Jump to content
SportsWrath

Giants should move up to Rams pick for Crabtree.


Plax 4 Prez
 Share

Recommended Posts

I really don't give a damn about pick value scales, I'm telling you with 100 % certainty that a team sitting in the 2nd spot who is motivated to sell will absolutely take 7 pf the top 150 picks in the draft and 4 of the top 100 as compensation.

 

 

Now, there are teams that could always one up us, but it's far from impossible to make thast5 trade without offering a single player, let alone our best players.

 

You might not care about the values, but teams interpret them as gospel. You can look at any draft day trade in the salary cap era, and it will be closely in line with the chart. That's why we had to give up a 3rd and a future 1st just to move up three measley spots to get Eli: The Giants and Chargers were stirctly going by the chart.

 

We've never seen a team in the 20's trade into the top 5. And there have been plenty of franchise-changing talents that have come and gone, so it hasn't been from a lack of motivation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might not care about the values, but teams interpret them as gospel. You can look at any draft day trade in the salary cap era, and it will be closely in line with the chart. That's why we had to give up a 3rd and a future 1st just to move up three measley spots to get Eli: The Giants and Chargers were stirctly going by the chart.

 

We've never seen a team in the 20's trade into the top 5. And there have been plenty of franchise-changing talents that have come and gone, so it hasn't been from a lack of motivation.

 

 

Shit we're still talking about this? Can this board be about realistic ideas? Even if the trade were to happen, there is ZERO chance the Giants are going to put themselves in a position where they have to PAY for one of the top 5 picks... We haven't even re-signed Eli yet and we will have other draftees to sign. Even if it would work with the salary cap, it would be a Redskins or Matt Millen move, and the Giants don't operate that way.

 

There is zero chance of Crabtree being dealt to the Giants, at least not anytime this year or next. Why would any rational GM make that trade when there is Nicks, Heyward-Bey, and Britt that may be available at 29, or at least within reach with a trade up at most 10 spots? It makes no sense, because all of the aforementioned receivers have great tools and there is a decent chance that one or maybe ALL of them may pan out to be better receivers than Crabtree anyway. We need to stop talking Crabtree, which will NOT happen (seriously, less than zero chance, if there could be less than zero), and talk about these other receivers and how they could fit. Why aren't we talking about what we are going to do with the draft if we trade for Edwards or Boldin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Number crunching whatever. Here's what we do know. We're at 29, to move into the teens, you have to give up 2nd and 3rd rounders and late draft picks. Then, perhaps, perhaps if you want to look into the top ten, you're swapping first rounders and more than likely giving up second rounders, and possible future first rounders. And for what?. One wide receiver.

 

Remember, our primary needs right now are wide receiver/linebacker/safety depth and offensive line depth. How are you going to address these early on if you start trading all your picks just to move up a couple of slots.

 

I'd only trade up a couple of slots for a linebacker, nothing else. If they are not available, I'd stay at 29, pick up the best wideout available and then look at guys dropping into the 2nd. It's looking more likely Laurenitis drops to the 2nd round and I'd snap him up then. If Kenny Britt is in the 2nd round, I'd trade late rounders to move up and get him. That's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So which is it then smart ass? Possible or impossible?

 

Yeah we all know it's not probable. We've all been saying that for a while now.

 

What's literalist about saying it is possible? You just said it yourself.

And you're choosing to ignore many factors, purposely I suspect, such as teams being wary in this economy about signing high picks and more and more seeking trade DOWNS, or future draft picks packaged, or packaged players. It's definately a possiblity.

 

 

That's essentially what Ditka did in 99. It doesn't matter if he had no first round pick, he would've found a way to trade up for Ricky Williams.

 

I realize that you want to make Plax4Prez look stupid and to do that you must go on and on about what an impossibly stupid idea trading up is, but at least be accurate. It is possible.

 

Except Ditka had the 12th pick, which is enormously more valuable than the 29th pick. 560 points more valuable to be exact, which equates to 88%. So that's not a precedent at all.

 

A trade of this nature has never happened before. Not even close. And it never will happen, especially now with the Ditka's Saints as a cautionary tale. If you want to refer to that as "possible", then be my guest. I suppose it's also possible that you could fly to the Moon tomorrow.

 

Also, the economy has no bearing beause payrolls are supplied by the league. The money for salaries is directly derived from a perentage of the NFL's gross revenue. As long as the NFL continues to thrive financial, teams need not worry about the economy.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The easiest way to realize that a WR is a dire need for us is...... to remember back to the last 5 or so games of last season(including that Eagles game) when we were without our #1 WR. No other WR on our team could fill that role for us.

