Jump to content

Would you trade Bell to Browns for #4?


Magnus-Viktor

Recommended Posts

Serious question here.  Since the Browns are eager to make trades for veteran players (Jarvis Landry, Tyrod Taylor, and the CB from the Packers), if you had the chance, would you trade Bell for the 4th pick?  What about the 33rd?  I would do 4, but I wouldn't trade him in-division for #33.  At #4, you could potentially draft Barkley to replace him, or you could get Minkah Fitzpatrick, Derwin James, Bradley Chubb (if he could play OLB), Roquan Smith, Vita Vea, etc.  You could even trade back a ways and still have a top 10 pick and a 2 and/or 3 on top of it.  

Sure it's not usually the best choice to make, trading a proven stud that's only 25 years old, for a draft pick, but if you can't re-sign him and can't keep tagging him indefinitely (and have him skipping camp and sucking the first 1/4 of the season as a result, and then talking trash in the media about his contract situation during a playoff run), I'd do it.  I also don't want to tie up way too much money in 1 player that is not my franchise QB either.  It would kill the overall talent level on the team by making you cut other guys or let them walk in FA.  The Browns and other scrub teams could make a deal like that.  The good ones can't afford it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

won't happen. but yes, i would.

I'd do #4 in a heartbeat - I'd want more than the #33.

I'd prefer trading him to the Giants (outside the division)

Barkley won't make it to #4.

So I'd be looking at Chubb, Fitz or D.James maybe even Q.Nelson.

I'd then use our second 1st rounder for D.Guice, R.Jones or get Michel in the 2nd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, warfelg said:

Only if we could use 4 and our 1st to get to 1 and take Saquon.

I wouldn't do that.  If I can't get Barkley at #4, I'd just take the Auburn RB or Michel from Georgia or someone else in the 2nd round or later.  If you traded Bell and used the 1 on Barkley, assuming you make a lateral movement at RB, it is like you had no 1st rounder this year.  Granted you got younger and cheaper at the position, but you didn't really strengthen your team at all otherwise.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Magnus-Viktor said:

I wouldn't do that.  If I can't get Barkley at #4, I'd just take the Auburn RB or Michel from Georgia or someone else in the 2nd round or later.  If you traded Bell and used the 1 on Barkley, assuming you make a lateral movement at RB, it is like you had no 1st rounder this year.  Granted you got younger and cheaper at the position, but you didn't really strengthen your team at all otherwise.  

It's a lateral move in a vacuum, but this is in the grand scheme where it means we got a lateral move talent wise and spent up to $10 mil less in cap over 5 years.  That saving of money does make your team stronger because it could allow you to retain or being in more talent to help out elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, mwalker said:

won't happen. but yes, i would.

I'd do #4 in a heartbeat - I'd want more than the #33.

I'd prefer trading him to the Giants (outside the division)

Barkley won't make it to #4.

So I'd be looking at Chubb, Fitz or D.James maybe even Q.Nelson.

I'd then use our second 1st rounder for D.Guice, R.Jones or get Michel in the 2nd.

 

I agree it's not likely, but you never know.  That's why I stipulated that I'd be looking at that handful of guys I mentioned, not just Barkley.  I'm not even sure what I'd prefer.  I love Barkley, but I'd rather have a stud S or pass rusher than a stud RB.  I think you can get a very good RB later on, as you mention.  

I'd also prefer to trade him out of the division.  But on the other hand, if he gets suspended or acts out and tanks the team from within, it would actually weaken a division rival.....I'd definitely trade him to the Giants for #2.  They only have 23 mill in cap space though, so not nearly as willing or likely to want to absorb a huge contract like Bell will be getting if he is re-signed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, JLambert58 said:

In a heartbeat.  But it would never happen.  

Saquon might still be there at #4.  If not BPA would look pretty good on defense. 

And a minor correction:  Bell is 26 now.

 

Exactly my thoughts.  Saquon, defensive stud, or maybe even franchise QB.  I'll take any one of them for Bell. 

I almost put 26.  I missed his bday a month ago.  He's still young for being potentially available and the best at his position in the entire NFL.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, warfelg said:

It's a lateral move in a vacuum, but this is in the grand scheme where it means we got a lateral move talent wise and spent up to $10 mil less in cap over 5 years.  That saving of money does make your team stronger because it could allow you to retain or being in more talent to help out elsewhere.

