Indy "to be players" in trade deadline

[crazycolt1]

28 minutes ago, Malakai432 said:

 

Pretty much.  It's like BREAKING NEWS:. Colts in contention for stud X, guaranteed, possibly, maybe, doubtful, not really!

When I was reading they were talking about a couple of O-linemen I pretty much discarded it as comments made by someone who must not be aware of Grigson just spending a half of draft on the O-line.

[Malakai432]

15 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

When I was reading they were talking about a couple of O-linemen I pretty much discarded it as comments made by someone who must not be aware of Grigson just spending a half of draft on the O-line.

 

Exactly!  I'm still kind of wondering if they may ever get some use out of Le'Raven Clark also?  Could be depth at least, I know people considered him more of a work in progress.  I don't mind this OL core at all because I also think they can get substantially better.  I don't really see Grigson pulling the trigger on anything major with regards to trade but what do I know.

[GoColtsGo5150]

For me, a couple of names that could be of interest are:

 

Joe Haden (CB Browns)- I've just seen recently that he (along with Joe Thomas) is someone who the Browns may trade at the trade deadline. Whilst injuries have cause him problems the past couple of seasons,if we were to trade for him (maybe something like a 3rd), then we would have a very solid secondary with: Davis, Haden (Robinson in the nickel), Adams, Geathers and TJ Green.

 

Marcus Smith (DE/OLB Eagles)- A player that many (myself included) wanted in the 2014 draft, Smith has been stuck behind the likes of Conor Barwin and Brandon Graham. However, he still has shown flashes of potential as a pass rusher such as with this. He would someone who may cost a day 3 pick and IMO someone worth considering for the time being (until the offseason.)

 

[BOTT]

If Cleveland truly has everyone available, I would call about Duke Johnson.

[coltsfansince65]

I see Joe Thomas & Joe Staley as on the wrong side of 30 imo. Now, if we're talking about Joe Thomas the ILB from Green Bay then................

[stitches]

Please let this NOT be true! PLEASE!!! I really don't want Grigson making any more long-term decisions for this team! PLEASE let this be a false rumor. Grigson's trading and drafting privilleges should be taken away, especially if he's not going to make it past this season.

[Jaric]

Dear God, someone stop Grigson before he fritters away all of the new GMs draft picks.

[IinD]

I'd think yesterday's loss squashed any trade discussions honestly. One or two guys aren't doing squat this year for us this year.

 

As for being sellers, I'd be all in as long as it isn't any of the few good players we have.

[Smoke317]

Would it be possible to trade AC for a Joe Thomas or Staley?  Would either the Browns or 49'ers do it as part of a youth movement?  Or is this totally unrealistic?

[AZColt11]

I hope we stand pat.  I am not sure I want this current GM to be making any more moves.  He is not a FA/trade genius by any means.

[krunk]

I haven't seen any more news about us doing anything.  Probably likely that we don't, but who knows.

[BullsColtsFan1]

Well the trade deadline is in 7-8 hours. I highly doubt the Colts "are going to be players" before the trade deadline. 

[OLD FAN MAN]

I say chop some more dead wood, players who are over paid and not producing trade them for picks, if no one wants them cut them. we need to use the rest of this season to prepare for next season, cut or trade all injury prone and old over paid players. play the rooks to see what they have, if they cant cut it cut them too. stockpile picks for the new gm,

[Catloaf]

Don't roll the dice on more players.  If anything, get more draft picks to rebuild the team from the ground up.  This team has talent holes to resemble swiss cheese (in reverse).

[Dark_Indy]

I would've given a 3rd for Jamie Collins, even going into a contract year. Browns got a steal.

[richard pallo]

I don't think we will be now.  But that said a lot can happen in a few hours.  I wouldn't be afraid to obtain an impact starter like Collins for a draft pick.  Those type of players have proven themselves big time.  And we could use an impact player or two or three. 

[indyagent17]

Wish I could get paid to make crazy speculations!

 

Jason Cole is just creating readers with controversy so I do not put any stock in what he says 

[csmopar]

45 min to go! guessing we make no moves, looks like tweeter got it wrong, again

[pgt_rob]

I don't think anything happens. You're season isn't saved right now anyway unless its potentially for a team without a QB or something.

