PDA

View Full Version : Doresy trade rumor?



honda522
04-20-2009, 12:26 PM
Now mind this is a rumor.
http://www.eastcoastsportsnews.com/als09scoop.html

Just curious to what you guys thought of it?
Good, Bad, Don't Know?

tornadospotter
04-20-2009, 12:46 PM
This could be a very interesting draft day.

jmlamerson
04-20-2009, 01:25 PM
Now mind this is a rumor.
als09scoop (http://www.eastcoastsportsnews.com/als09scoop.html)

Just curious to what you guys thought of it?
Good, Bad, Don't Know?

It isn't happening. Don't rely on Al Fronczak for anything other than a list of things that won't happen.

honda522
04-20-2009, 01:28 PM
Never said it would it. But I was wondering what peoples opinion on what if it did happen.

theaxeeffect4311
04-20-2009, 01:38 PM
If it did happen, we need at least a first round pick. I would like a first round and a second round, but no team is going to give us that. So we would have to settle with a first and third. But with how much money we'll get hit by cap penalty, I'm not sure it will happen. If they could find a way to minimize the cap penalty, get at least a first and third and maybe a pick next season depending on Dorsey's performance, I'd take that trade.

yashi
04-20-2009, 01:40 PM
for us to even consider taking that cap hit, we better get something incredible in return.

tornadospotter
04-20-2009, 01:44 PM
Forget the Dorsey trade scenario, what about the skins selling there entire draft, for the #3 pick?

Seek
04-20-2009, 01:46 PM
Hey I am all for the Redskins trading up to get Sanchez. I would be happy with the 13th pick and all of Washingtons 2009 draft and their first next year.

tornadospotter
04-20-2009, 01:47 PM
Hey I am all for the Redskins trading up to get Sanchez. I would be happy with the 13th pick and all of Washingtons 2009 draft and their first next year.
ME TO!!!!!!!!

Bike
04-20-2009, 01:48 PM
Forget the Dorsey trade scenario, what about the skins selling there entire draft, for the #3 pick?
Yeah!! And a 1st in 2010!!
You think Skins want Sanchez that bad??
Or is Snyder that stupid??

tornadospotter
04-20-2009, 01:52 PM
Yeah!! And a 1st in 2010!!
You think Skins want Sanchez that bad??
Or is Snyder that stupid??
I think Snyder is that stupid, and wants Sanchez that bad. He can have him to, and I do not care if he becomes the greatest QB ever to play the game.

Which I think he will be the bust of the draft, but thats just my opinion. :D

chiefnut
04-20-2009, 02:03 PM
if it happens, its a good/bad deal pending who we pick with that draft pick

Bike
04-20-2009, 02:10 PM
if it happens, its a good/bad deal pending who we pick with that draft pick
Since its Pioli/Haley and not CP/Herm doing the pickin', chances have increased 10-fold that our picks will be awesome!!
My vacumm cleaner sucks.

N TX Dave
04-20-2009, 02:21 PM
Yeah!! And a 1st in 2010!!
You think Skins want Sanchez that bad??
Or is Snyder that stupid??

Yes Snyder is POed that he did not get our buddy from Denver so he has set his sights on Sanchez and knows that if he is on the board at 4 he is gone to Seattle so what other option does he have?
3rd pick is 2200 points
13 pick 1st round 1150
16 pick 3rd round 190
14 pick 5th round 35
13 pick 6th round 23
So you see they are short 802 points which is equal to the 21st pick. But that is not saying something else can not be worked out.


:lol: :yahoo:

tornadospotter
04-20-2009, 02:21 PM
Since its Pioli/Haley and not CP/Herm doing the pickin', chances have increased 10-fold that our picks will be awesome!!
My vacumm cleaner sucks.

I have a spare old one! :D

jmlamerson
04-20-2009, 02:24 PM
Never said it would it. But I was wondering what peoples opinion on what if it did happen.

