FOX - Botched trade will put pressure on Redskins

Refusing to send a 2nd round pick for Campbell is less about Campbell than it is about leverage. For one thing, we don't know that Campbell was shopped to the entire league and not just a few teams. Further, if you know a team is shopping a QB for a 2nd rounder that they may not even re-sign after the upcoming season is over wouldn't you counter with a lesser offer?

My guess is the Redskins said let's see if team x, y, and z will take Campbell for a 2nd rounder. If they say no (which they probably will) we'll just pull him off the table. We're not looking to negotiate a trade here, just see if someone will take him for a 2nd rounder.

Gtripp, im not on here looking to find common ground. I am looking to discuss different points of view.

ok - forget comparing O-lines, Defense, QB rating and team won / loss records.

so tell me the reason Denver turned down two #1 picks AND JC for Cutler? why did no team pickup JC for the skins 2nd round pick, when it was on the table? his lack of market value should tell you something - other nfl teams dont really want him. forget my personal opinion, but this was even discussed on the NFL network.Well, of course other teams don't want him. He's not a whiny brat like Jay Cutler, nor is he an established talent.

If teams acted 100% rationally, there would have been no market for Jay Cutler. It would have been "okay, our project QB and a third round pick for your project QB". That would have been the market. Teams don't always act rationally. The Redskins being there 1) drove up the price, and 2) defined the player (Cutler) as a proven commodity, as opposed to a young, promising QB, which is what Cutler is.

Understand that the Redskins COULD have done something similar with Jason Campbell had that been their goal (to artifically inflate his value and then trade him to a team that really wants a franchise QB). It would never have gotten to the levels the Cutler sweepstakes got to, but it's all cognitive dissonace theory. We spend a month talking up Campbell, defending his statistics, placing the blame for his failures elsewhere, just generally acting like he's the greatest QB we've had since Theismann and all of a sudden we say "Colt Brennan is our Quarterback". There's a huge market for Jason Campbell's services, then. If the perception is that you are willing to trade a young franchise QB, the reality is that someone will pay you accordingly.

The point is, we never bothered to treat Jason Campbell like the future of our franchise, so other teams don't value him more highly than we do. He still might be the future, but at this point, he's unquestionably the present. We can't trade him for anything right now because of the way we acted around Cutler. A year from now, he'll probably have a ton of trade value, but we might be betteer off holding onto him anyway.

Refusing to send a 2nd round pick for Campbell is less about Campbell than it is about leverage. For one thing, we don't know that Campbell was shopped to the entire league and not just a few teams. Further, if you know a team is shopping a QB for a 2nd rounder that they may not even re-sign after the upcoming season is over wouldn't you counter with a lesser offer?

My guess is the Redskins said let's see if team x, y, and z will take Campbell for a 2nd rounder. If they say no (which they probably will) we'll just pull him off the table. We're not looking to negotiate a trade here, just see if someone will take him for a 2nd rounder.

Good post. I think people tend to over simplify the argument. JC was shopped for a 2nd rounder and nobody bit...nobody likes Jason Campbell.

Umm, it's not quite that simple.

The Cutler arguement was poor? Their records as starters are similar, but having a 5th ranked D versus a 30th ranked D has an enormous impact. That was the point. So tell me what would the Skins record would have been if we had the 30th ranked D?

Thats a Good point, and I still think Kiper may be right on Mark Sanchez. Don't be shocked if we draft him.

Good post. I think people tend to over simplify the argument. JC was shopped for a 2nd rounder and nobody bit...nobody likes Jason Campbell.

Umm, it's not quite that simple.The Redskins would have been exponentially better off shopping him with an asking price of a 1st and a 4th. Of course, nobody would have done that, but it would have sent a message to other teams that we're perfectly alright holding on to Campbell if you aren't going to play our game, and since we're your most serious suitor, you might want to come talk turkey with us.

Of course, Snyder's biggest issue has always been that he operates in the here and now, and at that very moment, a 2nd round pick was more valuable to him than Jason Campbell was, so he kind of screwed himself over to an extent. I'm not at all surprised that the deal didn't get done given the information, and I still have no idea how Snyder can seem so ignorant of most principles of business and remain so successful.

I mean, Pat Bowlen, every word out of his mouth was "Jay Cutler is a fantastic player", and here's Snyder trying to sell low on Campbell and wondering why there's such a discrepancy in the perceived value of the two. Bowlen, even in the face of a mismanaged situation, still managed to make other owners play his game. That's very impressive.

Drunk and stupid. Never a good look.
but sometimes the fit is perfect

What do you say guys, thumbs up (live) or down (die)? You make the call.
I don't think he's done enough to deserve the boot. Some people have bad days, some people have a different way of arguing, some are more reactionary.

As a site administrator you want activity. I don't find his obnoxious; booting him would make this site look too clique-driven, which it can definitely be at times. Then again, definitely don't want this being ES Jr. either; not to mention they're coming up with new excuses daily to ban people and restrict their permissions.

I don't think he's done enough to deserve the boot. Some people have bad days, some people have a different way of arguing, some are more reactionary.

As a site administrator you want activity. I don't find his obnoxious; booting him would make this site look too clique-driven, which it can definitely be at times. Then again, definitely don't want this being ES Jr. either; not to mention they're coming up with new excuses daily to ban people and restrict their permissions.

I don't care about what he's saying, I'm asking whether we should boot him due to the fact he may be a moron that was previously banned posting under a new name. He basically admitted to it but has since backtracked.

I don't think he's done enough to deserve the boot. Some people have bad days, some people have a different way of arguing, some are more reactionary.

As a site administrator you want activity. I don't find his obnoxious; booting him would make this site look too clique-driven, which it can definitely be at times. Then again, definitely don't want this being ES Jr. either; not to mention they're coming up with new excuses daily to ban people and restrict their permissions.

...Or THN where it's a gaggle of Campbell haters, people with 70,000+ posts and signatures with a bunch of annoying banners and quotes a mile long.

I don't care about what he's saying, I'm asking whether we should boot him due to the fact he may be a moron that was previously banned posting under a new name. He basically admitted to it but has since backtracked.

Ahh, yeah.. well if he had something more to bring to the table than his Campbell arguments I'd definitely turn the other cheek. Otherwise, if that's all that he wants to do here, I really have no opinion.

A little geolocation searching, other clues such as similar emails, birthdays, etc against banned members might lead you to a clue. Are most bans here permanent?