I can see Bourne or Osborn going to Minny

[Love The Drake]

BREAKING: Vikings WR Jordan Addison Carted Off After Suffering Leg Injury During Practice

As if today for Vikings fans couldn’t get any worse… Just hours after learning that rookie QB J.J. McCarthy would be out for the entire season due to a torn meniscus, Vikings fans now have to face the news that WR Jordan Addison has been carted off the field during Tuesday practice. The injury...

dailysnark.com

 

[Fuzz]

I've seen you post multiple times about this and i dont get it. Even though we have a lot of bodies at the position, it is by no means a strength. It would be sheer lunacy to trade away either of our only two proven receivers. Everyone else is a projection.

 

[signbabybrady]

I've seen you post multiple times about this and i dont get it. Even though we have a lot of bodies at the position, it is by no means a strength. It would be sheer lunacy to trade away either of our only two proven receivers. Everyone else is a projection.

I thought it was Lunacy to trade away a player capable of double digit sacks but here we are.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

I've seen you post multiple times about this and i dont get it. Even though we have a lot of bodies at the position, it is by no means a strength. It would be sheer lunacy to trade away either of our only two proven receivers. Everyone else is a projection.

Why is it sheer lunacy to trade away either of our two proven receivers if we just traded away our best defensive player? That makes no sense.

 

[TheRainMaker]

I've seen you post multiple times about this and i dont get it. Even though we have a lot of bodies at the position, it is by no means a strength. It would be sheer lunacy to trade away either of our only two proven receivers. Everyone else is a projection.

Bourne and Osborn are proven? More accomplished, but not by much.

 

[Sicilian]

I'm trying to think of the last time a team signed a veteran player to a free agent contract and then traded them away that same offseason. That's a good way to lose trust in future free agents. I don't see it happening here for that very reason.

 

[gobesmug]

I'm trying to think of the last time a team signed a veteran player to a free agent contract and then traded them away that same offseason. That's a good way to lose trust in future free agents. I don't see it happening here for that very reason.

That's an interesting point. This could be rare case where that wouldn't be negative because Osborne was signed from the Vikings.

Whats hilarious is the Jets trading for a player who has since turned into a hold out. Has that ever happened in the history of the NFL?

 

[Sciz]

I'm trying to think of the last time a team signed a veteran player to a free agent contract and then traded them away that same offseason. That's a good way to lose trust in future free agents. I don't see it happening here for that very reason.

Latest I found is Denzel Perryman in 2021. Teddy Bridgewater in 2018 is the most well known recent example. There are probably others.

Edit: The most recent is Jordan Phillips, 14 minutes ago.

 

[Fuzz]

Why is it sheer lunacy to trade away either of our two proven receivers if we just traded away our best defensive player? That makes no sense.

We traded away Judon because he was unhappy with his contract situation. Bourne and Osborn, who both signed new contracts this season, could not be in a more different situation. We also can’t afford weakening our offense further, while the defense should be fine even without Judon.

 

[mgteich]

I've seen you post multiple times about this and i dont get it. Even though we have a lot of bodies at the position, it is by no means a strength. It would be sheer lunacy to trade away either of our only two proven receivers. Everyone else is a projection.

I wouldn't call Douglass a projection. But I do agree with your point.

 

[javajunky]

I've seen you post multiple times about this and i dont get it. Even though we have a lot of bodies at the position, it is by no means a strength. It would be sheer lunacy to trade away either of our only two proven receivers. Everyone else is a projection.

You asume Osborne is going to make the 53. Right now he is my surprise cut unless there is an injury bug develops amoung the receivers.

 

[Hugepatsfan]

This isn’t a right now move, but mid season? Sure, I’d consider it. Bourne and Osborn are good, solid, proven #3 WR types. Maybe #2 for Bourne though hard to tell because of the QB and scheme he played in here, but feels like he’d be a weaker #2. There’s value in those type of guys, but we have a group of 5 young WRs in Polk, Douglas, Baker, Thornton, Boutte. In an ideal world, those guys outplay Bourne and Osborn.

My guess is they roster those 5 and Osborn to start the year, Bourne on PUP. They’ll give those guys every opportunity to seize roles. If the group of young guys collectively plays well, then I could see them moving one or both of Bourne/Osborn. But they need those guys to really push them out the door.

My guess is that they get enough from the group to feel comfortable trading one of Bourne/Osborn.

 

[Triumph]

You asume Osborne is going to make the 53. Right now he is my surprise cut unless there is an injury bug develops amoung the receivers.

Project 2027?

 

[Sciz]

I don’t think Minnesota can trade for Osborn without it costing them their compensatory 3rd. This Twitter thread refers to the Chiefs re-acquiring Mecole Hardman last season, but the same would apply for the Vikings trading for Osborn. Because they have exactly one more qualifying departure than addition, removing Osborn would cause everything to cancel upward, including the 3rd for losing Cousins.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I don’t think Minnesota can trade for Osborn without it costing them their compensatory 3rd. This Twitter thread refers to the Chiefs re-acquiring Mecole Hardman last season, but the same would apply for the Vikings trading for Osborn. Because they have exactly one more qualifying departure than addition, removing Osborn would cause everything to cancel upward, including the 3rd for losing Cousins.

In this particular case at least, yes. For the record, I believe the cancellation rule is:
* Cancel a pick in the same round first.
* If that's not possible, cancel a pick in a later round.
* If that's not possible either, cancel a pick in an earlier round.