Cassel to Chiefs

yeah, that's the thing. Trades involving first rounders (not including pick for pick gameday trades, which would technically involve a first rounder) aren't that damned rare given there were two last year.

Also, it looks like there's been a little flak for Bellichick passing up a potential first for a second rounder, which by the value chart is certainly a much better trade. The concern for very high salary in first rounders doesn't really affect the Denver choice.

 

Can you remember the last time there were two such trades in one season? If it has ever happened before, it was presumably before my time. Most seasons there aren't any "first for player" trades. Last year was a fluke.

That wasn't a real offer, just one speculated about in the media. Denver had been approached about a three way deal, but the teams involved had not signed off on that and presented it as a formal proposal to New England. Moreover, just think about it and you realize that it made no sense. Denver was supposed to give up their first round pick and Cutler? Obviously they were expected to get picks back in return, but the only team mentioned with a higher first than Denver was Detroit, and Denver wouldn't want the top pick overall.

 

I haven't thought about it, but it didn't take long to remember that two happened last year, and that either makes it moderately common or on the rise. Either way, it happens.

I don't believe so. They were going to send Cutler away, and if they'd been able to do so before the rumors and whining started, they probably would've gotten a first round pick. I don't know what the involvement would've been with Detroit or Tampa.

 

There are rumors that Cutler is Minny bound. It was posted on the ESPN Insiders rumors part of ESPN.com. Unfortunately, I don't have a sub to ESPN Insiders.

 

Not really, they get the #34 pick for their backup, who was a UFA, while freeing up 14 mil in cap space, then dump Vrabel who is well past his prime to free up even more cap space.

You have to wait and see the guys they sign with this new money before considering who it worked out best for. My money is on the Patriots.

 

Here is the best explanation I have seen yet.

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2009/03/02/sanders_has_room_to_grow/

 

the guy had one single good year on a very good team, logically I don't see why a high second is getting ripped off

 

That makes no sense. As far as I know, there is no cap difference between cutting a player and trading them. So they could have taken Detroit's #33 and just cut Vrabel.

 

Normally when you cut a player you still have dead money to contend with if I am not mistaken where as with a trade it is completely off the books for the team sending the player and they start fresh with whatever they get in return. At least that is my understanding. So, if that's the case they must have valued the 34 over the 33 considering whatever dead money would have been there?

 

I also read this on another board.