Redskin #9 and #25 for Clements?

[PromoTheRobot]

Redskin #9 and #25 for Clements? Any thoughts? Bills could grab a CB and O-line help. I live in D.C. right now and I just have to laugh at the Redskins. They seem to have no idea how to function in today's football. Why trade next year's number 1, a 3 and a 4 for this year's 25? Insanity.

310054[/snapback]

#25 for Clements? Yes. #9? No. #9 AND #25?? No freakin' way! Unless TD takes Snyder out behind Gibbs back and gets him roaring drunk first.

 

Besides, I don't think TD would want a #9 pick anyway. It's a shallow draft, and you don't want to overpay players just because they were drafted high. I can see him going for a #25 though.

 

PTR

[LabattBlue]

I sure wouldn't, based on the past 18 months. Now, closest I was able to find to compare in terms of Nates value- vs- a pick is last year. Deangelo Hall was picked in the 8 spot by the Falcons. It seems he signed a 6 year, $25M deal, with $14 mil in bonus.

 

I would argue Nate would not take that much more to sign, little bigger on the salary, but bonus I would think would be similiar. IMHO, rather sign Nate and know what I'm getting. Flip side, if I am the Skins, i would make the trade.

 

Like I said, I can see getting loads of picks in the other rounds, but to me top 10 picks more of a risk, without the resultant cheaper cap number, than signing a proven veteran

310143[/snapback]

I disagree on how much you think NC is going to command with his next contract. Ken Lucas a FA CB signed with Carolina this off season for 6 years 36 million! I believe NC is worth more than Ken Lucas!

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/seah..._webhawk03.html

[stevestojan]

I keep wondering why I wasn't invited to the party where Nate Clements turned water into wine...

[plenzmd1]

I disagree on how much you think NC is going to command with his next contract.  Ken Lucas a FA CB signed with Carolina this off season for 6 years 36 million!  I believe NC is worth more than Ken Lucas!

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/seah..._webhawk03.html

310147[/snapback]

Forget the $36M part and focus on the bonus money. This guy, who I admit i do not know a lot about, got $13M to sign, less than a rookie who had never played a down.

 

Smoot only got $10.8 to sign. Again, I guy I think has less risk than a draft pick.

 

My only point was the top 10 guys or so to me are not worth the money they get paid for never having played a down. They get paid like they are already All-Pros , and I would just rather have a guy I know can get it done, rather than has the POTENTIAL to get it done

[LabattBlue]

Forget the $36M part and focus on the bonus money. This guy, who I admit i do not know a lot about, got $13M to sign, less than a rookie who had never played a down.

 

Smoot only got $10.8 to sign. Again, I guy I think has less risk than a draft pick.

 

My only point was the top 10 guys or so to me are not worth the money they get paid for never having played a down. They get paid like they are already All-Pros , and I would just rather have a guy I know can get it done, rather than has the POTENTIAL to get it done

310157[/snapback]

 

I thought you were asking how much it will cost to sign NC....

I would argue Nate would not take that much more to sign, little bigger on the salary, but bonus I would think would be similiar. IMHO, rather sign Nate and know what I'm getting. Flip side, if I am the Skins, i would make the trade.

[plenzmd1]

I thought you were asking how much it will cost to sign NC....

310159[/snapback]

 

I am , what the original point went back to would the Skins trade us the #9 for NC. I was saying I think Nate could be under contract for a bonus in the neighborhood 0f $14-16M, or around what it cost to sign the #8 pick last year, also a CB.

 

So, for a little more cash, you get a pro-bowl player vs a draft pick.

Which is more valuable?

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

Read the associated ESPN article. They want to pick their future QB at pick 25.

 

Why is the trade so bad....Didn't we do something very close to this to get

JP last year.  We gave up our 2nd and 5th last year and this years 1st

The Skins have done something very close to that. 

 

310075[/snapback]

The key to comparing one year's draft move to another year's is that all drafts are not created equal. A 1st round pick in 2005 does not appear that it will produce anywhere near the quality of player produced by a 1st round pick in 2004 and to simply state that they are equivalent or that there is some absolute value to a 1st round pick is simply incorrect,

 

The market determines the value of a pick and the market is different from year to year.

