for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

The Athletic: Some possible trade packages with a trade back

Big Blue '56 : 4/13/2021 7:31 am
Assuming who they want isn’t there at 11:

Duggan:


Quote:


Using past trades as a guide, here are five potential deals the Giants could make if they trade back from No. 11:

1. There aren’t any examples of a team trading back from No. 11 in the past 10 years, but there’s a very close parallel for a potential Patriots-Giants swap for a quarterback in the recent past. The Raiders traded the 10th pick in 2018 to the Cardinals in exchange for the 15th pick, a third-round pick (No. 79) and a fifth-round pick (No. 152). Arizona then selected Josh Rosen, who was the fourth quarterback off the board. The Raiders picked left tackle Kolton Miller at No. 15.


Proposed trade: Giants get No. 15, a third-round pick (96) and a fourth-round pick (139); Patriots get No. 11



2. A similar trade occurred in 2011 when Washington sent the 10th pick to the Jaguars for the 16th pick and a second-round pick (No. 49). The Jaguars moved up for Blaine Gabbert, who was the third quarterback selected. Washington picked defensive end Ryan Kerrigan at No. 16.


Proposed trade: Giants get No. 15 and a second-round pick (46); Patriots get No. 11 and a fourth-round pick (116)



3. Trades involving quarterbacks tend to raise the stakes, but here’s another data point from the 2012 draft for consideration: The Seahawks traded the 12th pick to the Eagles for No. 15, a fourth-round pick (114) and a sixth-round pick (172). The Eagles then picked defensive tackle Fletcher Cox. The Seahawks picked defensive end Bruce Irvin at No. 15.


Proposed trade: Giants get No. 15, a fourth-round pick (120) and a fifth-round pick (177); Patriots get No. 11



4. Over the past decade, the only other trade involving a pick near No. 11 centered around a quarterback occurred in 2017. The Bills traded the 10th pick to the Chiefs for No. 27, a third-round pick (No. 91) and a 2018 first-round pick. The Chiefs, of course, selected future MVP Patrick Mahomes with the 10th pick. The Bills picked cornerback Tre’Davious White at No. 27. They then used the 2018 first-round pick as part of a package to move up to take quarterback Josh Allen at No. 7 in 2018.


It would be surprising for Gettleman to drop so many picks in his first trade back. But perhaps he could be persuaded by an additional first-round pick if the Saints, who pick 28th, are determined to move up to find a long-term replacement for Drew Brees.



Proposed trade: Giants get No. 28, a third-round pick (98) and a 2022 first-round pick; Saints get No. 11


5. There aren’t any recent examples of a team trading up from No. 20 to the 11th pick range for a quarterback. But in 2019, the Broncos traded the 10th pick to the Steelers for the 20th pick, a second-round pick (No. 52) and a 2020 third-round pick. The Steelers took linebacker Devin Bush with the 10th pick. The Broncos picked tight end Noah Fant at No. 20.



Proposed trade: Giants get No. 20, a second-round pick (52) and a 2022 third-round pick; Bears get No. 11

Pages: 1 2 | Show All |  Next>>
Only way a trade is if a WR is not on the board at #11  
Bill L : 4/13/2021 7:51 am : link
either because he's been taken or because need is a greater priority than bpa. I think that they have set themselves up so that the latter is unlikely but , who knows, maybe they just have to have an edge or OL depth.

In that case they *must* trade back. Even an extra third is better value than staying put and picking a non-WR (other than Sewell falling). But, hopefully they can get an extra second. But, if the above are the choices, I would rather not lose a pick to get the second, so I probably do trade #1. Depends on how desperate the Patriots are.
If I were DG  
SCGiantsFan : 4/13/2021 7:52 am : link
and I was thinking of treading back, option #2. I'd pass along the 4th round pick in order to get a more quality player in the 2nd round. All while still targeting the player, or players, at the 15th pick.

