Redskins turned down Al Wilson!! plus great offer

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by Big C

u dont do the deal because there is a player u can get at the same position without giving up that pick. if we want to get rid of the pick we can do so easily and im sure better offers will arrive, offers that include players that are in a position that we need that we cant get through free agency, i.e. cornerback.

I said they should just change Wilson to Bly, but anyway, Al Wilson would have been a long term answer at MLB, not a stopgap. Now, I love London Fletcher, but the guy's on the downside. If he plays more than 3 years here I'll be shocked. Al Wilson is still relatively young at 29. I think he's got about 5 productive years left. However, it doesn't matter cause it's not gonna happen. However, they should just replace Wilson with Bly and the deal should get done.

[Big C]

Originally Posted by jdlea

I said they should just change Wilson to Bly, but anyway, Al Wilson would have been a long term answer at MLB, not a stopgap. Now, I love London Fletcher, but the guy's on the downside. If he plays more than 3 years here I'll be shocked. Al Wilson is still relatively young at 29. I think he's got about 5 productive years left. However, it doesn't matter cause it's not gonna happen. However, they should just replace Wilson with Bly and the deal should get done.

wilson is only 2 years younger, i dont think that makes a long term answer. he will be 30 at the start of the season and fletcher will be 32

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by Big C

wilson is only 2 years younger, i dont think that makes a long term answer. he will be 30 at the start of the season and fletcher will be 32

Okay, but I still think they should make the same trade for Bly, which was actually the poorly illustrated main point of my first post. I think Al Wilson would have been nice, but Bly would be better. If they could have gotten Wilson instead of Flet I would have been happy. However, it didn't happen and I'm happy this way too.