Poll: Trade scenario

BigPig · Post by **BigPig** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:51 pm

First, shop Gardner to TB for a third and fourth rounder.
Second, trade Arrington to SD for their first round pick this year from the Giants, #12, and their schedule second. If available draft Braylon Edwards, and trade down the #12 for additional picks in the later rounds. If Braylon or Mike is unavailable, trade down all of the picks for a plethora of second and thirds.

Assuming that this worked, you would have one stud WR, another second, I believe two third and fourth-rounders each, plus the fifth through seventh (I haven't been able to find out the entire draft picks we have). If my math is correct, we would get roughly eight players for surrendering only two, and free up cap to boot to go after UFAs.

Good plan? Bad plan?

Texas Hog · Post by **Texas Hog** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:58 pm

Welcome to the board!

The plan is too damn complicated and relys too much on whatifs IMO.

Redskins2k5 · Post by **Redskins2k5** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:05 pm

I don't like the Idea of us trading LaVAR TO THE cHARGERS.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:05 pm

Have you considered the cap impact of this scenario?

Welcome to the best Skins board in the net.

skinsfan#33 · Post by **skinsfan#33** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:37 pm

BigPig wrote:First, shop Gardner to TB for a third and fourth rounder.
Second, trade Arrington to SD for their first round pick this year from the Giants, #12, and their schedule second. If available draft Braylon Edwards, and trade down the #12 for additional picks in the later rounds. If Braylon or Mike is unavailable, trade down all of the picks for a plethora of second and thirds.

Assuming that this worked, you would have one stud WR, another second, I believe two third and fourth-rounders each, plus the fifth through seventh (I haven't been able to find out the entire draft picks we have). If my math is correct, we would get roughly eight players for surrendering only two, and free up cap to boot to go after UFAs.

Good plan? Bad plan?

Welcome to the board, but LA is untradable. He would leave us with $15 million in dead cap space. The Gardner trade sounds good if it is done on draft day and if there is someone there that we want!

washington53 · Post by **washington53** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:44 pm

welcome
Lavar will not be traded. Why are so many people thinking that he will get traded. And Lavar for a couple of picks are u kidding me. Lavar is worth these draft picks and LT. and still were not trading him

BigPig · Post by **BigPig** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:56 pm

Do we honestly know the JG is committed to LeVar as a "core Redskin"? I don't know what the cap hit would be for trading him, but GW has certainly proved that the defense is fine without him. And if freeing one player to get three or four is available, why would not JG want pursue it? Cap Impact can be mitigated across Samuel's renogotiation, Barrow's pending retirement(assuming the previous threads are true), and MB will restructure or face cut (He will do it because he is not going to get anything more than the league minimum after this last year..better to have something than nothing).

Also, if we are going to trade Gardner, why not make the deal rather than wait for draft day. You can always trade picks for players in the UFA market,

Thanks all for the warm welcome. I love talking burgundy-and-gold.

washington53 · Post by **washington53** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:00 pm

the gardner theory of yours is good.
and first of all no one on teh team would want to trade lavar for some picks...
plus GW would want to see how good Lavar really is on his defense before he thinks of making changes. the only reason he didnt start when he was healthy, because he wasnt 100% healthy.... and we didnt want anything to happen to him

BigPig · Post by **BigPig** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:14 pm

I don't mean to imply that GW or JG does not want to leverage his skills. I am merely submitting that, from an aggregate team improvement standpoint, given the needs of WR, depth for the O-line, and a pass rushing end, the overall need for quick rebuild may outweigh his single utility, and given the aggregate defense improvement in his absence. Thus, if we can leverage his marketability, especially after his injury, now would be the time to do it, assuming he does not fully recover (history is replete of examples where players need an additional year to get back to 100% after a serious injury--see Chris Samuels).

Simply stated, is he so valuable that he is not expendable in GW's scheme?

I like levar, but winning is winning.

BigPig · Post by **BigPig** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:16 pm

Sorry about the grammer in my earlier post...had cut-and-paste issues.

Scottskins · Post by **Scottskins** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:49 pm

Lavar is untradeable. We are still responsible for his signing bonus if he retires, gets cut or is traded. That would be like a $20 millon accelerated hit on our cap. It's simply not workable....

I don't understand why people are talking about this regardless whether it could or couldn't be done...

Lavar is a stud, and in this defense under GW's coaching, is going to turn into a sack machine...

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:54 pm

Signing bonus? Pffftt... Lets just not pay it, we've done it already :wink:

.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:39 pm

Our dead money on the cap is $7.024 million right now trading 50/50 will bump that up to $8.044 million.
If Lavar isn't on the team come draft day you can add $20.4 million more to the cap in 2005.
That's around 30% of the Cap
(not gonna happen)
LaVar will be a great fit in William's scheme (as long as he isn't freelancing) I can almost see Barrow not being here next year but Lavar I don't see him going anywhere. So I'd have to say this trade scenario won't work beyond getting what we kind for Gardner

DeathByLinebacker#56 · Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:56 am

Move Gardner yes. Lavar is ours for several reasons, playmaker and cap killer to name a few. He isn't going anywhere. :twisted:

DeathByLinebacker#56 · Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:00 pm

Are you kidding me???

chicosbailbond · Post by **chicosbailbond** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:10 pm

BigPig wrote:First, shop Gardner to TB for a third and fourth rounder.
Second, trade Arrington to SD for their first round pick this year from the Giants, #12, and their schedule second. If available draft Braylon Edwards, and trade down the #12 for additional picks in the later rounds. If Braylon or Mike is unavailable, trade down all of the picks for a plethora of second and thirds.

Assuming that this worked, you would have one stud WR, another second, I believe two third and fourth-rounders each, plus the fifth through seventh (I haven't been able to find out the entire draft picks we have). If my math is correct, we would get roughly eight players for surrendering only two, and free up cap to boot to go after UFAs.

Good plan? Bad plan?

bad plan... you are trading down to get more picks... that is flawed... why????

because Vinny Cerrato is going to make the picks...

Sanjoso · Post by **Sanjoso** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:10 pm

I disaree, I wouldnt trade Lavar.

C'fieldSkin · Post by **C'fieldSkin** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:43 pm

I love speculation, its how I make it through the offseason. Cool

post, but I don't want to think about LA leaving.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:47 pm

chicosbailbond wrote:
BigPig wrote:First, shop Gardner to TB for a third and fourth rounder.
Second, trade Arrington to SD for their first round pick this year from the Giants, #12, and their schedule second. If available draft Braylon Edwards, and trade down the #12 for additional picks in the later rounds. If Braylon or Mike is unavailable, trade down all of the picks for a plethora of second and thirds.

Assuming that this worked, you would have one stud WR, another second, I believe two third and fourth-rounders each, plus the fifth through seventh (I haven't been able to find out the entire draft picks we have). If my math is correct, we would get roughly eight players for surrendering only two, and free up cap to boot to go after UFAs.

Good plan? Bad plan?

bad plan... you are trading down to get more picks... that is flawed... why????

because Vinny Cerrato is going to make the picks...

We've made some great picks. Its free agency where I think we haven't been too hot. We did better last year though. I say lets keep Vinny and his crew in the draft where they've done a lot of good.

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 9:56 pm

Marty and LaVar= Match made in hell.
Not gonna happen.
Pittsburgh is much more likely.

The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Poll: Trade scenario

Would this scenario be worth pursuing?

Poll: Trade scenario

Re: Poll: Trade scenario

Re: Poll: Trade scenario

Re: Poll: Trade scenario