I don't think there's any way we take the cap hit. I think if Dorsey gets traded, it will be after June 1, when we can spread the cap hit over 2009 and 2010.

As for the Redskins trade, if they (at least) offer to swap 1sts, throw in their 2009 3rd and 5th round picks, and throw in their 2010 3rd round pick, then I say we make the trade. Then I pray to God that Tyson Jackson is still sitting on the board at 13. If not, we pick Oher or Maualuga.

jmlamerson
04-20-2009, 02:25 PM
Yes Snyder is POed that he did not get our buddy from Denver so he has set his sights on Sanchez and knows that if he is on the board at 4 he is gone to Seattle so what other option does he have?
3rd pick is 2200 points
13 pick 1st round 1150
16 pick 3rd round 190
14 pick 5th round 35
13 pick 6th round 23
So you see they are short 802 points which is equal to the 21st pick. But that is not saying something else can not be worked out.


:lol: :yahoo:

No one uses that points chart anymore due to the $$$ cost of a top-5 pick. People have to let the thing die.

theaxeeffect4311
04-20-2009, 02:33 PM
I don't think there's any way we take the cap hit. I think if Dorsey gets traded, it will be after June 1, when we can spread the cap hit over 2009 and 2010.

As for the Redskins trade, if they (at least) offer to swap 1sts, throw in their 2009 3rd and 5th round picks, and throw in their 2010 3rd round pick, then I say we make the trade. Then I pray to God that Tyson Jackson is still sitting on the board at 13. If not, we pick Oher or Maualuga.

That's awfully low considering we don't even get a second round pick out of the deal. Trade chart or not, it's not a good deal for the Chiefs. Might as well stay at 3 and draft Monroe, Smith, or Curry, you know, whoever, is left of those three.

N TX Dave
04-20-2009, 02:44 PM
No one uses that points chart anymore due to the $$$ cost of a top-5 pick. People have to let the thing die.

It is strange that it is still being put up on different pages I got it off of the NFL page. You are right they don't go by the letter of the points but 800 points is a long way off that is why I think they are talking about next years 1st round pick. And as was stated we will not get a second round pick back either so we will move from 3 to 13 and not have another pick until like 67 that is a big void. Doubt it will happen but it might you never know. When I first heard about it and us getting all their picks I was excited until I saw that Redskins don't have a 2nd or 4th round pick. Oh well only a week left before we all find out.

jmlamerson
04-20-2009, 03:14 PM
That's awfully low considering we don't even get a second round pick out of the deal. Trade chart or not, it's not a good deal for the Chiefs. Might as well stay at 3 and draft Monroe, Smith, or Curry, you know, whoever, is left of those three.

It's low if you just count picks (although picking up two third rounders and a fifth for moving down ten spots isn't that bad). However, combining those picks with our saving about $30M in guarenteed money is why we win the trade. By a large margin.

I mean, there's no way that Smith, Monroe, or Curry is worth the $10M guarenteed a year that we'd be forced to play them for the next 5-6 years if we stick at #3.

In 2010, we'll either be uncapped or have a rookie scale. Let's not get on the hook for a $60M to $70M rookie contract in the last non-scale year.

Bike
04-20-2009, 03:51 PM
It's low if you just count picks (although picking up two third rounders and a fifth for moving down ten spots isn't that bad). However, combining those picks with our saving about $30M in guarenteed money is why we win the trade. By a large margin.

I mean, there's no way that Smith, Monroe, or Curry is worth the $10M guarenteed a year that we'd be forced to play them for the next 5-6 years if we stick at #3.

In 2010, we'll either be uncapped or have a rookie scale. Let's not get on the hook for a $60M to $70M rookie contract in the last non-scale year.
So basically what you're sayin' is if we can't trade down we're screwed?

theaxeeffect4311
04-20-2009, 04:12 PM
So basically what you're sayin' is if we can't trade down we're screwed?

Yes, by that logic, why would anyone want to trade up?

jmlamerson
04-20-2009, 04:20 PM
So basically what you're sayin' is if we can't trade down we're screwed?