My 2 cents. All depends who is on the board when we are on the clock at 11.
Is it rather safe to assume,  
Big Blue '56 : 4/13/2021 7:55 am : link
that the Pats would take Mac Jones, given that he might be one of the 5 QBs to drop there?
This is why no trade backs  
BillT : 4/13/2021 8:03 am : link
“Giants get No. 15, a fourth-round pick (120) and a fifth-round pick (177); Patriots get No. 11”

This, to put it bluntly, sucks. Two day three picks to trade down. Could they throw in some used “K” balls as well.
Some Good Research there  
ZogZerg : 4/13/2021 8:05 am : link
Those are certainly some possibly trade back spots. It all depends on whether there is a player available at 11 that the Giants really want. If there is a group of players then trading back for additional picks is an easy call.
And, of course, there has to be a player at 11 that other teams really want and are afraid will be drafted before they pick.
RE: Is it rather safe to assume,  
beatrixkiddo : 4/13/2021 8:06 am : link
In comment 15218315 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
that the Pats would take Mac Jones, given that he might be one of the 5 QBs to drop there?


I really hope it falls that way, will drive up demand and there are a lot of QB hungry teams in the back of the draft. If we can trade down and still be in the teens, and land an extra 2nd that would huge. We can get an Edge at 1, then OL and WR in the 2nd where the value will be strong. Hope it plays out that way.
Too many focus on the #11  
jvm52106 : 4/13/2021 8:11 am : link
as if that is some magic line between talent. What if the Giants have their sights on Ojulari (assuming Smith is gone and Pitts is long gone)? Then a trade down to 15 and getting a 3rd and 5th is a win (assuming Ojulari is still there).

I know so many of us say the talent at 11 is better BUT, there a number of players- QB's, RB's, S's, DT's and probably even OT's that we aren't picking in the first round period. So it comes down to where we have our targets valued at and what we think we can get for a move down while still getting the player or players we want.
If the Saints are moving up from #28 to #11 ...  
FStubbs : 4/13/2021 8:11 am : link
... they'd probably have to part with their second round pick and next year's 1st round pick to make that happen. That's a huge drop.
If you don't get at least a 2nd  
Chip : 4/13/2021 8:12 am : link
don't trade down unless it is one or two spots. The Saints trade would be awesome it could be a top 5 pick. If one of the QB is still there at 10 Dallas would do the deal any way. It is not going to happen
RE: This is why no trade backs  
UConn4523 : 4/13/2021 8:14 am : link
In comment 15218322 BillT said:
Quote:
“Giants get No. 15, a fourth-round pick (120) and a fifth-round pick (177); Patriots get No. 11”

This, to put it bluntly, sucks. Two day three picks to trade down. Could they throw in some used “K” balls as well.


I would agree. I really don’t care what the value chart says - if the Pats (in this example) want 11 for their QB then make them pay for it. Some mid round picks don’t do anything for me.
Interesting Decision Point  
HMunster : 4/13/2021 8:18 am : link
Between Options #1 and #2.

Would you rather,

A) Get a 3rd (96) and a 4th (139), or
B) Get a 2nd (46), but lose your 4th (116)

For Option A - I could see Edge in Round 1, a LB in the 2nd and possibly banking on depth in the OL and WR class to get extra options there in the 3rd and 4th, or maybe package some picks together to move up.

For Option B - Basically trading in your 4th for a 2nd, take an Edge in the 1st, and two high quality players in the 2nd, depending on who falls.

Proposed trade: Giants get No. 15, a third-round pick (96) and a fourt  
rasbutant : 4/13/2021 8:19 am : link

The Pats don't have a 3rd round pick.
RE: Proposed trade: Giants get No. 15, a third-round pick (96) and a fourt  
HMunster : 4/13/2021 8:20 am : link
In comment 15218336 rasbutant said:
Quote:

The Pats don't have a 3rd round pick.

Yes they do. Compensatory pick.
What they are missing is the QB tax  
Judge_and_Jury : 4/13/2021 8:22 am : link
And potential competition for that QB.That drives up the price significantly. 11 to 15 if say Chicago and Pats are fighting for the pick could be worth a 2nd and one of the Pats 3 4ths easily.
RE: What they are missing is the QB tax  
HMunster : 4/13/2021 8:23 am : link
In comment 15218339 Judge_and_Jury said:
Quote:
And potential competition for that QB.That drives up the price significantly. 11 to 15 if say Chicago and Pats are fighting for the pick could be worth a 2nd and one of the Pats 3 4ths easily.

True. But you'd have to be willing to drop down to #20. Not sure if the Giants are keen on that.
But the Pff simulator gave me  
Carl in CT : 4/13/2021 8:24 am : link
The Pats first 4 picks for #11. We should at least get that ! ( grin)
RE: RE: Proposed trade: Giants get No. 15, a third-round pick (96) and a fourt  
rasbutant : 4/13/2021 8:31 am : link
In comment 15218337 HMunster said:
Quote:
In comment 15218336 rasbutant said:


Quote:



The Pats don't have a 3rd round pick.


