Gardner, the draft, and Trade Rumours: What's your theory?
Okay, here are two. Anyone got better ones? comments? Should we start a pool?
[QUOTE=JoeRedskin]Okay, I got one.
The fifth pick, Gardner, Trotter, and our Fifth rounder to San Diego for the top pick, a player to be named (do they have any decent D-Lineman?) and a late (6 or 7th) round pick.
The first pick then goes to the Giants (who use it on Eli), in return for the fourth pick, the Giants second rounder this year and next.
THEN if Gallery is available at four, the fourth pick to Cleveland (who really want Gallery) for the seventh pick and a 3rd. And with the seventh pick take KWII (as Detroit will take Taylor)
If Gallery not available - Keep fourth and take Taylor
Boy that was fun. How much do I get if I am right??[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=AnonEmouse]OK, it may be a bit wild but what if the following happens:
Trotter and Gardner (they need a young WR) to the Raiders with say our 5th rounder and/or a pick from next year, if that isn't enough
#2 pick (Raiders #1) to us
The #2 pick to Detroit (who would probably pick up Fitzgerald instead of Winslow) to swap with their #6 pick plus their 2nd or 3rd rounder (again I'm unsure of the value Detroit would attach to the #2 pick)
We get Winslow and Taylor and possibly swap a 5th rounder for a 2nd or 3rd.
OK guys flame away! :)[/QUOTE]
Okay, here are two. Anyone got better ones? comments? Should we start a pool?
unless I misread the second one, wouldn't we still only have one 1st round pick after all that and thus only get either taylor or winslow? that is unless we kept our original pick and traded future picks away.
I like the first scenario but how about instead we send trotter and gardner plus next years 3rd and 4th to KC for their 1st and 2nd or 3rd round picks. use our pick to select either taylor or winslow and then use KC's pick to trade down to San Fran or New england for either teams 2 2nd round picks and use our 3 2nd round picks to select a solid LB, a DL, and maybe the safety from purdue or wherever that someone else had suggested if we don't draft Taylor. but if we do, then select someone who might be an upgrade at the h-back over sellars either this year or next. or like last year who ever is the best player available or maybe even trade down the kc 2nd rounder for a 3rd and 4th possibly for more depth.
I said in an earlier post that marty may have some interest in gardner, and this is just confirmation that management is listning, [as I wrote in a previous post :biggthump] and there it is, no sooner said than the san diego rumor start's swirling, [unless pasta belly is stealing my material and staring rumors :rant:] Joe Red you have my head spinning with that first one, but I like where your coming from, I say we keep our #5 which should net us taylor, then see if we can nail the #1 from san diego for gardner, trotter, [who I think would be very productive in marty's system, and I believe marty would be thinking that as well] as well as our #6 this year and our #1 next year, I feel we would be dealing from strength with the ubundance of WR as well as LB's, I feel next year's #1 pick will be a low one as well, if we have to kick in another pick next year we do it, then we open up trade discussion's for the #1 pick, we get another top 10 pick plus a #2 or a #3 rd. pick, which would net us taylor, and a real shot depending on the trade, winslow, as well as a #2 [hopefully which is the going rate for a #1] and we grab the big tackle we need that is the direction I would go if I was GM, I am not concerned with next year's draft our pick's won't be that high to begin with and you won't come across the talent of taylor or winslow for at least another decade if we get this done our team is set for the forseeable future.
I heard that in a Washington Times article, sources from the team indicated they would not trade Rod Gardner. As I think about it, this makes a certain amount of sense. We have a lot of talent but not a lot of experience at wide receiver after our starters. I think that the staff is going to use this as a judgment year about Gardner and if they decide that Jacobs or McCants can more ably fill the #2 position, then we won't sign Gardner when his contract expires. Meanwhile we will have a full year to see more about what McCants and Jacobs can do.
This is a contract year for Gardner, but we aren't in a position to risk trading him now. He may prove to be crucial for us. Decision time is after the season.
Well I don't know either way what the Skins want to do with Gardner. But, it's in their best interest to say stuff like "we have no interest in trading him" "Rod's a very important part of our team, etc." That way you potentially drive the price up.
I hope we keep him. But if we can trade him away for more eraly round pick's. I say go for it. We are loaded a WR.
[QUOTE=Shane]I heard that in a Washington Times article, sources from the team indicated they would not trade Rod Gardner. [/QUOTE]
I remember them saying alot of flowery stuff about Bryan Johnson ten minutes before they traded him too.
Im Alumni of the University of Miami... If we can have Winslow, Portis and Taylor then do what you have to do and I promise our team will be better for it.
I'm not all that educated on the ways some contracts can occur but I was wondering, is there a way to make Gardner atleast a restricted free agent after his contract expires so if we do let him go to free agency, we can get some form of compensation for his..training I guess u could say? just wondering in case we do keep him this year (which couldn't hurt our team as he's still under a cheap contract and talented) and decide to stick with our other young WRs like mccants, jacobs, and cloman(hopefully he gets a decent shot this year instead of the bum Russel.)
It depends on what kind of an offer we make him next year I think.. There are. differnt values set for offers that dictate compensation. We could also use a tag on him.
The way RFA, UFA's and EFA's (Exclusive free agent's work) is part of the collective bargaining agreement.
A player with two or less years of experience is an EFA and can only resign with his current team if they make him a tender. If an EFA is not tendered he becomes a UFA.
An RFA is a player with three years of exp. - This is why agents seek three year contracts for lower round draftees. As a result of Dan the Man's RFA raiding last year, club's are beginning to seek longer term contract's for the second, third and fourth round draftees.
If a player has four years of exp or more, he becomes unrestricted and free to negoatiate with any team. Occasionally, an RFA is unhappy with his tender offer and will sit out most of the season. He then rejoins in time to play six regular season games to get credit for a fourth season (you must be on the roster for six games to get credit for the season - I am not sure how being on IR applies). Then the player becomes an UFA and is free to leave with no compensation. Miami's DE Ogunluwe and (I think I spelled that right) Cleveland's WR Northcutt are apparently thinking of taking this route.
The only way to get compensation for a UFA is to franchise them. As Buffalo did with Peerless price last year.
Saying we are not!
Saying we are not going to trade is kind of like giving a Coach the Vote of Confidence just before he is fired! I would have liked to fire Norv two to three years earlier!
could we tag Gardner next year, if needed, but make it so a team didn't have to give up 2 first round picks or is that rule set in stone?
You can tag and trade. Again, that's what Atlanta did with Peerless last year - they took a single first rounder. This scenario depends on the player working out a new deal with the new team (or the current team and then the contract is traded - I don't remember which).
Cincinati did this with us when we got Dan Wilkinson several years back.
thanks for sorting that out 4 me joe. :thumb:
|All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:14 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.