|
|
Post by Bavarian on Dec 17, 2014 17:13:50 GMT -5
That's what I figured, but I don't think I'd do it for less than a 1st. I mean Harvin was traded for a 1st, 7th, and 3rd in the next draft. Plus he had character concerns. Seattle then had to sign him to a big contract. Plus Wilkerson fits basically every defense so we should have a ton of teams interested. Especially if Rex gets another HC job right away. Am I crazy thinking we can get a 1st? What will keep Wilkerson's trade value down is his contract situation. He is due to be a FA after next season and right now is looking for decent to big money. If you look back at recent trades for higher profile players like Harvin and Revis, where teams gave up high picks and paid big money, they haven't exactly worked out very well for the teams trading for that player. Excuse me, are you now saying this is possible to trade Wilkerson???!!!
How two-faced can you be? You blast a couple of posters on another thread for suggesting this and here you are, openly discussing this as if it were a perfectly good idea. You can't be serious! You said this is virtually impossible. And that this is an extremely rare occurrence although when I brought up two examples from our team alone, you cast it off as some anomaly. You sir, are ridiculous. No credibility in my eyes whatsoever.
Time to block your insanity. I don't even want to see your ridiculous explanation. Good-bye!
|
|
|
|
Post by TheMo on Dec 17, 2014 17:17:12 GMT -5
I'd especially be in favor of trading Wilkerson or letting him walk after next year if we hire a guy like Dan Quinn as HC and he wants to transition to more of a 4-3. Have Snacks at the nose, Sheldon at the 3-tech, and Coples bouncing back and forth between DE and DT. That's when I'd especially become open to Gregory if the Top 2 QB's and Cooper are off the board. Gregory, Harrison, Richardson, Coples That has the potential to be a flatout dominant DL that can rush the shit out of the passer and still dominate against the run. Doesn't Wilk fit a 4-3 NT better? I am not saying that your wrong, honestly just asking. I was doing some researching on other 4-3 rosters and the Wilk-Richardson interior combo appears to be more ideal fit than the Snacks-Richardson pair. Obviously this would be discounting price, but the former pair would be dominant for about 4 million more a year v. your high price for Snacks. Wilk actually fits the larger DT position in a 4-3 rather LE. Maybe I am wrong, but those are just my initial thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by TheMo on Dec 17, 2014 17:19:09 GMT -5
What will keep Wilkerson's trade value down is his contract situation. He is due to be a FA after next season and right now is looking for decent to big money. If you look back at recent trades for higher profile players like Harvin and Revis, where teams gave up high picks and paid big money, they haven't exactly worked out very well for the teams trading for that player. Excuse me, are you now saying this is possible to trade Wilkerson???!!!
How two-faced can you be? You blast a couple of posters on another thread for suggesting this and here you are, openly discussing this as if it were a perfectly good idea. You can't be serious! You said this is virtually impossible. And that this is an extremely rare occurrence although when I brought up two examples from our team alone, you cast it off as some anomaly. You sir, are ridiculous. No credibility in my eyes whatsoever.
Time to block your insanity. I don't even want to see your ridiculous explanation. Good-bye!
Nobody gives a shit about your hissy fit in the draft forum. If you want to act like a sensitive little tool go to scout... Edit: Private message with a more crying lol... |
|
|
|
Post by TheMo on Dec 17, 2014 18:26:06 GMT -5
New thought. We need to hope for a Tampa win and Jags getting the top pick. Trade up ours plus Wilk for the #1. I think the Jags would take it. Either they double dip in DL and solve their woes on defense, or they can fill another position and speed up their rebuild. This is assuming a new regime believes in Mariota. I am starting to believe in Garret Grayson, but that could be me trying to make myself feel better about not getting Mariota.
|
|
|
|
Post by RobR on Dec 17, 2014 19:31:41 GMT -5
Maybe I missed the memo but why is everyone contemplating trading Mo? We finally draft a stud in the first round, develop him, and he is just coming into his prime....yet some here want too trade him for pennies on the dollar.