Yes they do. Compensatory pick.


My mistake. They forfeited 77, forgot about the comp pick which would have been 97 but because of the forfeited pick is 96.
Saints should stay put at 28 and draft Davis Mills  
Rick in Dallas : 4/13/2021 8:34 am : link
Let him sit for a year under Sean Peyton's coaching. Mills has all the tools necessary to be a very good QB in the NFL.





I like looking at the hypothetical trades BUT  
Dinger : 4/13/2021 8:36 am : link
everyone then assumes that these are out there to be had and that not only does the other team want to make the trade but that Judge/Gettleman want to make the trade. 11 is a spot to get a solid player and not have to take a chance on a QB. Everyone who likes the tradeback is SURE that they could have done it, picked up an extra player and BOTH players will pan out. I have a feeling the Giants stay put at 11 and pick up one of several solid players that will be available. After the FA they had, they are in an even better spot to just choose BPA.
I would not trade down, even with Pats at 15 - only up  
stoneman : 4/13/2021 8:36 am : link
If you believe these tiers (excluding Farley/Philips due to medicals)

1) Sewell/Chase/Pitts
2) Smith Waddle
3) Surtain/Horn/Paye/Parsons/Ojulari

Even at 15, you are practically into the next tier 4, so it better be worth while missing out on tier 3. Anything beyond 15 would be nuts not including another 1st (or 2). Even at 15, I would be shocked if the Pats 2nd got them there, especially with QBs in play.
Good idea for an article by Duggan  
JB_in_DC : 4/13/2021 8:37 am : link
props! I think that one could hope the 49ers trade up represented a bit of inflation to the cost of what it will take to trade up for a QB, so maybe you could hold out for a bit more than these historical analogies?

It takes two to tango, but then it also only takes one to get desperate.
RE: Saints should stay put at 28 and draft Davis Mills  
Big Blue '56 : 4/13/2021 8:37 am : link
In comment 15218354 Rick in Dallas said:
Quote:
Let him sit for a year under Sean Peyton's coaching. Mills has all the tools necessary to be a very good QB in the NFL.






Well Marino was taken 27th (I know the drug rumors)
RE: RE: Saints should stay put at 28 and draft Davis Mills  
Bill L : 4/13/2021 8:43 am : link
In comment 15218361 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
In comment 15218354 Rick in Dallas said:


Quote:


Let him sit for a year under Sean Peyton's coaching. Mills has all the tools necessary to be a very good QB in the NFL.








Well Marino was taken 27th (I know the drug rumors)

Plus he sucked at a QB. Never won a SB.
RE: I would not trade down, even with Pats at 15 - only up  
HMunster : 4/13/2021 8:44 am : link
In comment 15218358 stoneman said:
Quote:
If you believe these tiers (excluding Farley/Philips due to medicals)

1) Sewell/Chase/Pitts
2) Smith Waddle
3) Surtain/Horn/Paye/Parsons/Ojulari

Even at 15, you are practically into the next tier 4, so it better be worth while missing out on tier 3. Anything beyond 15 would be nuts not including another 1st (or 2). Even at 15, I would be shocked if the Pats 2nd got them there, especially with QBs in play.

You have 10 players. 5 QBs would be top 15. Plus you're missing Slater who's likely top 10. Darrisaw might be top 15 as well.

RE: RE: I would not trade down, even with Pats at 15 - only up  
stoneman : 4/13/2021 8:49 am : link
In comment 15218367 HMunster said:
Quote:
In comment 15218358 stoneman said:


Quote:


If you believe these tiers (excluding Farley/Philips due to medicals)

1) Sewell/Chase/Pitts
2) Smith Waddle
3) Surtain/Horn/Paye/Parsons/Ojulari

Even at 15, you are practically into the next tier 4, so it better be worth while missing out on tier 3. Anything beyond 15 would be nuts not including another 1st (or 2). Even at 15, I would be shocked if the Pats 2nd got them there, especially with QBs in play.


You have 10 players. 5 QBs would be top 15. Plus you're missing Slater who's likely top 10. Darrisaw might be top 15 as well.


