Jump to content

Trade Deadline Thread

MacReady

By MacReady
in Green Bay Packers

Recommended Posts

TheBitzMan

TheBitzMan

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

And for the record, I'd argue tanking is more important in the NBA than the NFL because the talent pool in the NFL is soooo much deeper than the NBA.

Tanking in recent memory has made the Sixers a top 3 team in the East, the Astros/Cubs WS Champs and the Browns competitive. The NBA is the easiest to complete because one player can change a franchise. The NFL has so many aspects outside of just pure talent that going into winning, which makes it much more complicated. It is going to be interesting to see how the Browns/Raiders are viewed in 5 years. Color me intrigued.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skibrett15

skibrett15

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

So you don't see any issue in your train of logic?  You're already making the assumption that whoever the Raiders pick is going to be a bust.  That's awful logic no matter which way you slice it.  If the Raiders knew they were going to pick busts, you think they would have traded Khalil Mack and Amari Cooper?  No.  But if they turn around and use those picks to select a franchise QB, LT, and EDGE those trades will easily make these trades worth it.  Why you're assuming that the Raiders picks will all whiff is beyond me.  Really, the only whiff the Sixers had was Jahlil Okafor.  And apparently Hinkie got overruled on that one, since apparently he wanted Porzingis.  But that's neither here nor there.

Oakland is doing exactly what Philadelphia did.  They're selling current assets for future assets.  We have the ability to say that Philadelphia did it well because they were successful.  Oakland hasn't had that opportunity to do so, so it's mind-boggling that you're already ready to pass judgement when Oakland hasn't had that opportunity.

IF the NBA lottery isn't the definition of luck, I don't know what to tell you.  Since the beginning of the NBA lottery, 8 out of the 33 times the worst team has gotten the highest draft pick, including the last four.  When Sam Hinkie started the huge rebuild, the worst team had won the top pick 14% of the time.  That's not a good odd to take.  Add on the fact that the draft fluctuates from year to year.  You might get a year where you're taking Ben Simmons.  You also might get a year where you're taking Anthony Bennett.  If you're going to believe that luck didn't play a part in the Sixers' success, I really don't know what to tell you.

I'm not canning the oakland decision to rebuild and get future assets, but that's also not happening in a vacuum.

Gruden is not the coach for that type of team though!  His system isn't good for young players, he's trying to bring a 1980-90 coaching and managerial style to a game that's given up on that for plenty of good reasons.

Oakland might hit on those picks, they might not.  I don't really have a strong opinion about that. 

Tanking in the NFL is never going to be as viable as it is in the NBA because having a top 5 pick is way less valuable in the NFL as in the NBA.  When you play 5 people, 1 person makes all the difference.  When you play 22-26 players that can be considered "starters", well, Aaron Rodgers could be the best player of all time but he's still never gonna play Defense so he can only really account for at best a minority of the team's roster and talent level even if he represents the bulk of the offense's talent.

 

You're saying the hinkie rebuild wasn't taking good odds, and yeah they only get the top pick 14% of the time, sure.  But that's just odds at #1 pick not a "top pick" in the top 3-5 slots depending on the strength of a given draft.  So they got a top ick 4 times... and they ended up with 2 all stars and a TBD fultz and a borderline worthless Okafor. 

Sure, that's results oriented thinking and I'm right there with you on the Browns and how that "process" actually worked too, and their issues are probably coaching not talent. 

the process was "The Process" because it was fundamentally sound... you intend to suck for as long as it takes for the odds to come around and you get a generational player or a couple of all stars, and then you become a good NBA team.  It has reframed how every NBA team goes into a season.  "Am I good enough to win a title? No? Ok.  Should we tank the season?"

The Atlanta Hawks and NY Knicks are deciding to lose games this year... before they even started the season or played a game!  Their fans are ok with this!  They want them to lose and enjoy watching as they play despite this!  Perhaps that's a league issue for them long term, but it hasn't proven to be the case as of late.

You'll never see that in the NFL because the top picks just aren't worth THAT much more than the 5-10 picks or the 10-15 picks in the NFL draft.  Coaching matters 10x more in the NFL.  A great coach can really make a mediocre roster into a pretty good team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lodestar

Lodestar

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, TheBitzMan said:

Tanking in recent memory has made the Sixers a top 3 team in the East, the Astros/Cubs WS Champs and the Browns competitive. The NBA is the easiest to complete because one player can change a franchise. The NFL has so many aspects outside of just pure talent that going into winning, which makes it much more complicated. It is going to be interesting to see how the Browns/Raiders are viewed in 5 years. Color me intrigued.  