 

If anyone finds a way to disagree with this.. then.. I don't even know what to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except Ditka had the 12th pick, which is enormously more valuable than the 29th pick. 560 points more valuable to be exact, which equates to 88%. So that's not a precedent at all.

 

A trade of this nature has never happened before. Not even close. And it never will happen, especially now with the Ditka's Saints as a cautionary tale. If you want to refer to that as "possible", then be my guest. I suppose it's also possible that you could fly to the Moon tomorrow.

 

Also, the economy has no bearing beause payrolls are supplied by the league. The money for salaries is directly derived from a perentage of the NFL's gross revenue. As long as the NFL continues to thrive financial, teams need not worry about the economy.

 

You've got a hard on for the points don't you. I know Ditka was at 12. I've stated as much in this very thread. It does not matter. If the Giants had one player they believed in enough to sacrifice this year's draft and a couple of picks from next year's draft, they could move into the top 5 and get that player. It is most definately a possiblility.

You can spin it every way you can think of and you're still wrong.

 

You're also wrong about me being able to fly to the moon tomorrow. That is impossible, as I have not the ways and means, and I have to work. Very poor analogy.

 

If the economy has no bearing, then I guess everyone on nfl network who's been saying 'the economy will make teams wary of spending big money on top ten picks' is wrong. Nonetheless, money is always an issue. Teams often trade down when they know they'll blow the cap with higher picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've got a hard on for the points don't you. I know Ditka was at 12. I've stated as much in this very thread. It does not matter. If the Giants had one player they believed in enough to sacrifice this year's draft and a couple of picks from next year's draft, they could move into the top 5 and get that player. It is most definately a possiblility.

You can spin it every way you can think of and you're still wrong.

 

You're also wrong about me being able to fly to the moon tomorrow. That is impossible, as I have not the ways and means, and I have to work. Very poor analogy.

 

If the economy has no bearing, then I guess everyone on nfl network who's been saying 'the economy will make teams wary of spending big money on top ten picks' is wrong. Nonetheless, money is always an issue. Teams often trade down when they know they'll blow the cap with higher picks.

 

Unfortunately, I'm not the points enthusiast. I happen to think to think that the chart is completely antiquated and insufficiently representative of the relative value and risk associated with each selection. But my opinion and the extensive research I've done on the subject is worthless -- NFL teams swear by the chart, even at their own peril. That's why every year I'm an advocate of trading down, including this year.

 

There have been more moon landings than there have been NFL trades where a team moves up 25 spots into the top-5. So your own inability to get the moon (don't be sad, Lance Bass couldn't get there either), at the very least, goes to show what type of likelihood this ponderous scenario entails.

 

Yes, the NFL Network guys are wrong (not uncharted territory for them). You, on the other hand, are correct that teams often trade out of the top-10 beause of their reluctance to incur the contratual cost. Doing so certainly has Will's Stamp of Approval (and I really need to find someone to design that stamp). As you might recall, I was vociferous in 2004 that if the Giants insisted on taking a QB, they should have traded down to Cleveland's pick (7th) and take Big Ben and pick up an extra 2nd rounder for future 1st in the process. HOWEVAH, teams in that top-10 commonly trade down only about 10 spots at the maximum (if that). Sure, the Rams might move out of that spot, but they sure as hell won't end up in the 20's. So although the Rams (or any other team) might desire to trade down, that doesn't improve our chances of ascertaining a top-5 pick.

 

Face it, we're beat. We'll have to settle for a muscle-bound, sleek black man not named Michael Crabtree. I hope Plax 4 Prez wasn't serious when he said he'd cry...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've got a hard on for the points don't you. I know Ditka was at 12. I've stated as much in this very thread. It does not matter. If the Giants had one player they believed in enough to sacrifice this year's draft and a couple of picks from next year's draft, they could move into the top 5 and get that player. It is most definately a possiblility.

You can spin it every way you can think of and you're still wrong.

 

You're also wrong about me being able to fly to the moon tomorrow. That is impossible, as I have not the ways and means, and I have to work. Very poor analogy.

 

If the economy has no bearing, then I guess everyone on nfl network who's been saying 'the economy will make teams wary of spending big money on top ten picks' is wrong. Nonetheless, money is always an issue. Teams often trade down when they know they'll blow the cap with higher picks.

 

 

It may be possible for the Giants to do it but it is not even a remote possibility of actually happening. Money is correct... with our without the chart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be possible for the Giants to do it but it is not even a remote possibility of actually happening. Money is correct... with our without the chart.

