NFC. They got the back in Peterson, a good oline, and a solid defense. Im not sure of their cap situation, but if I were their GM Id give up their 1st rounder in 2009 (22) and 1st in 2010 (likely in the 20's) for Cassel and then try to sigh Housmandzadeh at WR. They dont need rookies right now, they need a passing game.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

>>>>>I can't see a team giving up #10 for Cassel, but if they did, it'd be quite a heist.<<<<

Why is that? Let's say you have the #10 pick and need a QB. Would you choose a QB right out of college or would you use that pick on a QB that has demonsrated good NFL success? Look at the success rate of QB's taken in the top 5 selections of the draft. College success does not guarantee good NFL success. A guy who has done it sure seems to me a more attractive choice than a guy who has no experience doing it at the NFL level.

Cassel:
A)proven excellent work ethic, B)demonstrated NFL success, C) demonstrated big game management characteristics, D)brings to his new team seasoning and study under the NFL's best QB/Coach tandem of this decade (imho, the best coach of my lifetime).......but he isn't worth a #10? I don't see the logic (though the money demand from Cassel's agent is a bit of a wildcard ).

 

[SunnyDenmark]

Some general thoughts to ponder in the Cassell trade debate:

1) Generally want a first rounder (obviously) instead of say (like Matt Schabb) two 2nd rounders as a first rounder can be signed to 5 year deal whereas a 2nd rounder can only sign a maximum 4 year deal.

2) Maybe with some of the surprise firings this year of coaches and GM's (Shanahan, Gruden, etc) - maybe that gives more incentive for coaches (Childress, Lovie Smith, etc) to try to win NOW and go with a VET (Cassell) instead of build for the future with a draft QB (Sanchez, Stafford). Coaches have to even more concerned than ever before about looking for fast turnaround (like Miami, Ravens, Atlanta). This helps Cassells value. Some might say rookie Ryan and Flaccos success would diminish Cassells value but I think most smart coaches and GM's now first year QB success is few and far between. Last case was several years ago with Rothesburgher and have been several busts since then.

3) I am pretty sure Pats won't want KC's # 3 this year (who out their is worth it to the Pats at # 3 for $40+ million guaranteed?) plus trading down from that position could be difficult. But how about KC's #34 pick, plus Tony Gonzales, and a conditional pick in 2010 draft for Cassell?

 

[italian pat patriot]

Cassel's trade value

i am thrilled what could happen considering:

our first round, 2 second round picks (ours plus SD one); probably 2 thirds round picks (ours plus the compensatory pick for Asante ?) and, then, PLUS Cassel eventual trade value

we could have a very interesting draft at least...

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Some good points, Sunny.

1) Generally want a first rounder (obviously) instead of say (like Matt Schabb) two 2nd rounders as a first rounder can be signed to 5 year deal whereas a 2nd rounder can only sign a maximum 4 year deal.

At this exact moment in time, though, that's not as big a factor as you might think, since they'd be RFAs at the end of the contract either way.

2) Maybe with some of the surprise firings this year of coaches and GM's (Shanahan, Gruden, etc) - maybe that gives more incentive for coaches (Childress, Lovie Smith, etc) to try to win NOW and go with a VET (Cassell) instead of build for the future with a draft QB (Sanchez, Stafford). Coaches have to even more concerned than ever before about looking for fast turnaround (like Miami, Ravens, Atlanta). This helps Cassells value. Some might say rookie Ryan and Flaccos success would diminish Cassells value but I think most smart coaches and GM's now first year QB success is few and far between. Last case was several years ago with Rothesburgher and have been several busts since then.

That's one thing I think some teams are forgetting when they say "let's wait until 2010" to grab a QB--some of these coaches (as you said, Childress comes to mind) may not get to 2010 with their current teams unless they improve this year.

3) I am pretty sure Pats won't want KC's # 3 this year (who out their is worth it to the Pats at # 3 for $40+ million guaranteed?) plus trading down from that position could be difficult. But how about KC's #34 pick, plus Tony Gonzales, and a conditional pick in 2010 draft for Cassell?

I know that Gonzo has said he doesn't want to play on a rebuilding team, but I also think Pioli would be reluctant to trade one of his best weapons on offense to land Cassel. That said, I'd probably take #34 + Gonzo with little hesitation, with or without a pick in 2010.

 

[BradyManny]

>>>>>I can't see a team giving up #10 for Cassel, but if they did, it'd be quite a heist.<<<<

Why is that? Let's say you have the #10 pick and need a QB. Would you choose a QB right out of college or would you use that pick on a QB that has demonsrated good NFL success? Look at the success rate of QB's taken in the top 5 selections of the draft. College success does not guarantee good NFL success. A guy who has done it sure seems to me a more attractive choice than a guy who has no experience doing it at the NFL level.

Cassel:
A)proven excellent work ethic, B)demonstrated NFL success, C) demonstrated big game management characteristics, D)brings to his new team seasoning and study under the NFL's best QB/Coach tandem of this decade (imho, the best coach of my lifetime).......but he isn't worth a #10? I don't see the logic (though the money demand from Cassel's agent is a bit of a wildcard ).

I agree completely with you in this sense - if I have #10 and I'm choosing between one of the 2 college QBs and Matt Cassel, then its Cassel, and its a no brainer. But I think a smart GM does neither b/c I don't think Cassel's price will get that high. Even with rumors of Brady's knee being in rough shape out there, the Pats still don't have an abundance of leverage. And, as I said in another thread, Cassel is still not without question marks. I was not surprised to see football outsiders metrics put him with only a 6% DVOA.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I agree completely with you in this sense - if I have #10 and I'm choosing between one of the 2 college QBs and Matt Cassel, then its Cassel, and its a no brainer. But I think a smart GM does neither b/c I don't think Cassel's price will get that high. Even with rumors of Brady's knee being in rough shape out there, the Pats still don't have an abundance of leverage. And, as I said in another thread, Cassel is still not without question marks. I was not surprised to see football outsiders metrics put him with only a 6% DVOA.

