Trading 2014 1st for 2013 2nd

[IndyColtScout]

Here is the thing. I am on an iPhone. I can't bold a sentence in a quoted post for some reason. My first responce to you where I started with "trades don't work that way" was all about one sentence not your whole post. The sentence I was responding to was the trade you would be a fan of. Trading a 2013 2nd (if we had one) for a 2014 1st. My whole first response was to that one sentence which I CANNOT bold. I guess you didn't pick up on that. Without hesitation your next response finished with an unnecessary snarky comment which I did not incite in my first response. I was professional & tried to explain why no one would do that trade. Everyone needs immediate return on investment or better value on future return in exchange for present year picks.

[Nadine]

several posts were removed from this thread

some were offensive/personal shots

others quoted them

somewere just part of a squabble between members

 

Please remember to be civil and not post petty nasty comments.........or quote them

[Superman]

i can think of three that dis it in the last 10 years that did it when they were still stars. Brees, Favre, and Peyton and all three did it because their team got a new younger star QB. Heck even with Peyton and Favre there were strange circumstances that lead to it. So Brees is probably the only true example that moved by free agency and is one the top five QBs in the league just to further your point superman.

 

Brees wasn't one of the top five in the league when he left. Manning was coming off a major injury. Favre is probably the best example, and he retired, then tried to come back once the team had moved on. In both Manning and Favre's case, the team dismissed the player, the player didn't leave the team willingly. Same for Brees, who the Chargers chose to let walk because they had Rivers (and he was also coming off a major injury).

 

So, once you qualify those rare circumstances, it starts to become very clear that star level quarterbacks don't usually just walk away in free agency.

[BlueShoe]

Here is the thing. I am on an iPhone. I can't bold a sentence in a quoted post for some reason. My first responce to you where I started with "trades don't work that way" was all about one sentence not your whole post. The sentence I was responding to was the trade you would be a fan of. Trading a 2013 2nd (if we had one) for a 2014 1st. My whole first response was to that one sentence which I CANNOT bold. I guess you didn't pick up on that. Without hesitation your next response finished with an unnecessary snarky comment which I did not incite in my first response. I was professional & tried to explain why no one would do that trade. Everyone needs immediate return on investment or better value on future return in exchange for present year picks.

 

You are not listening to me, hence the comprehension comment.

 

A trade doesn’t only happen one way.

 

San Fran jumped on our offer to give them our first in 2008 for their second in 2007. That is a fact. Not only are trades like this possible; they have also happened. We have a precedent.

 

So my point again, is that if we had a second this year then I would trade it for a first next year, if we received an offer to do so, but I am NOT in favor of trading a first next year for a second this year. I have said that at least 5 times now.

 

I will once again post what I originally wrote:

 

“I have never been a fan of trading away a first next year for a second this year. I would be a fan of trading away a second this year for a first next year (if we had a second). The only reason we did that in 2006 is because Polian wasn't prepared for Glenn retiring and he took a gamble on Ugoh in the draft.

 

The only trade I can see good for us is; moving back into the second and picking up some more picks. That said, anything can happen.”

[IndyColtScout]

Your right I can't comprehend a trade that will never happen in the NFL where a team gives a lower pick & receives a higher pick.

[BlueShoe]

Your right I can't comprehend a trade that will never happen in the NFL where a team gives a lower pick & receives a higher pick.

 

 

Think of it terms of I give you 10 dollars now and you give me 15 dollars next year.

[IndyColtScout]

These guys' jobs are on the line. Guys like Mularkey, Jim Mora got one year. You would have to be the best salesman on earth to pull it off. I'm almost positive it's never happened. In reverse trading a future 1st for a current 2nd has happened several times, off the top of my head Ugoh & JP Losman. If its only twice it's still two more times than the other scenario.

[BlueShoe]

These guys' jobs are on the line. Guys like Mularkey, Jim Mora got one year. You would have to be the best salesman on earth to pull it off. I'm almost positive it's never happened. In reverse trading a future 1st for a current 2nd has happened several times, off the top of my head Ugoh & JP Losman. If its only twice it's still two more times than the other scenario.

 

Jim Mora was our head coach for 4 years in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.

 

I do not understand your position. I do not understand how you can believe that a team would NOT make the trade, yet you know that it has happened.

 

If I am loaded with talent in a draft that I feel is weak, then why would I waste a pick in this year’s draft if another team wanted to give me a better pick the following year?

 

If you have 10 million in the bank then you don't pull it out and stuff it under a mattress. You invest it.

[MAC]

When Luck's 2nd contract kicks in and we have to pay him Flacco dollars, won't we have a lot less cap room to pay other good players and keep them on the team?  Seems like that, by itself, is enough to make the winning chances go down.  Of course that depends on how Grigson handles all the contracts.

 

Also, why does everyone assume that Luck will even be resigned?  He might want to play for another team - maybe one that pays more or has a better chance at the SB.  Brady, Manning, and possibly Brees will be retiring then and those would be 2 very attractive teams to play for.

 

It's very rare that franchise level quarterbacks ever even reach unrestricted free agency, much less switch teams (and when I say "rare," I'm being generous). If Luck is as good as we hope he is, we'll do whatever it takes to keep him from free agency. We can option him in Year 5, then tag him in Year 6. I hope it doesn't come to that; it would be nice to reach terms before Year 5. But we're not just going to let the biggest piece of the puzzle -- the guy we got rid of Manning for -- walk in free agency. Not so long as we can help it.

 

i can think of three that dis it in the last 10 years that did it when they were still stars. Brees, Favre, and Peyton and all three did it because their team got a new younger star QB. Heck even with Peyton and Favre there were strange circumstances that lead to it. So Brees is probably the only true example that moved by free agency and is one the top five QBs in the league just to further your point superman.

colts_mp - as Superman replied to your second comment. It simply doesn't happen. In fact in GoColts examples the QBs were all forced out because of said younger QBs - each of whom was acquired in the first place because they were planning for a transition. You should instead look at Bree's more recent contract with NO, or Manning and Brady's prior contracts with their teams. At no point did I ever think for one second that their was even a remote chance of any of them changing teams. The QBs want long-term security, not to risk losing tens of millions of dollars to an injury - and if they have had any kind of success it's because they are devoted to an organization/system and are convinced they can win there. The only time they are ready to leave is if they haven't had success, and in that situation they wouldn't be relevant to this conversation because they wouldn't be "elite" QBs in the first place, and their teams are happy to be rid of them. I'm having trouble thinking of a single example in my lifetime that didn't stick to this formula (bearing in mind that the QBs had little say in the matter prior to the early 90's).

 

To your first comment, sure the premier salary impacts the salary cap, but so what? You get what you pay for. You are probably thinking of the common theme that "Brady hasn't won since he signed a big contract", but Manning has, and both have been "right there" every blessed year that they've been healthy. Same for Brees and Rodgers (although their contracts haven't been huge until more recently). There isn't a team in the league that wouldn't take on that "burden" in a nano-second because an elite QB gives you the best chance to be successful. Now if you are paying a lesser QB like an elite QB you might have a problem, which is why the Giants weren't looking so great when Eli took a step back, and it will be fascinating to see if the Ravens are "right" about Flacco. What both of those QBs have in common is that they won the Super Bowl despite not being at the level of Manning, Brady, Rodgers or Brees. Their teams took a gamble and it remains to be seen if they were correct. 

 

You are in a way posing a conundrum or contradiction without realizing it. You want the Colts to win NOW before Luck's rookie contract expires, which suggests that you want to take advantage of an elite QB while he is being paid cheaply. The problem with that is that Luck isn't remotely an elite QB at this point. Everyone is assuming that he will become one, but all we know at this point is that he was remarkably mature for a rookie - which goes hand in hand with the oft repeated comments last year that "he is perhaps the most NFL ready QB prospect ever". That was terrific for the Colts last year - and he can obviously win some ballgames even at this stage - but if he never gets any better the rose is going fade pretty darn quickly. So in your scenario the Colts should RUSH like mad and sacrifice the future to win NOW, which (in the INCREDIBLY unlikely event that they succeed) will put them in a similar situation as the Ravens - paying elite money to a QB that you are still scratching your head about, while slipping back into rebuilding mode at the "wrong" stage of a QBs career. That's not how you develop a team for long term success in my opinion. THE single most important thing for the Colts is that Luck develops into an elite QB. I have absolutely no idea why people are so impatient. People think that "we have the next Manning" without stopping to realize that Peyton was NOT the same QB in 98 though 2002 that he was afterwards. He started winning MVPs because he deserved them. Before that point he didn't. He improved, each and every year. We can only hope that Luck does the same. If he does, who the heck cares what he eventually gets paid. If he doesn't, we'll have much bigger problems to worry about than the salary cap.