Any speculation on the Monster Colts trade?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: Any speculation on the Monster Colts trade?


    One might think that in Richardson Pagano sees his Ray Rice...

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Any speculation on the Monster Colts trade?

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:



    Yet the colts get a player without having to pay or account for any bonus money.  That makes the deal, financially, significantly better than just a 1st round pick.  There are plenty of teams who do not covet first round picks especially because the picks provide no guarantee of success. 

     

    I noted what the pats got in 09 for their first round pick.  Everyone was raving about the haul of picks they got for it and not a single player stuck on the roster.  

    The he colts have high expectations for Richardson.  Grison said he passed the eye test.  I'd say the reigning exec of the year gets that benefit of the doubt.  

     



    You need to relax.  I didn't say it was a bad trade.  The question I was responding to read:

     

    "On draft day, had they traded their 2014 first rounder for Trent Richardson, people would have flipped out at the robbery...but 18 games later and it's not still a steal?"

    I gave my perspective as to why this trade and that scenario are not equivalent on paper because I don't think his stock is as high as it was on draft day.  Why you're even mentioning the Patriots here is a mystery to me.  The fact that you feel the need to aggressively defend your team from any perceived criticism on another team's message board is amusing in it of itself.



    Perfectly relaxed.  Happy to have amused you.  Btw, I wouldn't exactly call your response a ringing endorsement.  In fact, if one were to judge it, I think they'd say you were leaning to the side of a bad trade vs a good one for the colts.  No one said his stock was as hifh as it was on draft day.  No one thinks the pick the colts gave up will be the third pick in the draft, and the colts don't have the financial or cap responsibility of that pick.  As smart as you are, you' recognized this, I am sure.  So , given the obvious we have to take your response as a negative toward the colts.  i gave my 2 cents.  Happy Friday.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Any speculation on the Monster Colts trade?

    ok Russ - lots of questions and comments for you. 

    • First - you noted that this was your "speculation", so I am assuming that means you are unsure of even your opinion.  You are reserving the right to be completely wrong about all of your comments.  Is that correct? 
    • You said, Irsay gave Grigson orders.  Did you know that Cleveland was the one who contacted Indy about the trade?  That would essentially make your speculation wrong, right? 
    • Can you explain how Indy is cutting corners by doing this deal? 
    • You said Indy should be adding draft picks.  Are you willing to agree that draft picks regardless of number or draft position is no guarantee of success for the player(s) selected?  Would you like an example?  2009 patriots turned their first round draft pick into 2 2nd's and a 5th.  None of those players stuck with the pats. 
    • Please explain why you think this transaction demonstrates that the colts are not trying to move forward. 
    • Are you willing to agree that all running backs value does not depreciate quickly?  Would you like examples to the contrary? 
    • What is the "base of their build"? 
    • You said the trade was not worthy of a top 10 pick.  If the Colts go 8-8, the pick would not be a top 10 pick based on history. 
    • You said this was all about money.  You do realize that the colts have this guy for 3 years at 6 million total.  No responsibility for signing bonuses.  All they owe is pure salary. 
    • You said the colts will be contenders in 2-3 years.  Trent Richardson will be a colt on his rookie contract then. 
    • You said, WR, RB, CB were sexy picks not worthy of a 1st round pick.  What about McCourty, Merriweather, and Maroney? 
    • The colts gave away an unguaranteed future first rounder for a player that has the opportunity to produce this year at low cost now and in the future.  That's value to me.  And regardless of any of the contracts coming off the books, this guy won't be taking up significant cap space.  He's cheap. 
    • What are the Richardson red flags? 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share