WHO HAS THE 2nd HIGHEST TRADE VALUE IN THE NFL ???????????

[Bretsky]

Sports have had some interesting polls this week.
ONE of them asked.........who has the top trade value in the NFL

This takes into effect the Current Contract as well as the quality of the player

To nobody's surprise, and ESPN agreed, Rodgers was #1 on their list, even at the salary.

BUT WHO WAS #2 ????


Give me your #2 and why..............and if you dare...predict who the nation selected


The answers might surprise you........................

[Smeefers]

AP man. The dude's a game changer. Sure, he can't single handidly bring a team to the playoffs, but I don't know anyone out there who could get the jaguars there. You put AP on a top 10 team, they are instantly the favorites.

[Patler]

Should be someone like Joe Thomas. One of the best at a key position, signed for what should be the balance of the best part of his career, at a decent enough cost that will look better and better in coming years, and still has a decent career length ahead of him. Doubtful the average fan will think that way.

[red]

AP man. The dude's a game changer. Sure, he can't single handidly bring a team to the playoffs, but I don't know anyone out there who could get the jaguars there. You put AP on a top 10 team, they are instantly the favorites.

heres an interesting thought

ap is 28, with a ton of wear on those tires from college and the pros

he might only have a couple seasons left in the tank

[Maxie the Taxi]

Is Herschel Walker still playing somewhere?

[Patler]

heres an interesting thought

ap is 28, with a ton of wear on those tires from college and the pros

he might only have a couple seasons left in the tank



or, considering that he shrugged off an ACL tear as if it never happened, he might have anther 10years left.

[Upnorth]

Is it Greg Jennings?

Seriously I'd say Brees

[Bretsky]

AP man. The dude's a game changer. Sure, he can't single handidly bring a team to the playoffs, but I don't know anyone out there who could get the jaguars there. You put AP on a top 10 team, they are instantly the favorites.


AP was NOT in the top 5

The question in itself forces one to dig deeper....it's not about who is the best player

It's who has the highest trade value given their contract

Who excels in terms of bang for the buck

One could argue there are RB's teams would prefer for their wage over AP for his

[Bretsky]

Should be someone like Joe Thomas. One of the best at a key position, signed for what should be the balance of the best part of his career, at a decent enough cost that will look better and better in coming years, and still has a decent career length ahead of him. Doubtful the average fan will think that way.


You were on track with the thoughts of the poll; I believe Joe Thomas was coming in at #6

[Bretsky]

heres an interesting thought

ap is 28, with a ton of wear on those tires from college and the pros

he might only have a couple seasons left in the tank


Very true; if you are are GM you are probably not giving up the house for AP even though he may be the best player in the game

[Bretsky]

Is it Greg Jennings?

Seriously I'd say Brees


Brees for the money was not in the top 5

[red]

odell thurman?

i'm guessing its RGIII, or kapernick or wilson maybe

[denverYooper]

JJ Watt.

[Patler]

The thing with Watt, Wilson, Kapernick, RGIII and the like is that they are cheap only for the next few seasons, then who knows? To some extent, they are also unproven because careers do sometimes burn brightly for a short time, then flame out. I would look for guys who have proven themselves to be good solid NFL'ers for years, but are signed to long contracts at affordable costs.

His annual hamstring issues lower Matthews' value in my opinion.
Stafford might be one to consider. He has shown a lot of promise, is young, but has a long, manageable contract.

[Bretsky]

odell thurman?

i'm guessing its RGIII, or kapernick or wilson maybe


now you are hitting on the top of the poll..surprisingly....Kapernick....not top 5

[Bretsky]

JJ Watt.


#4 on their list

[red]

The thing with Watt, Wilson, Kapernick, RGIII and the like is that they are cheap only for the next few seasons, then who knows? To some extent, they are also unproven because careers do sometimes burn brightly for a short time, then flame out. I would look for guys who have proven themselves to be good solid NFL'ers for years, but are signed to long contracts at affordable costs.


something like this might just make this whole list moot

the first thing that ever single player who gets traded does is get a new contract

so the deal the guy currently has, the one that looks decent, is probably going to go right out the window

[red]

megatron?

[red]

oh, i got sick of guessing so i tried to cheat and look up the list

i will no longer be guessing

[pbmax]

The thing with Watt, Wilson, Kapernick, RGIII and the like is that they are cheap only for the next few seasons, then who knows? To some extent, they are also unproven because careers do sometimes burn brightly for a short time, then flame out. I would look for guys who have proven themselves to be good solid NFL'ers for years, but are signed to long contracts at affordable costs.

His annual hamstring issues lower Matthews' value in my opinion.
Stafford might be one to consider. He has shown a lot of promise, is young, but has a long, manageable contract.

The entire theme of the chart, which was originally used by Bill Simmons for the NBA, where direct player for player deals are more common, is what would you do NOW to help the team? To keep with the premise of the column, you cannot use a TT long term approach. Medium term is as long as it gets. Mostly its about deciding if you can imagine any rational team trading Rodgers for anyone else in the League right this instant. If the answer is no, then he is #1.

Contracts have to play into to it because of risk and repercussions on the rest of the roster. Age plays into it to for the same reason. But the contract AFTER the current contract? Not so much of an issue unless its a one year rental. Players are compared to those immediately around them on the list and to this 1 step ahead and behind.

Its almost more of a draft, where you are time and choice limited, rather than a long term personnel plan.

[pbmax]

now you are hitting on the top of the poll..surprisingly....Kapernick....not top 5

As an example of how the current contract comes into play, CK is downgraded from top 5 because he has only 2 years left on deal when other choices have 3 (maybe 4). But that downgrade is applied only after he was slotted among the best QB values.

[Patler]

The entire theme of the chart, which was originally used by Bill Simmons for the NBA, where direct player for player deals are more common, is what would you do NOW to help the team? To keep with the premise of the column, you cannot use a TT long term approach. Medium term is as long as it gets. Mostly its about deciding if you can imagine any rational team trading Rodgers for anyone else in the League right this instant. If the answer is no, then he is #1.

Contracts have to play into to it because of risk and repercussions on the rest of the roster. Age plays into it to for the same reason. But the contract AFTER the current contract? Not so much of an issue unless its a one year rental. Players are compared to those immediately around them on the list and to this 1 step ahead and behind.


You turned around the point I was making. These guys are worth less because there current contracts, though small in dollars, are short, as compared to Rodgers, Thomas, Stafford, etc. As soon as their contracts allow, you know they will be holding out for a major deal the size of which is undetermined. You have less certainty with them, so you would give less.

I'm not worried about the size of the next contract, just the fact they are contracted for only a few seasons.

[CaptainD]

Going with Russell Wilson but it could be Luck as well. He was a bargain for the contract he signed

[pbmax]

You turned around the point I was making. These guys are worth less because there current contracts, though small in dollars, are short, as compared to Rodgers, Thomas, Stafford, etc. As soon as their contracts allow, you know they will be holding out for a major deal the size of which is undetermined. You have less certainty with them, so you would give less.

I'm not worried about the size of the next contract, just the fact they are contracted for only a few seasons.

I did understand your point and I did not mean to imply you meant the cost of next contract rather than term of the current one. Though I erred and should have said the authors consider length of the current contract if its two years or less, not just one.

I was simply trying to point the guessers of Bretsky's original question in the right direction. For the top of the list, talent and production (even if based on shot term evidence) is given priority and then ordered by things such as current contract length and cost.

Re-reading your post, I see that you were also were giving guidance, if from the (partially) contrary point of view

[Bretsky]

I did understand your point and I did not mean to imply you meant the cost of next contract rather than term of the current one. Though I erred and should have said the authors consider length of the current contract if its two years or less, not just one.

I was simply trying to point the guessers of Bretsky's original question in the right direction. For the top of the list, talent and production (even if based on shot term evidence) is given priority and then ordered by things such as current contract length and cost.

