Who got hosed most in the Moss deal?

[ctpatsfan77]

Although it happened serially rather than all at once, this is what the Randy Moss deal ended up being:

NE trades Deion Branch and their 2007 1st for Seattle's 2007 1st, Randy Moss, and SF's 2008 1st
SF trades their 2007 4th and 2008 1st for NE's 2007 1st (Joe Staley)
OAK trades Randy Moss for SF's 2007 4th (John Bowie)
SEA trades their 2007 1st for Deion Branch

So . . . who got hosed most?

 

[bakes781]

Well considering how much Oakland had to give up to get Randy Moss in the 1st place I'd have to say the Raiders.

 

[sebman2112]

The Seahawks had to give up their first, and give Branch a top five WR contract, so they got the hose job.

 

[BelichickFan]

I'm not voting for the Raiders because they got hosed when they traded for Moss.

I said SF as I think that'll be a top 15 pick when all is said and done but Seattle got hosed too.

 

[DarrylS]

Have to vote for Seattle as they are paying too much for Deion, as much as I like him he is overvalued.. they also lost a 1st round pick.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Obviously the Patriots, suddenly they are a one player team in the news.

 

[WhiZa]

Moss hosed the Raiders himself. The deal itself is acctualy good for them and the Patriots as well. SF has 2 first round picks and the jury is still out on that, but the Seahawks now have Deion Branch as their #1 and top 5 highest paid WR in the league. That's the biggest hose right there.

 

[patchick]

Not to get all pissy, but...I don't see how Seattle and Deion Branch were part of the Moss deal in any way. Some fans link them by arguing that the Branch trade "allowed" NE to trade away their own #1 this year, but what are we basing that on? Who knows what BB&co. would have done if they had Branch but just one #1 pick this year? And even if they hadn't traded #28--happening to pick up the fourth that became Moss in the process--chances are they still would have traded for Moss anyway (maybe for cheaper, with #127!)

I do think Seattle got hosed in the Branch trade. I don't think anybody got hosed in the Moss trade -- great potential for the Pats, and Oakland squeezed out a mid-round pick for a guy they would have been cutting anyway.

 

[BelichickFan]

Not to get all pissy, but...I don't see how Seattle and Deion Branch were part of the Moss deal in any way. Some fans link them by arguing that the Branch trade "allowed" NE to trade away their own #1 this year, but what are we basing that on?

It's just a lot easier to trade out of the first round if you have another pick already made. So you have help for this year already. Just like when we traded out in the Boller trade after having drafted Warren. I believe both times we've traded a #1 away we have already made a first round pick at the time of the trade out. It's a small sample size (2) but it's a coincidence that can't be discounted completely.

 

[patchick]

It's just a lot easier to trade out of the first round if you have another pick already made. So you have help for this year already. Just like when we traded out in the Boller trade after having drafted Warren. I believe both times we've traded a #1 away we have already made a first round pick at the time of the trade out. It's a small sample size (2) but it's a coincidence that can't be discounted completely.

I don't dispute any of that...but what does it have to do with Randy Moss? Is the suggestion that we never would have made a move for Moss if we hadn't happened to pick up an extra fourth rounder, which wouldn't have happened if we hadn't traded Branch? That seems like a huge stretch, we had plenty of day-2 picks to work with.

 

[BelichickFan]

I don't dispute any of that...but what does it have to do with Randy Moss? Is the suggestion that we never would have made a move for Moss if we hadn't happened to pick up an extra fourth rounder, which wouldn't have happened if we hadn't traded Branch? That seems like a huge stretch, we had plenty of day-2 picks to work with.

It was based on this small piece of what you said :

Some fans link them by arguing that the Branch trade "allowed" NE to trade away their own #1 this year, but what are we basing that on? Who knows what BB&co. would have done if they had Branch but just one #1 pick this year?

You are correct that we easily could have made the Moss deal without the trade down. I was just pointing out that it's a reasonable, though not definitive, argument that we would have used #28 had we not had #24.

 

[VJCPatriot]

I don't dispute any of that...but what does it have to do with Randy Moss? Is the suggestion that we never would have made a move for Moss if we hadn't happened to pick up an extra fourth rounder, which wouldn't have happened if we hadn't traded Branch? That seems like a huge stretch, we had plenty of day-2 picks to work with.

I too don't think that you can lump the Seattle/Branch trade with the Raiders/Moss trade because different picks were involved. The connection is a bit weak imo. There is some relation, but those deals were not directly related at all.

 

[zippo59]

What is this thread doing in here?