Pre-draft trades of Bruce & Kam even a slight possibility?

CamanoIslandJQ

New member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
1,531
Reaction score
0
Location
Camano Island, WA
I'll start by saying, I'm bored for a few more days so my mind keeps coming up with all kinds of off the wall stuff. I have a feeling that my thoughts below may actually have a slight chance of going down come draft day with trades of current Seahawks players. IMO- The Seahawks frequently make a big splash “TRADE” prior to (or during) the draft. I see no reason that this draft will be any different. In my mind, the two highest possibilities to facilitate a trade involve trading Bruce Irvin and/or Kam Chancellor, or more likely than not, BOTH. I like them both, but their time is probably over.

Potential trade partners and their draft capital (per draftsite.com), Note: these teams are coached by former Seahawks defensive coaches that know the players very well and could use a pass rusher and/or enforcer type strong safety.
Oakland.............1/14, 2/44, 3/75, 4/115, 5/143, 5/154, 6/197, 7/232.
Jacksonville.......1/5, 2/38, 3/69, 4/104, 5/146, 6/184, 6/204, 7/224.
Atlanta...............1/17, 2/50, 3/81, 4/116, 6/208, 7/236.

----Irvin: On his lame duck season, Trade would require Irvin getting a new contract with his new team and the complications with same. Irvin has previously indicated a desire to go back to Atlanta to be closer to home. If the Seahawks had hopes for a 3-rd round comp pick next year, why not get it a year earlier and move on?

IMO-his value would return 3/75 from Oakland or 3/69 from Jacksonville or 3/81 from Atlanta and I feel those to be fair, conservative and realistic returns. I believe Atlanta is the most probable, but Oakland has our old LB coach, lots of picks and cap $, so I wouldn't count them out.

----Chancellor: I don't think Kam is going to be around next year. The fact that trade speculation hasn't started much yet fits the annual JS/PC splash with nobody having a clue - prior to their annual big deal(s).

IMO-Atlanta won't be able to go after both Kam and Irvin, mostly due to their limited draft capital, even though they could probably use both. The primary trade partner is probably Jacksonville, I think JS could rob them for their 2/38 & 5/146. If Oakland wanted KAM, I'd expect JS to get back their 2/44 & 5/143, and I feel those to be fair, conservative and realistic returns. The 5th round pick is something JS would probably demand because the Seahawks have a big gap between their 4/125 and 5/172 picks (that the 5-th rounder would fit in the middle of) & he doesn't like to sit idle that long. I suppose the trade could go down without those 5-th's if necessary to make the deal sweater for their side.

Summary: If the Seahawks trade Bruce and/or Kam what do they get and who can they draft with those additional picks? Having 6 PICKS IN THE TOP 98 - would allow for a lot of manipulation in the draft and could realistically provide for a couple of additional starters or at least key backups.

Additional Seahawks Picks:
2/38 & 5/146 --or-- 2/44 & 5/143 …........For Kam.
3/69 --or-- 3/75, --or-- if above occurs then most likely 3/81 ….........For Bruce.

Potential replacements in the draft for Kam: (xx) = current rank @ cbssports.com
SS-Jeremy Cash(54), SS-Miles Killebrew(80) are IMO the only really viable possibilities, I like them both as good fits.

Potential replacements for Irvin: OLB-Kyler Fackrell(70), OLB-Deion Jones(84), OLB-Jordan Jenkins(94), OLB-Kameli Correa(107), AND/OR: DE-Carl Nassib(68), DE-Bronson Kaufusi(79), DE-Shawn Oakman(92).

Even if it takes both a DE/edge guy and an OLB to replace Bruce, any additional pass rushers are a HUGE positive-IMO. (remember when Avril went down in the super bowl?). I think an early 2-nd and a 5-th is pretty darn good compensation for Kam and for Bruce a 3-rd is not too bad considering that's the maximum he would fetch as a comp pick next year & his cap reduction helps. A change of teams would probably be good for both Kam & Bruce.

Am I way, way, way off base here (as I pop another beer) or what?
 

Jazzhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Messages
10,237
Reaction score
72
Can't trade Bruce, he's a free agent.

As for Kam, I don't see it. I think the team still wants him. The deal he has remains friendly for us, and unless the team sees the relationship and Kam's talents declining so much as to need to ship him off, there is just no reason to trade him. We won't get any real value back for him.
 

Fade

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Messages
5,454
Reaction score
2,988
Location
Truth Ray
Bruce is UFA bruh.

Kam..... maybe.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/Kam_Chancellor/status/700073775971176451[/tweet]
 

vin.couve12

New member
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
5,079
Reaction score
1
Location
Vancouver, WA
Fade":s14cetho said:
Bruce is UFA bruh.

Kam..... maybe.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/Kam_Chancellor/status/700073775971176451[/tweet]
I'm assuming you read the whole thing since it's just a click away. :stirthepot:

The context of that is about the women's boot camp.

Cbx5zJHXIAAU2Bt
 

themunn

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2012
Messages
3,948
Reaction score
466
Fade":3j51u977 said:
Bruce is UFA bruh.

Kam..... maybe.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/Kam_Chancellor/status/700073775971176451[/tweet]

Jeez, how many times did we decide Wagner and Wilson weren't signing their contracts last year because their tweets told us so? These are my two favourites.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Bwagz54/status/627131532503691265[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/DangeRussWilson/status/594597035149398016[/tweet]

The Wagner one in particular, given he signed an extensions TWO DAYS later
 

HawkGA

New member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
107,412
Reaction score
1
Jazzhawk":yykz41um said:
Can't trade Bruce, he's a free agent.

Not so fast. I wouldn't be surprised if we could get Cleveland to trade for him. They're enough of a train wreck of an organization, they probably wouldn't even notice!

I bet they could even throw in Byron Maxwell to sweeten the deal.
 

pehawk

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
1,738
Kam for Mingo would make me happy. I want Mingo at SS...
 

firebee

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
1,679
Reaction score
0
Location
Florence, Oregon
SMDH... We're not trading Kam and we can't trade Bruce. I'm really not expecting any big trades this year, as we really don't have anything to trade.
 

Erebus

Active member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
1,588
Reaction score
5
Location
San Antonio, TX
It is possible to trade Bruce, but very unlikely. It would require applying the franchise tag to him (the tag deadline is March 1st), but that would make him too expensive for teams to want him.

Count me in the camp that thinks the team still wants Kam.
 

Overseasfan

New member
Joined
May 13, 2015
Messages
1,167
Reaction score
0
Location
The Netherlands
I think it's very dangerous to lose both Irvin and Chancellor at the same time. It all has to do with our biggest weakness in the passing game, covering TEs. The SAM and SS positions are in charge of covering the TE (on the strong side, which the lone TE usually lines up and where the superior TE lines up most of the time in 2 TE packages). You could make a case for replacing them with players who excell at covering TEs to actually get rid of the weakness but it's more likely we'll end up with players who are worse at this and create a bigger hole on defense. I think it's too big of a gamble.
 

RiverDog

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
5,489
Reaction score
3,152
Location
Kennewick, WA
Yea, the OP is a little bit clumsy suggesting the possibility of an Irvin trade.

But trading Kam is an intriguing question. If another team came and approached us with the right offer, then I could see us trading Kam for something similar to what we gave up in the Graham trade. But I don't see a team making that kind of offer for a strong safety.
 

ImTheScientist

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2012
Messages
3,724
Reaction score
63
Maybe we can trade Alshon Jeffries for someone since we are trading Bruce Irvin. Both are free agents bruh.
 

vin.couve12

New member
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
5,079
Reaction score
1
Location
Vancouver, WA
Overseasfan":3u72xw93 said:
I think it's very dangerous to lose both Irvin and Chancellor at the same time. It all has to do with our biggest weakness in the passing game, covering TEs. The SAM and SS positions are in charge of covering the TE (on the strong side, which the lone TE usually lines up and where the superior TE lines up most of the time in 2 TE packages). You could make a case for replacing them with players who excell at covering TEs to actually get rid of the weakness but it's more likely we'll end up with players who are worse at this and create a bigger hole on defense. I think it's too big of a gamble.
The SLB and SS are not in charge of covering the TE. The Zone is, which we run most of the time. Cover 1 and man are things we don't do a whole lot of.
 

Hasselbeck

New member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
11,397
Reaction score
4
No one is trading for Bruce on a franchise tag salary, so you can rule that out.

Kam - I just don't see it unless he starts up the contract dispute again. The ripple effect it would have on the team chemistry far outweighs whatever pick we could get in return.. and I'm not so sure he didn't have a very average year in large part because of the hold out.
 
Top