Talib was traded for a 7th round pick, very low risk for the pats, after repeated legal issues. Not really a comparable situation.
Originally Posted by: earthquake
I'm just saying that trading or obtaining a player whose contract expires after the present season doesn't mean they player will walk away. If an organization wants to keep the player they obtained, they are very likely able to do so. That shouldn't be a huge factor in obtaining a player, imo.
Talib may be a free agent after this season, but he was resigned to another year contract after playing out the season he was traded. The Patriots could have signed him longer if they wanted, I'm sure. That was their choice. He's playing well lately, so he's probably going to get another contract from the Patriots, or get a nice deal in free agency. Moreover, he has some legal/character issues that brought down his value some. I think the Pats took a calculated risk with him and faced very little consequence in doing so. I sometimes wish the Packers could find similar risks to take.
The main point is, sometimes risks pay off and really help a football team. If no risks are ever taken, then the payoff from them will never come. It's debatable if the rewards actually out-gain the risks, but it's certainly worth considering. I'm sure Ted Thompson does consider all the risks, but I do think he can be a bit too conservative at times.
Again, I'm not using the Talib situation as a foundation to pursue any other player, but I just don't think a contract expiring after the present season is that big of a deal. If there was significant concerns about such, then it should come up during the investigation by trained eyes and the deal would never happen.
EDIT: Besides, how many players out there wouldn't want fair market value to play for the Green Bay Packers? I think many players out there would be happy to be in that situation, and the ones that wouldn't be shouldn't be heavily pursued in the first place.