Thatrs not even the damned point you hard headed fucker. Pay attention.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thatrs not even the damned point you hard headed fucker. Pay attention.

:)

 

Seriously, VG, I am paying attention. Nesta's and your points seem to be that it's technically possible, in the same sense that it's technically possible that we could trade Eli back to the Chargers for Rivers.

 

MY point is that while it may TECHNICALLY be possible, it still has no chance of actually happening, SO WHY ARE WE EVEN DISCUSSING IT! It's pointless. Practically speaking, it's not possible, and for that reason this thread should never have gotten to 9 pages discussing it (and wrestling).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I'm not the points enthusiast. I happen to think to think that the chart is completely antiquated and insufficiently representative of the relative value and risk associated with each selection. But my opinion and the extensive research I've done on the subject is worthless -- NFL teams swear by the chart, even at their own peril. That's why every year I'm an advocate of trading down, including this year.

 

There have been more moon landings than there have been NFL trades where a team moves up 25 spots into the top-5. So your own inability to get the moon (don't be sad, Lance Bass couldn't get there either), at the very least, goes to show what type of likelihood this ponderous scenario entails.

 

Yes, the NFL Network guys are wrong (not uncharted territory for them). You, on the other hand, are correct that teams often trade out of the top-10 beause of their reluctance to incur the contratual cost. Doing so certainly has Will's Stamp of Approval (and I really need to find someone to design that stamp). As you might recall, I was vociferous in 2004 that if the Giants insisted on taking a QB, they should have traded down to Cleveland's pick (7th) and take Big Ben and pick up an extra 2nd rounder for future 1st in the process. HOWEVAH, teams in that top-10 commonly trade down only about 10 spots at the maximum (if that). Sure, the Rams might move out of that spot, but they sure as hell won't end up in the 20's. So although the Rams (or any other team) might desire to trade down, that doesn't improve our chances of ascertaining a top-5 pick.

 

Face it, we're beat. We'll have to settle for a muscle-bound, sleek black man not named Michael Crabtree. I hope Plax 4 Prez wasn't serious when he said he'd cry...

 

Spin it. Faster and faster.

 

I never said landing on the moon is impossible. I said 'Me landing on the moon, tomorrow, is impossible. And as far as I know, no country has ever picked a random civilian then sent them to the moon the next day. Impossible.

It's incredible that you know I'm right, and you're going to these lengths to make a point.

The point being ofcourse, that you're right even though you are wrong.

 

Perhaps you are confusing yourself by making it more complicated than it really is. You don't seem to understand the difference between 'unlikely' and 'impossible'.

 

The point: If the Giants had the desire to move into the top 5, they do have the ways and means to get it done.

 

That is a fact. Whether or not they will actually pull the trigger on it has no bearing whatsoever on whether it's possible or not.

 

You've already said it in this thread yourself.

 

It does not matter if no NFL team ever does it again, it still is possible.

 

When did you throw everything out the window and become this straight up know-it-all asshole that you are now?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I was being a little harsh money.

 

I think I can speak for a lot of people in saying that I appreciate your insight into a lot of the NFL's operations and players, just not the attitude that comes with it.

 

Maybe that's just your schtick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spin it. Faster and faster.

 

I never said landing on the moon is impossible. I said 'Me landing on the moon, tomorrow, is impossible. And as far as I know, no country has ever picked a random civilian then sent them to the moon the next day. Impossible.

It's incredible that you know I'm right, and you're going to these lengths to make a point.

The point being ofcourse, that you're right even though you are wrong.

 

Perhaps you are confusing yourself by making it more complicated than it really is. You don't seem to understand the difference between 'unlikely' and 'impossible'.

 

The point: If the Giants had the desire to move into the top 5, they do have the ways and means to get it done.

 

That is a fact. Whether or not they will actually pull the trigger on it has no bearing whatsoever on whether it's possible or not.

 

You've already said it in this thread yourself.

 

It does not matter if no NFL team ever does it again, it still is possible.

 

When did you throw everything out the window and become this straight up know-it-all asshole that you are now?

 

Let me ask you this, since you're so eager to steal the know-it-all mantle from my trophy case: If any team has the resources to trade into the top-5, why has no one outside the top 20 ever done so? Surely there have been franchise-changing talents -- Calvin Johnson, Peyton Manning, Jim Finn -- so why, in your estimation, hasn't it happened? This is a sincere question.

