Poker Chips: If People Are Talking Trade, Who Is Truly Viable Trade Bait

Since the forum has gone trade crazy...

I do not agree with trading away picks to 'win now'. More success comes from the draft than most rades. People always trade you their crap and look to get the better end of a swap.

If we did trade, I'd suggest moving a player. Which made me wonder who is semi-expendable? The answer to that is the same as the answer to, "Well, where are we deep?" On the D-line.

NT Paul Soliai
DT Randy Starks
DT (playing at DE) Jared Odrick
DT Kheeston Randall
DT Tony McDaniel

Surely we can spare a player from this rotation. McDaniel doesn't even see the field at this point. Randall looks the part and I'd be very comfortable moving McDaniel for a low pick (5th, 6th, 7th?) or Starks for a high pick and/or player and moving Odrick back inside, where I think he'd do even BETTER.

I don;t see anyone tradable on any other unit on the team, to be honest, unless you feel like trading Matt Moore. but I don;t think you're getting value for him. So you let him mentor Tannehill a bit.

 

Well, let me ask you this.... which scenario sounds better.

1) Odrick at DE performing worse than Vernon (according to PFF ratings), and Marshall as the 80-somethingth ranked CB getting burned.
2) Vernon at DE and a decent starting CB to bump Marshall down to nickel, take away some of the deep passes and also get Nolan Carroll off the field.

I actually think we win more with scenario #2. Not to mention, Vernon gets more playing experience and there should be no falloff in production seeing as Odrick is underperforming at DE. Shelby backs up Vernon.

 

Fine. You play corner. I'm all outta suggestions. lol.

I'm not actually suggesting we make a trade like this.

I AM saying that the ONLY thing we really have to offer is DL depth. And, by the way, Odrick is, in my eyes, DL depth, not a starter.

Playing a 4-3 DT at DE just means he is your #3 DT. He is not a DE in this scheme.

 

So you wouldn;t prefer a better rated player getting more snaps at DE, for instance, while also getting someone better than Nolan Carroll onto the field?

 

Decent points. I just think we are wasting a alent like Odrick by playing him at DE with little impact (I mean, Olivier Vernon is outperforming him for gosh sakes). We need to either play him inside (which means dealing Starks for a good CB who WILL be playing in a position to maximize his talent for on the field ROI) or we need to deal Odrick (but he has low value, I would bet).

I just feel the DL has more talent than is being maximized because our depth is greater than our opportunities. Meanwhile we are hurting at other spots.

btw, i was just scouting Safety Kenny Vaccaro. Any relation?

 

What if I were to tell you that Starks contract is up after this year? Perhaps he helps put a playoff team over the edge and into the Superbowl though, if they need help in the middle.

Just a thought. Better than watching him walk away at the end of the year.

I mean, if you had to re-sign Starks, Long and Bush, you could easily argue that it's easiest to let Starks go because you have his replacement here already in Odrick. Again, when you are that deep at a position, with starters at DT unable to get snaps (and guys like McDaniel inactive) then you have more value than you are using and some of it is bound to leave. If not by trade, then simply by walking out the door in free agency.

 

Which begins to be the problem of mismanaging a position by having it run SO deep that guys who should see the field, DON'T. McDaniel is not a 4th string talent guy. He isn't a starter either, but he definitely offers more to most teams than being an inactive.

Even guys like Odrick lose value by being played out of position and seeing poor stats and performance.

I'd rather have a good CB and a good interior DT than a good interior DT and average DE play.

 

If we are purely talking about giving up draft picks to try to win now, I am not so enthused. I prefer to trade away parts that will have little to no upside for us anyways.

Trading Starks if we don't plan to re-sign him (and moving Odrick inside).
Or trading Odrick if we don't intend to let him start at DT (since, statistically he is not outperforming the second string guy at DE anyways).

When you can make a trade that gives great value to another team, but you do not lose much in the way of long term benefit... and you get good value in return, that's a good trade, imo.

What I don't know is what teams would be in the market for help at DT.

 

Reasonable. I just see it as potential ROT (what I call Return on Talent) we are missing out on, that could be converted into actual ROT on the field.

Like if we played Reggie Bush purely as a special teams gunner, and other guys could do the job just as well. That is a waste. In that case I'd argue to either shift Reggie to starting running back, or trade him to a team who would use him that way for greater value in return. The cost would really be going from whatever gunner-performance Reggie was giving us to whatever gunner-performance his replacement would give us. If it's a negligible dropoff, and you will get a good player in return, you do it.

IN the Odrick to Vernon case (and I am not a Vernon fan, btw), PFF would argue that Vernon is actually playing the position BETTER. So you don;t see a dropoff, but you do gain a player (or pick) via trade. If that player is a young CB who can replace Nolan Carroll, our defense gets better immediately.

 

Yeah, I'd be reluctant to trade Moore as it could affect Tannehill's development.

 

I agree. Paul is the guy on the roster who has no one like him. In time Kheeston Randall could become that, but not for years.

That said, Odrick could replace Starks, imo.

 

I think the injuries with Jake and Bush's knee ding last week may complicate teams' willingess to trade. Also, both are in a contract year.

To me, a playoff contender struggling against the run would love Starks, despite his being in a contract year. At least he is healthy and performing at a high level, so could help you get to the Superbowl if that's your missing piece.

Odrick is apealing more long-term, and I doubt anyone shows much interest in a long-term trade at this point in the season.

 

We are being hurt more by our CB play than our WR play. Bess and Hartline rank very high as WRs. Our #2 CB and #3 CB rank in the 80's.

The correct question is, what decent CB could be had from a playoff-contending team that needs interior line help?

 

My thinking is this. I'd like to look at the CBs ranked #1-#50 by PFF then see which teams have multiple ones. I'd look at each of those teams to see how their DT play is ranking.

What I'd be targeting is a team with multiple decent CBs (three in the top 50 would be ideal, in the top 75 is adequate) that has a starting DT who is rated lower than 30th at his position.

That, to me, is the right mix of them having a decent supply of CB play, and really hurting at DT.

Then I see if they are a team with serious playoff hopes/expectations. If so, and if their run D and lack of interior pressure has been costing them points and leading to losses, I pick up the phone and see if they are interested.

My guess? There is maybe one, two teams max in that situation. I'll check it out when I have about an hour to do the digging on Pro Football Focus.

 

Interesting point, that Odrick may be impacting Misi's performance positively. Good point.

 

CK raised a good point in another thread along the same lines I am thinking here. He suggested a trade of Tony McDaniel to Arizona for a CB.

The fact is, you have to have something to offer, and we have more DL than we can get on the field. Zona may have more CBs that they want to play than they can get out there.

That's what it takes to make good trade partners.