Justin Hartwig available for trade

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

The Steelers have a F.O. that makes few mistakes in player personnel in drafting and releasing players who are duds or washed up and thats why they have been good for quite a while now.

If they feel they can toss Hartwig out there for trade,either they want some major compensation or if they want just a little deal then Hartwig is not worth it,hes junk.

If it were a team like the Raiders tossing out a decent player for trade I would go for it since Al is ******ed,but good teams like the Steelers rarily let a player go who can still be productive and still add solid depth.

Remember good teams are like Kenny Rogers song The Gambler which says "They know how to hold them and they know when to walk away"

 

[Richard Camembert]

Marquis de Pouncey has EPIC potential.

I was SCREAMING for us to draft him, this year.

NFL Forum :: - ~ WAY OutSide the Box: OTG’s Mock V2.0: The Big 12!! ~

Well...he went 18, so we have had to give up something to get him, not to mention not reaping the benefits of the sick tradedowns they made. I say he's a good player but the team is better off this way.

 

[Peachhead]

The Steelers have a F.O. that makes few mistakes in player personnel in drafting and releasing players who are duds or washed up and thats why they have been good for quite a while now.

If they feel they can toss Hartwig out there for trade,either they want some major compensation or if they want just a little deal then Hartwig is not worth it,hes junk.

If it were a team like the Raiders tossing out a decent player for trade I would go for it since Al is ******ed,but good teams like the Steelers rarily let a player go who can still be productive and still add solid depth.

Remember good teams are like Kenny Rogers song The Gambler which says "They know how to hold them and they know when to walk away"

Yeah, the Vrabel guy, I think his first name was Mike, was a real dud.

Sometimes it just a numbers game, or sometimes we ask players to do things different than they did on their previous teams.

 

[patchick]

Well...he went 18, so we have had to give up something to get him, not to mention not reaping the benefits of the sick tradedowns they made. I say he's a good player but the team is better off this way.

For those who like to track these things, the balance worked out to Pouncey
vs. Devin McCourty, Taylor Price, Aaron Hernandez & Carolina's 2nd round pick in 2011.

I liked Pouncey too, but it's hard to fault that decision.

 

[pdangle]

For those who like to track these things, the balance worked out to Pouncey
vs. Devin McCourty, Taylor Price, Aaron Hernandez & Carolina's 2nd round pick in 2011.

I liked Pouncey too, but it's hard to fault that decision.

Damn. How I do love the way BB makes draft day our personal bizzatch!

 

[skinnydog]

For those who like to track these things, the balance worked out to Pouncey
vs. Devin McCourty, Taylor Price, Aaron Hernandez & Carolina's 2nd round pick in 2011.

I liked Pouncey too, but it's hard to fault that decision.

How do you figure that?

 

[Off The Grid]

For those who like to track these things, the balance worked out to Pouncey
vs. Devin McCourty, Taylor Price, Aaron Hernandez & Carolina's 2nd round pick in 2011.

I liked Pouncey too, but it's hard to fault that decision.

That's a bit of a DEEP twist on the facts, isn't it??

In fact, it's not even REMOTELY close to the truth.

***

The link I provided showed a RADICAL approach, but it wouldn't have TOUCHED the #1 that we eventually parlayed ~ with me CHEERING, in Real Time, as 90% of the fans SCREAMED in agony at the lost Dez Bryant "opportunity"!!

 

[patchick]

How do you figure that?

Here's how it went:

For New England to get to Pouncey before Pittsburgh at #18 would have taken at least their #22 + #89.

Instead, BB traded down and turned that #22 into #27 (McCourty), #90 (Price) and #113 (Hernandez). And flipped #89 for Carolina's 2011 2nd.


No spin intended, that's simply the way the draft picks fell.

 

[Off The Grid]

Well...he went 18, so we have had to give up something to get him, not to mention not reaping the benefits of the sick tradedowns they made. I say he's a good player but the team is better off this way.

That's very fair to say.

As I explained in my Link, I would've moved the 2011 Raider pick forward ~ and traded it to San Fran for their 2nd #1 ~ the 18th ~ and, thus, hauled in Pouncey.

I also would've signed Mankins WELL before the Evans contract initiated all this controversy, and traded Light, Kaczur, AND Koppen for some nice, meaty 2010 draft picks, and would've drafted RT Charles Brown, who could either apprentice behind LeVoir ~ I know, I know!! ~ or just do the Baptism by Fire thing!!

That would've give us

LT Vollmer
LT Mankins
C Pouncey
RG Neal
RT Brown

That could've been the best in the GAME, by the end of this year.

Just takes some imagination...and some BALLS.

Fortunately, Coach Bill II has more of both than ANYONE in the Game...so I will happily roll with him, for now...but that doesn't stop me ~ or any of us!! ~ from chipping in our two cents, now, DOES it??

 

[Off The Grid]

Here's how it went:

For New England to get to Pouncey before Pittsburgh at #18 would have taken at least their #22 + #89.

Instead, BB traded down and turned that #22 into #27 (McCourty), #90 (Price) and #113 (Hernandez). And flipped #89 for Carolina's 2011 2nd.


No spin intended, that's simply the way the draft picks fell.

WRONG.

It would've merely taken the Raider 2011 #1.

 

[patchick]

As I explained in my Link, I would've moved the 2011 Raider pick forward ~ and traded it to San Fran for their 2nd #1 ~ the 18th ~ and, thus, hauled in Pouncey.

You might have done that, but it's hard to imagine San Francisco would have! First off, you're asking a team with a desperate need for linemen to pass on Iupati. Second, to trade the future for the present requires paying a premium. A future #1 is the going rate for a pick in the 30s -- like the Broncos' trade for Alphonso Smith or Colts for Tony Ugoh -- not #17. You'll have to toss in the Brandon Spikes pick at the very least.