We have the cap space and he fits both a 3 or 4 man front and is an elite player in the league. Why would anyone want to trade him, players that perform like he has get paid when their rookie deal expires. The good franchises lock these type of players up long term.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheMo on Dec 17, 2014 23:53:45 GMT -5
Maybe I missed the memo but why is everyone contemplating trading Mo? We finally draft a stud in the first round, develop him, and he is just coming into his prime....yet some here want too trade him for pennies on the dollar. We have the cap space and he fits both a 3 or 4 man front and is an elite player in the league. Why would anyone want to trade him, players that perform like he has get paid when their rookie deal expires. The good franchises lock these type of players up long term. I think this more under the assumption that he will want Watt money, which admittedly might be a totally faulty assumption. If that's the case he is not on that level at all. I'd give 11 million a year max. I think Richardson is the superior of the two, better motor and bigger pass rush upside. |
|
|
|
Post by Hollywood Nosebleed on Dec 18, 2014 1:06:11 GMT -5
Maybe I missed the memo but why is everyone contemplating trading Mo? We finally draft a stud in the first round, develop him, and he is just coming into his prime....yet some here want too trade him for pennies on the dollar. We have the cap space and he fits both a 3 or 4 man front and is an elite player in the league. Why would anyone want to trade him, players that perform like he has get paid when their rookie deal expires. The good franchises lock these type of players up long term. I think this more under the assumption that he will want Watt money, which admittedly might be a totally faulty assumption. If that's the case he is not on that level at all. I'd give 11 million a year max. I think Richardson is the superior of the two, better motor and bigger pass rush upside. Exactly this. I don't want to trade Mo. He's a great player, but if he demanded more money than he's worth I wouldn't mind shipping him out. Richardson is better, and Coples will be cheaper, and playing at his natural position. The problem is if he demands more than he's worth what is the trade market? We've seen players like Revis and Harvin bring back a King's ransom, but player trades aren't common. I'm not doing it unless we get a 1st and a mid to late round pick. |
|
|
|
Post by sec.101row23 on Dec 18, 2014 8:56:54 GMT -5
What will keep Wilkerson's trade value down is his contract situation. He is due to be a FA after next season and right now is looking for decent to big money. If you look back at recent trades for higher profile players like Harvin and Revis, where teams gave up high picks and paid big money, they haven't exactly worked out very well for the teams trading for that player. Excuse me, are you now saying this is possible to trade Wilkerson???!!!
How two-faced can you be? You blast a couple of posters on another thread for suggesting this and here you are, openly discussing this as if it were a perfectly good idea. You can't be serious! You said this is virtually impossible. And that this is an extremely rare occurrence although when I brought up two examples from our team alone, you cast it off as some anomaly. You sir, are ridiculous. No credibility in my eyes whatsoever.
Time to block your insanity. I don't even want to see your ridiculous explanation. Good-bye!
How stupid are you? I said players are rarely traded in a trade up scenario. Again you fail to recognize the difference. You are the same a hole that was Drunk Old Joe on the old JI that was banned numerous times. You cry like a little girl when people state simple facts to disprove anything you say. So go ahead block me, it's really of little concern to me. |
|
|
|
Post by TheMo on Dec 18, 2014 22:16:40 GMT -5
Excuse me, are you now saying this is possible to trade Wilkerson???!!!
How two-faced can you be? You blast a couple of posters on another thread for suggesting this and here you are, openly discussing this as if it were a perfectly good idea. You can't be serious! You said this is virtually impossible. And that this is an extremely rare occurrence although when I brought up two examples from our team alone, you cast it off as some anomaly. You sir, are ridiculous. No credibility in my eyes whatsoever.
Time to block your insanity. I don't even want to see your ridiculous explanation. Good-bye!
How stupid are you? I said players are rarely traded in a trade up scenario. Again you fail to recognize the difference. You are the same a hole that was Drunk Old Joe on the old JI that was banned numerous times. You cry like a little girl when people state simple facts to disprove anything you say. So go ahead block me, it's really of little concern to me. He cried some more when I called him out. Also did this in a private message no less. |
|
|
|
Post by Sonny Werblin on Dec 22, 2014 15:03:52 GMT -5
Harvin has better hands than I expected, but seeing him have some injury issues makes me believe the Jets try to renegotiate his contract giving him more years and guaranteed money resulting in a lower cap hit, and if he refuses, cut him loose.
|
|
|
|
Post by eaglenj on Dec 23, 2014 9:24:44 GMT -5
This whole "Trade Wilkerson" talk is absolutely ridiculous.
First off, because he isnt JJ Watt, doesnt mean that he isnt an exceptional player. Secondly, you say "8-10 sack guy who can play the run great" as if that is something easy to find. Lastly, his versatility to play DE and DT is extremely valuable.
As for a trade, very few GMs would ever trade a pick and THEN need to sign wilkerson. So we are going to trade him this offseason, to a team that will then sign him to an extension? Why on earth wouldnt we use this years low number to negoitiate a favorable long term deal with a great defensive lineman?
