CurryStopstheRuns wrote:

sutz wrote:It's kind of funny as people line up on two sides of an issue like this. I equate it to the argument about throwing games to get better draft position.

One camp thinks of Baldwin as an important contributor to the offense, more valuable to us than to other teams and unlikely to draw trade interest strong enough to make trading him a good deal.

The other side values deals and trades and player moves more than wins, apparently. To them, a player like Baldwin is more a bargaining chip, someone whose trade value may never be higher that we should move for his off the field value. Just as some people focus heavily on the draft and everything seems to bend towards that day in April, some people consider the games more important and winning the most important thing.

From my point of view, a lot of people just want trades like this to happen, because they seem to get more out of player moves and drafting than they do out of the games themselves. I don't understand it, really. IMHO, Baldwin is too valuable to trade off just for the joy of moving players. We won't get enough in exchange to make sense to me. The goal is to keep the team together, not continually churning the roster any more than necessary.

You are very short-sighted.

themunn wrote:

CurryStopstheRuns wrote:

sutz wrote:It's kind of funny as people line up on two sides of an issue like this. I equate it to the argument about throwing games to get better draft position.

One camp thinks of Baldwin as an important contributor to the offense, more valuable to us than to other teams and unlikely to draw trade interest strong enough to make trading him a good deal.

The other side values deals and trades and player moves more than wins, apparently. To them, a player like Baldwin is more a bargaining chip, someone whose trade value may never be higher that we should move for his off the field value. Just as some people focus heavily on the draft and everything seems to bend towards that day in April, some people consider the games more important and winning the most important thing.

From my point of view, a lot of people just want trades like this to happen, because they seem to get more out of player moves and drafting than they do out of the games themselves. I don't understand it, really. IMHO, Baldwin is too valuable to trade off just for the joy of moving players. We won't get enough in exchange to make sense to me. The goal is to keep the team together, not continually churning the roster any more than necessary.

You are very short-sighted.

Funnily enough that's exactly what I think of your idea to trade Baldwin for a draft pick.
And not exactly a 1st or 2nd rounder, but a 4th rounder aka the first "backup" round, where you hope the players you draft make the team as backups, and if they make it as a starter you've "hit".
And whilst before I listed all WRs that have been taken in the past 5 years, I thought I'd use the last 3 years for this one since they're Pete Carroll and John Schneider selections.

Walter Thurmond
EJ Wilson
Kris Durham
KJ Wright
Robert Turbin
Jaye Howard

Those are the 6 picks they've made in the 4th round.
1 starter. 1 perennially injured cornerback. 2 backups. 2 players no longer with the team.

That's the success rate of arguably the best drafting FO over the last 3 years in the 4th round. And you want to give up a proven commodity to roll the dice and hope we get a KJ Wright again?

MontanaHawk05 wrote:Some people would trade Russell Wilson if it meant getting us a good draft pick.

T-Sizzle wrote:
Did you forget the success we have had in the 5th and even 7th rounds? We would not have Kam, Sweezy, or Sherman to name a few.

DJrmb wrote:So it comes down to these two main points:

1. Why not trade him for something rather than letting him walk for nothing after this year or next year?
2. Why waste a roster spot for someone that will likely never see the field and doesn't offer a skill set that's not already offered by someone above him?

themunn wrote:

CurryStopstheRuns wrote:

sutz wrote:It's kind of funny as people line up on two sides of an issue like this. I equate it to the argument about throwing games to get better draft position.

One camp thinks of Baldwin as an important contributor to the offense, more valuable to us than to other teams and unlikely to draw trade interest strong enough to make trading him a good deal.

The other side values deals and trades and player moves more than wins, apparently. To them, a player like Baldwin is more a bargaining chip, someone whose trade value may never be higher that we should move for his off the field value. Just as some people focus heavily on the draft and everything seems to bend towards that day in April, some people consider the games more important and winning the most important thing.

From my point of view, a lot of people just want trades like this to happen, because they seem to get more out of player moves and drafting than they do out of the games themselves. I don't understand it, really. IMHO, Baldwin is too valuable to trade off just for the joy of moving players. We won't get enough in exchange to make sense to me. The goal is to keep the team together, not continually churning the roster any more than necessary.

Funny, I never mentioned the idea of trading Baldwin. Now, far be it from me to keep somebody from looking like a jackass if they have their heart set on showing that way, but you could do it with a little more direction so please keep me out of your crusading scenarios.