[csmopar]

1 minute ago, pgt_rob said:

I don't think anything happens. You're season isn't saved right now anyway unless its potentially for a team without a QB or something.

i  never did, just mocking some people lol

[Superman]

5 hours ago, Dark_Indy said:

I would've given a 3rd for Jamie Collins, even going into a contract year. Browns got a steal.

 

I disagree. I wouldn't be eager to give a third rounder for 8 games of pretty much anyone. Yes, they can tag him, but that's pricey. 

[OffensivelyPC]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I disagree. I wouldn't be eager to give a third rounder for 8 games of pretty much anyone. Yes, they can tag him, but that's pricey. 

It's pricey, but depending on what they do in free agency, they have a pretty favorable salary cap situation.  And the 2017 FA class isn't looking to include a lot of big names.  the 2012 rookies on 5th year extensions will generally be expected to get a new deal.  Then there's the abysmal 2013 draft class who will be getting into free agency.  So they'll probably be able to take on a franchise tag for Collins without sweating it (they have to spend a certain amount anyway, don't they?).

[aaron11]

31 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I disagree. I wouldn't be eager to give a third rounder for 8 games of pretty much anyone. Yes, they can tag him, but that's pricey. 

i think it makes sense for the browns.  they have to get him signed though, but they have plenty of cap space, and collins seemed ok with being in Cleveland.  they are showing that they really want him, i think he ends up with a contract.  without this trade their odds of signing him go down

 

as for giving up a pick, well they have tons of those already and they usually dont draft very well.  they have two firsts, two seconds, and two thirds if you count that comp pick.  seems like a good time to trade some picks for proven vets

[BullsColtsFan1]

So does being players at the trade deadline mean doing nothing at all?  Because that's clearly what happened.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, OffensivelyPC said:

It's pricey, but depending on what they do in free agency, they have a pretty favorable salary cap situation.  And the 2017 FA class isn't looking to include a lot of big names.  the 2012 rookies on 5th year extensions will generally be expected to get a new deal.  Then there's the abysmal 2013 draft class who will be getting into free agency.  So they'll probably be able to take on a franchise tag for Collins without sweating it (they have to spend a certain amount anyway, don't they?).

 

What happens if you tag him and he's terrible? You just gave up a considerable pick, a big one year contract, and you don't have a building block like you expected. Those are the risks with any trade, but halfway through the season? If they had a fifth year option on him, I'd feel differently. 

[richard pallo]

8 minutes ago, BullsColtsFan1 said:

So does being players at the trade deadline mean doing nothing at all?  Because that's clearly what happened.

I think you are at more of a disadvantage at the trade deadline if you are trying to acquire a player.  The selling team is more apt to hold out to see how desperate you are.  When the season is over and everybody knows their draft position and priorities then more calculated moves can be made with a wider talent pool giving you a better chance to improve your team.  The Collins trade was a perfect situation for both teams.  

[Happy2BeHere]

25 minutes ago, BullsColtsFan1 said:

So does being players at the trade deadline mean doing nothing at all?  Because that's clearly what happened.

What the heck are you talking about? There was a TON of hot air traded.

[richard pallo]

The good news, if you want to call it that,  is reportedly the Jets tried hard to move Richardson and found no takers at their asking price.  It appears they will have to revisit that asking price when the season ends.  They clearly want to move him.  When the season ends it shifts from a sellers market at the trade deadline to a buyers market with a bigger talent pool available.  That is when most deals are made. 

[BullsColtsFan1]

22 minutes ago, Happy2BeHere said:

What the heck are you talking about? There was a TON of hot air traded.

Hot air but no washing machines?  I am pretty bummed about that!  The Flint Tropics once traded a washing machine for a starting point guard!

[Happy2BeHere]

Yea apparently the Jets reached out to the Cowboys but no deal was ever close to being made. No word (from any research and hits that I can find) as to what the Jets may have been seeking for Richardson.

 

wish the colts would have snagged him but IF the price was too high then glad we didn't do it at least

[Happy2BeHere]

37 minutes ago, BullsColtsFan1 said:

Hot air but no washing machines?  I am pretty bummed about that!  The Flint Tropics once traded a washing machine for a starting point guard!