Yes I definitely understand your reasoning.  I also agree that it helps the team in that regard.  But for THIS season it doesn't help at all, unless you make the trade now to clear his franchise tag salary off so you can sign someone with that cap space now.  Long term it helps, definitely.  But losing that 1 hurts a lot too.  For example, lets say at 28 they could draft a stud linebacker.  Lets say that Leighton Vander Esch is the guy at #28 if you keep the pick and Bell, and he turns into a Brian Urlacher type linebacker for a decade.  Now lets say you trade that pick and Bell for Barkley.  You wouldn't be able to land that ILB in the draft, and would have to sign an overpaid guy in FA to fill the immediate hole.  It's risky.  That's basically all I'm getting at.  We have holes to fill (ILB x 2, S, etc), and trading a 1 just to target a specific RB doesn't help with that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Magnus-Viktor said:

Yes I definitely understand your reasoning.  I also agree that it helps the team in that regard.  But for THIS season it doesn't help at all, unless you make the trade now to clear his franchise tag salary off so you can sign someone with that cap space now.  Long term it helps, definitely.  But losing that 1 hurts a lot too.  For example, lets say at 28 they could draft a stud linebacker.  Lets say that Leighton Vander Esch is the guy at #28 if you keep the pick and Bell, and he turns into a Brian Urlacher type linebacker for a decade.  Now lets say you trade that pick and Bell for Barkley.  You wouldn't be able to land that ILB in the draft, and would have to sign an overpaid guy in FA to fill the immediate hole.  It's risky.  That's basically all I'm getting at.  We have holes to fill (ILB x 2, S, etc), and trading a 1 just to target a specific RB doesn't help with that.  

But there's my issue with it.  You're ignoring the long term health of the franchise for the short term.  Always give me the long term.

Lets say you stay at 4, you take Fitzpatrick or Chubb and they are good, not great guys.  And you keep 28 and take Vander Esch or Evans and they are starters, but not good.  And then Guice, Chubb, Michel and whoever else you bring in causes a step back in the offense.  You went for the short term gain and actually hurt yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Armsteeld2 said:

Nope.

I based my opinion on not knowing how close the FO is with agreeing to a deal with Bell. Obviously they know more than we do in regards to his demands. If they aren't close and it appears you only have one year left before he leaves I'd make the trade. I think you have to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, warfelg said:

But there's my issue with it.  You're ignoring the long term health of the franchise for the short term.  Always give me the long term.

Lets say you stay at 4, you take Fitzpatrick or Chubb and they are good, not great guys.  And you keep 28 and take Vander Esch or Evans and they are starters, but not good.  And then Guice, Chubb, Michel and whoever else you bring in causes a step back in the offense.  You went for the short term gain and actually hurt yourself.

I'm not ignoring long term.  I'm simply not wanting to short change myself while we have Ben at QB.  He IS the x-factor that determines whether the Steelers are contenders or mediocre.  So I just want to maximize the roster now.  That's why I didn't just draft Josh Allen at #28 in that mock I did, even though I think that is definitely what would be best for the franchise long-term.  

I think the main disconnect we're having here is we simply don't see the impact at RB the same.  I think if you added Fitzpatrick as a FS who is just really good but not a star, Vander Esch who is a quality starter but not a star, and added one of those RBs you listed, you're better off than just having Barkley (because again that also assumes he'll be a star) and whomever you draft instead of one of those 2nd round RBs in the other scenario.  I don't doubt the O will take a step back if it doesn't have Bell or Barkley.  I do, however, believe the D will take a bigger step forward if you landed those 2 defenders in 1 and a RB in 2 instead.  

I think you can plug Michel in at RB and the O will not fall off much, and will definitely fall off less than the D will improve.  But I've always believed that for the most part, if you have a decent system and a decent OL/QB, any decent RB will do.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Chieferific said:

I based my opinion on not knowing how close the FO is with agreeing to a deal with Bell. Obviously they know more than we do in regards to his demands. If they aren't close and it appears you only have one year left before he leaves I'd make the trade. I think you have to. 

That's how I look at it too.  I'm looking at a 1 year rental of Bell vs a potential stud for the next decade.  I'm also looking at saving a ton of cap space.  I really wasn't sure how everyone would answer that question.  It would be nice if he'd explained why not though.  Is it because he values Bell too much?  Is it because he doesn't want him on the Browns?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...