| Author |
Message |
|
SeaTown81
|
Post subject: Re: Charlie Whitehurst TRADED TO SEATTLE. Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:49 pm |
|
| * NET Alumni * |
 |
 |
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:35 am Posts: 4045 Location: Seattle, WA
|
A-Dog wrote: SeaTown81 wrote: AbsolutNET wrote: This is less than we gave up for Hass, no? Not exactly. That trade was Hass for a 3rd rounder and swapping of 1st rounders. The Hawks dropped from 10 to 17 and gave up their 3rd that year (pick 72). The trade essentially ended up Hass & pick 17 (Steve Hutchinson) for pick 10 (Jamal Reynolds) and pick 72 (Torrance Marshall). So actually, it's somewhat comparable. But to me dropping 20 spots in the 2nd round is worse than dropping 7 spots in the 1st round. Add to that the fact that you're trading a future 3rd, which is going to hit you doubly a year from now (I HATE TRADING FUTURE PICKS). I'd take the Hass trade over this one. Not to mention the fact that Holmgren knew a lot more about what he was trading for. That, and the fact that Hass actually looked quite good in preseason. Wrong. What we gave up for Hass was equivalent to a late first/early second round pick. What we gave up for Whitehurst was equivalent to a late second/early third round pick. So we gave up significantly more for Hass. We also gave him more money. We didn't have a 3rd so San Diego had leverage here - they were gonna get a third from Arizona already so they had no motive to deal with us for anything less than that. We ended up giving them pretty much close to what they would have gotten if we still had our original 3rd round pick. 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.
_________________ LET'S RALLY TO BUILD A NEW HOME FOR THE SEATTLE SUPERSONICS!SonicsArena.com | #SonicsArena Like on Facebook & follow on Twitter to show support! http://www.facebook.com/sonicsarenahttp://www.twitter.com/sonicsarena
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
HAWKNUTZ
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:50 pm |
|
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:55 pm Posts: 558 Location: Puyallup
|
|
IMO we have got to be the laughing stock of the NFL right now...Just my opinion
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
DrinkinTheLimerade
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:51 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
 |
 |
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:52 am Posts: 102 Location: Yelm, WA
|
|
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.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
HAWKNUTZ
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:54 pm |
|
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:55 pm Posts: 558 Location: Puyallup
|
|
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.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
MARTYREDwarner
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:55 pm |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
ludakrishna
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:57 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 9:40 am Posts: 747 Location: Philadelphia, PA
|
|
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!!!!
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
DrinkinTheLimerade
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:59 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
 |
 |
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:52 am Posts: 102 Location: Yelm, WA
|
HAWKNUTZ wrote: 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. 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.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
DrinkinTheLimerade
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:00 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
 |
 |
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:52 am Posts: 102 Location: Yelm, WA
|
|
ludakrishna, I think you might have to change your sig now ;(
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
ludakrishna
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:00 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 9:40 am Posts: 747 Location: Philadelphia, PA
|
|
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!!!!
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Chapow
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:01 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:38 pm Posts: 988
|
Hey PC/JS, you're doing it wrong! Make trades then smoke crack!! 
_________________ Ninner Fan wrote: I've been respectful and not attacked at all but know f it the dam. Glove are off.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Shadowhawk
|
Post subject: Re: Charlie Whitehurst TRADED TO SEATTLE. Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:02 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:05 am Posts: 620
|
A-Dog wrote: Wrong.
What we gave up for Hass was equivalent to a late first/early second round pick.
What we gave up for Whitehurst was equivalent to a late second/early third round pick.
So we gave up significantly more for Hass. 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.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
DrinkinTheLimerade
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:02 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
 |
 |
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:52 am Posts: 102 Location: Yelm, WA
|
|
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.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
ludakrishna
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:04 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 9:40 am Posts: 747 Location: Philadelphia, PA
|
DrinkinTheLimerade wrote: 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!!!!
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
49thHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:05 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
 |
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:34 am Posts: 104
|
|
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.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
A-Dog
|
Post subject: Re: Charlie Whitehurst TRADED TO SEATTLE. Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:05 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:11 pm Posts: 605
|
SeaTown81 wrote: 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. 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.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
A-Dog
|
Post subject: Re: Charlie Whitehurst TRADED TO SEATTLE. Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:07 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:11 pm Posts: 605
|
Shadowhawk wrote: A-Dog wrote: Wrong.
What we gave up for Hass was equivalent to a late first/early second round pick.
What we gave up for Whitehurst was equivalent to a late second/early third round pick.
So we gave up significantly more for Hass. 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. 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.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
AF_Hawk
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:10 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:18 pm Posts: 1335 Location: Marysville, WA
|
DrinkinTheLimerade wrote: ludakrishna, I think you might have to change your sig now ;( Is this true, or did ESPN just make a typo?
_________________ 
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
JerHawk81
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:11 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:13 am Posts: 1399 Location: Portland, OR
|
|
I need a drink.
_________________ Remembering rookies will play like rookies, since 2012.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
HAWKNUTZ
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:11 pm |
|
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:55 pm Posts: 558 Location: Puyallup
|
|
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.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
DrinkinTheLimerade
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:13 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
 |
 |
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:52 am Posts: 102 Location: Yelm, WA
|
|
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.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests |
| |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
 |