I hear you - but I don't see any of Det/Car/Den/Dal going Slater/Darrisaw over the available tier 2 and tier 3 guys. Everybody has Oline as a need, but no one is desperate.
If the Giants trade back then you know once and for all  
Heisenberg : 4/13/2021 8:58 am : link
that it's Judge's show around here. I don't believe for a minute that DG would trade back on his own.
trade back for a 2nd....otherwise....why bother  
George from PA : 4/13/2021 9:01 am : link
The chart goes out window when dealing with QBs.

Giants “owe” Patriots a good deal in return for Joe Judge  
Ivan15 : 4/13/2021 9:01 am : link
.
Thanks for posting  
Harvest Blend : 4/13/2021 9:03 am : link
and this is all in good fun and plenty informative but it's really just a big tease since we know it won't happen.
I’d want NE’s  
Giant John : 4/13/2021 9:05 am : link
15th and second second. I’m giving up nothing else.
Hypothetically  
AcesUp : 4/13/2021 9:31 am : link
If the Giants are looking at Paye/Ojulari at 11 and both are still on the board, what does it matter if the Giants make them pay through the nose? One of these players is likely to be there 4 picks later, so you either grab the guy at 11 with nothing else in return or you take the bonus picks. I'd rather get as much juice as possible from the pick than "unanimously win the trade". Paye/Ojulari + two early Day 3 picks >>> Paye/Ojulari and nothing.
And guess what.....  
Carl in CT : 4/13/2021 9:35 am : link
If there is a QB there that NE loves they would give that up in a heart beat and maybe more. (But then again how much longer for Bill B)?
RE: RE: RE: Saints should stay put at 28 and draft Davis Mills  
Big Blue '56 : 4/13/2021 10:02 am : link
In comment 15218366 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 15218361 Big Blue '56 said:


Quote:


In comment 15218354 Rick in Dallas said:


Quote:


Let him sit for a year under Sean Peyton's coaching. Mills has all the tools necessary to be a very good QB in the NFL.








Well Marino was taken 27th (I know the drug rumors)


Plus he sucked at a QB. Never won a SB.


Exactly!
Why are so many of you thinking none of these scenarios  
Mike from Ohio : 4/13/2021 10:16 am : link
apply because it is to get a QB? Do you not see that in the first two scenarios, the team trading up took a QB? Arizona took Rosen and Jacksonville took Gabbert.

If you think the Giants are getting some magical haul of picks for essentially doing those same trades, you are viewing it through what you would like to get, not what is the actual market price.
RE: I’d want NE’s  
UConn4523 : 4/13/2021 10:24 am : link
In comment 15218406 Giant John said:
Quote:
15th and second second. I’m giving up nothing else.


Agreed, makes no sense to drop for anything less IMO.
RE: Why are so many of you thinking none of these scenarios  
UConn4523 : 4/13/2021 10:27 am : link
In comment 15218561 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
apply because it is to get a QB? Do you not see that in the first two scenarios, the team trading up took a QB? Arizona took Rosen and Jacksonville took Gabbert.

If you think the Giants are getting some magical haul of picks for essentially doing those same trades, you are viewing it through what you would like to get, not what is the actual market price.


Well scenario #2 happened and it was for a 2. The 1st have a bit wider gap but the precedence is there. And you have to consider that no one is making us trade the pick - you are allowed to set a price and choose not to execute on a lesser offer which is what I would do if it were me. I would not take a 3rd and change to drop back to 15 and allow the best coach in football to get his QB - he should have to pay a premium for that and based on other shitty trades Belichick has made, it isn't far fetched.
Making  
AcidTest : 4/13/2021 10:33 am : link
excessive demands to trade down is the main reason why we haven't done so since Accorsi drafted Kiwi. We simply ask for too much. "I'm not trading down unless I get a second round pick," "day three picks do nothing for me," or "they're trading up for a QB so they need to pay a premium."

Depending on who is on the board, I'd trade down for a third or a fourth and a fifth. We only have six picks, and are still starved for talent at many positions. Good teams find valuable players on day three.

I'm picking up the phone no matter who is on the board. If Sewell is somehow available, then yes, it is extremely unlikely that I would trade down. I'd be a little more likely to do so if Smith is available because his thin frame is concerning. Same for Surtain. But I'd love to trade down if they are all gone, especially since in that situation we'd likely be faced with is over drafting an EDGE at #11.
RE: RE: Why are so many of you thinking none of these scenarios  
Mike from Ohio : 4/13/2021 10:34 am : link
In comment 15218590 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
In comment 15218561 Mike from Ohio said:


Quote:


apply because it is to get a QB? Do you not see that in the first two scenarios, the team trading up took a QB? Arizona took Rosen and Jacksonville took Gabbert.

