Ross Tucker traded to Cleveland for '07 conditional draft pick

[BelichickFan]

it seems like most in here would take mruc over stevenson
what makes u feel that way other than the experience factor

Mruc has very little chance to make the team. He was only on the shadow roster last year, finally making the team for good when Koppen got hurt. We didn't lose any G/C that were on the 53 last year and added Stevenson (O'Callaghan will almost certainly replace Ashworth's roster spot at T) so Mruc has a very big hill to climb with Stevenson in play now too.

 

[mgteich]

And it was a fine sail other than the iceberg.

Mruc has spent two years learning to be a backup center and guard. It is indeed experience that makes him more valuable than Stevenson, who could spend a year or two on the Practice Squad.

Light,Mankins,Koppen,Neal,Gorin
Hochstein,O'Callaghan

On the other hand, given this group of seven (plus Kaycur), we can afford a developmental #9 OL. The #8 is Kaycur's OT spot.

it seems like most in here would take mruc over stevenson
what makes u feel that way
other than the experience factor

 

[BelichickFan]

Mruc has spent two years learning to be a backup center and guard. It is indeed experience that makes him more valuable than Stevenson, who could spend a year or two on the Practice Squad.

We aren't going to be able to just shove every pick we want to the PS. You don't think a team like the Browns would claim Stevenson in a second ? Stevenson would only get cut for one reason - that's if he looks bad in camp and preseason. It won't be because a journeyman like Mruc beats him out.

 

[JustWinBrady]

We aren't going to be able to just shove every pick we want to the PS. You don't think a team like the Browns would claim Stevenson in a second ? Stevenson would only get cut for one reason - that's if he looks bad in camp and preseason. It won't be because a journeyman like Mruc beats him out.

Good Points, so which OL will be IR'd?

 

[pats1]

We aren't going to be able to just shove every pick we want to the PS. You don't think a team like the Browns would claim Stevenson in a second ? Stevenson would only get cut for one reason - that's if he looks bad in camp and preseason. It won't be because a journeyman like Mruc beats him out.

It will. I know Stevenson can play some center, but Mruczkowski is experienced at both C and G.

He was ahead of both Yates and Tucker last year. There were times when Mankins needed a breather or shifted over to LT when Mruczkowski came in at LG. He performed impressively.

Just because Stevenson is a rookie doesn't mean he unseats someone who has been learning the Pats' system for the last 3 years and has seen an increasing role. Beioli will take the player they feel better compliments the team. A rookie, especially a low-rounder like Stevenson, isn't going to get a free pass to the roster. He'll have to work just as hard as Mruczkowski, and perform better than Mruzckowski to get on the roster.

(And I wouldn't really call Mruczkowski a journeyman. The only team he's ever been on is NE - since 2003. He graduated from the shadow roster last year, and he hasn't done anything to earn a demotion.)

 

[RayClay]

Guess we'll never get a clear answer to the Tucker/Mruczkowski saga. We could perhaps get a feel if we knew which one Cleveland initially bid for...

I don't think Mruczkowski had any trade value at all.

I hope you spelled it right cause copy and paste is the only way I'm attempting that.

 

[CrazyDave]

As was asked earlier, what sort of a pick do we stand to potentially get out of this?

 

[Lamanai]

As was asked earlier, what sort of a pick do we stand to potentially get out of this?

No idea. But my guess is thta it will be a 6th/7th if he makes the team, nothing if he doesn't.

The question I have is: why aren't these sort of things disclosed ?

 

[PatsFanInVa]

No idea. But my guess is thta it will be a 6th/7th if he makes the team, nothing if he doesn't.

The question I have is: why aren't these sort of things disclosed ?

'Cuz it's conditional!

That means if condition A is met, outcome A results... I have no idea what the conditions are (his playing time, the Browns' success, etc.,) or whether there is only a certain set of conditions eligible for consideration, but my guess is this is a contractual agreement between two parties on compensation for the rights the player. As such, if they want to agree to make a certain outcome conditional on the player singing "Danny Boy" every game on the sidelines, that is the right of the respective teams who make the agreement.

PFnV

edited to say: just re-read your comment, so obviously you knew that... I have no idea why BB/SP would choose not to disclose info they're not obligated to disclose -- it's even possible the player isn't absolutely needed to know this information. Something tells me, though, that BB (read as BB/SP) subscribes to the theory that any intelligence can be of value, and that if he does not gain something by disclosing it the default position is he's giving away something of value for free.

 

[Lamanai]

'Cuz it's conditional!

That means if condition A is met, outcome A results... I have no idea what the conditions are (his playing time, the Browns' success, etc.,) or whether there is only a certain set of conditions eligible for consideration, but my guess is this is a contractual agreement between two parties on compensation for the rights the player. As such, if they want to agree to make a certain outcome conditional on the player singing "Danny Boy" every game on the sidelines, that is the right of the respective teams who make the agreement.