You are very short-sighted.

Funnily enough that's exactly what I think of your idea to trade Baldwin for a draft pick.
And not exactly a 1st or 2nd rounder, but a 4th rounder aka the first "backup" round, where you hope the players you draft make the team as backups, and if they make it as a starter you've "hit".
And whilst before I listed all WRs that have been taken in the past 5 years, I thought I'd use the last 3 years for this one since they're Pete Carroll and John Schneider selections.

Walter Thurmond
EJ Wilson
Kris Durham
KJ Wright
Robert Turbin
Jaye Howard

Those are the 6 picks they've made in the 4th round.
1 starter. 1 perennially injured cornerback. 2 backups. 2 players no longer with the team.

That's the success rate of arguably the best drafting FO over the last 3 years in the 4th round. And you want to give up a proven commodity to roll the dice and hope we get a KJ Wright again?

Scottemojo wrote:

DJrmb wrote:So it comes down to these two main points:

1. Why not trade him for something rather than letting him walk for nothing after this year or next year?
2. Why waste a roster spot for someone that will likely never see the field and doesn't offer a skill set that's not already offered by someone above him?

1. Why do you assume he is going to walk? He will be restricted next year, and you silly little model leaves out the possibility of a second contract.

2. Go watch the 2008 season again. Really, do it. Then write a report on what a lack of roster depth does to a team.

DJrmb wrote:

Scottemojo wrote:

DJrmb wrote:So it comes down to these two main points:

1. Why not trade him for something rather than letting him walk for nothing after this year or next year?
2. Why waste a roster spot for someone that will likely never see the field and doesn't offer a skill set that's not already offered by someone above him?

1. Why do you assume he is going to walk? He will be restricted next year, and you silly little model leaves out the possibility of a second contract.

2. Go watch the 2008 season again. Really, do it. Then write a report on what a lack of roster depth does to a team.

Why do you assuming he's going to want to stay as a backup? If he's so good he won't want to stay on as a backup, he'll want to go start somewhere. On the flip side if he's just OK with being a backup then I don't want him on my team.

I don't need to watch the 2008 Season. That was one of the all time Historic years for injuries of any team (especially for a position). There isn't a single team in the NFL that could weather that storm.

So should we keep a couple of extra kickers and punters "just in case"???

DJrmb wrote:People are missing the point that the others (those that would trade Baldwin) are trying to make. I don't believe anyone is trying to say Baldwin sucks or that he's no good. Also no one is trying to say you're going to get equal value out of a pick.

But it's more like the Major League Baseball approach. Baldwin is only under contract 1 more year, possibly 2 if they decided to Tender him as a RFA but that may prove too rich for them to even do. Plus you're going to get more trade value out of a guy if a team knows they have control over him for 2 years rather than 1. Why not trade him and get what you can now? Especially since you absolutely do not need him (a 4th/5th WR is a total luxury). It'd be different if he was your #1 or even a starter, but he's not... Is he really that imperative to the success of this team that it's better to keep him and get nothing when he walks?

He's not going to start for this team, he's just not good enough. Harvin, Rice, and Tate are above him and you factor in that the team wants to run more 2 TE sets and will likely always have at least 1 TE on the field. Baldwin will never see the field.

He probably wants to move on himself to go somewhere he has an opportunity to start. Isn't it the classier thing to do rather than force him to stay here as depth when there are plenty more guys that can fill his role?

This team already has multiple guys with similar skill sets and that are best in the same position as Baldwin. You are only keeping 5 WR's, you want those 5 guys each to bring a unique talent if possible. You don't just keep a guy because he's good. It's funny that you guys got so pissed off they kept 2 kickers because they thought they were both talented but you're being hypocritical on this.

You wouldn't keep 5 QB's would you? - Even if they could all be starters???
2 kickers? - but what if they are some of the best kickers in the league???
2 punters? - but what if they are some of the best punters in the league???


So it comes down to these two main points:

1. Why not trade him for something rather than letting him walk for nothing after this year or next year?
2. Why waste a roster spot for someone that will likely never see the field and doesn't offer a skill set that's not already offered by someone above him?

DJrmb wrote:You're the one wanting to hang onto yet another midget WR that we already have similar players to. If I am Ruskell then you are Mora...

