Rumor: Eagles and Rams Finalizing Trade Involving McNabb

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by mlmdub130

First rumbles of McNabb-to-Raiders trade terms emerge | ProFootballTalk.com

rumors rumors rumors

That's a horrible trade for Philly. I love Nnamdi but Samuel is a star CB, plus that basically says Oakland gets 2 Pro Bowlers for 1. No way this is a legit trade rumor. McNabb isn't going anywhere, every year he is mentioned in trade talks and every year he's an Eagle.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

That's a horrible trade for Philly. I love Nnamdi but Samuel is a star CB, plus that basically says Oakland gets 2 Pro Bowlers for 1. No way this is a legit trade rumor. McNabb isn't going anywhere, every year he is mentioned in trade talks and every year he's an Eagle.

Pro bowls? Really?

Any time you can package two un-elite players in a trade and get an elite performer, you have to do it.

I love both Carlos Rogers and Jason Campbell, but if I could package both of them for Nnamdi, I would have to do it. Likewise, Samuel and McNabb are both valuable players, but it's better to have the elite guy.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Pro bowls? Really?

Any time you can package two un-elite players in a trade and get an elite performer, you have to do it.

I love both Carlos Rogers and Jason Campbell, but if I could package both of them for Nnamdi, I would have to do it. Likewise, Samuel and McNabb are both valuable players, but it's better to have the elite guy.

I understand the point but who wouldn't trade Campbell and Rogers for that guy? McNabb and Samuel are on another planet compared to our guys.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

That's a horrible trade for Philly. I love Nnamdi but Samuel is a star CB, plus that basically says Oakland gets 2 Pro Bowlers for 1. No way this is a legit trade rumor. McNabb isn't going anywhere, every year he is mentioned in trade talks and every year he's an Eagle.

Not only that but the Eagles basically give up a franchise CB for another franchise CB then throw on a franchise QB for no reason what so ever. How is that even remotely logical. That makes the CP trade a few years back look genius on the part of Gibbs and Company.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

That's a horrible trade for Philly. I love Nnamdi but Samuel is a star CB, plus that basically says Oakland gets 2 Pro Bowlers for 1. No way this is a legit trade rumor. McNabb isn't going anywhere, every year he is mentioned in trade talks and every year he's an Eagle.

This time of year there's always a lot of misdirection and subterfuge circulating around the league. Some of it deception, and some of it just plain lying and false information. Nonetheless, for some it makes for good speculative discussion.

[CultBrennan59]

Why do the Raiders want McNabb when they have Gradkowski? Give him a chance before you trade for a vet like McNabb. Plus I think thats the last NFL team McNabb wants to play for.

[Kalisto2010]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

Why do the Raiders want McNabb when they have Gradkowski? Give him a chance before you trade for a vet like McNabb. Plus I think thats the last NFL team McNabb wants to play for.

Yeah, I was impressed with Gradowski last year. The kid has an absolute cannon, and he's going to be there for a while. McNabb on the other hand, will want out just like every other pro bowler who's gone to the Raiders.

[GTripp0012]

McNabb>Gradkowski, but not by nearly enough to make the compensation they would have to give the Eagles worth it.

However, from a practical standpoint, it is one more guy between Russell and the field.

[GTripp0012]

Although, as long as you can use arbitrary titles, I'd argue that any time you can receive a superstar running back with elite blocking skills for a malcontent corner and a second round pick, you should do it.

The key is to phrase it so that the players you are receiving are always franchise-changers. Even if you're just getting McNabb and Samuel.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Although, as long as you can use arbitrary titles, I'd argue that any time you can receive a superstar running back with elite blocking skills for a malcontent corner and a second round pick, you should do it.

The key is to phrase it so that the players you are receiving are always franchise-changers. Even if you're just getting McNabb and Samuel.

So Champ was the malcontent? We were absolutely hosed in that deal. We gave up the premier corner in the league and a second round pick for a great runningback in Denver's system and above average runningback in Gibbs' system. Portis was never a superstar here.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

So Champ was the malcontent? We were absolutely hosed in that deal. We gave up the premier corner in the league and a second round pick for a great runningback in Denver's system and above average runningback in Gibbs' system. Portis was never a superstar here.

Champ Bailey was an unrestricted free-agent that had made it clear he didn'twant to play here any longer. He was free to sign with any team he wanted, so in reality we didn't trade Champ, we traded a 2nd round pick to Denver for Portis.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

Champ Bailey was an unrestricted free-agent that had made it clear he didn'twant to play here any longer. He was free to sign with any team he wanted, so in reality we didn't trade Champ, we traded a 2nd round pick to Denver for Portis.

Last time I checked you can't trade UFAs. If we had paid him above market value(like we paid Portis even though there was another year left in his deal...) he would have been happy all the way to the bank.

No, in reality we traded Champ Bailey and a 2nd round pick for Portis.

[McD5]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

Last time I checked you can't trade UFAs. If we had paid him above market value(like we paid Portis even though there was another year left in his deal...) he would have been happy all the way to the bank.

No, in reality we traded Champ Bailey and a 2nd round pick for Portis.

I am very impressed with this forum.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

Last time I checked you can't trade UFAs. If we had paid him above market value(like we paid Portis even though there was another year left in his deal...) he would have been happy all the way to the bank.

No, in reality we traded Champ Bailey and a 2nd round pick for Portis.

Last time I checked you can't trade UFA's...the very point I tried to make. Next sentence...We traded Champ Bailey and.......I'm out.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

So Champ was the malcontent? We were absolutely hosed in that deal. We gave up the premier corner in the league and a second round pick for a great runningback in Denver's system and above average runningback in Gibbs' system. Portis was never a superstar here.

I agree with you. I was just pointing out that by justifying Oaklands end of a trade (that right now is an unsubstantiated PFT rumor) using labels that suggest all players are of equal value at their positions*. So I was trying to show how you could take something as clear cut as the Portis-Bailey trade, label the parties as such, and come up with a rule that seems to make it preposterous that the "winning" side would be interested.

The NFL definition of "franchise" is paid in the top five of a position, so to call someone not in the top five at their position a "franchise" player would be stretching the definition to something that, IMO, it isn't meant to cover.