No washing machine can fix our mess lol 

[OffensivelyPC]

42 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

What happens if you tag him and he's terrible? You just gave up a considerable pick, a big one year contract, and you don't have a building block like you expected. Those are the risks with any trade, but halfway through the season? If they had a fifth year option on him, I'd feel differently. 

To your first question, better hope the first 8 games is a good enough sample to determine whether the tag is worth it.  Risky, I agree, and I'm certainly not saying they should do it just to be sure they meet the salary cap minimum threshold.  But the option is there, despite the risks, and they have the cap room that it won't be a huge hindrance any more than the current state of teh roster, anyway.  Risk is there to draft the wrong guy with that 3rd round pick as well.  I've got no problem moving picks for guys you think will outplay the expected return of any given draft pick.  It's not moves that GMs should make frequently, but when one falls in your lap that you feel good about given the potential risks and reward, pull the trigger.  

 

I've said before, in my fantasy world as GM, i tend to be more aggressive with my risks, and I agreed wtih the Trent trade when I said that.  I've since learned that running backs, for as generally replaceable as they are, aren't usually worth first rounders, particularly when they've already been on someone else's team.  But I also praised the deal for Chanlder Jones, and that one so far has been a good deal.  A 3rd rounder for a strong side LB is not out of the question - particularly for one that has been good at the NFL level - if you are going to put him in a similar role.  Like I said, if you think he's your guy, pull the trigger, and worry about job security later.

[Superman]

18 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

To your first question, better hope the first 8 games is a good enough sample to determine whether the tag is worth it.  Risky, I agree, and I'm certainly not saying they should do it just to be sure they meet the salary cap minimum threshold.  But the option is there, despite the risks, and they have the cap room that it won't be a huge hindrance any more than the current state of teh roster, anyway.  Risk is there to draft the wrong guy with that 3rd round pick as well.  I've got no problem moving picks for guys you think will outplay the expected return of any given draft pick.  It's not moves that GMs should make frequently, but when one falls in your lap that you feel good about given the potential risks and reward, pull the trigger.  

 

I've said before, in my fantasy world as GM, i tend to be more aggressive with my risks, and I agreed wtih the Trent trade when I said that.  I've since learned that running backs, for as generally replaceable as they are, aren't usually worth first rounders, particularly when they've already been on someone else's team.  But I also praised the deal for Chanlder Jones, and that one so far has been a good deal.  A 3rd rounder for a strong side LB is not out of the question - particularly for one that has been good at the NFL level - if you are going to put him in a similar role.  Like I said, if you think he's your guy, pull the trigger, and worry about job security later.

 

Well thought out. It's too costly, IMO. 

 

I will say, as a mock GM, it's not about job security. It's about maximizing resources, which includes draft picks and cap space. Even though the Browns have a bunch of picks and a bunch of cap space, that doesn't mean it's okay to be loose with either of them. "It's okay if we blow this third rounder, we have two of them." "It's okay if we spend $15m on the tag for a player who doesn't prove to be worth it, we have $70m in cap space." Not really.

 

Not saying that's your approach, just, to my mind, resources have static value. Having more resources doesn't make them less valuable, just means you should be able to do more with them. 

 

I don't really like the Collins trade for either side. In the Pats case, they basically get their comp pick a year sooner, and it's guaranteed no matter what they decide to do in free agency. That's fine, but they gave up a really good player for a late third rounder, and that's a player who can actually help them win a SB this year. The Browns got an 8 game rental with a huge, guaranteed option in 2017. No one should expect anything great out of Collins in 2016, so that means they're likely committed to him in 2017. They're kind of flying blind. I get the motivation from both sides, I just don't think it was a great deal for either side, not for the Pats right now, and not for the Browns starting in 2017.

 

Maybe the Browns are already talking to Collins' people about an extension. That would be smart. 

[OffensivelyPC]

14 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Well thought out. It's too costly, IMO. 

 

I will say, as a mock GM, it's not about job security. It's about maximizing resources, which includes draft picks and cap space. Even though the Browns have a bunch of picks and a bunch of cap space, that doesn't mean it's okay to be loose with either of them. "It's okay if we blow this third rounder, we have two of them." "It's okay if we spend $15m on the tag for a player who doesn't prove to be worth it, we have $70m in cap space." Not really.

