ImageImageImageImage

Cards @ Lions

Moderator: theBigLip

TSE
Banned User
Posts: 3,405
And1: 9
Joined: Jul 20, 2009
Location: Detroit

Re: Cards @ Lions 

Post#41 » by TSE » Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:28 am

Piston Pete wrote:
TSE wrote:
Piston Pete wrote:I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. IMO, NO WAY does a team give us a top 5 pick (likely would have to be top 3 or 4 for Berry) for Pettigrew, Sims, others....


But it doesn't make any sense.

How about our entire team other than CJ or Stafford. So 51 guys for Berry. And whatever guys they can't use, they can trade to other teams for picks or what not.

So how much would it take to get Berry then IN YOUR opinion. I already am satisfied with my opinion that we have lots of packages that might work out for a trade for him, but since you are the one that undervalues our players more than I do, then list the price.

How many of our 51 guys can we keep and still get Berry?


Yeah, a realistic option would be to trade everyone other than CJ and Stafford for Berry. You're right! Although it would be ultra-sweet if a team only wanted 30-35 of our players for Berry. I mean seriously, depth is seriously over-rated.

In reality, the only way we get back into the top 5 is trading CJ (maybe a team gives us an additional pick or two...) or trading multiple picks (from this draft as well as possibly future drafts). Either way, its most likely not worth it. I'd rather keep CJ (or the multiple picks) and look to draft another safety later in the draft, or get one via free agency.


What is all this typing about? It's all hogwash and doesn't address the question. You are going off on a tangent. I didnt' say a 51 player trade is realistic, YOU are closer to saying that than me. I was sold on that list of 7 decent players being enough for him and you said it wasn't. So that's what I'm trying to show you, is that you think somehow Berry is worth an entire team minus 2 players? If that's not what you think then say so and say what he's worth, what's so hard about that?

I did it and I say Berry is worth less than the combo of "Sims, Peterson, Backus, Dom, Kevin Smith, Jordan Dizon, Brandon Pettigrew, etc...."

What's he worth to you? Why don't you fairly address a simple question?
User avatar
Bartender
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,544
And1: 3
Joined: Feb 17, 2009

Re: Cards @ Lions 

Post#42 » by Bartender » Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:13 pm

Sims and Kevin Smith are the only players I would trade. CJ is a building block. As well as Stafford and Pettigrew. They MUSTTTT stay. If we trade any of them, we'd be COMPLETELY starting all over. 3 steps forward 2 steps back type of moves.
TSE wrote:Wow I actually like this trade, good job Mayhew!
User avatar
Bartender
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,544
And1: 3
Joined: Feb 17, 2009

Re: Cards @ Lions 

Post#43 » by Bartender » Wed Dec 23, 2009 5:11 pm

Now that I think of it, I would rather have Suh and Okung or Berry and Okung then Suh and Berry.

Okung would add an immediate pro bowler to our OLine and chemistry cuz he played in college with Brandon Pettigrew. I would trade Smith and/or Sims and picks to get a 4th or 5th pick. Or whatever it would take to get Okung.
TSE wrote:Wow I actually like this trade, good job Mayhew!
TSE
Banned User
Posts: 3,405
And1: 9
Joined: Jul 20, 2009
Location: Detroit

Re: Cards @ Lions 

Post#44 » by TSE » Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:25 pm

Bartender wrote:Sims and Kevin Smith are the only players I would trade. CJ is a building block. As well as Stafford and Pettigrew. They MUSTTTT stay. If we trade any of them, we'd be COMPLETELY starting all over. 3 steps forward 2 steps back type of moves.


What do you mean by "starting over". If CJ is traded to fill 2 holes, then we are building more rather than putting all of our talent into one basket that doesn't have the proper support.

But we dont' have to trade CJ to fill 2 holes, we could trade him to fill MORE than 2 holes. You are denouncing a trade that you don't even know what it is for. I don't want to trade CJ just to get rid of him. I want to trade him because I believe that some team out there will overpay us for him and we will get a nice haul. If I'm wrong and one of the 31 other teams out there doesn't overvalue him the way I think they will, then no trade. But it's worth a look to see if there is a beautiful trade out there, and I feel the odds of such a trade existing are well over 50%. It is more likely that an awesome CJ trade for us exists than for it to not exist.

If our team did things differently this year and last year and we had a totally different makeup today, this may not be the case, but with where we happen to be today, it is a tailor-made situation for us to exchange CJ now at a healthy peak and reload with future players that you will one day learn to love. It's for the best interests of the team so we can get to the playoffs and win SBs. It would be nice if we could have won a SB with CJ this year, but we didn't. And we have no shot next year with how many holes we have. We will just have another subpar or average year at best, and continue to lose value on CJ, and then one day his contract will expire and we will get nothing. Just like the Tigers did with Polanco this season instead of trading him YEARS ago like I suggested. Now we got zero out of that investment instead of a haul that could be in our bank right now.
User avatar
Piston Pete
RealGM
Posts: 19,069
And1: 1,352
Joined: Feb 07, 2002
Location: Way out in left field

Re: Cards @ Lions 

Post#45 » by Piston Pete » Thu Dec 24, 2009 3:23 am

Well the Tigers were stupid....all they had to do was offer Polanco arbitration this offseason, and they didn't.

If they would have, and another team signed him (Phillies), then we'd get additional draft picks from the signing. The Tigers never offered arb, so we get nothing.

BTW, no way does Sims/Smith get us a top-5 pick.

Return to Detroit Lions