If you want to shake up the team a bit and try to acquire a pick, the smart move is to tender damon harrison with a 2nd round tender and let him sign elsewhere. He is a player who doesnt fit the 4-3 and could net us the second round pick (or worst case a 3rd) you talk about for wilkerson. Wilkerson is by far worth more on the field and cap wise then harrison.
|
|
|
|
Post by sec.101row23 on Dec 23, 2014 9:34:17 GMT -5
Agreed. The D line is the only unit on this team that is solid right now. There is no reason to weaken that and create another hole for a draft pick. Plus you will not get fair compensation for him anyway. There is no reason you can't sign Wilkerson and then pay Richardson in three years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bavarian on Dec 23, 2014 10:45:52 GMT -5
This whole "Trade Wilkerson" talk is absolutely ridiculous. First off, because he isnt JJ Watt, doesnt mean that he isnt an exceptional player. Secondly, you say "8-10 sack guy who can play the run great" as if that is something easy to find. Lastly, his versatility to play DE and DT is extremely valuable. As for a trade, very few GMs would ever trade a pick and THEN need to sign wilkerson. So we are going to trade him this offseason, to a team that will then sign him to an extension? Why on earth wouldnt we use this years low number to negoitiate a favorable long term deal with a great defensive lineman? If you want to shake up the team a bit and try to acquire a pick, the smart move is to tender damon harrison with a 2nd round tender and let him sign elsewhere. He is a player who doesnt fit the 4-3 and could net us the second round pick (or worst case a 3rd) you talk about for wilkerson. Wilkerson is by far worth more on the field and cap wise then harrison. How is Wilkerson more cap-wise than Harrison? And why would you want two 10M+ players at either 3-4 DE or 4-3 DT? You know Sheldon will dictate that money as well. Beyond that, I would like to know why you think Wilk would be better alongside Sheldon in a 4-3? If you look at many 4-3 inside tandems, there's one that is a prototype run-stuffer that mimics the NT (oversized). I think it's fools money being wasted where it better be allocated and I don't believe talk of his being traded especially when he's hinting at Watt money is ridiculous for a new regime. |
|
|
|
Post by Bavarian on Dec 23, 2014 10:48:39 GMT -5
I think this more under the assumption that he will want Watt money, which admittedly might be a totally faulty assumption. If that's the case he is not on that level at all. I'd give 11 million a year max. I think Richardson is the superior of the two, better motor and bigger pass rush upside. Exactly this. I don't want to trade Mo. He's a great player, but if he demanded more money than he's worth I wouldn't mind shipping him out. Richardson is better, and Coples will be cheaper, and playing at his natural position. The problem is if he demands more than he's worth what is the trade market? We've seen players like Revis and Harvin bring back a King's ransom, but player trades aren't common. I'm not doing it unless we get a 1st and a mid to late round pick. I think the most you get for him is a 2nd due to his impending payday. The value of draft picks have gone up considerably just the past two years. You won't get a 1st plus for him today. |
|
|
|
Post by sec.101row23 on Dec 23, 2014 10:57:29 GMT -5
This whole "Trade Wilkerson" talk is absolutely ridiculous. First off, because he isnt JJ Watt, doesnt mean that he isnt an exceptional player. Secondly, you say "8-10 sack guy who can play the run great" as if that is something easy to find. Lastly, his versatility to play DE and DT is extremely valuable. As for a trade, very few GMs would ever trade a pick and THEN need to sign wilkerson. So we are going to trade him this offseason, to a team that will then sign him to an extension? Why on earth wouldnt we use this years low number to negoitiate a favorable long term deal with a great defensive lineman? If you want to shake up the team a bit and try to acquire a pick, the smart move is to tender damon harrison with a 2nd round tender and let him sign elsewhere. He is a player who doesnt fit the 4-3 and could net us the second round pick (or worst case a 3rd) you talk about for wilkerson. Wilkerson is by far worth more on the field and cap wise then harrison. nd why would you want two 10M+ players at either 3-4 DE or 4-3 DT? You know Sheldon will dictate that money as well. Beyond that, I would like to know why you think Wilk would be better alongside Sheldon in a 4-3? If you look at many 4-3 inside tandems, there's one that is a prototype run-stuffer that mimics the NT (oversized). I think it's fools money being wasted where it better be allocated and I don't believe talk of his being traded especially when he's hinting at Watt money is ridiculous for a new regime. Regards to Richardson, you don't have to pay him for 3 more years. The guaranteed money for Wilkerson will be over by then and you can re-evaluate the situation then. |
|