If you think the Giants are getting some magical haul of picks for essentially doing those same trades, you are viewing it through what you would like to get, not what is the actual market price.



Well scenario #2 happened and it was for a 2. The 1st have a bit wider gap but the precedence is there. And you have to consider that no one is making us trade the pick - you are allowed to set a price and choose not to execute on a lesser offer which is what I would do if it were me. I would not take a 3rd and change to drop back to 15 and allow the best coach in football to get his QB - he should have to pay a premium for that and based on other shitty trades Belichick has made, it isn't far fetched.


And it is fine to say that at that offer I wouldn’t make the trade. My point is that there is no reason to expect that the Giants can somehow get more than what is in those trades.
RE: Making  
Big Blue '56 : 4/13/2021 10:36 am : link
In comment 15218606 AcidTest said:
Quote:
excessive demands to trade down is the main reason why we haven't done so since Accorsi drafted Kiwi. We simply ask for too much. "I'm not trading down unless I get a second round pick," "day three picks do nothing for me," or "they're trading up for a QB so they need to pay a premium."

Depending on who is on the board, I'd trade down for a third or a fourth and a fifth. We only have six picks, and are still starved for talent at many positions. Good teams find valuable players on day three.

I'm picking up the phone no matter who is on the board. If Sewell is somehow available, then yes, it is extremely unlikely that I would trade down. I'd be a little more likely to do so if Smith is available because his thin frame is concerning. Same for Surtain. But I'd love to trade down if they are all gone, especially since in that situation we'd likely be faced with is over drafting an EDGE at #11.


How do you know we’ve asked too much? Maybe teams were not offering enough, that is low-balling us?
RE: Making  
AcesUp : 4/13/2021 10:36 am : link
In comment 15218606 AcidTest said:
Quote:
excessive demands to trade down is the main reason why we haven't done so since Accorsi drafted Kiwi. We simply ask for too much. "I'm not trading down unless I get a second round pick," "day three picks do nothing for me," or "they're trading up for a QB so they need to pay a premium."

Depending on who is on the board, I'd trade down for a third or a fourth and a fifth. We only have six picks, and are still starved for talent at many positions. Good teams find valuable players on day three.

I'm picking up the phone no matter who is on the board. If Sewell is somehow available, then yes, it is extremely unlikely that I would trade down. I'd be a little more likely to do so if Smith is available because his thin frame is concerning. Same for Surtain. But I'd love to trade down if they are all gone, especially since in that situation we'd likely be faced with is over drafting an EDGE at #11.


Yeh the tone here doesn't make any sense. Especially if the Giants are looking at a flat pool of players with an almost guaranteed probability of one of them being their at the pick. Sure take that tone with the other team early in the negotiation but walking away from a deal that will help your team just so that you can definitively win the trade is silly.
Interesting exercise, but  
kdog77 : 4/13/2021 10:42 am : link
I don't think teams are going to trade up to #11 if all 5 QBs go in the top 10.
RE: RE: Making  
AcidTest : 4/13/2021 10:45 am : link
In comment 15218614 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
In comment 15218606 AcidTest said:


Quote:


excessive demands to trade down is the main reason why we haven't done so since Accorsi drafted Kiwi. We simply ask for too much. "I'm not trading down unless I get a second round pick," "day three picks do nothing for me," or "they're trading up for a QB so they need to pay a premium."

Depending on who is on the board, I'd trade down for a third or a fourth and a fifth. We only have six picks, and are still starved for talent at many positions. Good teams find valuable players on day three.

I'm picking up the phone no matter who is on the board. If Sewell is somehow available, then yes, it is extremely unlikely that I would trade down. I'd be a little more likely to do so if Smith is available because his thin frame is concerning. Same for Surtain. But I'd love to trade down if they are all gone, especially since in that situation we'd likely be faced with is over drafting an EDGE at #11.



How do you know we’ve asked too much? Maybe teams were not offering enough, that is low-balling us?