 

Not saying that's your approach, just, to my mind, resources have static value. Having more resources doesn't make them less valuable, just means you should be able to do more with them. 

 

I don't really like the Collins trade for either side. In the Pats case, they basically get their comp pick a year sooner, and it's guaranteed no matter what they decide to do in free agency. That's fine, but they gave up a really good player for a late third rounder, and that's a player who can actually help them win a SB this year. The Browns got an 8 game rental with a huge, guaranteed option in 2017. No one should expect anything great out of Collins in 2016, so that means they're likely committed to him in 2017. They're kind of flying blind. I get the motivation from both sides, I just don't think it was a great deal for either side, not for the Pats right now, and not for the Browns starting in 2017.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I don't even disagree with the way that you look at either trade or how you thinks that resources have a static value.   there is truth and everything you said. But I think the difference is that there is some room for risky moves for any GM and you wouldn't look at every deal in a vacuum. This one may make sense down the road it may not and it could blow up in her face of course. So it would be important for any GM who made this type of deal to consider the risk of that move in light of other potential moves so for instance they could trade down if it made sense in the 2017 draft and pick up another 3rd round pick or 4th round pick to recoup some of that value in what was traded for Collins.

 

There are risks inherent in any move whether you trade a pick away for a player that may not work or draft a player with that 3rd round pick, and part of maximizing the value as you say is to offset the risky moves by pulling from the value left in other resources and spread the risk over those moves.  at the end of the day the total of all your risks and the total of all your Rewards is reasonably balanced.

[aaron11]

On 10/31/2016 at 4:04 PM, stitches said:

 especially if he's not going to make it past this season.

i wouldnt bet on that.  if anyone goes it will be pagano

 

most likely both will come back for at least another year

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

There are risks inherent in any move whether you trade a pick away for a player that may not work or draft a player with that 3rd round pick, and part of maximizing the value as you say is to offset the risky moves by pulling from the value left in other resources and spread the risk over those moves.  at the end of the day the total of all your risks and the total of all your Rewards is reasonably balanced.

 

Agreed. Just saying, it's important to realize the difference between calculated risk and being reckless. Sometimes it seems like the sentiment is 'they have the cap space, they can afford to take that risk and if it doesn't work out, so what?' Or 'they have the picks, if it doesn't work out, it's okay, the draft is a crap shoot anyways.' 

 

The Browns have built their whole approach on calculating risk, so I'm sure they know what they're doing, and I'm sure they have a short and long term plan. I'm just not over the moon about the trade, even though Collins is a very good player.

[Happy2BeHere]

Yea count me in the club as RB's not worth a first round pick. If you look at the stats right now as of today the running backs in the NFL who are leading the league in rushing (top 10) there are only TWO who were taken in the 1st round of the draft. The rest of them the majority of them are taken in the 3rd and 4th. Sure I like Ezekiel I think the kid is running super well this year...but I think it's much more a product of his O-LINE than it is him. Put him on the Colts right now and his stats are easily cut by 1/4 to 1/3.

 

 

ON A SIDE NOTE: Frank Gore is just outside the top 10 in rushing and he currently sits at #11 for most rushing yards this season. Now that's impressive. He is also 18th in the league for yards per carry (for players with 50+ carries) which is pretty dang good as well IMO.

[Crunked]

Can you trade for an entire defense? One player is pointless when you are 10 away from contention.

[lollygagger8]

I'm guessing nobody was up for trading us a bologna sandwich for McNary? 

[OffensivelyPC]

15 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Agreed. Just saying, it's important to realize the difference between calculated risk and being reckless. Sometimes it seems like the sentiment is 'they have the cap space, they can afford to take that risk and if it doesn't work out, so what?' Or 'they have the picks, if it doesn't work out, it's okay, the draft is a crap shoot anyways.' 

 

The Browns have built their whole approach on calculating risk, so I'm sure they know what they're doing, and I'm sure they have a short and long term plan. I'm just not over the moon about the trade, even though Collins is a very good player.

I don't endorse doing something just because you have the resources or because there is a high reward and not consider the risks.  But at the same token, we all have opportunities at times in our lives where, despite the risk, the reward is appealing enough to take that risk.  The Browns felt a certain way about Collins, hopefully it works out for them.