Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Realistic off-season trade scenarios


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 BigBeezy

BigBeezy

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 283 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 10:58 PM

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?

#2 JawnyBlaze

JawnyBlaze

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,310 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 10:59 PM

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

#3 Marguide

Marguide

    South of the Border

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,495 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 11:12 PM

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.

#4 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,193 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 20 January 2013 - 11:14 PM

oh wait. the op said realistic. nm

#5 BigBeezy

BigBeezy

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 283 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 11:19 PM

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


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.

#6 Kevin Greene

Kevin Greene

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,860 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 11:21 PM

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

:lolu:

#7 JawnyBlaze

JawnyBlaze

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,310 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 11:23 PM

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.

#8 BeasonBeastingBacks

BeasonBeastingBacks

    Farewell Sweet Prince

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,198 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 11:23 PM

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

#9 Frizzy350

Frizzy350

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,248 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 11:25 PM

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.

#10 BigBeezy

BigBeezy

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 283 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 11:35 PM

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.


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

#11 Swaggasaurus

Swaggasaurus

    HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,758 posts
  • LocationWilkesboro

Posted 20 January 2013 - 11:36 PM

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.

#12 BigBeezy

BigBeezy

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 283 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 11:43 PM

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.


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.

#13 Fox007

Fox007

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,290 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 11:52 PM

Considering you can get a good back in rounds 4-6 these days....Williams's trade value is poo.

Not too many teams would consider making Beason their main man in the middle coming off 2 injury seasons.

#14 BigBeezy

BigBeezy

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 283 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 11:55 PM

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.


I agree, you don't usually see a lot of player for player trades but I thought this was a little more interesting than the player for pick scenarios that you typically see.

#15 Riverboat Ron

Riverboat Ron

    The Gambler

  • ALL-PRO
  • 2,107 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 12:00 AM

Obviously these would be more realistic.

1) Deangelo Williams to the Lions for Calvin Johnson, Ndamukong Suh and the #5 pick.
2) Deangelo Williams to the Bengals for Geno Atkins, AJ Green and the #21 pick.
3) Jordan Gross to the Browns for Joe Thomas and the #6 pick.
4) Jon Beason to the Giants for Hakeem Nicks,Jason Pierre-Paul and the #19 pick.
5) Chris Gamble to the Seahawks for Brandon Browner, Richard Sherman and Earl Thomas.

:rolleyes:


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com