Re-reading your post, I see that you were also were giving guidance, if from the (partially) contrary point of view


RESULTS after AROD

2. Russell Wilson
3. Andrew Luck
4. JJ Watt
5. RG3

[Upnorth]

RESULTS after AROD

2. Russell Wilson
3. Andrew Luck
4. JJ Watt
5. RG3

So four players on rookie contract but Arod on extension of second contract is first. I wish TT would figure out how to do his job.

[Fritz]

I wish they'd had lists like this back in the early 70's, so Dan Devine wouldn't have given away the entire decade in exchange for a 36 year old John Hadl. And I think he gave up a couple of second rounders for another QB the year before - Jerry Tagge or something?

Devine just set up the organization to suck for many, many years.

And Bart Starr did not help things, unfortunately.

Back in those days, GM's did seem to give up draft picks pretty easily. The one great trade the Packers made back then was getting Ted "Mad Stork" Hendricks. He played one year for them, had a great year - and they let him walk! What a clownish organization it was.

Ted would've cleaned up on those old NFL GM's. Without the salary cap, he'd have traded guys like Jennings for three first round picks.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Member when Starr brought in John Jefferson to team up with James Lofton and Paul Coffman and Lynn Dickey? Unfortunately, his draft choices that year were all flops, including Rich Cambell at QB.

[Carolina_Packer]

Member when Starr brought in John Jefferson to team up with James Lofton and Paul Coffman and Lynn Dickey? Unfortunately, his draft choices that year were all flops, including Rich Cambell at QB.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1981/draft.htm#drafts::none

Maxi, it pains me when I think back on this draft. We drafted Campbell at #6. Were we that soured on Lynn Dickey (injury concerns) or David Whitehurst (inconsistency) that they felt the need to draft Campbell at #6 overall? Then, he never comes in and distinguishes himself. Never shows why he was drafted so high. The classic solution in search of a problem, reaching for need pick. Of course the insult to that injury is that Hugh Green was the #7 pick that year (productive pro) and Ronnie Lott was the #8 pick (HOF'er). The fact that they thought Campbell was the best player available at that spot tells you all you need to know about Bart's prowess as a GM. I like the coach and GM being separate people. Always have, always will.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Carolina, good comments. You're right. It hurts to remember. Starr was a good guy. Still is, but he was out of his element. Defense stunk. Wasn't that the year Green Bay and Washington hooked up on a Monday night to set all time scoring record? Something like 50 points scored by both teams. Very exciting with Lynn Dickey and company, but frustrating not being able to stop anything.

[Patler]

I wish they'd had lists like this back in the early 70's, so Dan Devine wouldn't have given away the entire decade in exchange for a 36 year old John Hadl. And I think he gave up a couple of second rounders for another QB the year before - Jerry Tagge or something?

He traded for Jim DelGazo from the Dolphins.
Tagge was a Packer 1st round draft pick

[Carolina_Packer]

Carolina, good comments. You're right. It hurts to remember. Starr was a good guy. Still is, but he was out of his element. Defense stunk. Wasn't that the year Green Bay and Washington hooked up on a Monday night to set all time scoring record? Something like 50 points scored by both teams. Very exciting with Lynn Dickey and company, but frustrating not being able to stop anything.

It was 1983 on a Monday night. I was a senior in high school. If Green Bay had any kind of a defense, who knows what they could have done on the heels of winning a playoff game in strike-shortened 1982, but it was to be Starr's undoing and after 9 season ('83) being the last, he was let go in favor of Forrest Gregg, who while he had coached a Super Bowl team, perhaps it would have been prudent to go outside the Lombardi coaching bloodlines after Starr was done.

http://espn.go.com/abcsports/mnf/s/gbwashclassic.html

[King Friday]

Luck. It isn't even a question for me.

He's a pocket QB with elite potential who will be in this league for 15 more years. Wilson/RGIII/CK are guys who run a lot and have a shorter shelf life. When their athletic ability goes into decline and injury risk increases after age 30, their production could go into decline as they try to transition to a pure pocket passer.

