Uh, ok.

Dude, we all can have our opinions. But "WRONG" isn't the way to say you disagree. Your logic isn't any more exact than mine.

It's arguable what is considered giving up more, 7 spots in the first round or 20 in the 2nd round. I myself rather drop 7 spots in the first round. I don't see it that big a difference. But dropping from the beginning of the 2nd round all the way to the entire (nearly an entire round) is a decent drop.

And I could care less about the amount of money for the contract. I'm strictly concerned with draft pick compensation with what I was talking about.

At best I'd say it's a negligible difference. But one that comes down to personal preference. The way you put it, it's not. That thinking I think is more "wrong" than anything.

_________________
http://twitter.com/EJZ206

IMO we have got to be the laughing stock of the NFL right now...Just my opinion

I compare that with even though they gave up nothing they got nothing, I would not want JD or Wallace starting next year. Yes Whitehurst hasn't proven anything either but he also hasn't proven that he's a career backup like Wallace or a int machine on the downhill like Delhomme. Yes, Whitehurst is an unknown quantity but what say you about something you get out of the draft? they aren't proven either and could hurt an organization for 5 years or more. I'm hoping we get a Schaub out of the deal, but honestly in 6 months I could very well be regretting giving him the chance.

We have a ton of needs in this draft and prob. next years draft so to give up a 2nd and a 3rd next year imo seems steep.

This is fantastic, none of us have a clue about Whitehurst or his value around the NFL, sure he was tendered with a 3rd rounder, does not mean SD wouldn't have matched an offer that gave them a 3rd only.

I for one will admit I do not even come close to knowing enough about Whitehurst to pretend to judge this deal.

I am relatively certain that Hasselbeck will not be starting though.

Trade Hasselbeck to the Vikings. Hasselbeck knows the WCO similar to what Minnesota runs. It makes them not worry about Favre and we can get the best value for Hasselbeck with the Vikings as they have the most to gain.

_________________
Wazzu Sucks, Oregon Swallows!!!!

I absolutey agree with you here, I just have to hope that in 5 years from now we look back at this and say that we got the steal of the decade. Honestly, with this one i'm just going to let them decide if he's whats best for the team because i'm sure between the coaches and scouts they have hopefully done enough research to decide that he's worth a risk.

ludakrishna, I think you might have to change your sig now ;(

Per the ESPN Ticker. This is what we gave up.

Seattle - 2010 2nd round pick AND 2011 3rd

for

San Diego - 2010 2nd round pick, 2010 3rd round pick, Charlie Whitehurst

This doesn't seem all that bad.

_________________
Wazzu Sucks, Oregon Swallows!!!!

Hey PC/JS, you're doing it wrong! Make trades then smoke crack!!

_________________

I disagree for one reason: Steve Hutchinson.

When you compare what Seattle gave up in 2001 to what they gave up in 2010, you need to take into account the quality of the player taken with the lower pick. We dropped from the 10th pick to the 17th and got a steal. Hutchinson could have been drafted 10th overall and nobody would have batted an eye, yet we traded down and still wound up with a HOF offensive lineman. The trade cost less than it would have otherwise because Seattle ended up with a d@mned good player.

Now, maybe Seattle is going to find a steal of a player at the 60th pick, someone who would have been worth taking at #40. Odds are, however, they won't. We struck gold 9 years ago and we aren't as likely to this year, and unless we do I think we gave up more this year than 2001 as a result.

EDIT: unless the ESPN ticker is right and we got SD's 3rd this year as part of the deal, in which case this year's trade looks a lot better.

if we got a 3rd this year out of it as well then that totally changes everything. I'm absolutely for it if that is the case.

I agree. I just saw it again on the bottom ticker. Waiting for it to be in writing before I get all excited.

_________________
Wazzu Sucks, Oregon Swallows!!!!

It's quite clear from this trade that Tim Ruskell never left VMAC. No, what happened was that he got some cosmetic surgery to make himself look like Pete C. Next, TR and Lewieke (yes, he's in on this too -- might have even masterminded the whole thing) lured the poor coach Pete up to Seattle, knocked him out and they are now holding him in a cell underneath VMAC while TR pretends to be Carroll.

Do they honestly think we're dumb enough to fall for the old switch the bad GM with beloved coach from LA routine? I say we call the FBI right now and blow the lid off this thing right now. Maybe that we we'll get our high second rounder and next year's third back.

There are some generally accepted value principles ("The Chart") that I was going by - it wasn't my own logic or opinion.

Also, with Hass we gave up a current year #3 which the NFL - whether you think they should or not - values a round higher than a future #3 pick.

The quality of the player(s) chosen is irrelevant, as far as the value of draft picks goes. The value is based on the picks, not the quality of the scouting departments. If you're going to make that argument then these kinds of trades can't be evaluated until 10 years down the road when we know how good all the players are going to turn out.

Is this true, or did ESPN just make a typo?

_________________

I need a drink.

_________________
Remembering rookies will play like rookies, since 2012.

Alright well knowing now that we get there 3rd this year I guess it doesn't seem so bad, I just hope we fill those needs and don't piss them away. I'm still curious what's going to happen with the starting job with Hass still around.

ahh looks like he was quick about changing it now what I said doesn't make sense, he had a pic of clausen in his sig.