Around the NFL: 2012 Off-Season-Free Agency/Trades

[skinster]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I'm really confused by this post. Dumb it down for me please

Mike Wallace is tendered at a 1st rounder, which means that it doesn't matter if you own 1st pick or the 32nd pick, a 1st rounder will get you mike wallace. If a team wants mike wallace, why don't they first trade down as much as possible while still remaining in the 1st round before they sign him?

Example. Lets say the Bears want Wallace. They have the 19th pick. Instead of giving up the the 19th pick to get wallace, first trade as far down as possible in the 1st round to pick up some extra picks, and then trade your new first round pick for mike wallace. Lets say the giants are willing to give up their 3rd and 5th picks to trade up from 32 to 19. The Bears would give the 32nd to the steelers, get mike wallace and get a 3rd and a 5th. Instead of just getting mike wallace, they get the extra 3rd and 5th.

[SkinzWin]

NFL.com Blogs » Blog Archive Lions apply franchise tag to DE Avril «

NFL.com Blogs » Blog Archive Jaguars apply franchise tag to Scobee «

[skinster]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I am sure there was a conversation about this before, I thought under the new CBA this was not allowed or at the least discouraged. But then again, that's what the Eagles are doing with DJax.

Are they? Didn't know that. I'd be shocked if trades weren't allowed now. But maybe tagged/tendered players cant be traded for less than they are tagged for? If that were the case I wonder if that rule would still apply if the tagged contract went unsigned?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by skinster

Mike Wallace is tendered at a 1st rounder, which means that it doesn't matter if you own 1st pick or the 32nd pick, a 1st rounder will get you mike wallace. If a team wants mike wallace, why don't they first trade down as much as possible while still remaining in the 1st round before they sign him?

Example. Lets say the Bears want Wallace. They have the 19th pick. Instead of giving up the the 19th pick to get wallace, first trade as far down as possible in the 1st round to pick up some extra picks, and then trade your new first round pick for mike wallace. Lets say the giants are willing to give up their 3rd and 5th picks to trade up from 32 to 19. The Bears would give the 32nd to the steelers, get mike wallace and get a 3rd and a 5th. Instead of just getting mike wallace, they get the extra 3rd and 5th.

Well, first I think you're assuming it's quite easier than it is to trade. Secondly, and I'm not sure if this rule still applies, but I'm pretty sure you can only trade the pick you were assigned in the draft. So if you don't have a pick you can't go get one and you can't go get another pick and trade it.

[los panda]

i'd trade it all for a little more

[diehardskin2982]

You can trade any pick except compensatory picks given by the league. We traded down multiple times the year we got Ramsey.

You couldn't however trade down to get Wallace because there or time restrictions on RFA tender contacts. Therefore if Wallace is moved his deal will be done well before the draft and that team would have lost their pick= no trade down.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by diehardskin2982

You can trade any pick except compensatory picks given by the league. We traded down multiple times the year we got Ramsey.

You couldn't however trade down to get Wallace because there or time restrictions on RFA tender contacts. Therefore if Wallace is moved his deal will be done well before the draft and that team would have lost their pick= no trade down.

I meant trading picks for franchise players specifically

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by skinster

Well because he's no longer a free agent when you tag him. The patriots did this with Cassel, so I'm sure it can be done.

Well if you were saying to tag and trade, the reason teams don't is because if they don't find a trading partner, then they are stuck with that tag against their cap. So let's say Matt Flynn was tagged, the Packers would have that cap hit count on the first day of the new league year. So now they have to make that trade asap, if they find a partner, or else their FA funds are limited by that cap hit. Any partner certainly would know this, and use it to diminish any value they might get in a trade.

Further, if they don't find a partner, then they are stuck with a $16million backup.

Thus the FO has to decide if that choice is worth the risk a week before they can officially make the trade.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Well, first I think you're assuming it's quite easier than it is to trade. Secondly, and I'm not sure if this rule still applies, but I'm pretty sure you can only trade the pick you were assigned in the draft. So if you don't have a pick you can't go get one and you can't go get another pick and trade it.

If I remember it correctly, the Redskins got burned by this a few years ago. In the year they signed all the "JetSkin" RFA guys. The Skins signed Chad Morton who had a 4th round tender. We had a 4th round pick that year but it was acquired from someone else and was lower than our original 4th rounder (which we had traded away). B/c the 4th round pick the Skins actually had was lower than their original slot, the Skins had to trade for a 4th round pick slotted equal to or higher than our original slot. It ended up costing us a pick in the following draft.

I may have the details wrong as to the picks involved, but I am pretty sure for RFA's you must tender a draft pick at your original slot or better.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Well, first I think you're assuming it's quite easier than it is to trade. Secondly, and I'm not sure if this rule still applies, but I'm pretty sure you can only trade the pick you were assigned in the draft. So if you don't have a pick you can't go get one and you can't go get another pick and trade it.

I recognize just how hard it is to trade. But I find it hard to believe that if you put the pick on the block some team wouldn't be willing to underpay for moving up.
I thought the rule was that you could use any 1st rounder you like, but if someone offers a lower first rounder than they get the player? I seem to remember the Falcons trading down when getting Abraham? Guess I remembered that situation wrong.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by skinster

I recognize just how hard it is to trade. But I find it hard to believe that if you put the pick on the block some team wouldn't be willing to underpay for moving up.
I thought the rule was that you could use any 1st rounder you like, but if someone offers a lower first rounder than they get the player? I seem to remember the Falcons trading down when getting Abraham? Guess I remembered that situation wrong.

You know what you're right about Abraham...oh well, self imposed 20 minute ban

[celts32]

Adam Schefter ‏ @AdamSchefter
Broncos will use their franchise tag today on kicker Matt Prater.

Not earth shattering news but I was kind of hoping we would target him. Oh well...could be in for another year of GaNO.

[los panda]

5 years ago i would have traded a 3rd round pick for seabass + lechler

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Well, first I think you're assuming it's quite easier than it is to trade. Secondly, and I'm not sure if this rule still applies, but I'm pretty sure you can only trade the pick you were assigned in the draft. So if you don't have a pick you can't go get one and you can't go get another pick and trade it.

I think you are right on there Smoot. Pat K and Tim R were talking about a scenario such as this on Moving the Chains last week or so.

[Ruhskins]

Man, what's with this talk of the Pats having an interest in Mario Williams. Can someone prevent this from happening?