[pbmax]

Wasn't the scouting staff trying to move Starr off of Campbell right up until the draft? I seem to recall they desperately wanted someone else.

[Bretsky]

Wasn't the scouting staff trying to move Starr off of Campbell right up until the draft? I seem to recall they desperately wanted someone else.

I had heard the sct dept wanted Ronnie Lott

[Patler]

I had heard the sct dept wanted Ronnie Lott

At least that is the way they all remember it now! :lol:

[red]

At least that is the way they all remember it now! :lol:

just like we all know that lindy infante was the only person in the organization that wanted mandarich

[Carolina_Packer]

just like we all know that lindy infante was the only person in the organization that wanted mandarich

Imagine if they had drafted Barry Sanders instead, but still sucked enough from 1989-1991 to still get Wolf, Holmgren, Favre, Reggie, etc. With Favre and Sanders, it boggles the mind how good that offense could have been. Mandarich! Ugh. I hate PED's.

[Guiness]

The thing with Watt, Wilson, Kapernick, RGIII and the like is that they are cheap only for the next few seasons, then who knows? To some extent, they are also unproven because careers do sometimes burn brightly for a short time, then flame out.
So true. See Merriman, Shawn.


Stafford might be one to consider. He has shown a lot of promise, is young, but has a long, manageable contract.

I don't know if I consider that contract manageable. The way I read it, Detroit (and next, the Rams) are hamstrung by these legacy rookie contracts. No way either of those guys pulls down a $20M number if it wasn't with the rookie deal hanging over the team's head. The Dolphins got out of the Jake Long one, but it was easier for them because he wasn't a franchise QB.

[Guiness]

RESULTS after AROD

2. Russell Wilson
3. Andrew Luck
4. JJ Watt
5. RG3

Not sure I understand or agree with the order of the QBs. The only reason I can come up with Wilson being on top is that his contract is for $3M while the other 2 are > $20M for four years. I think counterbalancing that is the team option for a 5th year with the first rounders. Luck abov RG3 due to the knee injury?

[cheesner]

Wasn't the scouting staff trying to move Starr off of Campbell right up until the draft? I seem to recall they desperately wanted someone else.

Worst pick in NFL history. Mandarich was a bigger bust, but Campbell was plain stupid. OC Bratkowski said in a quote at the time, 'I walked to the field on the first day of practice and saw his throwing motion and my heart sank. I knew he would never be an NFL quarterback.'

Soooooo, the first time the OC sees Rich Campbell throw the ball is the first day of practice? WTH?


Bruce Clark was nearly as stupid. To the young uns, Bruce said he would not play for the Packers. We drafted him anyway and he went to Canada to play for a year. Never played a down for us but was 4th overall pick.


For us, JJ Watt would be the best player to trade for. Andy Luck is the overall biggest trade value. You can't place too high of importance on the QB Position. As far as RG3 and Russell go - like them both but fear their ability to maintain for the long haul.

[Pugger]

Carolina, good comments. You're right. It hurts to remember. Starr was a good guy. Still is, but he was out of his element. Defense stunk. Wasn't that the year Green Bay and Washington hooked up on a Monday night to set all time scoring record? Something like 50 points scored by both teams. Very exciting with Lynn Dickey and company, but frustrating not being able to stop anything.

It was absolutely foolhardy for us to hire Starr to be both HC and GM. He was woefully unprepared for this job and they kept him for 9 freaking years! Hiring Gregg wasn't much of an improvement. Things didn't start to change until we separated the HC and GM jobs and got the OC to keep their noses out of football operations.

[Smeefers]

Okay okay, I think I smell what the rock is cookin. It's value by price. In that case, I have no frickin clue.

[Bossman641]

I don't know if I consider that contract manageable. The way I read it, Detroit (and next, the Rams) are hamstrung by these legacy rookie contracts. No way either of those guys pulls down a $20M number if it wasn't with the rookie deal hanging over the team's head. The Dolphins got out of the Jake Long one, but it was easier for them because he wasn't a franchise QB.