 

Even more o the point, the market varies from team to team as team needs are quite different. 2004 was a great draft if QB is your primary team need to make you a winner as 3 players slated to start went in the first round and the 1 who won't is behind an unexpected Pro Bowler and may well be traded. Though QBs appear likely to go early in this draft as teams are addicted to picling alleged stud QBs so they can market hopes and dreams. spme pundits judge Losman (the 4th QB piccked last year) as better than any of the QBs available this year.

 

It also must be recognized that the market changes within a draft based on who is picked. TD does a fabulous job recognizing this and assessing opponent need as he was comfortable passing on Chris Kelsay and taking WM because he read the market that 8 or so other teams already having chosen DL players that he could get Kelsay (who some evaluated as a 1st round talent with the second round pick.

 

The 2004 Bills trade looks drastically different than the 2005 Skins trade because the qua;ity of the players looks so drastically different.

[Mickey]

   

You 2 are both on crack to think for a second that NC is not worth a #9 or a #25 overall pick in ANY draft.

 

He is arguably the best DB out there now and will definitly be the best when he is an FA after the season.

 

Sometimes you need to think before you type!

310100[/snapback]

Yeah, he was great in that Jag game when he failed to bat that ball down not realizing it was 4th down and instead tried to pick it off leading to our opening loss. He also looked good fumbling that punt against the Steelers. I wouldn't trade him but I am not blind to his faults either. The Patriots regularly toasted him. They loved throwing WR screens to his side knowing that with his gambling, sooner or later he will miss the tackle and then a 3 yard gain becomes a 50 yard gain. Of course, what do those Patriots know? He is a very good CB, no doubt. I just don't think he is worth quite that much.

 

What I don't understand is why, if he is so great, he is not worth us keeping? How is it that he is so good other teams will pay big in terms of picks for him but he isn't good enough for us to keep? The people pushing this trade as a real possibility argue that he is so good it will cost a fortune to keep him and there are plenty of good CB's in this draft (5 of first round quality depending on who you talk to) so we should trade him away so we don't have to worry about the cap and we will easily replace him with someone just as good who will cost less. Basically that argument is that as good as Nate is, he isn't worth huge bucks when there are plenty of good young CB's in the draft. Maybe so but if you accept that argument, you have to explain why Washington wouldn't reach the same conclusion and hang on to the pick.

[nobody]

The 2004 Bills trade looks drastically different than the 2005 Skins trade because the qua;ity of the players looks so drastically different.

310181[/snapback]

 

 

The Bills did the better trade since last years talent was better than this years.

[nobody]

I keep wondering why I wasn't invited to the party where Nate Clements turned water into wine...

310150[/snapback]

 

 

Because he knows you only drink beer and harder stuff - not wine.

[plenzmd1]

Yeah, he was great in that Jag game when he failed to bat that ball down not realizing it was 4th down and instead tried to pick it off leading to our opening loss.  He also looked good fumbling that punt against the Steelers.  I wouldn't trade him but I am not blind to his faults either.  The Patriots regularly toasted him.  They loved throwing WR screens to his side knowing that with his gambling, sooner or later he will miss the tackle and then a 3 yard gain becomes a 50 yard gain.  Of course, what do those Patriots know?  He is a very good CB, no doubt.  I just don't think he is worth quite that much. 

 

What I don't understand is why, if he is so great, he is not worth us keeping?  How is it that he is so good other teams will pay big in terms of picks for him but he isn't good enough for us to keep?  The people pushing this trade as a real possibility argue that he is so good it will cost a fortune to keep him and there are plenty of good CB's in this draft (5 of first round quality depending on who you talk to) so we should trade him away so we don't have to worry about the cap and we will easily replace him with someone just as good who will cost less.  Basically that argument is that as good as Nate is, he isn't worth huge bucks when there are plenty of good young CB's in the draft.  Maybe so but if you accept that argument, you have to explain why Washington wouldn't reach the same conclusion and hang on to the pick.

310183[/snapback]

 

Mickey, I agree with you on most of these points. What I was trying to say was that if you are going to use the #9 on CB, why not keep Nate? It may be me having a bad perception, but top 10 picks are NO cheaper than proven pro bowlers. I think , and again I could be wrong, everyone just assumes picks are cheaper. On the whole, that may be true, but not in the top 10 .

