Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wonder Mutts
The way I break down this deal:
Crumpler for D. Clark - Trading Crumpler's production for Clark's potential, but picking up 2 extra contract years in the process. With Pollard leaving the Colts, this may turn out to be a solid move.
1.1 for Andre Johnson - Depends on what you need. I would take Andre over any WR in this year's draft, so not bad IMO. (Though I got an awful lot more out of my 1.1 last year.)
Manning for McNair/Barlow - The only way this deal is fair is to include Barlow as part of the value. I know that's where SBDC was coming from because I'm sure Mike told him he would match otherwise. I guess if sign and trade deals are ruled out, there's nothing like a decline and trade deal! ;)
|
That decline and trade sure goes against the spirit of the rule, but as long as there is other value involved, there's not much to be done about it. However, I would say that if the decline is officially part of the trade (ie, we aren't setting a precedent that a decline it and of itself can be traded for value alone), the rules committee needs to look at that.
As far as the Andre Johnson for the 1.1, I'd disagree that I'd rather have Andre than any of this year's wide receivers. Any number of receivers have to potential to land on the Vikes, which means as far as I would project, superior numbers within two years to Andre Johnson, and his limited potential playing in Houston. Plus, you have the choice of RBs from those landing in good situations.