mmasterkillah
On the Game Day Roster
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2008
- Messages
- 488
- Reaction score
- 53
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Well the draft is not exactly tomorrow, so we could have easily waited and fielded better offers. I have a feeling the Lions would have given us the 20th pick for Cassel and Vrabel. Just wait and see when the Panther get this years plus next years first rounders for Peppers. Wow I am simply stunned!!!!
You are simply overvaluing Vrabel. He is 34 years old! He was quite a bit slower this past year and didn't make nearly the number of plays that we saw from him the 3-4 years prior to that. Fact is, the guy is likely in a steep decline. Now KC needs veteran leadership so they are willing to take on a guy who might only have one or two decent years left in him, but for most teams that isn't worth much. Like I said, if the Pats had traded Vrabel alone they probably would've gotten a 6th rounder for him.
As for Cassel, the Pats don't want to be stuck holding the bag on that one. My guess is that they felt out the other teams that might be interested, didn't think there was a huge market for him, and decided to move him at the first reasonable chance. That is a better strategy than holding on to a $14.6 million back-up, don't you agree?
To anybody who is upset, you deserve the misery.
Just shutup and watch what happens next. FLEXIBILITY.
This is key... people here forget we have players like Wilfork to tie up. The trade was ok. Nothing spectacular but necessary.
This trade definitely improves the Patriots.
We gain a late first round caliber player (its a deep draft) for four years at a reasonable cost.
We lose one year of service from a quality backup QB, who hopefully would never have seen the field.
We lose one year of service from an aging LB whose on-field value wasn't worth his cap number, and whose off-field value is better appreciated elsewhere.
We get rid of $17M+ in cap space for 2009 (going into a potentially uncapped year in which many key starters will be free agents, so we need that money if we want to keep them from testing the waters).
I am breathing a sigh of relief that we didn't get stuck carrying Cassel.
Could we have gotten more from elsewhere? Maybe. I expect to see media reports to that effect. To the extent that executives in Detroit or TB had plans to sit back and wait for the Cassel market to soften, it is safe that they won't repeat that mistake in the future. But it is uncertain that such a deal would have been consummated. If it was, it would have come too late for the Patriots to consider being active in free agency.
I also think it is possible for BB and Pioli to negotiate deals that include future good will for one side or the other. Pioli couldn't afford to be seen as giving BB a good deal. BB has no such problem on his end. BB also starts off owing Pioli some good will for not taking the deal with Seattle.
People who wanted the #3 for Cassel and Vrabel are being greedy. Yes, we occasionally get insane deals like the Moss deal. But that is a very unusual thing; something to be celebrated, not expected.
As far as the Matt Schaub deal goes: that was an insane deal favoring Atlanta, and everybody knew it at the time the deal occurred. It is a poor benchmark to use in judging the Cassel deal.
On those who think we were hosed, please get back to me in August, or better yet in Febraury.
Let us then compare the 2009 and future value to the patriots of
1) Cassel and Vrabel
2) #34 and $17M of cap room
I think that you will find that we did just fine.
3-4 years ago? The guy had the best season of his career in 2007! He likely has at least two more very good seasons in him. You are undervaluing (if that is a word) him.
Not a huge fan of this trade, but I guess it shows that the market for Cassel really wasn't there. If we extend Wilfork this offseason using some of the money we saved, I'll be a bigger fan of the deal.
You are simply overvaluing Vrabel. He is 34 years old! He was quite a bit slower this past year and didn't make nearly the number of plays that we saw from him the 3-4 years prior to that. Fact is, the guy is likely in a steep decline. Now KC needs veteran leadership so they are willing to take on a guy who might only have one or two decent years left in him, but for most teams that isn't worth much. Like I said, if the Pats had traded Vrabel alone they probably would've gotten a 6th rounder for him.
As for Cassel, the Pats don't want to be stuck holding the bag on that one. My guess is that they felt out the other teams that might be interested, didn't think there was a huge market for him, and decided to move him at the first reasonable chance. That is a better strategy than holding on to a $14.6 million back-up, don't you agree?
Still, I do wish they had gotten a 2010 conditional pick thrown in...
Care to enlighten us oh wise one?