 

Now, if you feel that no one gets that kind of money on your team, than trade for lots of picks outside of the first rd and try to grab his replacement there. Or, what I would do(as he will not probably restructure at this late date) is have him play out his contract and make decisions on him next year.

[mike22nc]

I sure wouldn't, based on the past 18 months. Now, closest I was able to find to compare in terms of Nates value- vs- a pick is last year. Deangelo Hall was picked in the 8 spot by the Falcons. It seems he signed a 6 year, $25M deal, with $14 mil in bonus.

 

I would argue Nate would not take that much more to sign, little bigger on the salary, but bonus I would think would be similiar. IMHO, rather sign Nate and know what I'm getting. Flip side, if I am the Skins, i would make the trade.

 

Like I said, I can see getting loads of picks in the other rounds, but to me top 10 picks more of a risk, without the resultant cheaper cap number, than signing a proven veteran

310143[/snapback]

 

 

From what I've found, DeAngelo Hall's cap figures are nowhere near the 6 for $25M that you claim. Maybe that is the maximum that he could make. This is what I found.

 

Signed by Falcons to a six-year contract. Terms of his deal were undisclosed, but he has base salaries of: $230,000 (2004); $305,000 (2005); $385,000 (2006); $460,000 (2007); $570,000 (2008); and $957,500 (2009). He also received a $12 million signing bonus, giving him cap figures of: $2.23 million (2004); $2.305 million (2005); $2.385 million (2006); $2.46 million (2007); $2.57 million (2008); and $2.9575 million (2009).

 

That is much more manageable that what Clements is likely to want in free agency next year. Ken Lucas, who is not on the same level as Clements, got a 6 year $36M deal with $13M in signing bonus money in free agency. Gary Baxter and Anthony Henry also got double digit signing bonus's to go along with 6 year ~$30M deals.

 

So, what will Clements demand on the open market? I dont know for sure, but it wouldn't suprise me if he wanted $15-18M in bonus money and 6 years for $42M at the minimum. So the trade for the #9 pick would definitely be the cheaper alternative.

 

Saying all of this, I'm not sure that Clements is not worth all this money. He's 26 years old, and on the cusp of being the best CB in the league, so if we can somehow keep him on board beyond this year, get it done. But, I definitely do have a problem if we are just keeping him for this one year and then letting him leave in free agency for nothing. The Bills must either lock up Clements or trade him now.

[OGTEleven]

Read the associated ESPN article. They want to pick their future QB at pick 25.

 

Why is the trade so bad....Didn't we do something very close to this to get

JP last year.  We gave up our 2nd and 5th last year and this years 1st

The Skins have done something very close to that. 

 

Snyder might be willing to throw money around, but I think Joe Gibbs knows

a thing or two about footbal....The only mistake he has made so far into his

2nd season is getting Mark Brunell...He really misjudged on Brunell still

having something left in the tank (And I hope Bill Parcells has done the

same with Bledsoe).

310075[/snapback]

We did do something similar last year. Here is the difference:

 

We waited until the pick was on the clock.

 

We did not make the trade 4 days before the draft and then leak the player we were after. TD might have been aware that this would reduce our leverage.

[bartshan-83]

I keep wondering why I wasn't invited to the party where Nate Clements turned water into wine...

310150[/snapback]

Seriously. I thinkk my invite got lost too.

[plenzmd1]

From what I've found, DeAngelo Hall's cap figures are nowhere near the 6 for $25M that you claim.  Maybe that is the maximum that he could make.  This is what I found. 

 

Signed by Falcons to a six-year contract. Terms of his deal were undisclosed, but he has base salaries of: $230,000 (2004); $305,000 (2005); $385,000 (2006); $460,000 (2007); $570,000 (2008); and $957,500 (2009). He also received a $12 million signing bonus, giving him cap figures of: $2.23 million (2004); $2.305 million (2005); $2.385 million (2006); $2.46 million (2007); $2.57 million (2008); and $2.9575 million (2009).

 

That is much more manageable that what Clements is likely to want in free agency next year.  Ken Lucas, who is not on the same level as Clements, got a 6 year $36M deal with $13M in signing bonus money in free agency.  Gary Baxter and Anthony Henry also got double digit signing bonus's to go along with 6 year ~$30M deals.

 

So, what will Clements demand on the open market?  I dont know for sure, but it wouldn't suprise me if he wanted $15-18M in bonus money and 6 years for $42M at the minimum.  So the trade for the #9 pick would definitely be the cheaper alternative. 

 

Saying all of this, I'm not sure that Clements is not worth all this money.  He's 26 years old, and on the cusp of being the best CB in the league, so if we can somehow keep him on board beyond this year, get it done.  But, I definitely do have a problem if we are just keeping him for this one year and then letting him leave in free agency for nothing.  The Bills must either lock up Clements or trade him now.

310274[/snapback]

 

Those numbers came from two sources. The first was pastabelly, and here was his comment last year.

 

"Rookie coach Jim Mora, who used the term "athletic arrogance" to refer to Hall's rare skills set, had elevated the young cornerback to the first unit even before camp started. Not even a weeklong holdout, which culminated in a $25 million contract that included the largest signing bonus in club history, could deter Hall from running with the starters on the first"ame from here

 

 

Also, the last year is viodable with easily reached incentives, so really a five year deal. So, if his 25M number is correct, he will cost 5M per year.

 

Lets say nate does a deal with 16 M in Bonus, with total comp at $40M for 6years. Little over 6.6 per year. To me, knowing what you have vs a guess with the pick is worth the extra cake. Backload it the last two years, and you probably get the charge down in the 6.0 range.

 

Now, whether he or any corner is worth that, that is a differant argument. Mine only being that I think people continue to over value top 10 picks

[JAMIEBUF12]

even if we wanted to do a trade like that how would we ever be able to pay two 1st round draft choices and their bonuses?nope no way!

[mike22nc]

"Also, the last year is viodable with easily reached incentives, so really a five year deal. So, if his 25M number is correct, he will cost 5M per year."

 

If the last year is voided, he does not get paid for that year, so even if the #s you have are correct, it would still be less than $5M per year. The discrepency in our total $ amount is probably due to performance based incentives, which could be anything from starting 2 games in the 5 years to going to the moon in an airplane. If you go to this link,

http://www.falcfans.com/features/2005cap.html

it has the cap figures of all the Atlanta falcons, and Hall's cap # agrees with what I have in my post.

 

Anyways, I am in agreement that I would rather pay Clements than take the 9th pick and hope. But, if we are definitely not going to pay Clements, get something of value for him.

[dave mcbride]

Got a question I hope someone can answer. #1 Mickey, you make a good point comparing the trades of the Bills and the Skins. However, as I do not watch the draft I am not sure when the Bills-Cowboys trade`was made. Was it just before the pick, and we knew Losman was there? That is what I see as the main differance. If they made this trade to get Campbell, and then he is not available, whew, that would be tough to take. According to all the articles and the radio this morning, that guy is rising fast.

 

Second as it realtes to trading say the #9 for Clements. What is the bonus a #9 CB would expect, and total comp over four years. I will try to look up, but my point is this. I would expect them to be similiar, and if I am GW-Gibbs, i know Nate can play in my scheme, and therefor I eliminate the risk . If the comp is close, I make this trade in a heartbeat if i'm the Skins.

 

Still trying to figure out this facination with first round picks.

310104[/snapback]

 

good points, but as i wrote in another post, first rounders constitute a disproportionate amount of bills starters. they generally tend to be better players ...

[mary owen]

Because he knows you only drink beer and harder stuff - not wine.

310210[/snapback]

 

 

Stojan drinks Zima

[dave mcbride]

Now, whether he or any corner is worth that, that is a differant argument. Mine only being that I think people continue to over value top 10 picks

310337[/snapback]

 

i see where you're coming from, but think of the ravens in 2000 -- lots of first rounders, and most of them were top ten selections (sam adams, mcallister, jamal lewis, ogden, duane starke, rod woodson -- the steelers drafted him, of course). ray lewis was a late first rounder, and jamie sharper was something like the first pick of the second round. now, they have terrell suggs, who was a top 10 pick. He's averaging over 10 sacks per season. Also, Ed Reed was a late-mid first rounder. bottom line -- first rounders are generally better players, and the ones drafted higher are the best of the bunch.