Browns wanted to trade up with packers

[packers11]

Savage got a nibble from Green Bay at 16. Cleveland offered its first-round pick in 2008, and offered to flip picks with the Packers in rounds two, three and four. "I thought it was going to work,'' Savage said. "But they thought about it, called back and said no.''

si.com

[b bulldog]

If this is ture, I would have pulled the trigger on this trade.

[hoosier]

Based on the usual value charts that could have been a horrible deal for GB!

We would be giving CLE a total of 1700 points (#16 = 1000; #47=430; #78=200; #112=70) and getting back this year a total of 883 points (#36=540; #67=255; #153=88).

For GB just to break even in point value, Cleveland's 2008 #1 would have to be in the top 20, and that doesn't take into consideration any "interest" on the "loan" of the #1 pick for a year.

[Rastak]

Based on the usual value charts that could have been a horrible deal for GB!

We would be giving CLE a total of 1700 points (#16 = 1000; #47=430; #78=200; #112=70) and getting back this year a total of 883 points (#36=540; #67=255; #153=88).

For GB just to break even in point value, Cleveland's 2008 #1 would have to be in the top 20, and that doesn't take into consideration any "interest" on the "loan" of the #1 pick for a year.

Cleveland picks top 10 every year!

[wist43]

Absolutely, I would have done that deal in a heartbeat...

Go into next years draft with a likely top 10 pick (Cleveland's), and a another one in the 15-20 range???

TT said he doesn't really consider trading for next years #1 a viable approach b/c "too much can happen in a year"... what kind of logic is that???

[pbmax]

They would have missed out on 34 picks by the time their turn came up again. That's too far down. You can't drop your mid-first round pick to drop into the second.

[ND72]

WTMJ is saying that is not true, and that Cleveland only Offered their 2nd and the 1st next year, just like the Dallas trade, for our 1st.

the way the points are done for future, are by figuring as a #16 pick in every round...so the points end up being 1000 to 1560....but i donno. I personally would have done it...of course, I personally would have drafted Brady Quinn...BUT...it's all hindsite now, gotta move on.

[wist43]

They would have missed out on 34 picks by the time their turn came up again. That's too far down. You can't drop your mid-first round pick to drop into the second.

You pick up a probable top 10 next year!!! Dah...

And given that TT is just as likely to pick a 5th rounder in the 2nd round, what's the difference in trading down 34 spots, or 340 spots... TT's board doesn't appear to resemble anybody else's anyway.

[pbmax]

Its the 16th pick in the round for future picks, but its devalued by one round for present value considerations, I believe.

So Cleveland's No. 1 next year would be valued as the 16th pick of the second round on the draft pick value chart. Value = 420 points

WTMJ is saying that is not true, and that Cleveland only Offered their 2nd and the 1st next year, just like the Dallas trade, for our 1st.

the way the points are done for future, are by figuring as a #16 pick in every round...so the points end up being 1000 to 1560....but i donno. I personally would have done it...of course, I personally would have drafted Brady Quinn...BUT...it's all hindsite now, gotta move on.

[wist43]

Next year, having that high #1 would look pretty good - wouldn't it???

TT's way, we sit there at 16 again next year... and that's it. Wouldn't it be nice if we could have two 1st's next year???

Then we could draft another DT, and another LB, in the 1st round... picking good players of course - but always with the proviso that "we pick the best players, we don't care if it improves the team".

[Patler]

A trade that would give up the 16th pick this year, have no net gain in the number of picks, AND delay the probable primary compensation until next year wouldn't make much sense to me.

TT showed quite early that he wasn't excited about any specific players in this years pool available after the first round by trading #47 and #235 to get #63, #89 and #191. It doesn't surprise me that he wasn't interested in switching spots with Cleveland in the second to move up.

[MadtownPacker]

Doesnt sound like such a great trade. Then watch the Brown be the feelgood story of 07 and turn the #1 they traded to DAL into the 31st overall. :P

[swede]

I'm a little surprised that TT didn't go for that trade. Think of how many 6th round picks could be gotten by trading down from an extra first round pick.

[Partial]

Why would you guys do this? Dallas got a better deal.

If they gave us their second straight up, I would have done it.

But to flip flop picks in two rounds, and take a future first for giving up a first this year, is a terrible deal.

[woodbuck27]

Absolutely, I would have done that deal in a heartbeat...

Go into next years draft with a likely top 10 pick (Cleveland's), and a another one in the 15-20 range???

TT said he doesn't really consider trading for next years #1 a viable approach b/c "too much can happen in a year"... what kind of logic is that???

I have to say this and it goes beyond just logic:

With him (TT) at the helm.

What a load of hoseshit.

With that deal in. There would be an excellent opportunity for two top ten picks in 2008.