Because we have so much cap space, we're not necessarily screwed. But trading down makes sense for reasons beyond picks, namely our future cap flexibility.

One, because the talent level between Monroe/Smith (at 3) and Oher (at 13) isn't a $6M/year difference. We can get Oher for less than half (using last year's numbers as the key) at 13 than one of the other two at 3.

Two, there is no LB in the league worth $10M to $12M a year. Ray Lewis in his prime isn't worth that much.

If we can move down and get a player who's 90% as good as a player at #3 at 40-50% of the price, then we'd be nuts not to do it. Especially if we can get some additional 3rd round picks (maybe a starting C and RG) out of the deal.

pachiefsfan
04-20-2009, 04:23 PM
lets give the guy a year or two to develop and get that cap number down, he was banged up last year and was still adjusting to the pro game.. give him some help up front and it will pay off.. lets not give up yet

jmlamerson
04-20-2009, 04:25 PM
Yes, by that logic, why would anyone want to trade up?

Unless a GM is extremely stupid, or there is a QB he is in love with, they don't trade into the top-5. It's just a stupid, stupid idea. Which is why people are deluded if they think the Broncos or Eagles will give us their two first rounders to move up.

I happen to think Snyder is (1) in love with Sanchez; (2) is stupid; and (3) thinks the league is about to go uncapped. Maybe another desparate team (like the 49ers or Jaguars) would trade up for Sanchez, but that's pretty unlikely for the reasons above.

If Snyder wants to take this 3rd overall off of our hands, and he'll give us some pretty decent picks, we'd be stupid not to take it.

josh1971
04-20-2009, 04:27 PM
Hey I am all for the Redskins trading up to get Sanchez. I would be happy with the 13th pick and all of Washingtons 2009 draft and their first next year.


Hell yeah! It would be like we were trading them Herschel Walker or something! :joker:


Yeah!! And a 1st in 2010!!
You think Skins want Sanchez that bad??
Or is Snyder that stupid??

Well, he did pay 180 Million dollars for a defensive lineman, didn't he?


jb

KottkeKU
04-20-2009, 04:29 PM
Dorsey has had ONE year (on a terrible defense) under his belt....give him a chance people

jmlamerson
04-20-2009, 04:32 PM
Well, he did pay 180 Million dollars for a defensive lineman, didn't he?

Actually, that deal wasn't as bad as everyone thinks. He's paying Haynesworth $48M over the first four years, or $12M a year. Which is a lot, but not astronomical. Snyder will make Haynesworth rework the rest of the deal or cut him before the 5th year begins.

theaxeeffect4311
04-20-2009, 05:00 PM
Because we have so much cap space, we're not necessarily screwed. But trading down makes sense for reasons beyond picks, namely our future cap flexibility.

One, because the talent level between Monroe/Smith (at 3) and Oher (at 13) isn't a $6M/year difference. We can get Oher for less than half (using last year's numbers as the key) at 13 than one of the other two at 3.

Two, there is no LB in the league worth $10M to $12M a year. Ray Lewis in his prime isn't worth that much.

If we can move down and get a player who's 90% as good as a player at #3 at 40-50% of the price, then we'd be nuts not to do it. Especially if we can get some additional 3rd round picks (maybe a starting C and RG) out of the deal.

You keep throwing out this number of $10 Million a year. That will only happen if we take an OT. Jake Long last year will be the base of this year. So if he contract was 5 year, $57 M, then we'll to pay something similar, but less than that because our pick will not be first overall. Joe Thomas (3rd overall in 2007) signed a rookie contract of 5 year, $42.5 M. Not that bad if we get an elite LT like Thomas. Second, if it is Curry or a LB, it will not be $10 M a year like you are trying to scare people to believe. Chris Long, 2nd pick overall last season, received a deal of 6 years, 56.5 M. That means he received less than $10 M a year as a DE. You put that with the fact that LBs make less money than DEs and so Curry's contract will be at most 6 year, 56 M but more than likely less.

