CurryStopstheRuns
New member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,092
- Reaction score
- 0
Indeed.
CurryStopstheRuns":158vt101 said:sutz":158vt101 said: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":1srtafi1 said:CurryStopstheRuns":1srtafi1 said:sutz":1srtafi1 said: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":2n7srbip said:Some people would trade Russell Wilson if it meant getting us a good draft pick.
T-Sizzle":bzth00ct said: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.
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.DJrmb":1nrfbxt9 said: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":1stunqmf said:CurryStopstheRuns":1stunqmf said:sutz":1stunqmf said: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":1l2ix48h said: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.DJrmb":1l2ix48h said: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?
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.
Obo stayed as a backup. It has been done before.DJrmb":z2ogvdj7 said:Scottemojo":z2ogvdj7 said: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.DJrmb":z2ogvdj7 said: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?
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":1qhqb99m said: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":u6ebns4j said: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":3gyn0utg said:DJrmb":3gyn0utg said: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":3lda4u0g said:Scottemojo":3lda4u0g said: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.DJrmb":3lda4u0g said: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?
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"???
Depth at WR is not a total luxury, especially when you consider that out of Harvin, Rice, and Tate's combined 13 NFL seasons, only four have been a full 16 games. If you get rid of Baldwin and one of those guys go down, you're suddenly in a position where WR becomes a weakness instead of the strength it is now.DJrmb":27xo3qor said: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?
Just because he won't start doesn't mean he won't see the field. Edwards and Obomanu each took more than 140 offensive snaps last year. Kearse and Martin each took more than 75 offensive snaps. With Wilson developing into an elite QB, I expect we will shift to a more passing oriented offense than last year, which makes those depth WRs even more important. A quality #4 like Baldwin would probably get a few hundred snaps that those depth guys combined for last year and would be more productive than those behind him on the depth chart. And that's not even considering what we might need from him if one of the top 3 guy gets hurt. It's also nice for depth WRs to be able to provide some special teams value, and Baldwin took 112 snaps on special teams last year, more than any of our other WRs.DJrmb":27xo3qor said: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.
Keeping a second kicker isn't comparable at all to keeping a quality #4 WR. If your starting kicker goes down, you can find a comparable free agent replacement at any time. If a starting WR goes down midseason, you can't just grab a Baldwin level WR off the street to replace him.DJrmb":27xo3qor said: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.
If he requests a trade, I would be fine with the FO accommodating that request. As far as I know, Baldwin is happy here and plans to compete.DJrmb":27xo3qor said: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":27xo3qor said: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?