Horrible NFL Trades

[desi-patsfan]

For the pick that became Marcus Vick, the Chargers got the pick that became Tomlinson, Tim Dwight, and what else?

I used to think Drew Brees was in there, but they actually took him with their own 2nd round pick.

you mean Mike Vick right?

 

[Mike the Brit]

Why aren't BB and SP on the phone right now, relieving the Redskins of their future picks?

I'm not sure they have that many left.

 

[captain stone]

The trade the Broncos made with the Redskins is going to end up being a bonanza for the Broncos. The Broncos sent Ashley Lelie who didn't want to play for them and was an underachieving 1st round choice to Atlanta, and Atlanta sent TJ Duckett to Washington.

Denver receive the Redskins' #3 pick and the option to switch 1st round picks with Washington. The #3 alone is a good return for Lelie IMO, but switching 1sts makes this a true heist. Washington was much more likely to implode than Denver and it's looking like that will be the case.

Now, for example, let's assume the Broncos get #28, and the Redskins get #12. The difference between those choices by the draft value chart is 1200 (#12) -660 (#28) is 540 points. That difference is the equivalent of the #4 pick in the 2nd round. Now this is subjective of course, and the overall strength of the players involved would affect this. The Browns gave up a high #2 pick to Jacksonville to switch spots at #6 and #7.

Ultimately, it probably means the Broncos get a #3 pick and a potential impact player for a semi-bust who refused to play for them.

I wish we could make a trade that lopsided, although Vince Wilfork and Eugene Wilson for Kyle Boller isn't bad.

A fool and his money (i.e. Dan Snyder and draft choices), are soon parted. Why aren't BB and SP on the phone right now, relieving the Redskins of their future picks?

I didn't realize that the Donkeys have the option of switching 1st-round picks with the Deadskins. Un-effin-believable.

But I can top that trade with another Donkeys/Deadskins deal: Clinton Portis for Champ Bailey AND a 2nd-round pick (Tatum Bell).

Danny Snyder has to be one of the least knowledgable owners, not named Bidwell, in the history of the NFL. And I agree, let's speed-dial Redskins Park right now.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

The trade the Broncos made with the Redskins is going to end up being a bonanza for the Broncos. The Broncos sent Ashley Lelie who didn't want to play for them and was an underachieving 1st round choice to Atlanta, and Atlanta sent TJ Duckett to Washington.

Denver receive the Redskins' #3 pick and the option to switch 1st round picks with Washington. The #3 alone is a good return for Lelie IMO, but switching 1sts makes this a true heist. Washington was much more likely to implode than Denver and it's looking like that will be the case.

Now, for example, let's assume the Broncos get #28, and the Redskins get #12. The difference between those choices by the draft value chart is 1200 (#12) -660 (#28) is 540 points. That difference is the equivalent of the #4 pick in the 2nd round. Now this is subjective of course, and the overall strength of the players involved would affect this. The Browns gave up a high #2 pick to Jacksonville to switch spots at #6 and #7.

Ultimately, it probably means the Broncos get a #3 pick and a potential impact player for a semi-bust who refused to play for them.

I wish we could make a trade that lopsided, although Vince Wilfork and Eugene Wilson for Kyle Boller isn't bad.

A fool and his money (i.e. Dan Snyder and draft choices), are soon parted. Why aren't BB and SP on the phone right now, relieving the Redskins of their future picks?

I was lead to believe that Denver was guaranteed the equivalent of an early 3rd, and that one of the ways to make that happen was to switch 1sts if the difference was equal to a early 3rd. I know that there were other possible ways to resolve it which involved Denver receiving picks from the Skins next year.

Basically, are you sure that Denver can just fleece Washington as they choose? I thought it was written into the deal that if Washington has a early 3, which they likely will, they Denver simply gets it. I'm pretty sure that the swamping of 1sts was only an option under a set condition.

I could be wrong, but I'd appreciate a link to anything which makes you think Denver can switch picks even if it amounts to more than a 3.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

I found this:

"In a complicated deal involving three teams Tuesday night, the Broncos traded their disgruntled wide receiver to Atlanta. The Falcons sent running back T.J. Duckett to Washington. The Redskins, in turn, will send what is the equivalent of a high third- round pick in the 2007 draft to the Broncos.

The exact compensation Denver receives will not be determined until after the season. There are four possibilities, based on the draft-value chart NFL teams use.

The scenarios are: The two teams exchange first-round picks, in which the Broncos would make a huge jump up the round; the teams flip-flop their first-rounders and the Broncos get a fourth-rounder in 2008; the teams flip-flop their first-rounders and the Broncos get a third- rounder next year; or the Broncos get a third-rounder in 2007 and a fourth-rounder in 2008."

source: http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_4222540

I doubt it is Denver choice, though the article doesn't say. There are probably set rules of "if the difference between picks = between xxxx-xxxx points then blah blah blah"

Reguardless, a horribly stupid trade by the Skins.