PFnV

I understand what conditional means, and in the NFL if typically (although not always) means conditional on the guy making the roster. I guess my question really is why can't they disclose what the pick *could* beif the conditions are met ?


Something like: The Cleveland Browns acquired Center Ross Tucker from the New England Patriots for a Conditional Sixth Round draft choice in 2007.

It could be further disclosed that the pick could be anywhere from nothing to a sixth rounder.

In other transactions it does get reported. For example, when Terry Glenn was traded to GB the compensation was conditional based on how many catches he had.

So what's the big mystery with Ross Tucker ? What advantage/disadvantage does a team garner from not disclosing the terms of the deal ?


EDIT: Just read your edit...

 

[14thDragon]

I understand what conditional means, and in the NFL if typically (although not always) means conditional on the guy making the roster. I guess my question really is why can't they disclose what the pick *could* beif the conditions are met ?

So what's the big mystery with Ross Tucker ? What advantage/disadvantage does a team garner from not disclosing the terms of the deal ?

Maybe that part of deal has not really been worked out yet. This could be a trade in principle, knowing that it could be anywhere from a 4-7th pick depending on games played, but they are still establishing all the criteria.

Then it would be hard to tell us. Might be the paperwork still needs some filing with the leauge offices.

 

[Brownfan80]

Guess we'll never get a clear answer to the Tucker/Mruczkowski saga. We could perhaps get a feel if we knew which one Cleveland initially bid for...

There was a Tucker/Mruc Saga?? How did I miss THAT?

:O

 

[Lamanai]

I understand what conditional means, and in the NFL if typically (although not always) means conditional on the guy making the roster. I guess my question really is why can't they disclose what the pick *could* beif the conditions are met ?

So what's the big mystery with Ross Tucker ? What advantage/disadvantage does a team garner from not disclosing the terms of the deal ?

Maybe that part of deal has not really been worked out yet. This could be a trade in principle, knowing that it could be anywhere from a 4-7th pick depending on games played, but they are still establishing all the criteria.

Then it would be hard to tell us. Might be the paperwork still needs some filing with the leauge offices.

Plausible, I suppose. But the scope of this particular trade doesn't seem like it would require a lot of back and forth. It is probably a simple transaction.

 

[b_btrick]

I understand what conditional means, and in the NFL if typically (although not always) means conditional on the guy making the roster. I guess my question really is why can't they disclose what the pick *could* beif the conditions are met ?

So what's the big mystery with Ross Tucker ? What advantage/disadvantage does a team garner from not disclosing the terms of the deal ?


Plausible, I suppose. But the scope of this particular trade doesn't seem like it would require a lot of back and forth. It is probably a simple transaction.

It could also be that there are other potential trades that may be affected if they trade partner knew what the pats were getting for this trade. By keeping the finalities of the trade under wraps, Belichick may be able to get a little more from other trades than if those teams knew what he had gotten in this trade.

 

[Lamanai]

It could also be that there are other potential trades that may be affected if they trade partner knew what the pats were getting for this trade. By keeping the finalities of the trade under wraps, Belichick may be able to get a little more from other trades than if those teams knew what he had gotten in this trade.

Do you mean the:

"Hey, Bill....Why are you trying to hold me up for a 6th rounder here for (Player X) ? You only got a 7th rounder for Tucker..."

It makes some sense.

 

[b_btrick]

LOL ... yeah ... something like that.

Though I was thinking more along the lines of Team A wanting to trade for a player on the Pats and pointing to what was given up for Tucker as a basis for what they will give the Pats for that player.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I don't think Mruczkowski had any trade value at all.

I hope you spelled it right cause copy and paste is the only way I'm attempting that.

Well, his lawyer hasn't called yet, so I must be close.

There was a Tucker/Mruc Saga?? How did I miss THAT?

:O

That's what happens when you go to the gossip threads and skip the knockdown dragout offseason wrangling between pats1 and myself.

 

[Brownfan80]

That's what happens when you go to the gossip threads and skip the knockdown dragout offseason wrangling between pats1 and myself.

Well.... when it's either LOOK HERE FOR CHEERLEADERS HALF NUDE or LOOK HERE FOR BACKUP OL TALK IN MAY which do you think I'd click in the depth of the offseason?? haha. You should definitely put boobs in your next backup OL saga. Sex sells buddy, sex sells!

 

[Clonamery]

Well.... when it's either LOOK HERE FOR CHEERLEADERS HALF NUDE or LOOK HERE FOR BACKUP OL TALK IN MAY which do you think I'd click in the depth of the offseason?? haha. You should definitely put boobs in your next backup OL saga. Sex sells buddy, sex sells!

Just say 'No' to Man Boobs.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Just say 'No' to Man Boobs.

I get him all set up and you crack a smile! grumble I may have to find me a new sidekick with a better poker face for these "boob jobs." :nono: