I believe that Talib is a UFA now. So NE traded a 4th rd pick for someone that would give them 6 games. And you think that is a good justification to make trades?

Vontae Davis- basically the same thing only it is a 2 yr deal. They gave up a 2nd rd draft pick to have Davis for 2 years. But not even 2 full years as he missed 6 games this year. The Packers used a #2 for Casey Heyward this year. Would you rather have Casey Heyward for 4 years or Vontae Davis for 2? Because that's the choice when trades are made. In 1 year, the Colts will have nothing to show for that #2 pick. We will have Heyward heading into his 3rd year.

Marshall's been traded twice. He has put up big numbers everywhere he has been. But for some reason, teams are willing to part with him. You say Carolina stole Olsen, but the 3rd rd pick the Bears got for Olsen was half of the trade cost of Marshall. Would you rather have Marshall or Olsen?

Trades can work. We got a QB named Favre in a trade. ATL was excited to get rid of him. Most of the time, the team trading off a player is happy. Why is that?

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 

Are you assuming that those teams won't resign the players? I would have to think the Patriots and Colts will be trying to resign both Talib and Vonte. I thought teams had a chance to resign their own players before they hit the open market, although perhaps I'm mistaken.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 

NE saw the value of trading a R4 pick for a starting calibre CB midseason to carry them through to the playoffs after an injury. That is entirely reasonable.

Vontae Davis is a decent, young CB, a team need to start the season, and they got a 3 year starter who amassed 9 INTs over those first 3 years. Ted struck gold with the Hayward pick at the end of R2.

I'd rather have Olsen, but Cutler probably felt differently. The larger point there is CHI swung TWO trades. Your statement was a BS jab, but that's OK I guess. Ignore away on the Samuel and Clemons trades.

Originally Posted by: play2win 

I guess I don't see much $ value to having the opportunity to resign your own FA as opposed to open market FA's. I don't see many players resigning for significantly less than they would probably get on the open market. So in my opinion, you have to base the return on the trade on the years you got in performance directly related to the trade. Not the potential resigning.

Just my weird way of looking at things, I guess.

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 

There's value in that a team secures a player for the duration of the current season and gets the first opportunity to resign them; before 31 other teams. Sure, the player could refuse to resign with the team that traded for them and hit the open market, but I seriously doubt that will happen with a player like Talib. If anything, he is probably thrilled to be a member of the Patriots. He was a significant contributor to that team this season, and without him, perhaps the Patriots wouldn't have made it as far as they did. He was, after all, their #1 CB, covering opposing teams #1 WR most of the time. I think he was injured in the AFC Championship game and that likely hurt the Patriots even more. I don't think it's fair to judge trades in Super Bowl wins. The Talib trade made the Patriots better for a very reasonable draft pick in the 2012 season, and will likely do so for the next several seasons. They were hurting at CB, and made a somewhat risky move to hopefully improve themselves, and so far it has worked out. No deal is without risks. But when a team understands it's organizational structure and has done their research, risks can sometimes pay off and are worth the chance. In the case of Talib, I think it worked out well both for the player, the Patriots, and the Bucs. It's not so much about resigning a player for less than they might get in the open-market, but it's about a strong likelihood of resigning them before they ever hit the open market. I'm sure the Patriots were and are very confident they will resign him and as a result, the remainder of his career with the Patriots should be viewed as a result of the trade, not just this past season, imo. If they thought they would not be able to resign him, they probably wouldn't have made the deal. I understand there are always exceptions, but like I said, sometimes risks yield substantial rewards.

If they decided to wait until IF and/or when he hit the open market, there are no guarantees they would have gotten him (although the Patriots always seem to have a good chance of landing free agents). Sometimes it pays off to be aggressive. Even if it doesn't with the case of someone like Albert Haynesworth, at least they tried to make their team better. There are no guarantees that 5th round draft pick or whatever would have been any better, anyway. Although that situation did make way less sense than the Talib trade, which I thought was a great trade.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 

But I would prefer to waste it on someone 22 yrs old, making $400k/ year than a 30yr old head case making 3M.

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 

And who did that?

Originally Posted by: doddpower 

What we are currently faced with is a defensive roster in need of upgrades, after spending 6 picks there last April.

Originally Posted by: play2win