It would be nice to move down. But if we can't, I'm putting my money on the OT, even though it means paying more money.

jmlamerson
04-20-2009, 05:22 PM
You keep throwing out this number of $10 Million a year. That will only happen if we take an OT. Jake Long last year will be the base of this year. So if he contract was 5 year, $57 M, then we'll to pay something similar, but less than that because our pick will not be first overall. Joe Thomas (3rd overall in 2007) signed a rookie contract of 5 year, $42.5 M. Not that bad if we get an elite LT like Thomas. Second, if it is Curry or a LB, it will not be $10 M a year like you are trying to scare people to believe. Chris Long, 2nd pick overall last season, received a deal of 6 years, 56.5 M. That means he received less than $10 M a year as a DE. You put that with the fact that LBs make less money than DEs and so Curry's contract will be at most 6 year, 56 M but more than likely less.

It would be nice to move down. But if we can't, I'm putting my money on the OT, even though it means paying more money.

Look for whomever we pick to seek at least as much money as last year's #3 pick got, no matter the position. Six years, $72M.

At worst, what top rookies are getting paid is going up proportional to the cap. Figure 20% on top of what Joe Thomas got paid in 2007. Which equals $10M a year.

theaxeeffect4311
04-20-2009, 05:47 PM
Look for whomever we pick to seek at least as much money as last year's #3 pick got, no matter the position. Six years, $72M.

At worst, what top rookies are getting paid is going up proportional to the cap. Figure 20% on top of what Joe Thomas got paid in 2007. Which equals $10M a year.

Actually, from the 2007 to 2009, you're only looking at a 17% increase at most, which leaves the contract right under $10M a year. Either way, a LB or OT will not make the same as a QB. Top 3 is not the same no matter what. You cannot say that it does not depend on the position unless you just want to object to facts.

Third overall last year was Matt Ryan. The two picks before him both made less money than he did. Why would our first round rookie salary be based on what happened last year to a QB who went third overall? Because we're at the same spot?

jmlamerson
04-20-2009, 06:01 PM
Actually, from the 2007 to 2009, you're only looking at a 17% increase at most, which leaves the contract right under $10M a year. Either way, a LB or OT will not make the same as a QB. Top 3 is not the same no matter what. You cannot say that it does not depend on the position unless you just want to object to facts.

Third overall last year was Matt Ryan. The two picks before him both made less money than he did. Why would our first round rookie salary be based on what happened last year to a QB who went third overall? Because we're at the same spot?

Yeah. Because we're at the same spot. First round picks very, very seldom sign for less than what therookie in the previous year signed for in the same slot. No matter the position. Look at LaRon Landry's massive contract at the 6 spot, and hes a SS. Sean Taylor and Kellen Winsow didn't sign for less because they were a FS and a TE.

Contracts are going up at each and every draft slot every year. You're dreaming if you think Curry or Monroe are going to take $20M less than Matt Ryan got. The person drafted #3 is getting paid $10M a year, minimum.

theaxeeffect4311
04-20-2009, 06:28 PM
Yeah. Because we're at the same spot. First round picks very, very seldom sign for less than what therookie in the previous year signed for in the same slot. No matter the position. Look at LaRon Landry's massive contract at the 6 spot, and hes a SS. Sean Taylor and Kellen Winsow didn't sign for less because they were a FS and a TE.

Contracts are going up at each and every draft slot every year. You're dreaming if you think Curry or Monroe are going to take $20M less than Matt Ryan got. The person drafted #3 is getting paid $10M a year, minimum.

It's not dreaming, it's just how business should be ran. I would like to see what numbers you are talking about for Sean Taylor, LaRon Landry, and Winslow. I would like to comment that those results should be a bit skewed (which I'm hoping for) because Landry and Taylor were drafted by the same team. Let's see what makes you to believe that every year's draft choice goes off last year's draft pick in the same slot.

Because from what you said, 2009 should be based on 2008. Which means that we can go farther back than one year like 2008 to 2007.