 

[Peachhead]

WRONG.

It would've merely taken the Raider 2011 #1.

So you were prepared to give what is likely to be a top ten pick in 2011 when there may be a rookie cap, to draft a center before #18 overall?! And then had to pay first round money to two rookies this year? And threw big bucks at Mankins to get him signed? Just because there's no cap at the moment doesn't mean it's gone for good, or even a good idea to be careless with Bob Kraft's money. I'm glad you aren't the Pats GM.

Even if I was psychic and knew for a fact a player was the second coming of John Hannah I still wouldn't take him in the 1st in today's NFL. Interior OL just aren't worth big bucks or the cap space. It throws off the salary balance with more critical players. That's a big reason for the Mankins impasse.

 

[Off The Grid]

You might have done that, but it's hard to imagine San Francisco would have! First off, you're asking a team with a desperate need for linemen to pass on Iupati. Second, to trade the future for the present requires paying a premium. A future #1 is the going rate for a pick in the 30s -- like the Broncos' trade for Alphonso Smith or Colts for Tony Ugoh -- not #17. You'll have to toss in the Brandon Spikes pick at the very least.

Actually, it's very EASY to imagine San Fran would've made that move.

First off, they got that EXTRA 1st PRECISELY by Trading Back.

Second, thanks for pointing out the obvious: everybody knows you have to pay a premium to Trade Forward.

Third, Let's see: Raider 2011. That's a probable Top 10, a viable Top 5, and a very possible #1...for an 18th??

900 Points ~ the 18th ~ for 1300 ~ the 10th ~ or even as high as the 1st ~ 3000 points.

"Premium" enough for you?

 

[Off The Grid]

So you were prepared to give what is likely to be a top ten pick in 2011 when there may be a rookie cap, to draft a center before #18 overall?! And then had to pay first round money to two rookies this year? And threw big bucks at Mankins to get him signed? Just because there's no cap at the moment doesn't mean it's gone for good, or even a good idea to be careless with Bob Kraft's money. I'm glad you aren't the Pats GM.

Even if I was psychic and knew for a fact a player was the second coming of John Hannah I still wouldn't take him in the 1st in today's NFL. Interior OL just aren't worth big bucks or the cap space. It throws off the salary balance with more critical players. That's a big reason for the Mankins impasse.

And I'm glad YOU'RE not the Pat's GM: MOST fans are equally ignorant of the true value ~ and IMPACT ~ that Beasts like Mankins and Pouncey have on the Game.

 

[Off The Grid]

Editor's Note: Bad record keeping on my part: San Fran had the 17th pick.

 

[patchick]

Actually, it's very EASY to imagine San Fran would've made that move.

First off, they got that EXTRA 1st PRECISELY by Trading Back.

Second, thanks for pointing out the obvious: everybody knows you have to pay a premium to Trade Forward.

Third, Let's see: Raider 2011. That's a probable Top 10, a viable Top 5, and a very possible #1...for an 18th??

900 Points ~ the 18th ~ for 1300 ~ the 10th ~ or even as high as the 1st ~ 3000 points.

"Premium" enough for you?

Nope, that's not premium enough for me at all. I think that's an absolutely terrible trade for the 49ers.

The expected value for a future pick is #16, essentially equivalent to the SF pick. The Raiders are far too unpredictable at this point to assume you'll climb far enough above that to get a major "premium."

Meanwhile the 2010 draft was stacked, Iupati was highly coveted, 2011 is expected to be very weak, and unlike BB the 49ers management doesn't have the job security to sit back and wait.

When was the last time any team traded away pick that high for nothing but a future pick? I can't think of a single comparable example, so I don't think the trade is realistic.

 

[Snake Eyes]

The Steelers have a F.O. that makes few mistakes in player personnel in drafting and releasing players who are duds or washed up and thats why they have been good for quite a while now.

If they feel they can toss Hartwig out there for trade,either they want some major compensation or if they want just a little deal then Hartwig is not worth it,hes junk.

If it were a team like the Raiders tossing out a decent player for trade I would go for it since Al is ******ed,but good teams like the Steelers rarily let a player go who can still be productive and still add solid depth.

Remember good teams are like Kenny Rogers song The Gambler which says "They know how to hold them and they know when to walk away"

How do you know this isn't one of their mistakes? Or maybe he's actually pretty good but the money they're going to pay him would be better spent on someone else in their organization, which makes it a non-mistake on their part.

I'd rather rely on my own eyes and at least give the guy a look rather than just assume he's crap.

 

[Off The Grid]

Nope, that's not premium enough for me at all. I think that's an absolutely terrible trade for the 49ers.

The expected value for a future pick is #16, essentially equivalent to the SF pick. The Raiders are far too unpredictable at this point to assume you'll climb far enough above that to get a major "premium."

Meanwhile the 2010 draft was stacked, Iupati was highly coveted, 2011 is expected to be very weak, and unlike BB the 49ers management doesn't have the job security to sit back and wait.

When was the last time any team traded away pick that high for nothing but a future pick? I can't think of a single comparable example, so I don't think the trade is realistic.

Excellent Arguments. And fair Arguments.

Just take care not to assume that I "assume" anything: It should go without saying that such a trade is speculative.

But the average Draft position of the Raiders, over the last 6 years, is around 4th or so.

4th.

Even allowing for all the bizarre speculation about this great season that so many think the Raiders are going to have, it would be one hell of a damned good risk to take, on the Miners' part.

Any GM turning that trade down would, frankly, be a flat out FOOL.