TT's reluctance to use FA and Trades- A problem?

[Bucksfans1and2]

TT came in and completely cleaned house from what I can remember. We got rid of... was it Timmerman and Rivera? Two guys who were regarded as very good guards around the league.

When TT came in we were over the salary cap. Rivera wasn't brought back, and Wahle and Sharper were cut, because we didn't have the cash.

Those were all cuts, releases or not resigned. None were TRADES.

I'm aware. When a new GM comes in, he wants to shape his roster immediately. That involves getting rid of the players that he doesn't want. That can take the shape of not resigning guys, cutting guys, or trading guys. Nobody wants their predecessors garbage. That's why you're more likely to see trades, with new GMs. This isn't a new philosophy that's emerging. That's always been the case.

[eagle13]

The cold hard numbers are of the six GMs in those 3 in-season trades - 4 were new. In other words 75% of the GMs involved in those 3 in-season trade were new / 25% were on the job 3+ yrs. That's a vastly significant difference.

If you want to deal with the total nbr of GMs like you did / using your number of 14 new GMs
New GMs (w/ 1 or 2 yrs) = 14 total / 4 were involved / 4 of 14 = 29% of new GMs made in-season trade
Vet GMs (w/ 3+yrs) = 18 total / 2 were involved / 2 of 18 = 11% of vet GMs made in-season trade
That says 29% of new GMs made an in-season trade while 11% of vet GMs did. That's a vastly significant difference.

Either way you cut it - the GM's who WERE INVOLVED in the trade - the majority were new

Rationally, new GMs are dealing with rosters that they really don't want. It makes sense for them to be trying to move people that aren't their guys. It isn't a new mentality. In Ted's second year in the league, he signed Woodson and Pickett. GMs stop making trades when they get their own guys in place.

Also, two of the three teams sending out players in these trades recently got new ownership. So this is like stage two of the housecleaning for them.

Like eagle says, we'll see what happens going forward, but I see absolutely no reason to believe that we're going to see a sustained increase in major player trades going forward. We're looking at three discrete events with unique circumstances involved in all three trades.

Again mis-communication. I made original post on my prediction and I never limited it to in-season or major. Yes I see you subsequently did. I then did include in-season but never major. I don't see Monroe for a 4th & 5th pick as MAJOR nor a conditional pick for Brown. A 1st for Richardson I would call major.

[Bucksfans1and2]

They had a #2 pick they wanted to shift into his natural position, and Monroe is a pending FA they didn't intend to resign. That's very different from what motivated the other two trades.

Different from the Richardson and Brown trades, sure.

But not that different from the Revis or Harvin trades.

[Bucksfans1and2]

Rationally, new GMs are dealing with rosters that they really don't want. It makes sense for them to be trying to move people that aren't their guys. It isn't a new mentality. In Ted's second year in the league, he signed Woodson and Pickett. GMs stop making trades when they get their own guys in place.

Also, two of the three teams sending out players in these trades recently got new ownership. So this is like stage two of the housecleaning for them.

Like eagle says, we'll see what happens going forward, but I see absolutely no reason to believe that we're going to see a sustained increase in major player trades going forward. We're looking at three discrete events with unique circumstances involved in all three trades.

Again mis-communication. I made original post on my prediction and I never limited it to in-season or major. Yes I see you subsequently did. I then did include in-season but never major. I don't see Monroe for a 4th & 5th pick as MAJOR nor a conditional pick for Brown. A 1st for Richardson I would call major.

A 4th and 5th rounder for 12 games of a guy isn't insignificant.

[eagle13]

When TT came in we were over the salary cap. Rivera wasn't brought back, and Wahle and Sharper were cut, because we didn't have the cash.

Those were all cuts, releases or not resigned. None were TRADES.

I'm aware. When a new GM comes in, he wants to shape his roster immediately. That involves getting rid of the players that he doesn't want. That can take the shape of not resigning guys, cutting guys, or trading guys. Nobody wants their predecessors garbage. That's why you're more likely to see trades, with new GMs. This isn't a new philosophy that's emerging. That's always been the case.

New GMs turning over rosters = Yes I agree. Using lots of trades to do it? Give me some evidence to back that claim and beware small sample sizes don't cut it according to the crowd.

[eagle13]

Also, two of the three teams sending out players in these trades recently got new ownership. So this is like stage two of the housecleaning for them.

Like eagle says, we'll see what happens going forward, but I see absolutely no reason to believe that we're going to see a sustained increase in major player trades going forward. We're looking at three discrete events with unique circumstances involved in all three trades.

Again mis-communication. I made original post on my prediction and I never limited it to in-season or major. Yes I see you subsequently did. I then did include in-season but never major. I don't see Monroe for a 4th & 5th pick as MAJOR nor a conditional pick for Brown. A 1st for Richardson I would call major.