 

And although you seem enthusiastically desperate for a semantics argument, I won't give it to you. "Impossible", "unlikely", "implausible", "untenable" ... to me, in this scenario it's all the same because we are talking about a hypothetical that won't happen. You have voiced your disagreement, which is fine.

 

Truth be told, I have an extensive vocabulary; I won six Spelling Bee's as a child. So if your goal in life (aside from aeronautics) is to belabor technicalities while losing sight of the bigger picture, I can most assuredly supply a lifetime of material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I was being a little harsh money.

 

I think I can speak for a lot of people in saying that I appreciate your insight into a lot of the NFL's operations and players, just not the attitude that comes with it.

 

Maybe that's just your schtick.

 

I am attitude-less and schtick-less. I'm a comedy writer for crying out loud. This is probably more apparent in my blog than in my sports arguments.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me ask you this, since you're so eager to steal the know-it-all mantle from my trophy case: If any team has the resources to trade into the top-5, why has no one outside the top 20 ever done so? Surely there have been franchise-changing talents -- Calvin Johnson, Peyton Manning, Jim Finn -- so why, in your estimation, hasn't it happened? This is a sincere question.

 

And although you seem enthusiastically desperate for a semantics argument, I won't give it to you. "Impossible", "unlikely", "implausible", "untenable" ... to me, in this scenario it's all the same because we are talking about a hypothetical that won't happen. You have voiced your disagreement, which is fine.

 

Truth be told, I have an extensive vocabulary; I won six Spelling Bee's as a child. So if your goal in life (aside from aeronautics) is to belabor technicalities while losing sight of the bigger picture, I can most assuredly supply a lifetime of material.

 

 

That's easy. Two reasons. The tremendous costs. Football is a team sport and most in the know don't buy that one guy is worth so much in return. Second, you've already mentioned. The one guy who actually did it, Ditka, didn't garner any success by doing it. You can say what you want about him only being at 12, but there's no denying he costs himself a lot more than what was necessary by running his mouth off before the draft.

 

Impossible and unlikely are far from the same realm. Let me keep it nice and simple for you. The next time you walk down a sidewalk and pass a little pile of dogshit, think about this: You could pick it up and have yourself a nice shit sandwich. Certainly possible correct? However, it is highly unlikely (I hope) that you would do such a thing.

 

The same applies here. The Giants could sacrifice this whole draft and much of next year's .or a player or two for that matter, to land ONE player. You've already said it yourself. But that's a shit sandwich that we thankfully will not eat.

 

When you say "no team WOULD" you've already lost the argument. "would" implies a choice to be made. The choice is obviously between POSSIBLE outcomes and not between the possible and impossible.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say keep our picks, take the best available whatever and play Giants football. We have two fucking championships without having a premier WR. All this receiver garbage is media bullshit.

 

See, I tend to agree So Cal, but seeing what happened in the second half of last season without Plaxico really changed my mind...you can win occasional championships every decade or so, but with a dominating QB-WR tandem those championships could come in a nice string. Especially since this team IS built to win already, it makes more sense to immediately fill a pressing need at the expense of losing a few draft picks over hoping that 1 out of your however many picks that are spent on WR pans out.

 

Besides, if you fill the receiver need by trading draft picks, it narrows your focus about how you're looking to draft...so we could say, draft where our second most pressing need lies, linebacker...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's easy. Two reasons. The tremendous costs. Football is a team sport and most in the know don't buy that one guy is worth so much in return. Second, you've already mentioned. The one guy who actually did it, Ditka, didn't garner any success by doing it. You can say what you want about him only being at 12, but there's no denying he costs himself a lot more than what was necessary by running his mouth off before the draft.

 

Impossible and unlikely are far from the same realm. Let me keep it nice and simple for you. The next time you walk down a sidewalk and pass a little pile of dogshit, think about this: You could pick it up and have yourself a nice shit sandwich. Certainly possible correct? However, it is highly unlikely (I hope) that you would do such a thing.

 

The same applies here. The Giants could sacrifice this whole draft and much of next year's .or a player or two for that matter, to land ONE player. You've already said it yourself. But that's a shit sandwich that we thankfully will not eat.

 

When you say "no team WOULD" you've already lost the argument. "would" implies a choice to be made. The choice is obviously between POSSIBLE outcomes and not between the possible and impossible.

 

The Jets actually outdid Ditka in 2003. They were 13th and traded up to number 4 (moving up nine spots instead of eight) to take Dewayne Robertson. But they had two first round picks (13 and, if memory serves, 22), so they didn't need to sacrafice as many total picks to move up. At least Ricky Williams was good.