 

[hallfamebrady]

How about Bledsoe for a number 1. The 1 was Ty Warren. That allowed us to trade our second 1st round pick for a 2nd (Eugene Wilson) and 1 one the next year (Wilfork)

 

[patpatriot]

In the Banch trade you have to take two other factors into account:

1. Money...DB was demanding beaucoup cash. A 1st rounder in the high 20's is yours for 5 years at reasonable dough...a better deal than DB as long as the draftee is a real contributor.

2. The label may say "first Round" but it is commonly accepted that many players drafted in the high-20's don't really carry a first round grade even though you have to pay them 1st round money. Thus, DB is a better deal than some wanna-be even if his T-shirt reads "First Round".

In the end, the proof of the pudding is in the taste. If DB helps Seattle win the SB...it's a bad trade for the Pats. If the Pats don't make or lose the SB due to a piss-poor passing game, it was a bad trade.

If neither team wins the SB and the Pats draft the equivalent of Anquan Boldin this time (they took Bethel before Anquan...even traded more picks to move up and get him); it's a great trade.


BTW, 2 1st rounders for Galloway was pretty bad.

 

[broadwayjoe]

I would have to say that the Dallas Cowboys trade of Hershel Walker to Minnesota Vikings for boat load of draft picks and the New Orlean Saints trade of an entire draft to Washinton Redskins for Ricky Williams would rate as the most bone headed trades in my time.

 

[hallfamebrady]

Does BB to the Pats for draft picks (jets) count

 

[captain stone]

If neither team wins the SB and the Pats draft the equivalent of Anquan Boldin this time (they took Bethel before Anquan...even traded more picks to move up and get him); it's a great trade.

The official deal was the Pats' #50 and #120 for the Panthers' #45.

At that time, I probably would have picked Kelley Washington instead of Boldin, but I definitely would not have traded my #120 for the privilege of moving up 5 spots to do so. I had thought that Boldin, who had a Wonderlic of 31(!), would be available with the #75 pick; but when that pick was traded as part of the Eugene Wilson deal, the thought became moot.

 

[patsox23]

I understood the thread and I STILL think it's another ridiculous thread from Keegs. A 1st for Deion is a good deal. IMO it is indeed a bit better for the Pats, but it seems basically fair. Certainly nothing resembling "one of the worst trades in NFL history." The fact that people are seriously discussing that possibility amazes me.

 

[Keegs]

I understood the thread and I STILL think it's another ridiculous thread from Keegs. A 1st for Deion is a good deal. IMO it is indeed a bit better for the Pats, but it seems basically fair. Certainly nothing resembling "one of the worst trades in NFL history." The fact that people are seriously discussing that possibility amazes me.

I Disagree bigtime.

Stupid from seattle.

He isn't going to take them to a superbowl victory.

if they were going to win this year, the reason isn't Deion Branch.....

They got ripped off..

now ask yourself.....
if someone else posted this thread, would it be as ridiculous????

be honest.

 

[lutontown_fc]

Well, personally I would say that both teams done ok out of this trade (NE and Seattle).

Future draft picks have to be the most overrated commodity in the footballing world - plenty of teams have, and will, spend a 1st round draft pick on a 'big name' college WR - and will get very little production out of him quickly - if at all.

When people think 1st rounder, they seem to automatically assume that their team, even if it as good at drafting as New England, will pick up the next Peyton Manning or the next LaDainian Tomlinson.

There are 32 1st round picks every year and a good percentage of them turn out to be busts - on top of that, the most prolific area of 'bustage' is WR.

I think New England done a great job picking up a 1st rounder, where they can address some areas of need (LBer,DB) and give themselves a good chance of getting a good 'un.

Seattle have got a guaranteed high quality receiver, who has a strong work ethic, doesnt mind catching the ball in traffic and can come up HUGE in the big game.

NM

 

[Brady-To-Branch]

Random thoughts on reading this thread...

Seattle was stupid. They just spent a fortune on Jackson and Burleson, plus they had Ingram and Haskett. WR wasn't a dire need. Moreover, any #1, even a late rounder is likely to turn out to be a key player. Moreover, most teams are one injury away from being mediocre. Had the situations been reversed, would BB trade a #1 for Branch? What makes this a double whammy for Seattle, is that they overpaid for Branch. Is Branch worthy of a 6yr/$39mil contract? No. This becomes a triple whammy for Seattle when Hasslebeck went down. With their schedule, Seattle's #1 now looks like a top 20. The moral to the story: never trade a #1 unless it's for an impact defensive player in his prime. Even then, think twice.

No one mentioned the Culpepper deal. Duante was the most overrated QB this summer and the Vikings would have cut him at some point before this season. Yet, Saban foolishly spent a #2 for him, rather than get Drew Brees, who's the big reason for the Saints turnaround. Notice how Minny has played better with Brad Johnson at QB over the last 16 games since Duante injured his knee. It's no coincidence.