If all GMs were smart, Atlanta would not have gotten two seconds for Matt Schaub.

And I can all but guarantee you that back-to-back 400 yard games > 6% DVOA in the minds of GMs.

 

[BradyManny]

If all GMs were smart, Atlanta would not have gotten two seconds for Matt Schaub.

And I can all but guarantee you that back-to-back 400 yard games > 6% DVOA in the minds of GMs.

Hopefully there are some GMs out there that think this way, and you're probably right that there are. Some teams are desperate for a QB, and for probably half of the league, Cassel represents an upgrade.

But for the 400 yard games, no, I don't think many GMs will be overly-wooed by those games, and yes, I think they would take DVOA or metrics more seriously. The 400 yard games were almost a statistical anomaly and the fact that the last person to do it was Billy Volek says something. Cassel played really well in those games, of course, but GMs are going to look a little deeper at things.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Hopefully there are some GMs out there that think this way, and you're probably right that there are. Some teams are desperate for a QB, and for probably half of the league, Cassel represents an upgrade.

But for the 400 yard games, no, I don't think many GMs will be overly-wooed by those games, and yes, I think they would take DVOA or metrics more seriously. The 400 yard games were almost a statistical anomaly and the fact that the last person to do it was Billy Volek says something. Cassel played really well in those games, of course, but GMs are going to look a little deeper at things.

I won't argue this point too much further, but most of those GMs aren't in the market for QBs right now to begin with.

 

[BelichickFan]

Even though Gruden and Belichick are friends I think Gruden's firing making TB more likely to be interested. If the several people (ex players, TB writers) aI heard last night they said several times on of the problems was Gruden tinkering with every available QB and not settling on a long term guy.

 

[JoeSixPat]

He talked about it on WEEI earlier today (around the 10 minute mark).

His prediction, for whatever it's worth, is that the Patriots should be able to get more than Atlanta got for Matt Schaub (two seconds + a two-spot jump in the first). He thinks that Pioli might well try to make a play for Cassel, but would also likely try to move down in the draft if he can.

He also suggested the possibility that the Patriots might try to trade Cassel for a swap of draft picks (e.g., Cassel and their first for the #3 overall), although he doesn't think it's likely (noting correctly that the Pats don't like picking that high, but also noting correctly that BB did quite well with SF's pick last year).

Actually I can see the swap as quite feasible - and if possible I'd see Belichick working hard to trade back if there's not a slam dunk premier player there

Pioli's a smart guy and knows that one always takes a chance in the draft and drafting at #3 is a high risk high reward scenario - and as a new GM he might not be keen to jump in with that sort of splash or thud.

Better to take a sure thing in Cassel as QB and gain the "credit" for a solid move, that still gives them a quality first round pick (I think he'd need to give up some quality picks later in the draft too, in order to get Cassell)

On top of all of this, Pioli might also be seriously considering retaining Herm Edwards if he's not totally sold on any of the other HC candidates available.

To me that makes sense to start your rebuilding with a coach who can be the fall guy and be fired next year, if and when Pioli's true top choice of a coach is available.

That way, if the team does well, Pioli's a genius. If the team does poorly, its Herm's fault and he's gone - and Cassel and Pioli both have significantly less pressure on them to immediately turn things around.

Seems like the best way to go to me.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Hopefully there are some GMs out there that think this way, and you're probably right that there are. Some teams are desperate for a QB, and for probably half of the league, Cassel represents an upgrade.

But for the 400 yard games, no, I don't think many GMs will be overly-wooed by those games, and yes, I think they would take DVOA or metrics more seriously. The 400 yard games were almost a statistical anomaly and the fact that the last person to do it was Billy Volek says something. Cassel played really well in those games, of course, but GMs are going to look a little deeper at things.

It's a real shame that the Lions finally fired Millen. He's exactly the kind of guy who would pull the trigger on Cassel. I think that the Vikes will make a strong push for him, personally. They don't need an elite QB, but they do need one who can step in and start now, and who can be just enough of a threat to make life a little easier for Peterson. Someone who won't undermine the top-tier running game and defense by making stupid turnovers. Who fits that description better than Cassel?

 

[upstater1]

If I'm at the top of the draft, as Pioli is, I draft the top QB and use Thigpen for a year or two to bring the QB along.

That's if I think the team needs a QB.

No way do I trade it for Matt Cassell.

 

[PatsFan2]

If I'm at the top of the draft, as Pioli is, I draft the top QB and use Thigpen for a year or two to bring the QB along.

That's if I think the team needs a QB.

No way do I trade it for Matt Cassell.

Didn't the Top QB Sam Bradford returned for his Senior year? What's your point?

 

[PatsFan2]

Not that i would give up the Third Overall for Cassel but you have to think KC is in the running. And Pioli Drafted Cassel...so you have to think he knows what he can do. I could see Pioli saying KC 2nd in 2009 and First in 2010 for Cassel. If Pioli likes Cassel upside that's fair value for his services.

 

[BradyFTW!]

If I'm at the top of the draft, as Pioli is, I draft the top QB and use Thigpen for a year or two to bring the QB along.

That's if I think the team needs a QB.

No way do I trade it for Matt Cassell.

In that case, do you pick Stafford or Sanchez? Because both have more question marks than Cassel does, and either one would require a similarly large contract (probably a bigger one, even).