Possible Trade

[ColtsBleedBlue]

I'm not sure what category this falls under. If this is the wrong category, I'm sorry.

Anyways, we (the Colts) have a very deep defensive line. I feel like if many of our defensive lineman stand out, one should get traded in our to acquire talent at other needed positions. Frank Gore is getting older and older each day. Our pass rush is still lacking talent. I am suggesting that we trade one of the defensive lineman that stand out for a top pick in the 2017 NFL Draft. I think we should try our hardest to get Leonard Fournette or Myles Garnett. I think either one of them would fit perfectly with us. Just a suggestion.

What do you guys think?

[21isSuperman]

As it stands now, Garrett and Fournette are both top-10, possibly even top-5, talents.  We don't have a DL on our team that would get us a top-5 pick in return.  The only way we could get a top-5 pick for a DL on our team is if one of them turns into JJ Watt, but if that happens, why trade him? 

[OffensivelyPC]

Deep defensive line?  I beg to differ.  Langford and Anderson are good players but not great.  David Parry is ok, but we could stand to improve the position.  We don't know what we're getting with Ridgeway, yet.  Everyone else would bring next to nothing in a trade.  Trading anyone named in this post would make the DL susceptible to games like the 2014 NE playoff game.

[AZColt11]

To do a trade you need at least one other partner and I just don't see anyone else wanting what we have so bad to do a trade, at least not right now.

[Jason_]

no, and for the same reason we shouldn't have traded any WRs last year when people were proposing that we should because of how "deep" the WR corp was at the time.

[jskinnz]

42 minutes ago, ColtsBleedBlue said:

I'm not sure what category this falls under. If this is the wrong category, I'm sorry.

Anyways, we (the Colts) have a very deep defensive line. I feel like if many of our defensive lineman stand out, one should get traded in our to acquire talent at other needed positions. Frank Gore is getting older and older each day. Our pass rush is still lacking talent. I am suggesting that we trade one of the defensive lineman that stand out for a top pick in the 2017 NFL Draft. I think we should try our hardest to get Leonard Fournette or Myles Garnett. I think either one of them would fit perfectly with us. Just a suggestion.

What do you guys think?

 

I am sorry but this is a really uninformed idea.  You honestly believe an NFL team will be willing to part with a high pick in order to fetch an Indianapolis Colt defensive line cast off?

[Colts_Fan12]

Dream on bud we don't have more Wilkerson or Watt on our line 

[richard pallo]

I don't think we have a deep defensive line at all for all the reasons mentioned before this post.  Jones is also not a sure thing to recover from his injury.  If anything I would rather trade a high pick in next years draft for Wilkerson and solidify the DL for many years to come.

[Ollonesomeme]

Kudos to all who responded to this poster with such patience but explaining the realities of the NFL.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

2 minutes ago, Ollonesomeme said:

Kudos to all who responded to this poster with such patience but explaining the realities of the NFL.

Well that's what we are here for.

[Iancolts]

Any of our dline men can only at best I mean at the very very best fetch us a 5th round pick.  

[Valpo2004]

The most valuable player in terms of trades on our D-line is Anderson or Parry.  That's because they are young, showed he can play well, and has 3 more years of super cheap play on his rookie contract.  But Anderson is also coming off an injury.

 

At best one of them might fetch a 2nd round pick but I doubt we could get that.  More realistic is a 4th round pick.  

 

Langford and Jones are just paid too highly to fetch much more then a 6th rounder for Langford.  Jones can not be traded.  He's got a big contract and hasn't done well the last 2 seasons and ended up on IR.  He's perhaps a season away from being cut as it is.

 

So no one is going to trade us a high 1st rounder for any of those guys.  Quite honestly the only player on our team that could fetch that price is Andrew Luck.  

 

Teams don't just give away high first round picks.  

 

Also at this point we have no idea who's going to be picking high in the first round next year. 

[Jason_]

22 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

The most valuable player in terms of trades on our D-line is Anderson or Parry.  That's because they are young, showed he can play well, and has 3 more years of super cheap play on his rookie contract.  But Anderson is also coming off an injury.

 

At best one of them might fetch a 2nd round pick but I doubt we could get that.  More realistic is a 4th round pick.  

 

Langford and Jones are just paid too highly to fetch much more then a 6th rounder for Langford.  Jones can not be traded.  He's got a big contract and hasn't done well the last 2 seasons and ended up on IR.  He's perhaps a season away from being cut as it is.

