[SC Skins Fan]

I think it is a similar to the problem that Schneed pointed out with JLC's posts on the Skins cap management issues. We are losing sight of the problems in talent evaluation that have plagued many previous Redskins trades and saying ergo trading draft picks is a losing strategy. It would be more accurate to say that trading draft picks of mediocre talent is a losing proposition. Trading picks for Lloyd and Duckett - mistakes. But neither Lloyd or Duckett had demonstrated elite production or been selected to five Pro Bowls.

The issue about cost is perhaps more valid, since it would apparently take $20 mil + in guarantees to lock up CJ. But, the Skins have demonstrated their ability to manipulate the cap with using cash-over-cap so as long as they got 5-6 seasons of high production from Johnson it likely would not cause huge problems. The issues with other guys they have traded for have been the lack of production they have received in return.

I think you could also argue that the Skins have, in the past, undervalued their own picks as compared to the value placed on them by others in the league. Adding a 2nd rounder in the Bailey/Portis deal or giving up a 3rd for Brunell comes to mind. In those instances the production was less a problem then the fact that most teams would not have added a high pick when giving up a comparable talent at a more valuable position or giving up a first day pick for an aging QB. Also remember that disgruntled future HOFers Marshall Faulk and Jerome Bettis were both dealt for 2nd round picks.

Now, having said that, a mid level 1st and a conditional 3rd (with high conditions for escalation) is probably not too high for Johnson (in my estimation). That strikes me as pretty fair compensation. Deion Branch netted the Pats a 1st and he's no Chad Johnson. Wes Welker and Javon Walker went for 2nds. Probably the most comparable trade we have is the first Randy Moss deal, which netted the Vikings the 7th overall pick and Napoleon Harris. So I think you can make arguments against the trade, but the firmest ground to stand on, I think, is cap ramifications. I really don't think you can say the Redskins are selling the farm in their proposal. I think there are at least several teams who would also make that sort of deal for Johnson, so here I don't think the Skins are bidding against themselves (as they have in the past).