Re: Why I Haven't Performed, By Trent Richardson
posted at 12/7/2013 3:02 PM EST
In response to portfolio1's comment:
UD6 - you can make the case that Richardson had a chance to contribute right away while a draft pick next year cannot. You can also make the hopeful case that until the Colts either win or are eliminated in the playoffs that Richardson cuold make the significatn impact the GM is hoping for.
But UD6 - at this point it is clear that Richardson does not look like he is worth a high third round pick let alone a 1st round pick. And the Colts are not a loaded team. If they are going to challenge for a SB they need to be MUCH better than they are now. That means losing a 1st round pick is a very bad thing unless the trade really does add real 1st or at least REAL 2nd round value. At this time it looks like the GM was gambling rather than continuing to build. He gave up too much with the HOPE that Richardson was being used badly.
This might end up being an example of why awards are meaningless. The record is what counts. The Colts are a playoff team. But they rely on 1 person as much as GB does. Even the Pats would find a way to win 9 or 10 games with TB even if they would not get any further. But the Colts would be strained to win 5 games without Luck. THey NEED more players around him. Richardson might have been one of those players but they gave up really too much for him and this will slow down they development.
You should be unhappy about this because you do not want to waste a year or two in the career of Luck. He is too good to be holding back due to GM blunders.
Portfolio - I've admitted that the trade is bad if nothing changes with Richardson. Frankly, there is no evidence that anything will change, so I've got no problem with people making the case that it was a bad deal. It just isn't, yet.
Further, I can make the case that there are no guarantees that the pick given up will absolutely produce results. There's ample evidence that late 1st round picks don't always turn out great.
As it stands, the colts have a player on a rookie contract without having to have paid him a signing bonus or be responsible for the cap number the signing bonus caused. They only pay him his salary and their cap allowance is only that salary. That's a financially good deal - no matter what.
As it stands today - has he been worth a first rounder - not even close, but that first rounder is not given up until next year - so this year he is just a player. Next year will be a different story. Again there is no guarantee that the player they would have taken with that pick would have been productive. There's plenty of evidence to show otherwise.
The true negative of the deal is only subjective at this point. He was the 3rd player taken and he has performed more like a 5th rounder, but the colts didn't take him at third. That's not their history.