 

So no one is going to trade us a high 1st rounder for any of those guys.  Quite honestly the only player on our team that could fetch that price is Andrew Luck.  

 

Teams don't just give away high first round picks.  

 

Also at this point we have no idea who's going to be picking high in the first round next year. 

 

 

One thing I disagree with is any notion that Langford is paid too highly for anything.  He's been a bargain at the price he signed for.  Next season he'll only be making $1.3 mil more than Ricky Jean-Francois but Langford gave us 7 sacks last year.  

 

I love how bent out of shape so many people were last year when Langford was signed over guys like Knighton, Fairley and Suh (the 3 forum favorites) and Grigson was blasted for signing him instead of one of those 3 guys...yet he had more sacks than any of them and absolutely had a much better year than either Knighton or Fairley, both of whom changed teams again this past off-season.

[Smonroe]

The OP is right about one thing.  D Line may be our deepest and strongest position.

 

But I doubt we'd get more than a 5th round pick for any of them.  If that.

[UKColt13]

In reality our line has a lot of decent players on it, but no stars, yet anyway. To get a first round pick in th modern NFL you need to be trading a star, like a Von Miller or a Mo Wilkerson style star. 

 

In my mind, even if we traded Langford or Anderson we'd only be looking at a 4th if we're lucky. 

 

I think there are only maybe 3 players on the team that would command a 1st pick in a trade. Luck, Hilton & Vontae. And I really want to keep all of them. 

 

Whilst I agree that getting a good 1st round pick in a trade would be great, I don't want to give up what it would cost.

[jskinnz]

15 hours ago, Jason_S said:

 

 

One thing I disagree with is any notion that Langford is paid too highly for anything.  He's been a bargain at the price he signed for.  Next season he'll only be making $1.3 mil more than Ricky Jean-Francois but Langford gave us 7 sacks last year.  

 

I love how bent out of shape so many people were last year when Langford was signed over guys like Knighton, Fairley and Suh (the 3 forum favorites) and Grigson was blasted for signing him instead of one of those 3 guys...yet he had more sacks than any of them and absolutely had a much better year than either Knighton or Fairley, both of whom changed teams again this past off-season.

 

For the life of me, I will never understand why people complain about the money that a player is being paid.  It ain't their money so why worry about it?  First off, people simply do not know what is value and what isn't.  But most of all, at some point it just becomes about the guys making plays.  If a player helps them win a game, who cares if they are making big coin or minimum wage?

[Valpo2004]

16 hours ago, Jason_S said:

 

 

One thing I disagree with is any notion that Langford is paid too highly for anything.  He's been a bargain at the price he signed for.  Next season he'll only be making $1.3 mil more than Ricky Jean-Francois but Langford gave us 7 sacks last year.  

 

I love how bent out of shape so many people were last year when Langford was signed over guys like Knighton, Fairley and Suh (the 3 forum favorites) and Grigson was blasted for signing him instead of one of those 3 guys...yet he had more sacks than any of them and absolutely had a much better year than either Knighton or Fairley, both of whom changed teams again this past off-season.

 

He's not paid too highly for his production. . . He's paid too highly to fetch a high draft pick.  Big difference.

 

Also Langford is 30.  

 

In terms of trade value I would say these are the Colts top 5 players.  Again this isn't a measure of how good they are, but trade value which takes into account their contract, their age, their ability and their injury history.  One has to remember that the contract is a HUGE part of the value.  I'm not counting rookies for obvious reasons.

 

1. Andrew Luck - Could easily fetch several 1st rounders just cause he's a good QB.  Is worth this mostly due to being a QB who has shown good play.  But also because he's young and has a limited injury history.  (Both of his injuries in 2015 are unlikely to cause any long term issues.)

 

2. Jack Mewhort - Still young, shown to be productive, and 2 years left on cheap contract, no injury history.  Probably still get a 2nd for him.  Maybe a late first. 

 

3. Donte Moncrief - Doesn't have the 2 years of solid production of Mewhort, but has 1 year.  No injury history and young.  Probably worth a 3rd or 4th. 

 

4. Henry Anderson - Probably worth a 4th.  If he had kept his good play up and played the entire season un-injured then could have easily been worth a 2nd.  3 years on rookie contract

 

5. David Parry - Probably also worth a 4th.  Isn't as good as Anderson was but had his moments, young and uninjured.  3 years on rookie contract.