Spot on. The Lions are really hamstrung by the Stafford/Megatron/Suh deals going forward. Stafford's cap hits in 2015/16/17 are 17.7M, 22.5M, and 22M. Megatron's are 20.6, 24.1, 21.4. Suh's deal runs out after the 2014 year and they will have to either release/resign him prior to that as his number is 21.4 in 2014. They are basically in a position where they will have to re-do the deals every few years just to provide some relief.

As big as Rodgers numbers are, they are consistent year to year and not in a situation where we will have to re-do the deal prior to it expiring.

[pbmax]

One thing I read about Wilson argues for optimism. He truly split reps for most of camp with 3 guys. And while Seneca Wallace was probably never a threat to start, Flynn continued to get reps all though camp. Wilson did not produce full bore in that offense until midway through the season.

[RashanGary]

Luck. It isn't even a question for me.

He's a pocket QB with elite potential who will be in this league for 15 more years. Wilson/RGIII/CK are guys who run a lot and have a shorter shelf life. When their athletic ability goes into decline and injury risk increases after age 30, their production could go into decline as they try to transition to a pure pocket passer.

I definitely agree with you on Luck. I would not go so far as to say CK or Wilson are not pocket passers. Both look like they may have what it takes to be elite pocket passers. CK, in particular, has a similar elite skillset to Luck, with slightly better athleticism. CK and Wilson give me a lot of intrigue going forward. Kaepernick is so early in his development. This year is going to be huge for how we end up viewing him.

[Guiness]

I definitely agree with you on Luck. I would not go so far as to say CK or Wilson are not pocket passers. Both look like they may have what it takes to be elite pocket passers. CK, in particular, has a similar elite skillset to Luck, with slightly better athleticism. CK and Wilson give me a lot of intrigue going forward. Kaepernick is so early in his development. This year is going to be huge for how we end up viewing him.

I think CK can become a more traditional pocket passer, with good escape/scrambling skills. Can Russell do that though? How much does his height hurt him if he tries to do that?

[Patler]

I don't know if I consider that contract manageable. The way I read it, Detroit (and next, the Rams) are hamstrung by these legacy rookie contracts. No way either of those guys pulls down a $20M number if it wasn't with the rookie deal hanging over the team's head. The Dolphins got out of the Jake Long one, but it was easier for them because he wasn't a franchise QB.


Spot on. The Lions are really hamstrung by the Stafford/Megatron/Suh deals going forward. Stafford's cap hits in 2015/16/17 are 17.7M, 22.5M, and 22M. Megatron's are 20.6, 24.1, 21.4. Suh's deal runs out after the 2014 year and they will have to either release/resign him prior to that as his number is 21.4 in 2014. They are basically in a position where they will have to re-do the deals every few years just to provide some relief.

As big as Rodgers numbers are, they are consistent year to year and not in a situation where we will have to re-do the deal prior to it expiring.

But those are not the numbers that affect his value in a trade, because the team that would trade for him would not have those cap numbers for him. Detroit would have to account for his bonuses against their cap, the acquiring team would be responsible only for the annual salaries and new bonuses, if any.

Essentially, Stafford is untradeable and uncuttable for a couple years, not because a team wouldn't be willing to give a lot for him, but because Detroit likely could not manage the cap hit for his accelerated bonuses. That is also true for Rodgers.

Stafford's value in a trade should be high, a team would give a lot for him, because what he would count toward the cap of the acquiring team is indeed very manageble. The trade won't happen, because of the cap hit against Detroit, but that would be true for Rodgers, too.

[Guiness]

True Patler, and I wasn't looking at it that way, which is what this thread is supposed to be about :)

From Detroit's point of view though, I'm still not so sure I would call Stafford's contract 'manageable'. He's closer to Schaub than Rodgers, who is making about $11M per on a contract signed last year. So is Flacco, but he landed the perfect storm of FA, SB win and former face of franchise retiring.

[smuggler]

Geno Atkins has to be pretty high on that list, I'd think.