A 4th and 5th rounder for 12 games of a guy isn't insignificant.

BUT do you call that MAJOR?
What do you call the Richardson deal then? Certainly a diference in magnitude between a 1st and a 4th & 5th

[emunney]

I was using the terminology to describe the significance of the player fwiw. A starter being traded midseason is significant. I suppose it would also extend to a smaller group of non-starters, and we'd probably be in agreement as to who those players were if they came up.

Offseason trades have never been that rare. Not as common as baseball and basketball, but the tag and trade, for example, is a fairly commonly employed tactic, a smattering of minor deals around cut down time, players involved in draft day deals, etc.

A couple big-named players TT traded in the offseason: Javon Walker and Corey Williams.

[Bucksfans1and2]

Those were all cuts, releases or not resigned. None were TRADES.

I'm aware. When a new GM comes in, he wants to shape his roster immediately. That involves getting rid of the players that he doesn't want. That can take the shape of not resigning guys, cutting guys, or trading guys. Nobody wants their predecessors garbage. That's why you're more likely to see trades, with new GMs. This isn't a new philosophy that's emerging. That's always been the case.

New GMs turning over rosters = Yes I agree. Using lots of trades to do it? Give me some evidence to back that claim and beware small sample sizes don't cut it according to the crowd.

3 years of QB trades. And that's only a QB change the following year. That doesn't include QBs drafted.

Scott Pioli takes over the Chiefs after the 2008 season. The Chiefs promptly trade #34 for Matt Cassel and Mike Vrabel.

Josh McDaniels takes over the Broncos after the 2008 season. The Broncos promptly trade Cutler to the Bears.

Mike Shannahan takes over the Redskins after the 2009 season. The Redskins promptly trade for Donavon McNabb.

Hue Jackson goes to the Raiders after the 2010 season. the Raiders promptly trade for Carson Palmer.

[Bucksfans1and2]

Again mis-communication. I made original post on my prediction and I never limited it to in-season or major. Yes I see you subsequently did. I then did include in-season but never major. I don't see Monroe for a 4th & 5th pick as MAJOR nor a conditional pick for Brown. A 1st for Richardson I would call major.

A 4th and 5th rounder for 12 games of a guy isn't insignificant.

BUT do you call that MAJOR?

What do you call the Richardson deal then? Certainly a diference in magnitude between a 1st and a 4th & 5th

A 4th and 5th is value, more value than I would've given up in their shoes. At least in the Richardson deal you get him for a significant period of time. 44 games of Trent Richardson vs. 12 of Eugene Monroe. Obviously the Richardson deal is bigger news.

[eagle13]

I'm aware. When a new GM comes in, he wants to shape his roster immediately. That involves getting rid of the players that he doesn't want. That can take the shape of not resigning guys, cutting guys, or trading guys. Nobody wants their predecessors garbage. That's why you're more likely to see trades, with new GMs. This isn't a new philosophy that's emerging. That's always been the case.

New GMs turning over rosters = Yes I agree. Using lots of trades to do it? Give me some evidence to back that claim and beware small sample sizes don't cut it according to the crowd.

3 years of QB trades. And that's only a QB change the following year. That doesn't include QBs drafted.

Scott Pioli takes over the Chiefs after the 2008 season. The Chiefs promptly trade #34 for Matt Cassel and Mike Vrabel.

Josh McDaniels takes over the Broncos after the 2008 season. The Broncos promptly trade Cutler to the Bears.

Mike Shannahan takes over the Redskins after the 2009 season. The Redskins promptly trade for Donavon McNabb.

Hue Jackson goes to the Raiders after the 2010 season. the Raiders promptly trade for Carson Palmer.

4 trades over 3 years is nothing for all the turnover of players we're talking about - especially w/ QB being the most traded position along w/ WR. Never mind I don't care anymore

[eagle13]

And you realize that the reasons people have been giving you have extended far beyond "because it doesn't happen often"? There are real, structural reasons why it doesn't happen often. You seem to think that NFL GMs don't make a lot of trades because NFL trades are historically uncommon. But the fact is, NFL trades were once much more common, before the restrictions of the modern capped league. This has nothing to do with entrenched thought and everything to do with logistics.

You realize it frequently takes a cycle of encounter to master the encounter? and then move on. Yes trades were more common before the cap as Ron Wolf noted. The cap was new and complicated and daunting. Over the years, with the drive to find ways to improve, the cap became less imposing and was discovered could be manipulated. This is the slightest start of a paradigm that trades don't happen in the NFL. There will never be a cascade but they will increase. Whatever - I understand people's inability to perceive past the current paradigm. IF both of us are here in 3 years (God I hope not) we can pick this up then - thanks for the back & forth Emunney it was good for my typing practice