 

The fact that no team has successfully moved from the 20's to the top-5 confirms that the cost -- financial and personnel -- is too much. HOWEVAH, we've been looking at this from a narrow-minded perspective. One might alternatively conclude that the team drafting in the top-5 would never consider dealing their lottery pick for a package where the best individual pick they get is in the 20's. There are two sides to every agreement, and actively giving away a blue-chip prospect -- of which there are very few each year -- is just as inadvisible as paying an exorbitant price to get one (even Eli). Especially when you're operating within a business of probabilities and not determinisms. You mentioned the concept of "choice," but it's not a choice if the other team says "no thanks."

 

The problems implicit in both sides of this hypothetical trade, combined with the absence of any such deal, suggests an overall impossibility. You're right that impossible is the wrong word, but you also know that's only a true in a theoretical sense. In a practical sense, there's a 0% chance we (or any other team in the 20s) trade into the top-5. Our interpretation of operational definitions are clearly the different, but the real-world outcome is the same.

 

Instead of arguing with me, perhaps you should direct a strongly worded letter to the producers of the Mission: Impossible series. They are far bigger offenders in the semantic realm than I. Or should I just go fuck myself anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except Ditka had the 12th pick, which is enormously more valuable than the 29th pick. 560 points more valuable to be exact, which equates to 88%. So that's not a precedent at all.

 

A trade of this nature has never happened before. Not even close. And it never will happen, especially now with the Ditka's Saints as a cautionary tale. If you want to refer to that as "possible", then be my guest. I suppose it's also possible that you could fly to the Moon tomorrow.

 

Also, the economy has no bearing beause payrolls are supplied by the league. The money for salaries is directly derived from a perentage of the NFL's gross revenue. As long as the NFL continues to thrive financial, teams need not worry about the economy.

Thanks man. I know this move to the 2nd pick isn't going to happen, and I won't let any of these fucktards make me feel like I'm stupid. My title to this thread had the description of "my reasons why." I still srongly believe in my own head that Crabtree would help us day 1 to be a ultimate player. The price to make that happen is very costly, but I don't feel like we have that many areas of concern. If we were a 0-16 team like the Lions I would know it's a no-brainer that a wr at any skill wouldn't help. Example Calvin Johnson. You know, my best bet is to just drop what I personally think would help the team. Listen guys I'm no idiot. I just threw a thought out there. That's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Jets actually outdid Ditka in 2003. They were 13th and traded up to number 4 (moving up nine spots instead of eight) to take Dewayne Robertson. But they had two first round picks (13 and, if memory serves, 22), so they didn't need to sacrafice as many total picks to move up. At least Ricky Williams was good.

 

The fact that no team has successfully moved from the 20's to the top-5 confirms that the cost -- financial and personnel -- is too much. HOWEVAH, we've been looking at this from a narrow-minded perspective. One might alternatively conclude that the team drafting in the top-5 would never consider dealing their lottery pick for a package where the best individual pick they get is in the 20's. There are two sides to every agreement, and actively giving away a blue-chip prospect -- of which there are very few each year -- is just as inadvisible as paying an exorbitant price to get one (even Eli). Especially when you're operating within a business of probabilities and not determinisms. You mentioned the concept of "choice," but it's not a choice if the other team says "no thanks."

 

The problems implicit in both sides of this hypothetical trade, combined with the absence of any such deal, suggests an overall impossibility. You're right that impossible is the wrong word, but you also know that's only a true in a theoretical sense. In a practical sense, there's a 0% chance we (or any other team in the 20s) trade into the top-5. Our interpretation of operational definitions are clearly the different, but the real-world outcome is the same.

 

Instead of arguing with me, perhaps you should direct a strongly worded letter to the producers of the Mission: Impossible series. They are far bigger offenders in the semantic realm than I. Or should I just go fuck myself anyway?

 

It's not about how far, it's about giving up everything for one guy. And that's what Ditka did. He gave up every pick and added on future picks until the skins said 'yes'. We, god forbid, could do the same.

Alot of teams in the top 5 are not 1 or 2 players from winning the superbowl, that's why some would jump on a deal like this, and in my opinion they're more likely to do it now than they would have just 10 years ago. The contracts for top 5 picks are crazy now. More picks (including future picks with potential to outweigh the 29th) gives the team more players as well as more leeway to move in the draft and get the playerS they want.

 

Impossible is the wrong word. That's all I was saying about 5 pages ago, but thanks for noticing.

 

I'm not a Tom Cruise fan, and I would advise you to avoid his movies. Perhaps that's where you picked up this confusion with the impossible. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...