[Valpo2004]

1 hour ago, jskinnz said:

 

For the life of me, I will never understand why people complain about the money that a player is being paid.  It ain't their money so why worry about it?  First off, people simply do not know what is value and what isn't.  But most of all, at some point it just becomes about the guys making plays.  If a player helps them win a game, who cares if they are making big coin or minimum wage?

 

I said this in my last post but I just want to clarify.  

 

Langford's production is living up to his current contract and probably slightly exceeding it.  I'm in no way complaining about his contract at all. . . it's a good contract for us.

 

However when I'm looking at trade value, his production is not so off the charts more then his contract to make him worth a high pick.  Also Langford is 30 years old.  

 

He's basically a good starter player on a medium sized vet contract who's now 30.  There is some trade value in that, but not a lot.  NFL teams don't throw out first round picks for that.  

 

Also I want to point out that people might complain about their contract simply because they recognize that salary cap is a limited resource for every team and they would like to see that cap space used as effectively as it can possibly be.  

[Jason_]

17 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

He's not paid too highly for his production. . . He's paid too highly to fetch a high draft pick.  Big difference.

 

Also Langford is 30.  

 

Fair enough.

 

To the first sentence, I disagree but it's not really that big of a deal.  I think there are a lot of teams that would love to have a $4.3 mil interior defensive linemen that can produce 7 sacks in a season.  

 

As for the age though, with that I definitely agree.  Age would definitely prohibit Langford from fetching a high draft pick.  I just don't think his salary has anything to do with it.  In fact I would counter and say that his salary would actually make him very tradeable based on his 2015 production.

[Valpo2004]

3 hours ago, UKColt13 said:

In reality our line has a lot of decent players on it, but no stars, yet anyway. To get a first round pick in th modern NFL you need to be trading a star, like a Von Miller or a Mo Wilkerson style star. 

 

In my mind, even if we traded Langford or Anderson we'd only be looking at a 4th if we're lucky. 

 

I think there are only maybe 3 players on the team that would command a 1st pick in a trade. Luck, Hilton & Vontae. And I really want to keep all of them. 

 

Whilst I agree that getting a good 1st round pick in a trade would be great, I don't want to give up what it would cost.

 

Vontae isn't worth a first round pick on his current contract.  The compensation is too high.  

 

Also age is a factor with Vontae.  When we put down a 2nd for Vontae it was a great trade for us.  But he was 4 years younger and had 2 years on a cheap contract left.  Now he's off that cheap contract and on an expensive contract, 4 years older (28), and on a fairly expensive contract.  Also he had a down year last year.  I'd say you could get a 4th for him, maybe a 3rd.

 

You could maybe get a 1st for Hilton but I would say a 2nd is a safer bet.  He's 26 and has a lot of production.  All huge pluses for him.  But he's also the 7th highest paid receiver in the NFL.  A team would have to be willing to part with a high pick and give up some serious cap space to have him. 

[Valpo2004]

42 minutes ago, Jason_S said:

 

Fair enough.

 

To the first sentence, I disagree but it's not really that big of a deal.  I think there are a lot of teams that would love to have a $4.3 mil interior defensive linemen that can produce 7 sacks in a season.  

 

As for the age though, with that I definitely agree.  Age would definitely prohibit Langford from fetching a high draft pick.  I just don't think his salary has anything to do with it.  In fact I would counter and say that his salary would actually make him very tradeable based on his 2015 production.

 

Maybe . . . but he's only shown to my knowledge one year of that production after several years in the NFL.  I think any team is going to be weary of that and believe that he might regress to the mean the year after.  Or they might think it might be a system thing considering it happened right after he changed teams.

 

But I would agree the biggest thing holding him back in terms of trade value would be his age.  If you are trading for Langford you are trading for a short term player, someone to fill a spot for a few years.  You arn't getting a 10 year starter.  

 

 

[Jason_]

Just now, Valpo2004 said:

 

Maybe . . . but he's only shown to my knowledge one year of that production after several years in the NFL.  I think any team is going to be weary of that and believe that he might regress to the mean the year after.  Or they might think it might be a system thing considering it happened right after he changed teams.