First Overall,

2008: Jake Long, 5 years, $57 M

2007: Jamarcus Russell, 6 years, $61 M

Long got the better end of the deal even though his contract is for a year less. He's still going to be good after his five years are up so I can see why he'd agree to that deal.

Second Overall,

2008: Chris Long, 6 years, $56.5 M

2007: Calvin Johnson, 6 years, $64 M


No question about it, Long took less money than Johnson.

Third Overall,

2008: Matt Ryan, 6 years, $72 M

2007: Joe Thomas, 5 years, $42 M

Matt Ryan received a lot more money than Thomas. Are you going to argue that it had nothing to do with position?

wichitaj
04-20-2009, 06:40 PM
I'm sure we'll draft Curry, not pay him what he wants, he'll sit out of the preseason, then we'll pay him most of what he wants, he'll have a crappy season because of missing training camp and preseason, our D will suck again, Curry will be noted as bust, like Dorsey, and the record just keeps on playin...

2010 mock draft, we'll pick Carlos Dunlap, DE, Florida...and he'll bust out too.

i need to lay down now, i'm not feeling so well......

jmlamerson
04-20-2009, 06:54 PM
It's not dreaming, it's just how business should be ran. I would like to see what numbers you are talking about for Sean Taylor, LaRon Landry, and Winslow. I would like to comment that those results should be a bit skewed (which I'm hoping for) because Landry and Taylor were drafted by the same team. Let's see what makes you to believe that every year's draft choice goes off last year's draft pick in the same slot.

Because from what you said, 2009 should be based on 2008. Which means that we can go farther back than one year like 2008 to 2007.

First Overall,

2008: Jake Long, 5 years, $57 M

2007: Jamarcus Russell, 6 years, $61 M

Long got the better end of the deal even though his contract is for a year less. He's still going to be good after his five years are up so I can see why he'd agree to that deal.

Second Overall,

2008: Chris Long, 6 years, $56.5 M

2007: Calvin Johnson, 6 years, $64 M


No question about it, Long took less money than Johnson.

Third Overall,

2008: Matt Ryan, 6 years, $72 M

2007: Joe Thomas, 5 years, $42 M

Matt Ryan received a lot more money than Thomas. Are you going to argue that it had nothing to do with position?

I'd forgotten that the Calvin Johnson contract was so monstrous. You are right that stupid GMs can screw things up. However, you can see in the Jamarcus Russell and Jake Long contracts that it's usually draft position rather than playing position that defines compensation.

But you're wrong if you think we can draft Curry at #3 and not pay him $10M a year. Vernon Gholston (LB) got paid that as the 6th pick last year. Do you really think we're going to get Curry for less?

And while Monroe/Smith would probably sign for less than the funny money Matt Ryan got (he was the 4th highest paid player in the league last year!), it'll be closer to the $72M than the $42M. Figure the rookie contract to be at least $10M with $25M in guarentees. By the way, at the minimum, Thomas's contract plus 17% is just at $10M a year.

Except in Matt Millen related mishaps, it's a pretty good guess that players make near or more what the player in the same draft spot made the previous year. It's a bad system, but it's the one in place right now. And neither Smith, Curry, nor Monroe is worth $10M a year.

theaxeeffect4311
04-20-2009, 07:14 PM
I'd forgotten that the Calvin Johnson contract was so monstrous. You are right that stupid GMs can screw things up. However, you can see in the Jamarcus Russell and Jake Long contracts that it's usually draft position rather than playing position that defines compensation.

But you're wrong if you think we can draft Curry at #3 and not pay him $10M a year. Vernon Gholston (LB) got paid that as the 6th pick last year. Do you really think we're going to get Curry for less?

And while Monroe/Smith would probably sign for less than the funny money Matt Ryan got (he was the 4th highest paid player in the league last year!), it'll be closer to the $72M than the $42M. Figure the rookie contract to be at least $10M with $25M in guarentees. By the way, at the minimum, Thomas's contract plus 17% is just at $10M a year.

