Jets & Vikings have agreements in principle with Branch?

[Box_O_Rocks]

Thank you for sharing that lovely image. Yeesh.

ALK will rake a leaf pile and fall back in it? Granted it's ALK in the picture, but how else is it unlovely?

 

[cloud34]

Holley just said he has new info. Pats asking for two 1st round picks.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Holley says Seahawks offer is larger (closer to 39mil) but the Pats are still holding out for 2 #1's.

Makes sense, the Hawks are a playoff club with late round picks and the Jets are a division rival, pay the piper if you want the magic twig.

Edit: Now if only the Vikings will get involved and make it a three ring circus!

 

[PromisedLand]

The problem with most of trade scenarios which have been discussed is unless we get a pretty good WR this year we are going to be worse this year than if we paid Branch. Even if we get two #1s next year, that doesn't help us this year. And of course even a #1 pick is not guaranteed to turn into a good player, especially in the first year or two following the draft.

So, suppose we trade Branch for a 2007 #1 pick, or even a 2007 #1 pick and a 2008 #1. We are essentially taking a step backward for 2006 in exchange for a CHANCE at being better in 2008 or 2009. That's why I feel the Pats should not accept any trade which does include a pretty good WR in return. And why would any team offer a pretty good WR plus draft picks just in order to get another just pretty good WR?

It will be really interesting to see what happens, but I am afraid that whatever it is will be a short term loss traded for a chance for a longer term gain.

 

[dryheat44]

The problem with most of trade scenarios which have been discussed is unless we get a pretty good WR this year we are going to be worse this year than if we paid Branch. Even if we get two #1s next year, that doesn't help us this year. And of course even a #1 pick is not guaranteed to turn into a good player, especially in the first year or two following the draft.

So, suppose we trade Branch for a 2007 #1 pick, or even a 2007 #1 pick and a 2008 #1. We are essentially taking a step backward for 2006 in exchange for a CHANCE at being better in 2008 or 2009. That's why I feel the Pats should not accept any trade which does include a pretty good WR in return. And why would any team offer a pretty good WR plus draft picks just in order to get another just pretty good WR?

It will be really interesting to see what happens, but I am afraid that whatever it is will be a short term loss traded for a chance for a longer term gain.

We'll have more ammo with which to trade for a WR who wants to play here.

 

[PromisedLand]

We'll have more ammo with which to trade for a WR who wants to play here.

So you're saying we first make a deal to trade Branch for picks and then turn around and trade the picks to a 3rd team for a WR? Yes, that could work, but I am pretty sure BB/SP wouldn't pull the trigger on the Branch trade until they had lined up the second half of the deal.

BTW, (barring a 3 way deal as you suggested) if we can't get a pretty good WR in exchange for Branch the only way we don't go backwards this year is if we get a player at another position who is a MAJOR upgrade over what we have there now. We're pretty solid in all the other offensive areas (OL, QB, RB and TE) and on the DL so it would most likely have to be an LB or a DB.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

The problem with most of trade scenarios which have been discussed is unless we get a pretty good WR this year we are going to be worse this year than if we paid Branch. Even if we get two #1s next year, that doesn't help us this year. And of course even a #1 pick is not guaranteed to turn into a good player, especially in the first year or two following the draft.

So, suppose we trade Branch for a 2007 #1 pick, or even a 2007 #1 pick and a 2008 #1. We are essentially taking a step backward for 2006 in exchange for a CHANCE at being better in 2008 or 2009. That's why I feel the Pats should not accept any trade which does include a pretty good WR in return. And why would any team offer a pretty good WR plus draft picks just in order to get another just pretty good WR?

It will be really interesting to see what happens, but I am afraid that whatever it is will be a short term loss traded for a chance for a longer term gain.

Gently lad, we don't know how good or bad this year's club will be (and Branch isn't here so he doesn't matter for this year's outlook), what we do know, is the nucleus of a long term dynasty is set with the OL, DL, Franchise QB, Franchise RB, #1 CB, and Watson with another three years on his deal not counting this season. Now factor in draft strategy with the picks garnered in the late rounds, compensatory picks, the standard 7, and whatever can be obtained in the twig's departure. This year they'll do okay, the future looks like BB/SP are truly golden...:rocker:

 

[PATRIOTS-80]

The problem with most of trade scenarios which have been discussed is unless we get a pretty good WR this year we are going to be worse this year than if we paid Branch. Even if we get two #1s next year, that doesn't help us this year. And of course even a #1 pick is not guaranteed to turn into a good player, especially in the first year or two following the draft.

So, suppose we trade Branch for a 2007 #1 pick, or even a 2007 #1 pick and a 2008 #1. We are essentially taking a step backward for 2006 in exchange for a CHANCE at being better in 2008 or 2009. That's why I feel the Pats should not accept any trade which does include a pretty good WR in return. And why would any team offer a pretty good WR plus draft picks just in order to get another just pretty good WR?

It will be really interesting to see what happens, but I am afraid that whatever it is will be a short term loss traded for a chance for a longer term gain.

Its a short term loss if Branch doesn't show up for the first 10 games which is most the season. Sometimes you have to take what you can get.