 

 

Definitely agree with this.  That's why I snuck in the qualifier at the end of my last post..." based on his 2015 production " lol

[UKColt13]

28 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

Vontae isn't worth a first round pick on his current contract.  The compensation is too high.  

 

Also age is a factor with Vontae.  When we put down a 2nd for Vontae it was a great trade for us.  But he was 4 years younger and had 2 years on a cheap contract left.  Now he's off that cheap contract and on an expensive contract, 4 years older (28), and on a fairly expensive contract.  Also he had a down year last year.  I'd say you could get a 4th for him, maybe a 3rd.

 

You could maybe get a 1st for Hilton but I would say a 2nd is a safer bet.  He's 26 and has a lot of production.  All huge pluses for him.  But he's also the 7th highest paid receiver in the NFL.  A team would have to be willing to part with a high pick and give up some serious cap space to have him. 

 

If you analyse it like that maybe not. But a lot of people just see top 5 man cover corner under 30 with 3 years left on a big but affordable contract. His market value is a 1st imo. 

 

As for Hilton he is a top 10 receiver with a lot of room to grow. Productive, still young, a contract that is again expensive but affordable for a team in rebuild mode. I think Minnesota or Cleveland would be more than happy with him in exchange for a first.

[Valpo2004]

4 hours ago, UKColt13 said:

 

If you analyse it like that maybe not. But a lot of people just see top 5 man cover corner under 30 with 3 years left on a big but affordable contract. His market value is a 1st imo. 

 

As for Hilton he is a top 10 receiver with a lot of room to grow. Productive, still young, a contract that is again expensive but affordable for a team in rebuild mode. I think Minnesota or Cleveland would be more than happy with him in exchange for a first.

 

A team doing a trade would analyse every angle.  It's not just about how good they are, it's how much cap space they eat up, how old they are, injury history, everything.  

 

People often overestimate the trade value on a lot of players just because they are really good players.  

 

But most players arn't worth first round picks in a trade.  The ones that are worth first round picks are young players who have already been highly productive with 2 or 3 years left on their rookie contracts, and vets with game changing ability or quarterbacks who have shown they can be above average starters. 

 

A JJ Watt might be worth a 1st rounder because both have shown the ability to be a game changer. 

 

An Andrew Luck is worth a first rounder (multiple) because he has shown he can be an above average starting QB.  (Because having a talented QB is so important to success.)

 

But most players don't trade for that much, because in order to trade for that much you have to almost immediately convince teams in the NFL that you are a really good player in your rookie season or 2nd season.  Or you have to be so good that you would be called a "game changer" in that your presence on the field makes everyone around you better and that even teams that scheme to shut you down still can't manage to shut you down.  You would also have to in doing all that have your current team be willing to trade you.

[rock8591]

21 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:

The most valuable player in terms of trades on our D-line is Anderson or Parry.  That's because they are young, showed he can play well, and has 3 more years of super cheap play on his rookie contract.  But Anderson is also coming off an injury.

 

At best one of them might fetch a 2nd round pick but I doubt we could get that.  More realistic is a 4th round pick.  

 

Langford and Jones are just paid too highly to fetch much more then a 6th rounder for Langford.  Jones can not be traded.  He's got a big contract and hasn't done well the last 2 seasons and ended up on IR.  He's perhaps a season away from being cut as it is.

 

So no one is going to trade us a high 1st rounder for any of those guys.  Quite honestly the only player on our team that could fetch that price is Andrew Luck.  

 

Teams don't just give away high first round picks.  

 

Also at this point we have no idea who's going to be picking high in the first round next year. 

 

LOL. Langford was a huge bargain. $4,250,000 cap hit, $750,000 guaranteed. Age 30, but holds the all-time NFL record for games played without missing a game for injury. Led the team in sacks (7 sacks for a 3-4 DE is very solid).

 

If he was a FA this year, could easily get $5+ million, at least 50% of it guaranteed instead of $750,000.

[Gavin]

Our best bet in a trade scenario is one of our no name undrafted rookies has a big preseason and we are able to trade him for a conditional pick

[Gavin]

Our best bet in a trade scenario is one of our no name undrafted rookies has a big preseason and we are able to trade him for a conditional pick....Just like we were able to do with Cesar Rayford when we traded him to Dallas

[chad72]

Along these lines, before you all react, let us think about this. I will try my best to explain.