We haven't traded down since Accorsi did for Kiwi. Reese never traded down. DG never has either, although in all fairness, he was apparently going to do so if McKinney wasn't on the board. Has everybody been "low balling" us, and for well more than a decade?
No, but in fairness, we haven’t in all likelihood  
Big Blue '56 : 4/13/2021 10:57 am : link
been asking for the moon either, year after year..:)
RE: Making  
UConn4523 : 4/13/2021 11:02 am : link
In comment 15218606 AcidTest said:
Quote:
excessive demands to trade down is the main reason why we haven't done so since Accorsi drafted Kiwi. We simply ask for too much. "I'm not trading down unless I get a second round pick," "day three picks do nothing for me," or "they're trading up for a QB so they need to pay a premium."

Depending on who is on the board, I'd trade down for a third or a fourth and a fifth. We only have six picks, and are still starved for talent at many positions. Good teams find valuable players on day three.

I'm picking up the phone no matter who is on the board. If Sewell is somehow available, then yes, it is extremely unlikely that I would trade down. I'd be a little more likely to do so if Smith is available because his thin frame is concerning. Same for Surtain. But I'd love to trade down if they are all gone, especially since in that situation we'd likely be faced with is over drafting an EDGE at #11.


Those are my words, not Reese or Gettelmans. There are many factors and having 5 guys you like still on the board is certainly a big one of them but I tend to think the actual Giants board has bigger gaps between players than people think. If Surtain is at 11 with an 85 grade and the next handful of guys they like are all around 80, to me that's a significant drop, and would equate to a lower likelihood of getting an all pro caliber player.

Add in that those mid round picks are such a crap shoot and it just isn't something I'd take over getting what I think will be the elite player.
I  
AcidTest : 4/13/2021 11:08 am : link
think the Giants would rather have a particular player than trade down. That is apparently what happened with McKinney last year. It also clearly happened with Barkley. I'm not saying that was the wrong move with them, but it is a mistake to do it year after year.
many/most teams don't trade down  
UConn4523 : 4/13/2021 11:14 am : link
and of those that do, how much better off have they been? We often do the exercise on who the Giants missed out on by taking X player over another - why don't we do that with trade downs too?

I really don't see how you can say that not trading down is a mistake, and one we repeat over and over. Lots of teams doing it wrong I guess.
Not a difficult concept. Read Aces' post above.  
chick310 : 4/13/2021 11:14 am : link
If the pool of players with similar grade on your board is about equal to the drop in draft position, then make the deal and take the extra picks.

The only reason not to is you didn't set up your board fairly.
RE: RE: Making  
AcidTest : 4/13/2021 11:18 am : link
In comment 15218673 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
In comment 15218606 AcidTest said:


Quote:


excessive demands to trade down is the main reason why we haven't done so since Accorsi drafted Kiwi. We simply ask for too much. "I'm not trading down unless I get a second round pick," "day three picks do nothing for me," or "they're trading up for a QB so they need to pay a premium."

Depending on who is on the board, I'd trade down for a third or a fourth and a fifth. We only have six picks, and are still starved for talent at many positions. Good teams find valuable players on day three.

I'm picking up the phone no matter who is on the board. If Sewell is somehow available, then yes, it is extremely unlikely that I would trade down. I'd be a little more likely to do so if Smith is available because his thin frame is concerning. Same for Surtain. But I'd love to trade down if they are all gone, especially since in that situation we'd likely be faced with is over drafting an EDGE at #11.



Those are my words, not Reese or Gettelmans. There are many factors and having 5 guys you like still on the board is certainly a big one of them but I tend to think the actual Giants board has bigger gaps between players than people think. If Surtain is at 11 with an 85 grade and the next handful of guys they like are all around 80, to me that's a significant drop, and would equate to a lower likelihood of getting an all pro caliber player.

Add in that those mid round picks are such a crap shoot and it just isn't something I'd take over getting what I think will be the elite player.


I know those are your words.

My point is not that the Giants should necessarily trade down this year. As I said, let's see who's on the board when we're on the clock. My point is that we haven't traded down in any round since 2006. The Giants have completely eliminated a viable strategy to improve the team. Their denials to the contrary are as disingenuous as they are predictable.
Aces post talks about "winning a trade"  
UConn4523 : 4/13/2021 11:19 am : link
I couldn't care less about winning a trade - I care about compensation. I have something you want, pay for it.

And please don't make the assumptions that the 2 guys you want are magically going to be there 4 picks later. If it ever leaked that our GM did that and lost his guy there would be years of threads dedicated to the blunder.
You aren't reading the points made in the posts correctly.  
chick310 : 4/13/2021 11:23 am : link
.
Pages: 1 2 | Show All |  Next>>
Back to the Corner