Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

When has a blockbuster NFL trade worked out for the team who gives up everything?


Recommended Posts

I don't think that you can measure the success of a blockbuster trade only by championships. It takes many moving parts to win a championship. I mean, if we trade for Watson and we end up a perennial contender, consistently in the playoffs for the next decade, would that really be a failure if we don't win the big one? 

Trading is supposed to ultimately improve your team and put it in a position to win championships. Whether or not you win one depends on other factors, like how close you are to winning a championship and where do you fall along the spectrum. There are different expectations for each trade. No one is expecting the Panthers with Watson to win a championship any time soon. Many people expect Stafford to be the final piece to get the Rams over the hump and consider anything less as a failure. 

 

  • Pie 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCasillas said:

 

 

Minkah Fitzpatrick has the most caused turnovers in the NFL over the last 2 seasons with the Steelers and was rated the second best safety in the league.... how did that not work out for the Steelers?

Adams set the record for the most sacks by a secondary player in a single season in nfl history and was the 5th best safety in the league.

Beating a team doesnt change the fact that the trades were good or not. I believe the Cardinals won a bc of Hopkins himself as well... Also, these players are still in the league.... you can't say that they are a failed trade. Hopkins is one of the best WRs in the game... hands down.

These ARE blockbuster trades bc they are trades for the best players at their position that cost a lot of capital for a team to get......

Rams traded for the best corner in the NFL Ramsey last year.   Had never been a top 10 D under McVeigh

#1 D in the NFL this year? Rams

2 firsts and a fourth.

Rams have traded their 20, 21, 22, 23 first round picks actually.  Not everyone  believes in building by the draft. 

 

  • Pie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are we setting the standard at championship or bust for grading a trade?

We're Panthers fans. If Watson delivers two consecutive winning seasons, then he'd already something never done before--even with all the priceless first rounders drafted in the past. Gotta crawl before we walk.

  • Pie 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Jay Roosevelt said:

There really isn't a comparison to the type of trade offer it'd take to get Watson because there isn't another example of a team trading 25 year old elite franchise QB. This deal - whoever makes it - will become the new standard for 'blockbuster' trades in the NFL.

Agreed....the only trades that come to mind for this deal is Walker and Ricky Williams...neither are QBs. 

I feel like if we substitute YGM instead of Burns to the packages being offered, we should get a deal done.

21 FRP

22 FRP

23 FRP

CMC

YGM

Keeping our 2nds and 3rds will go a long way and we can find another RB. YGM hurts, but still having Burns and Brown on our DL and Chinn in the secondary doesn't set us back as much. We can sign someone like Carson or draft a RB in the fourth round.

Edited by Soul Rebel
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Smithers said:

Steelers trading for Minkah Fitzpatrick.  Seahawks trading for Jamal Adams.  Cardinals trading for Deandre Hopkins.  
 

to name a few...

The cardinals gave up a second, future fourth, and a dilapidated David Johnson... I wouldn’t call that “giving up everything”. They also sucked and didn’t make the playoffs. 

Adam’s is on his 5th year option and will be an UFA. I think “working out” is tbd. If they can’t keep him, then they gave up that capital for a two year rental and at least one of those resulted in zero playoff wins.

Edited by imminent rogaine
  • Pie 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OneBadCat said:

So long as we keep one of Burns or CMC I think we’ll be alright.

This stuff about trading two firsts with CMC, Burns, and Robby Anderson is wack though.

That only works if we get picks in return as well. I’m talking multiple second and thirds.

Dude Burns and CMC are not even on the same level. DEs are a million times more valuable than RBs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bears had 4 straight losing seasons.  Gave up a poo ton for Mack.  Haven’t had a losing season the last 3 since acquiring him....despite horrific QB play.   3 straight Pro Bowls.   I’d say that is working out well.  Just need some average QB play. 

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCasillas said:

 

 

Minkah Fitzpatrick has the most caused turnovers in the NFL over the last 2 seasons with the Steelers and was rated the second best safety in the league.... how did that not work out for the Steelers?

Adams set the record for the most sacks by a secondary player in a single season in nfl history and was the 5th best safety in the league.

Beating a team doesnt change the fact that the trades were good or not. I believe the Cardinals won a bc of Hopkins himself as well... Also, these players are still in the league.... you can't say that they are a failed trade. Hopkins is one of the best WRs in the game... hands down.

These ARE blockbuster trades bc they are trades for the best players at their position that cost a lot of capital for a team to get......

Both Fitzpatrick and Hopkins were good trades but let's not get carried away by calling them blockbusters. They got Fitzpatrick for a single 1st round pick. Hopkins was had for a 2nd round pick. Your definition of blockbuster seems way skewed. 

I'll give you Adams as a "blockbuster" perhaps but if we look back in 3 years are we sure we're going to say that was a definite win for Seattle? They gave up 2 1sts and an ok starter for 1 year of Jamal Adams. And in that 1 year they couldn't make it out of the wildcard round after making it to the divisional round the year before. Now if they want to keep him, they're looking to have to pay him $20 million per year on a multiyear deal. Not many winning teams succeed giving that much to a box safety. He might be worth it more than others but it leaves less money for more prominent positions, like the offensive line that's letting Wilson get hammered and may drive him out of Seattle. I have a feeling history is not going to say that was a slam dunk win for the Seahawks. But we'll see.

  • Pie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Peon Awesome said:

Both Fitzpatrick and Hopkins were good trades but let's not get carried away by calling them blockbusters. They got Fitzpatrick for a single 1st round pick. Hopkins was had for a 2nd round pick. Your definition of blockbuster seems way skewed. 

I'll give you Adams as a "blockbuster" perhaps but if we look back in 3 years are we sure we're going to say that was a definite win for Seattle? They gave up 2 1sts and an ok starter for 1 year of Jamal Adams. And in that 1 year they couldn't make it out of the wildcard round after making it to the divisional round the year before. Now if they want to keep him, they're looking to have to pay him $20 million per year on a multiyear deal. Not many winning teams succeed giving that much to a box safety. He might be worth it more than others but it leaves less money for more prominent positions, like the offensive line that's letting Wilson get hammered and may drive him out of Seattle. I have a feeling history is not going to say that was a slam dunk win for the Seahawks. But we'll see.

Blockbuster trade is pretty plain and simple. It doesnt have specific parameters... and since blockbuster trade is deemed a media terminology, here is the definition:

A blockbuster trade means not only trading a superstar. But there is a move between team's players that the media gives it "Hype". Because the persons involve in that trade are marque names for most sports fans.

Edited by TheCasillas
  • Pie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, BrisbanePanther said:

Why are we setting the standard at championship or bust for grading a trade?

We're Panthers fans. If Watson delivers two consecutive winning seasons, then he'd already something never done before--even with all the priceless first rounders drafted in the past. Gotta crawl before we walk.

Because most people are idiots

  • Pie 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...