- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 76,883
- Reaction score
- 66,866
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Actually, I asked Reiss, and this was his response:
Andrew (Rochester, NY)
Mike, do you know if the pick we gave up for Ojinnaka is conditional? If so, are we still on the hook after cutting him today? It seems like a very poor return on investment, although I'm happy to see Clayton return.
Mike Reiss (1:10 PM)
Andrew, I don't believe it was conditional. My belief is that it was a straight-up seventh-rounder. They probably viewed it as insurance that they needed at the time, but they've been a bit careless with some of those 7s of late.
Hm. Not sure I like that.
Are you really that worried about losing a 7th round draft pick?
Considering first the situation at the time with mankins and Kaczur, secondly the number of 7th round picks that end up having little or no impact in the NFL, and third, the number of 1st and 2nd-year players already on the team, I don't know why the loss of a 7th round draft pick merits even a shrug of the shoulders.
I don't disagree that you don't want to needlessly waste draft picks - even 7th rounders - however consider the circumstances. As I recall the trade was made a day after it was announced Kaczur was going to need back surgery and about a week after the Mankins' negotiations turned for the worse. So at the time it seemed like a good tradeoff; even if, as it turns out, it was a bad trade and an unnecessary move.Trading picks is one thing. Wasting them is another. Cassel and Edelman are examples of why you keep 7th round picks rather than wasting them needlessly.
Trading picks is one thing. Wasting them is another. Cassel and Edelman are examples of why you keep 7th round picks rather than wasting them needlessly.