You could possibly have to let go another "Michael Bennett" type guy for your "depth". You act like Baldwin went to a probowl or something. He's not even as good as the inconsistent Tate, what does that say?

Obo offered something on special teams. He was one of our best ST players. Baldwin is not.

Scottemojo wrote:

DJrmb wrote:You're the one wanting to hang onto yet another midget WR that we already have similar players to. If I am Ruskell then you are Mora...

You could possibly have to let go another "Michael Bennett" type guy for your "depth". You act like Baldwin went to a probowl or something. He's not even as good as the inconsistent Tate, what does that say?

Obo offered something on special teams. He was one of our best ST players. Baldwin is not.

Did Obo ever lead our team in catches and yards? I thought not. Size be damned, he is one of the best 5 receivers on our roster as of now. Go watch the drubbing of the Niners, Baldwin was stellar.

The day Baldwin is not one of the top 5 receivers on the roster, he is trade bait. Until then he is cheap depth.

DJrmb wrote:

Scottemojo wrote:

DJrmb wrote:So it comes down to these two main points:

1. Why not trade him for something rather than letting him walk for nothing after this year or next year?
2. Why waste a roster spot for someone that will likely never see the field and doesn't offer a skill set that's not already offered by someone above him?

1. Why do you assume he is going to walk? He will be restricted next year, and you silly little model leaves out the possibility of a second contract.

2. Go watch the 2008 season again. Really, do it. Then write a report on what a lack of roster depth does to a team.

Why do you assuming he's going to want to stay as a backup? If he's so good he won't want to stay on as a backup, he'll want to go start somewhere. On the flip side if he's just OK with being a backup then I don't want him on my team.

I don't need to watch the 2008 Season. That was one of the all time Historic years for injuries of any team (especially for a position). There isn't a single team in the NFL that could weather that storm.

So should we keep a couple of extra kickers and punters "just in case"???

DJrmb wrote:Especially since you absolutely do not need him (a 4th/5th WR is a total luxury). It'd be different if he was your #1 or even a starter, but he's not... Is he really that imperative to the success of this team that it's better to keep him and get nothing when he walks?

DJrmb wrote:He's not going to start for this team, he's just not good enough. Harvin, Rice, and Tate are above him and you factor in that the team wants to run more 2 TE sets and will likely always have at least 1 TE on the field. Baldwin will never see the field.

DJrmb wrote:This team already has multiple guys with similar skill sets and that are best in the same position as Baldwin. You are only keeping 5 WR's, you want those 5 guys each to bring a unique talent if possible. You don't just keep a guy because he's good. It's funny that you guys got so pissed off they kept 2 kickers because they thought they were both talented but you're being hypocritical on this.

DJrmb wrote:He probably wants to move on himself to go somewhere he has an opportunity to start. Isn't it the classier thing to do rather than force him to stay here as depth when there are plenty more guys that can fill his role?

DJrmb wrote:So it comes down to these two main points:

1. Why not trade him for something rather than letting him walk for nothing after this year or next year?
2. Why waste a roster spot for someone that will likely never see the field and doesn't offer a skill set that's not already offered by someone above him?

Tech Worlds wrote:Why do people always want to weakin a position that we finally have bolstered up?

Same goes for the qb position.

DJrmb wrote:You're the one wanting to hang onto yet another midget WR that we already have similar players to. If I am Ruskell then you are Mora...

You could possibly have to let go another "Michael Bennett" type guy for your "depth". You act like Baldwin went to a probowl or something. He's not even as good as the inconsistent Tate, what does that say?

Obo offered something on special teams. He was one of our best ST players. Baldwin is not.

DJrmb wrote:I'd rather keep Kearse, Bates, and maybe even Stephen Williams over Baldwin.

DJrmb wrote:Man, I like Baldwin I really do but you guys are making me be the bad guy...

Baldwin is not as good as some of you think. I swear some of you would put him in the RoH tomorrow if you could lol.

I'd rather keep Kearse, Bates, and maybe even Stephen Williams over Baldwin (if I could trade him for a mid round pick, like I said, I wouldn't cut Baldwin).

Also I will again reiterate that if Baldwin is anywhere near as good as you all think then why wouldn't he walk? If he doesn't and he has starting talent he's a chump. I know we're all Seahawks fans and I'm sure we would all say we'd stay a Seahawk as a backup but Baldwin doesn't have "fan loyalty" like that to Seattle and his agent definitely doesn't. He needs to, and will look out for his own best interest, which means going to a team to be a starter.