The 1990 draft day deal, relinquishing the right to choose between Cortez Kennedy and Junior Seau with the # 3 pick to Seattle for the 8th and 10th picks and blowing both of them on Chris Singleton (bust) and Ray Agnew (solid but mediocre). Maybe the Branch deal was karma.

The gory nightmare known as the 1992 draft when the Pats realized they traded too far down before trading up again (and losing picks in the process) and winding up with super bust, Eugene Chung.

The 1979 deal of Pro Bowl tackle, Leon Gray to AFC rival Houston for 2nd and 6th round picks. The #2 turned out to be RB Vegas Ferguson, who was decent for only a few games. The Oilers would make it to the playoffs in 1979 and 1980 while the Pats watched them on TV.

Notice that in almost every bad trade, the team with the short end of the deal is the one who traded the pick(s) for veterans? Seattle deserves everything they get. Meanwhile, the Pats are sitting on top of the AFC East with a 5-1 record and 2 1st rounders in April.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I think the Herschel Walker trade is the worst in recent NFL History. The Ricky Williams trade for all the draft picks was a bad one too. The Jim Plunkett trade to the 49ers, we got 2 first rounders in 1976 (C PeteBrock & S Tim Fox) and a first rounder in 1977 (CB Ray Clayborn) and a second rounder in 1977. Bad trade for the 49ers, but they got us back in the 1985 draft, and drafted Jerry Rice. The rest is history.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Is it generally accepted that we won't know if its a good trade or not til we know who we get with the #1 pick and how they work out?

Or is this still up for debate?

To me this was a decent trade for any team with cap space (and they all do with the new CBA) who expected to be in the lower 1/3rd of the draft this year.

WRs that can catch 75 passes a season (if you believe that Branch can replicate last year consistently) do not grow on trees and you can get outbid or outmaneuvered when trying to find someone in free agency (see: Derrick Mason)

Drafting a 1st round WR is a crap shoot - it could be a waste and at the very least, it can take 2 years to see them develop into a top tier player (take note everyone expecting instant impact from Chad Jackson!)

So instead of drafting a 1st round WR, Seattle gets instant and essentially guaranteed production from that draft pick.

That's not horrible, stupid or anything close. It's a win win trade for both teams at this point - hopefully a better move for the Patriots long term but time will tell.

 

[patsox23]

ask yourself.....
if someone else posted this thread, would it be as ridiculous????

be honest.

With absolute honesty and absolutely certainty - YES. It is inherently ridiculous to claim that a #1 for Deion Branch constitutes "a ripoff." It's patently absurd.

 

[Keegs]

With absolute honesty and absolutely certainty - YES. It is inherently ridiculous to claim that a #1 for Deion Branch constitutes "a ripoff." It's patently absurd.

a 1st round draft pick is WAY TOO MUCH for Deion Branch

I can't believe you are acting like that is a fair deal.

THAT IS ABSURD.

He is worth a 2nd rounder TOPS

 

[JoeSixPat]

a 1st round draft pick is WAY TOO MUCH for Deion Branch

I can't believe you are acting like that is a fair deal.

THAT IS ABSURD.

He is worth a 2nd rounder TOPS

The difference of this being a fair trade and a ripoff, given the distinction between a low 1st rounder and a high 2nd rounder is "absurd"?

Why? It could be a matter of 5-10 draft picks. Why is pick #33 a fair trade but #32 is a ripoff (or #25 - 20 for that matter)?

We pretty much know the Seattle pick is a low 1st rounder. Look at the draft value chart and you'll see there's not a huge amount of difference between a low 1st rounder and a high 2nd rounder

And even then, those picks are so close it just comes down semantics, and having both a good and a lucky GM as one team's high second round pick might be another team's low 1st round pick.

That's not far enough apart for anyone to suggest that a low first rounder is an "abusrd" trade for a guy who can catch 70+ passes a season.

 

[Keegs]

The difference of this being a fair trade and a ripoff, given the distinction between a low 1st rounder and a high 2nd rounder is "absurd"?

Why? It could be a matter of 5-10 draft picks. Why is pick #33 a fair trade but #32 is a ripoff (or #25 - 20 for that matter)?

We pretty much know the Seattle pick is a low 1st rounder. Look at the draft value chart and you'll see there's not a huge amount of difference between a low 1st rounder and a high 2nd rounder

And even then, those picks are so close it just comes down semantics, and having both a good and a lucky GM as one team's high second round pick might be another team's low 1st round pick.

That's not far enough apart for anyone to suggest that a low first rounder is an "abusrd" trade for a guy who can catch 70+ passes a season.

Where are you getting "a HIGH 2nd rounder " from

Who is to say that if we traded Deion for a 2nd rounder, it would be A HIGH ONE?

If we traded Deion to Seattle for a 2nd rounder, by your rationale it would be a LOW ONE.

not sure what you are trying to say because it doesnt make much sense.
try rewording it.