Trading players to keep them off Division Rival rosters.

[gargantual]

Hawkblogger mentioned this is his latest blog entry. I've been wondering/worrying about this for a while since our depth is so strong and with the difficult cuts that will have to be made to get down to the final 53. Particularly with SF being so weak (compared to us) at CB and somewhat at WR.

What do y'all know about the dynamics of this? Would this be something that we'd do gradually throughout the rest of the preseason or at a frenetic pace right before the deadline? What sort of precedent is there for this not only for our team but throughout the league, particularly for talent loaded teams? Do you think this is ever done because they just KNOW that someone won't survive hidden on the practice squad?

 

[themunn]

happy to let divisional rivals take our castoffs.
if they're not as good as the 53, why worry about them?

 

[gargantual]

I was thinking the most about cornerback, it's been mentioned all over the place that many of our backups would start on many or most other teams.

 

[mretrade]

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.

 

[gargantual]

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.

Of course, that's what I'd expect to hear from your fanbase (pooh-poohing any weakness ), but how about flipping the question around. Is there a position group you guys are loaded at (front seven on D perhaps) where you feel releasing players might end up helping US to get stronger?

 

[gargantual]

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.

I think some of our depth IS so good that they would be an upgrade on your team.....hell just as far as youth and remaining ceiling.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

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.

 

[gargantual]

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).

 

[Barthawk]

Any of the guys that could possibly be let go at either CB or WE would have to clear several teams before they could be claimed by SF or STL.. They are subject to the waiver wire..

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Any of the guys that could possibly be let go at either CB or WE would have to clear several teams before they could be claimed by SF or STL.. They are subject to the waiver wire..

Doesn't the waiver wire work like in baseball (where a team such as San Francisco or Baltimore would get last in line?).

 

[themunn]

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.

If a team was high on a player on another roster that looked like he was going to get cut they might trade to ensure THEY get the player, since they'd have to put a waiver claim on them and hope they got them.
It'd probably be a conditional 7th, but that's enough to make a team go "yeah ok", rather than get nothing for cutting them.

 

[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.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

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.

If a team was high on a player on another roster that looked like he was going to get cut they might trade to ensure THEY get the player, since they'd have to put a waiver claim on them and hope they got them.
It'd probably be a conditional 7th, but that's enough to make a team go "yeah ok", rather than get nothing for cutting them.

Makes sense. The team doing the cutting sure has nothing to lose in trying it anyway. I assume JS probably tries it all the time.

 

[emurri]

I think it is always preferable to try and trade a guy rather then release him. Draft picks are always valuable. But like others have said, teams seem to take a wait and see approach to these roster cuts this time of year, unless they are in dire need of a player/position. I do think sometimes we overrate our own players and underrate other teams players. Take WT3 for example, some were thinking he would win the starting spot over BB (I know it was only one preseason game) but that looks no where near likely to happen. I do think we could see a trade or two, nothing major, however.

 

[Killa Kam]

I think we are starting to overrate the talent that we have on the back end of our roster, our depth at certain positions like cb and rb are great but I don't see any of them worth a future draft pick. Then again I didn't think we'd get anything for T-Jack last year so you never know. I think a player for player trade is more likely something like the Kelly Jennings for Clinton McDonald trade right before the final roster cuts

 

[gargantual]

I think we are starting to overrate the talent that we have on the back end of our roster, our depth at certain positions like cb and rb are great but I don't see any of them worth a future draft pick. Then again I didn't think we'd get anything for T-Jack last year so you never know. I think a player for player trade is more likely something like the Kelly Jennings for Clinton McDonald trade right before the final roster cuts

I agree it's more likely to get traded a player the other team was planning on dropping anyway (rather than a draft pick). As far as overrating our talent, that's a definitely a fan tendency (myself VERY much included!). Another factor I think goes along with that is players that work well in our system might not find their skills transferring successfully onto a different system (Darrell Jackson comes immediately to mind).

I think a big part of that is Pete and his secondary coaches are so good at teaching up our CBs that maybe that wouldn't translate over when they get to another team. I know at the Pro level ALL coaches on all teams are pretty danged good, but that's a definite specialty on a Pete Carroll team. That's been very consistent over the years.

 

[kearly]

Do waiver wire rules apply to players who didn't make the 53 man? I wasn't aware that they did. Maybe they do, but I was under the impression that a player who fails to make the final roster is a "free for all" type acquisition, like any free agent. John Schneider described the 53 man cutdown time as being a "second draft" and he talked about frantically trying to get players he liked that were released by other teams. He seemed to imply that time was a factor, ala UDFA. If waivers were in place, you could take your time, and players would probably have a wait a few days before joining their teams because of waiver rules.

So my impression has been that waivers don't apply in that situation, but that's just a guess on my part. It doesn't seem like waivers have factored there.

 

[gargantual]

That's what I thought as well about waivers (more having to do with practice squad players). I wonder if it would be collusion (or tampering or whatever it's called) if GMs contact players agents prior to the cut down, to line up players they really want. Otherwise I guess they just have their numbers ready on speed dial and hope for the best.

 

[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

 

[gargantual]

I guess the waver situation DOES apply here. John Clayton said so on the 2nd hour of the Friday "Wyman, Mike and Moore" podcast (the subject is broached just after the 15 minute mark). So Jacksonville is the number 2 waver after Kansas City.

Have to keep reminding myself it's a good place to be in, having tough decisions coming. Who wants to go back to the way it was under Ruskell?