So you might as well get something for the guy if he's going to be gone. Of course assuming he'll be gone is just that "an assumption" but so is assuming he'll stay to be a backup...

Plus he averages a TD a game against the 49ers (4 in 4). I'd keep anyone on the roster for that alone.

DJrmb wrote:If Harvin goes down Tate can slide into that position better than anyone. How long have people been saying he's the poor mans Percy Harvin? Then you play an Outside WR in Tate's old spot not a slot guy. Thats why Kearse and Williams are guys I'd keep, they're both more of your Outside WR than Baldwin.

People seem to be low on Kearse here but he's shown some flashes and is one of the few guys that could play Sidney's role in a pinch.

Happypuppy wrote:

Tech Worlds wrote:Why do people always want to weakin a position that we finally have bolstered up?

Same goes for the qb position.

I suspect it is because they are used to the Seahawks being this good. I agree Baldwin is a stud ( remember the 1st AZ game and his teeth greeting knocked out ) and to have all this talent going to waste if Wilson goes down ? Makes no sense to me either , unless it is a killer offer

DJrmb wrote:Also I will again reiterate that if Baldwin is anywhere near as good as you all think then why wouldn't he walk? If he doesn't and he has starting talent he's a chump. I know we're all Seahawks fans and I'm sure we would all say we'd stay a Seahawk as a backup but Baldwin doesn't have "fan loyalty" like that to Seattle and his agent definitely doesn't. He needs to, and will look out for his own best interest, which means going to a team to be a starter.

Tech Worlds wrote:Why do people always want to weakin a position that we finally have bolstered up?

Same goes for the qb position.

Tate is entering his contract year. If he has a big year, he will want to get paid, and with the salary cap there isn't a prudent way to keep 3 high priced WRs so someone (Rice or Tate) would have to go. It would be easier to withstand the blow of losing one of them next year if we have Baldwin on a cheap RFA tender to step back into the starting lineup.

Baldwin is a stud when he's healthy. We should see a healthy Baldwin this year and I can't see them trading a proven producer at his price.

Now trading Doug doesn't make sense to me unless we have a guy just as good ready to take his place, because I think having 3 reliable WRs besides Percy to allow him to move all over the field is a big deal. I really wouldn't be content with Kearse taking that role or anything.

Smelly McUgly wrote:Baldwin is only tradeable if someone overpays because in this offense, he is REALLY important to us unless you think that Sidney Rice will definitely play 16+ games this year. If Rice goes down, Tate and Harvin on the outside and Baldwin in the slot is not too much of a step down. That's a better trio of WRs than some teams have already. Unless someone is offering a high-second or better, Baldwin means more to Seattle because he could bridge some gaps where injuries occur and help our team win it all.

DJrmb wrote:If Harvin goes down Tate can slide into that position better than anyone. How long have people been saying he's the poor mans Percy Harvin? Then you play an Outside WR in Tate's old spot not a slot guy. Thats why Kearse and Williams are guys I'd keep, they're both more of your Outside WR than Baldwin.

People seem to be low on Kearse here but he's shown some flashes and is one of the few guys that could play Sidney's role in a pinch.

Hawkfan77 wrote:I'm not advocating trading Baldwin, but some act like he's untradeable...

ivotuk wrote:

Smelly McUgly wrote:Add to this that I think Jim Irsay is unstable and needs to be removed from Twitter

This is an excellent idea!

McGruff wrote:

DJrmb wrote:If Harvin goes down Tate can slide into that position better than anyone. How long have people been saying he's the poor mans Percy Harvin? Then you play an Outside WR in Tate's old spot not a slot guy. Thats why Kearse and Williams are guys I'd keep, they're both more of your Outside WR than Baldwin.

People seem to be low on Kearse here but he's shown some flashes and is one of the few guys that could play Sidney's role in a pinch.

Tate is NOT a slot receiver. Doesn't have the skills for it. He's an outside guy only.

If Harvin went down, Tate would play outside and Baldwin would play slot.

SNDavidson wrote:Not judging anyone, but why is this thread 9 pages long?

CALIHAWK1 wrote:

SNDavidson wrote:Not judging anyone, but why is this thread 9 pages long?

Because of posts like yours and mine.