Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Realistic off-season trade scenarios

41 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

Although you rarely see a lot of trades in the NFL, what are some realistic trades you wouldn't mind seeing the Panthers make this offseason?

Here are a couple I wouldn't mind seeing:

Trade #1: Jon Beason for Giants WR Hakeem Nicks

Reasoning: It's no secret Beason would prefer to stay in the middle and he probably won't get that opportunity here. The Giants are in desperate need of a middle linebacker and Beason is one of the best middle linebackers in the game, when healthy. Nicks is one of the best young WR in the league, who is often injured but still produces at a high level. Nicks is going into a contract year and both he and Cruz will want #1 WR money (think Antonio Brown, VJax contracts), which may make Nicks expendable. Might even be willing to include a late round pick to get this deal done because of the players' current contracts.

Trade #2: Deangelo Williams for Packers CB Tramon Williams

Reasoning: The Panthers could definitely use some help in the secondary, especially with Gamble likely being cut, and Tramon Williams is one of the better corners in the game. But the Packers have some young talented CB in Casey Hayward and Sam Shields, which could make Williams expendable. This trade would also give the Packers a legit starter at RB, which they've desperately seeking for quite some time.

These trades may never happen but neither is out of the realm of possibility. Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

#2 is definitely out of the realm of possibility, I think
#1 is probably out of the realm of possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I think you are way overvaluing Beason/DWill.

It wouldn't be terribly surprising to see Gamble given a chance to test the waters, or at least tell his agent that you would entertain trade offers because he wasn't in our future plans. If Chris was willing to sign a new deal with a potential new team, he would have some value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

oh wait. the op said realistic. nm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='JawnyBlaze' timestamp='1358740778' post='2107962']
#2 is definitely out of the realm of possibility, I think
#1 is probably out of the realm of possibility.
[/quote]

Why do you say that?

There's been rumblings that the Giants may be willing to part ways with Nicks. I agree, the Packers may not want to get rid of Williams, but they definitely want some better talent at RB and also have younger, cheaper options at CB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Holy crap, Beason has like 11 tackles total the last 2 years.
And the Gmen will give us Hicks?

:lolu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Yea, the Packers definitely need a RB, but they can get one in the draft. One that's young and doesn't have a top 10 contract. If they did want Deangelo, we wouldn't get an outstanding CB in return.

I haven't heard these rumblings about Nicks, but even if they did we'd have to sweeten the pot. As much as I love Beason (and Deangelo), no team is going to trade a young blue chip #1 WR for a MLB coming off two early season ending injuries with a top 10 contract.

It's just a matter of value. WR has more value in today's NFL than MLB and CB has more value than RB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

realistic?
poo, theres nothing we can realistically do other than trade low round picks for scrubs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Ok your scenarios make sense but the value just is not on point. Beason has been on IR the past two seasons and has an extremely high cap number to go with it. Nicks may be expendable but he's a big, fast young receiver, they could get a much better offer than Beason.

I don't think the Packers have any intentions of bringing in a very talented running back. People look at their offense and say, oh well they NEED a runningback, because their running game stinks. I have a funny feeling that the Packers really don't give a damn about their running game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='JawnyBlaze' timestamp='1358742189' post='2108040']
Yea, the Packers definitely need a RB, but they can get one in the draft. One that's young and doesn't have a top 10 contract. If they did want Deangelo, we wouldn't get an outstanding CB in return.

I haven't heard these rumblings about Nicks, but even if they did we'd have to sweeten the pot. As much as I love Beason (and Deangelo), no team is going to trade a young blue chip #1 WR for a MLB coming off two early season ending injuries with a top 10 contract.

It's just a matter of value. WR has more value in today's NFL than MLB and CB has more value than RB.
[/quote]

Fair enough. I did mention adding a late round pick in the Beason/Nicks deal to make it work, which I wouldn't mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

James Anderson for a 5th...we are stuck like glue with 52....Dwill for a 4th maybe. Those are the two trades that could possibly happen. If we have any player for player trades you guys will be like who??? Aging big time players don't get traded for other aging big time players in the NFL....just does not happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Frizzy350' timestamp='1358742324' post='2108049']
Ok your scenarios make sense but the value just is not on point. Beason has been on IR the past two seasons and has an extremely high cap number to go with it. Nicks may be expendable but he's a big, fast young receiver, they could get a much better offer than Beason.

I don't think the Packers have any intentions of bringing in a very talented running back. People look at their offense and say, oh well they NEED a runningback, because their running game stinks. I have a funny feeling that the Packers really don't give a damn about their running game.
[/quote]

There are definitely teams that may give up more for Nicks i.e. Dolphins and like I mentioned before I would be willing to include a pick, if needed. Nicks numbers were down a bit this season and he battles with injuries, so that could bring down his value a bit as well.

I think the Packers definitely want to strengthen their running game. It would make their offense more balanced. It would also limit some of the hits on Rodgers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites