Trading players to keep them off Division Rival rosters.

[QuahHawk]

The trade wouldnt be for a player we'd just cut. Id be for the guy who's just barely better than the guy we'd cut. Example... jerron johnson is better than winston guy, we wont cut JJ but very possible we will cut guy. So say we trade JJ for a late round pick and keep Guy who is still a solid backup but not as good as JJ.

Uh wut

There is not much value in a player we are intending to cut. However there is more value in a player who belongs on our 53 man roster. I used Jerron Johnson as an example. He is ahead of Winston Guy on our depth chart there is a 50/50 chance we cut Guy this year. I doubt he has much trade value. Jerron Johnson on the other hand might actually fetch us something in a trade. So if we traded Johnson away, w would not have to cut Guy but we'd only slightly downgrade our backup position.

The idea we are going to be able to trade our losers in position battles is not that reasonable. But if the battle was really close we could trade the better player for something and hope the #3 guy who we would have cut can hack it as a backup. Still Confused cacksman?

 

[Atradees]

I hear what you are saying but what is the value of a late round pick. Jerron is a good player.

 

[McGruff]

The trade wouldnt be for a player we'd just cut. Id be for the guy who's just barely better than the guy we'd cut. Example... jerron johnson is better than winston guy, we wont cut JJ but very possible we will cut guy. So say we trade JJ for a late round pick and keep Guy who is still a solid backup but not as good as JJ.

Uh wut

There is not much value in a player we are intending to cut. However there is more value in a player who belongs on our 53 man roster. I used Jerron Johnson as an example. He is ahead of Winston Guy on our depth chart there is a 50/50 chance we cut Guy this year. I doubt he has much trade value. Jerron Johnson on the other hand might actually fetch us something in a trade. So if we traded Johnson away, w would not have to cut Guy but we'd only slightly downgrade our backup position.

The idea we are going to be able to trade our losers in position battles is not that reasonable. But if the battle was really close we could trade the better player for something and hope the #3 guy who we would have cut can hack it as a backup. Still Confused cacksman?

JMO but the difference between our second stringers and third stringers is in most cases great enough to exceed the value of a 7th round pick. Johnson and Guy is a good example. I'd rather have Johnson than Guy and a future 7th.

 

[RichNhansom]

I'm not sure this is all that far fetched. We drafted Tharold Simon in the 5th round, same as Sherman and it is unlikely he doesn'y make the 53 or at least get some serious consideration but we are only going to keep so many CB's and Harper in the 4th with Williams and Kearse both looking like keepers and who knows who else, do we have enough spots for everyone?

I could easily see JS contacting other teams and offerring a trade for a player they are planning on releasing anyway even though we will just release them. It could direct a player away from a dvision rival in an area of weakness but also creates good relationships for future possible trades, espeacially if that layer ends up turning into something.

 

[Johnny]

Always a bummer to lose a talented guy to a division rival, but I feel the same as most in this thread do.. If he isn't good enough to make our final 53 then it's not a huge deal if he goes to a division rival.... I'm not worried about the 49ers picking up our castoffs, I'm more worried about the Rams & Cards picking these guys up and making them starters and then it might burn us in the future...

 

[QuahHawk]

There is not much value in a player we are intending to cut. However there is more value in a player who belongs on our 53 man roster. I used Jerron Johnson as an example. He is ahead of Winston Guy on our depth chart there is a 50/50 chance we cut Guy this year. I doubt he has much trade value. Jerron Johnson on the other hand might actually fetch us something in a trade. So if we traded Johnson away, w would not have to cut Guy but we'd only slightly downgrade our backup position.

The idea we are going to be able to trade our losers in position battles is not that reasonable. But if the battle was really close we could trade the better player for something and hope the #3 guy who we would have cut can hack it as a backup. Still Confused cacksman?

JMO but the difference between our second stringers and third stringers is in most cases great enough to exceed the value of a 7th round pick. Johnson and Guy is a good example. I'd rather have Johnson than Guy and a future 7th.[/quote]

Me neither, not a big fan of Guy but tried to use it as an example. Same could be said for Maxwell, WT3, and Lane. Turbin and Michael, and maybe Baldwin. In a championship season losing key depth for a future 6th or 7th could be the diffrence a SB and a one and done in the playoffs.

 

[gargantual]

I'm not sure this is all that far fetched. We drafted Tharold Simon in the 5th round, same as Sherman and it is unlikely he doesn'y make the 53 or at least get some serious consideration but we are only going to keep so many CB's and Harper in the 4th with Williams and Kearse both looking like keepers and who knows who else, do we have enough spots for everyone?

I could easily see JS contacting other teams and offerring a trade for a player they are planning on releasing anyway even though we will just release them. It could direct a player away from a dvision rival in an area of weakness but also creates good relationships for future possible trades, espeacially if that layer ends up turning into something.

This is the direction where I was thinking. It being the more important goal in my mind to keep them away from div rivals than getting value (that would BE the value). The concept of fostering future goodwill would be a nice cherry on top of it.

I'm sure this sort of thing is common from GMs and their staffs, with JS being more "vigorous" in his pursuit of such things. Homeristic on my part maybe, but all the end result he's shown stockpiling talent bears out such a bias.

 

[Jville]

I don't think John Scheider or Pete Carroll waste time on concerns outside of their control.

Closed paranoid cultures might worry about such things. But, the Seahawk program is an open culture committed to the development of everyone and the realization of personal success. Those committments are what they do have control over.

Besides, I sense a surplus of NFL prospects facing a shortage of opportunities ... including many languishing in organizations that fail to develop their talent.

 

[cacksman]

The trade wouldnt be for a player we'd just cut. Id be for the guy who's just barely better than the guy we'd cut. Example... jerron johnson is better than winston guy, we wont cut JJ but very possible we will cut guy. So say we trade JJ for a late round pick and keep Guy who is still a solid backup but not as good as JJ.

Uh wut

There is not much value in a player we are intending to cut. However there is more value in a player who belongs on our 53 man roster. I used Jerron Johnson as an example. He is ahead of Winston Guy on our depth chart there is a 50/50 chance we cut Guy this year. I doubt he has much trade value. Jerron Johnson on the other hand might actually fetch us something in a trade. So if we traded Johnson away, w would not have to cut Guy but we'd only slightly downgrade our backup position.

The idea we are going to be able to trade our losers in position battles is not that reasonable. But if the battle was really close we could trade the better player for something and hope the #3 guy who we would have cut can hack it as a backup. Still Confused cacksman?

Downgrading in any capacity, other than for cap reasons, doesn't make any sense. Especially if we're only getting a 7th rounder. We could get those in a throw in for trading down one spot in the draft.

And how would another team know who we are going to cut and who we will keep? "Well John, I have a strong feeling you like Johnson slightly more, so I want him instead." John replies with, "I'm not calling you about Johnson, would you like to give me a 7th for Guy, or watch me release him and get picked up by someone else?"

 

[gargantual]

I don't think John Scheider or Pete Carroll waste time on concerns outside of their control.

Closed paranoid cultures might worry about such things. But, the Seahawk program is an open culture committed to the development of everyone and the realization of personal success. Those committments are what they do have control over.

Besides, I sense a surplus of NFL prospects facing a shortage of opportunities ... including many languishing in organizations that fail to develop their talent.

I don't see it as paranoia rather than due diligence....ie chess moves. That's why I mentioned JS's staff. There aren't enough hours in the day for him to pursue every thing he's interested in accomplishing personally, hence him delegating tasks which he feels are worth putting time into.

Maybe just idle speculation to fill in the boring offseason. I realize it's very possible we're thinking about it more than they are...who knows?

I really like your final point (highlighted above). That's where PC&JS have culled much of our cheap talent after all.

 

[Jville]

I don't think John Scheider or Pete Carroll waste time on concerns outside of their control.

Closed paranoid cultures might worry about such things. But, the Seahawk program is an open culture committed to the development of everyone and the realization of personal success. Those committments are what they do have control over.

Besides, I sense a surplus of NFL prospects facing a shortage of opportunities ... including many languishing in organizations that fail to develop their talent.

I don't see it as paranoia rather than due diligence....ie chess moves. That's why I mentioned JS's staff. There aren't enough hours in the day for him to pursue every thing he's interested in accomplishing personally, hence him delegating tasks which he feels are worth putting time into.

Maybe just idle speculation to fill in the boring offseason. I realize it's very possible we're thinking about it more than they are...who knows?

I really like your final point (highlighted above). That's where PC&JS have culled much of our cheap talent after all.

I can certainly appreciate that some organizations spend time with the concerns you mentioned. I just don't see much evidence of it from the Seahawks.

I think Seattle spends more time on other more productive pursuits. They refuse to stand still with this team. They constantly look for new player personal wrinkles that alter the make up of the team. Opponents are forced to deal with constantly evolving matchup challenges. I see these changes emerging in this year's defensive line. I see it developing in the offensive line. If you like chess moves, new wrinkles is where I suggest it lives.

 

[gargantual]

Yeah, it's starting to look like one of our weaknesses might be developing into a strength (O-line).

Let's hope so. Seeing Russell scramble for his life is something I wanted fixed after last year.

 

[WestcoastSteve]

Why would anybody make a trade when they know they can just wait for the mandatory cut days? This is just something all stacked teams deal with on a yearly basis. Either way if they can't make OUR 53 then it's useless to worry about it.

I've thought about that and realize that's probably the most likely way for it to end up, but maybe our ties with former coaches (Gus Bradley comes immediately to mind) might entice teams into dealing for someone that's a known commodity and gives them the jump on all the other teams (they don't have to wait and see if the guy gets snapped up by someone else first).

Didn't the Jags have the 2nd pick and are therefore 2nd in waiver priority? Again not an issue.

 

[chris98251]

Given the amount of WR's that are falling left in right due to injuries all over I could see some interest in our guys if they show well, teams stocked by loing a player that could make a difference would be willing to trade a decent pick( not a 7th) for someone that can step in and play. Stephen Williams comes to mind, same at CB, Thurmond comes to mind, Line Backers as well and then we have D -Line and O Line. RB if Ware and Coleman continue to show something.

These guys have value in week 3 of pre season as teams see the shake down from ability and injuries. Teams may wait and see who's cut, but if your say the Patriots or the Giants and you need something now to keep pace you make a trade. Just throwing contenders out there not really saying they are in desperate need yet.

 

[Basis4day]

Why would anybody make a trade when they know they can just wait for the mandatory cut days? This is just something all stacked teams deal with on a yearly basis. Either way if they can't make OUR 53 then it's useless to worry about it.

I've thought about that and realize that's probably the most likely way for it to end up, but maybe our ties with former coaches (Gus Bradley comes immediately to mind) might entice teams into dealing for someone that's a known commodity and gives them the jump on all the other teams (they don't have to wait and see if the guy gets snapped up by someone else first).

Didn't the Jags have the 2nd pick and are therefore 2nd in waiver priority? Again not an issue.

Yeah, and the Niners are 2nd to last for the same reason.

 

[themunn]

Like I said before, PC/JS won't be worried if guys who would be 3rd string on our rosters go to contribute for other teams, it just means their starters still aren't good enough to start for our team.

Maybe we cut Deshawn Shead or Will Blackmon in favour of Sherman, Browner, Winfield, Lane, Maxwell and Thurmond. Then you think "oh no, San Francisco picked up a player who at best was our 7th best cornerback".
Then you realise, actually maybe it doesn't matter so much

 

[Hawks46]

I think this topic is over rated. Pretty much its going to be the weak teams who feast off of stacked teams like the Seahawks and 49ers. I personally wouldn't see Lane or Maxwell as an upgrade for the 49ers. They would be both behind Rogers/Brown/Nnamdi/Wright & Cox.

You're kidding, right ?

I would take Lane or Maxwell over Nnamdi right now. Hell, last week, he was on the roster bubble, and probably still is. Wright also isn't a guarantee as he's been cut twice in the last year by teams with bad secondaries, and Lane has started in place of Browner and played really well for a rookie.

Maxwell I could agree with, as he hasn't really shown an ability to stay healthy until this year. I would agree that the front 7 and the OL of the Niners could sniff at our cuts, but your secondary isn't all that, and that's going to be where teams attack you this year. Quality depth can't hurt.