 

He is our best pass rusher but way on the wrong side of 30, he is 35 and going on 36. Before he falls off in productivity, and since we need a serious infusion of youth at that pass rushing position, with a very good pass rushing class coming up, why not trade Robert Mathis once he showcases a few very good games?

 

Yes, it would weaken an already weak pass rush but do we all think Mathis will hold the fort single-handedly? I think not. Will having no pass rusher to double make or break our pass rush? I think not. Will we have to come up with ways to manufacture pass rush even with Mathis in the line up? I think yes.

 

That would be more like a Belichick move, cold, but there may be some merit to cashing in when we can on Mathis if what we get back is a good deal. His contract is lucrative for other teams, he is an unrestricted free agent after this year, and might be our best chance to get a 2nd rounder or a 3rd rounder at worst for us to stockpile young pass rushers.

[Gavin]

10 minutes ago, chad72 said:

Along these lines, before you all react, let us think about this. I will try my best to explain.

 

He is our best pass rusher but way on the wrong side of 30, he is 35 and going on 36. Before he falls off in productivity, and since we need a serious infusion of youth at that pass rushing position, with a very good pass rushing class coming up, why not trade Robert Mathis once he showcases a few very good games?

 

Yes, it would weaken an already weak pass rush but do we all think Mathis will hold the fort single-handedly? I think not. Will having no pass rusher to double make or break our pass rush? I think not. Will we have to come up with ways to manufacture pass rush even with Mathis in the line up? I think yes.

 

That would be more like a Belichick move, cold, but there may be some merit to cashing in when we can on Mathis if what we get back is a good deal. His contract is lucrative for other teams, he is an unrestricted free agent after this year, and might be our best chance to get a 2nd rounder or a 3rd rounder at worst for us to stockpile young pass rushers.

This is along the lines of something we should/could do if we had a Jerry Hughes on the roster. A player with a lot of potential that just needs a shot to develop.....We don't really have that behind Mathis

[chad72]

11 minutes ago, Gavin said:

This is along the lines of something we should/could do if we had a Jerry Hughes on the roster. A player with a lot of potential that just needs a shot to develop.....We don't really have that behind Mathis

 

Dallas didn't have much behind DeMarcus Ware, they let him go with not much to show for, they knew they had to get younger, I don't want the Colts to get to that point where Mathis' productivity falls off and we let him go, get nothing via a comp. pick or a trade pick. Since then, the Cowboys have been trying to draft the young ones. The right team like the Broncos that had that young pass rusher in Von Miller signed Ware to play him in limited situations, worked out good for them. A compensatory pick is not something to hedge our bets on. In fact, if you have that young pass rusher waiting in the wings, it is a greater reason to retain Mathis than let him go, IMO, for mentoring reasons and play Mathis in a limited fashion like Ware.

 

I am sure an NFC team with a young pass rusher sitting around could give us more than what we may/may not get through a comp. pick, hence it is worth exploring, IMO. Of course, this is all under the assumption that the productivity drop off with Mathis will happen sooner than later.

[ColtsBleedBlue]

Perhaps I should have been more detailed. I meant like trading (depending on where we pick in the 2017 draft) our 1st and like a 3rd or 4th. But it was just an idea. Something for people to talk about. Slowly waiting on football season to start.

[Jason_]

15 hours ago, chad72 said:

 

I am sure an NFC team with a young pass rusher sitting around could give us more than what we may/may not get through a comp. pick, hence it is worth exploring, IMO. Of course, this is all under the assumption that the productivity drop off with Mathis will happen sooner than later.

 

I could very well be wrong about this, but I don't think we'd have a chance at a comp. pick for Mathis anyway due to his age.  I am pretty sure, but again not positive, that once a player reaches a certain age, or perhaps so many years in the league, that they're no longer considered in the comp. pick formula.  

[SteelDragon]

I would rather do this trade in reverse- trade a future draft pick for someone else's good defensive lineman.  We're going to have players go down and we don't know what we have in oft-injured Art Jones .  If I recall correctly, there was a drop off in the run defense after Anderson went down too. Depth at the position can dwindle quickly. 

 

 

 

[Gavin]

On ‎6‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 9:26 AM, Jason_S said:

 

Definitely agree with this.  That's why I snuck in the qualifier at the end of my last post..." based on his 2015 production " lol

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2016/4/26/11511098/nfl-draft-compensatory-picks-explained-patriots-ravens-packers

 

 

This covers most of it