None of the other top teams in the East (Raptors, Celtics, Bucks) got there by tanking. Neither did the Warriors, Rockets, Spurs, Blazers, etc.

Everyone wants to talk about the 76ers, but IMO the argument in favour of tanking is overblown.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nick_gb

Nick_gb

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Leader said:

There's a reason you love him - because he's one of the few producing secondary players for the NYG's. He's a player and I see no reason they get rid of him at this stage other than NOT wanting to pay him market price next year when he's a UFA. That said - he's a SS - not a FS - and we're building a body count of SS already on the roster. They're not exactly knocking it dead "production-wise" thats for sure - but we've got a lot of them at this stage.

Landon Collins would replace Brice -- think I'm okay with that. Our Safety production has been absolutely atrocious the entire season. It's damn near horrendous. I don't care what body count we have at SS. Landon Collins is a baller and immediately provides us some quality on the backend. He's the type of player that balls-out winning or losing. I want that on this team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leader

Leader

Posted
Posted
Just now, Nick_gb said:

Landon Collins would replace Brice -- think I'm okay with that. Our Safety production has been absolutely atrocious the entire season. It's damn near horrendous. I don't care what body count we have at SS. Landon Collins is a baller and immediately provides us some quality on the backend. He's the type of player that balls-out winning or losing. I want that on this team.

Understood and you'll not catch me talking up Brice vs Collins - but - the thrust of my comment was I dont see the NYGs interested in moving the guy. Other than they dont want to pay him next year....... why would they?

As for us - minus some contractual agreement with Collins beyond this season - why we gonna give up draft picks for a guy that could walk after the season (?) or we could simply try to sign as a UFA? 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nick_gb

Nick_gb

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Leader said:

Understood and you'll not catch me talking up Brice vs Collins - but - the thrust of my comment was I dont see the NYGs interested in moving the guy. Other than they dont want to pay him next year....... why would they?

As for us - minus some contractual agreement with Collins beyond this season - why we gonna give up draft picks for a guy that could walk after the season (?) or we could simply try to sign as a UFA? 
 

That same argument could be made for any Trade Deadline target -- most of the ones available are on the last year of their contract. That would be like saying "Why trade for Khalil Mack when we can just get him next year". You do it because you don't plan on it being on a 1-year deal, you get him here and sign him to a long-term contract and it negates out the competition of him possibly not coming here while also helping your team compete for the rest of the season this year in a position that's been hurting your team through the first 8 games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nick_gb

Nick_gb

Posted
Posted
Quote

Mike Jurecki of the Cardinals' official website says there's "zero chance" the team trades CB Patrick Peterson.

Peterson seems resigned to the fact after initially requesting a trade. He released a statement on Wednesday, saying, "I've been incredibly frustrated with how the season has gone. But my energy is 100% focused on being part of the solution & helping us turn this around. ... I have always given my all to the Cardinals organization, my teammates & fans. That is what I intend to do for the years to come." It sounds like we can squash all of those Peterson trade rumors.

and just like that the Peterson trade conversation dies out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leader

Leader

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Nick_gb said:

That same argument could be made for any Trade Deadline target -- most of the ones available are on the last year of their contract. That would be like saying "Why trade for Khalil Mack when we can just get him next year". You do it because you don't plan on it being on a 1-year deal, you get him here and sign him to a long-term contract and it negates out the competition of him possibly not coming here while also helping your team compete for the rest of the season this year in a position that's been hurting your team through the first 8 games. 

Got all that.

Now - is there even a hint of a whisper the NYGs are thinking of moving on from Collins?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nick_gb

Nick_gb

Posted
Posted
Just now, Leader said:

Got all that.

Now - is there even a hint of a whisper the NYGs are thinking of moving on from Collins?

The idea has been "floated" out there. Nothing concrete but from everything I've read, it's been more along the lines of the Giants feeling they're in rebuild mode and the most valuable player they have available for trade currently is Landon Collins. If they truly believe they're in rebuild then unlikely they'll want to pay him in the off-season and may make the move now. Also, Landon Collins has came out and expressed he is "very mad" about them trading Snacks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leader

Leader

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Nick_gb said:

The idea has been "floated" out there. Nothing concrete but from everything I've read, it's been more along the lines of the Giants feeling they're in rebuild mode and the most valuable player they have available for trade currently is Landon Collins. If they truly believe they're in rebuild then unlikely they'll want to pay him in the off-season and may make the move now. Also, Landon Collins has came out and expressed he is "very mad" about them trading Snacks. 

The guys a player. Would love to have him. Unfortunately I dont see the reasoning for it.
Unless the player (or his agent) pulls a Patrick Peterson and declares publicly he wants out - I think its just social media chatter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...