Except in Matt Millen related mishaps, it's a pretty good guess that players make near or more what the player in the same draft spot made the previous year. It's a bad system, but it's the one in place right now. And neither Smith, Curry, nor Monroe is worth $10M a year.

I hope we get a contract similar to Gholston's. Gholston's rookie contract is 5 years, $32.5 M (6.5 M a year). So if it's up from that, then you are looking between 7-8 M a year. OTs, DEs, and QBs are always paid more than other positions. Those are elite positions, which is why they also go high in the draft.

I am going to say that if we draft Curry at #3, that we will pay him less than $10 M a year. Even Dorsey's contract is not that $10 M a year. The only way we'll come close to paying $10 M a year (it will still be right under $10 M unless we draft a QB which is very unlikely) would be an OT.

I'm all for Monroe or Smith. (If we can't trade down)

Coach
04-20-2009, 08:03 PM
If Dorsey gets traded, I'm betting it will be to Atlanta. 1st and 3rd, or possibly 2009 1st and 2010 2nd. Something in that range. Thomas Dimitroff(ATL GM) loves Glenn Dorsey!

jmlamerson
04-20-2009, 08:35 PM
I hope we get a contract similar to Gholston's. Gholston's rookie contract is 5 years, $32.5 M (6.5 M a year). So if it's up from that, then you are looking between 7-8 M a year. OTs, DEs, and QBs are always paid more than other positions. Those are elite positions, which is why they also go high in the draft.

I am going to say that if we draft Curry at #3, that we will pay him less than $10 M a year. Even Dorsey's contract is not that $10 M a year. The only way we'll come close to paying $10 M a year (it will still be right under $10 M unless we draft a QB which is very unlikely) would be an OT.

I'm all for Monroe or Smith. (If we can't trade down)

No, Gholston signed a five year, $50.5M contract. We wouldn't pay Curry less than that at #3.

Gholston's contract with Jets includes $21M in guaranteed money - NFL - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp08/news/story?id=3504625)

If you want to discount incentives, then you need to do so for all of the contracts you've been listing. Chris Long's contract is bigger than Calvin Johnson's if you discount incentive clauses.

Look, it appears I can't convince you of this. Curry will go in the top-5, and he'll get a $10M to $12M/year contract. You'll see in a couple months.

theaxeeffect4311
04-20-2009, 08:55 PM
No, Gholston signed a five year, $50.5M contract. We wouldn't pay Curry less than that at #3.

Gholston's contract with Jets includes $21M in guaranteed money - NFL - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp08/news/story?id=3504625)

If you want to discount incentives, then you need to do so for all of the contracts you've been listing. Chris Long's contract is bigger than Calvin Johnson's if you discount incentive clauses.

Look, it appears I can't convince you of this. Curry will go in the top-5, and he'll get a $10M to $12M/year contract. You'll see in a couple months.

If Curry can get that kind of money, good for him. But I don't see it happening. When you're talking about a LB, not a DE converted LB, the money is different. DE, OT, and QB will always make more money.

Sorry, I must have received a bad source on Gholston. However, it would make me happy if that's the way we sign Curry. The reason being that incentives do not count into the base salary, therefore, it's not reflected on the salary cap. So if he's receiving a contract for $7 M a year, but ends up making $10 M after incentives, then good for him. At least then he's working for his money. The thing you have to realize is that we'll have to sign someone in the first round and the likeliness of us trading down is



4%

SDChief09
04-21-2009, 02:45 PM
I think the cap hit is irrelevant....that sounds really stupid, but with the room they have cap wise, and how much has to be spent in the first place, taking a year one hit is doable.

Now saying that, I would not trade him I like him in the 4-3 under, but if someone packaged a first and a third...tough to pass up when we have the room to take the hit, and the LJ hit.

BTW, I want to get this out there..

Babin, is in no shape or form, on the chiefs right now, I am so tired of these posts(not in this thread) with Babin listed...hes gone.