Why are we sure we got a 5th?

[DCPatriot]

I know PFW reported it without attribution, and that Tomase referred to it, but I have my doubts. It may be part of the comp but, from this arm-chair, is unrealistically low. It's not as if there are not other teams in need of WRs. I hope this is tied into a trade with the Seahawks, with the comp contingent on what comes out of that.

Another wrinkle: the grievance filed by the NFLPA (with antitrust lawyer Kessler) is making an argument that an arbitrator should impose a market value on What's His Name, equal to a second. (This would have quite an effect on contract hold-outs going forward, IMO.) Assume that an arbitrator will accept the premise of this argument (which he should not, but you never know): how does a fifth for a number 2 WR look in the NFLPA's argument? There's something missing here.

 

[BelichickFan]

Three responses :

- I don't think we are sure it's a 5th.

- I still see no way the arbitrator rules against us, the wording was the the WR had "permission to seek a trade". The statement never said the Patriots would trade him, just that he could work out a contract and seek a trade.

- If we did lose and the Gabriel trade (if it's a 5th) lowered his value, that's OK (with me). To come out of this OK all we need is for the draft choice gained minus the draft choice lost to equal the difference in value of WR. Given that Gabriel is good in his own right and has two cheap years left on his contract, that won't be difficult.

 

[Keegs]

people on the espn raiders forum yesterday said it wasn't for a 5th.

they said it was to be named later.

 

[jaychamp]

Could it be they are not revealing it so it can't be used as leverage for DB's agent , or would the arbitrator know anway?

If the former is possible, I just became an Al Davis fan.

 

[Richter]

Clayton also reported the pick as being believed to be a 5th, for whatever that's worth. I'm not 100% sure, but most times in these situations, the initial report turns out to be right.