Jason La Canfora of the Washington Post is today reporting that the Washington Redskins have 'begun to send out the feelers' with regards to trading up for Seattle's pick. Thanks to Michael Steffes from Seahawk Addicts for bringing this to my attention. The reason for the trade? Washington are supposedly keen to be in pole position to get USC quarter back Mark Sanchez and La Canfora suggests they might find a partner to trade with in Tim Ruskell. As much as two first round picks has been touted in compensation.My initial reaction is scepticism. It sounds too good to be true from a Seahawks perspective. This would allow them to draft an impact player at a cheaper price 13th overall (Knowshon Moreno, Chris Wells) whilst also securing two first round picks in 2010. But it's not so much the bounty that is the unrealistic part - Washington were reportedly willing to spend as much on Jay Cutler and Chad Johnson. It's the dramatic trade as high as number four which I struggle to understand. The three teams drafting after Seattle are Cleveland, Cincinnati and Oakland. The latter two are both secure at quarter back. Cleveland are less so, but still maintain Derek Anderson and Brady Quinn on their roster. Which team takes Sanchez that provokes this trade?
The Resdkins may only need to trade up as far as Jacksonville at eight, or even San Francisco at ten. If there is any truth in La Canfora's article, I can only assume the Redskins are sold that the Seahawks themselves will take Sanchez unless a trade occurs.
There's some noise that suggests that could be the case - Rob Rang has Sanchez going to the 'Hawks in his mock draft. Eric Williams quotes Sanchez himself in conversation with Mitch Levy from KJR, discussing the possibility of being drafted by the Seahawks:
"I’ve talked to Coach (Bill) Lazor and Coach (Greg) Knapp and Coach (Jim) Mora. They’ve all been excited about me. They saw me work out at pro day. I mean you hear everything. I’m all over the map. And I had a great time with coach Knapp and coach Lazor. So I feel comfortable with their system, and it’s very similar to what we ran at SC so it would be a seamless transition. I think it would be great.” - Mark Sanchez
A week ago I wrote an article that touted the possibility of Seattle needing to draft Sanchez to have any chance of trading down. Perhaps merely the proposal that they'll take him will be enough? I still maintain that the only chance the Seahawks have to move down is if someone, be it the Redskins or anyone else, needs their pick to draft Sanchez.
What do you think? Is a trade wishful thinking or could there be something in this? Click comments below to have your say, or email rob@seahawksdraftblog.com
30 comments:
Daniel Snyder is crazy enough to overpay for #4. WIthout knowing the draft order for next year I'd be nervous about getting stuck with a #30 pick or something next year and that blows the trade value chart up (not in the Seahawks favor)... I'd almost want a clause about getting a conditional second rounder in addition if the first rounder is too low next year. And I doubt they'd sign up for that. Unless he's crazier than Ditka
Still, Daniel Snyder is crazy. Anything could happen.
Due to the lack of the Redskins 2nd round pick, the only way I am making a deal with the Skins is...
Seahawks Trade: #4 and 4th round
Skins Trade: #13, 3rd round, 2010 1st round
With no second round pick and it becoming open that the Skins want Sanchez, we have the upper hand and need to milk this as much as possible.
With that #13 pick, you have to take Knowshon Moreno. Way too special of a player not to take and at #13 it makes too much sense.
Some very valid comments their annonymous and I would agree with everything you say.
Rob, I hear this idea that you keep touting that the teams behind Seattle are unlikely to pick a QB, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't trade their pick to someone else, or that Seattle couldn't trade its pick to someone else. Plus, Seattle COULD take Sanchez for their own use. So if you want him bad enough, #4 seems to be the spot to secure him, don't you think?
I see what you mean Mike with regard to other teams moving up that could stop the 'Skins getting a shot at him. However, I'm struggling to think who would do that. I don't think the Jets will commit to such a move and I don't expect Denver to either. At this jucture, I think Washington might be the only team 'in the market' so to speak.
Therefore, my argument would be that if Washington decided they wanted to trade up and were the only ones looking to do so, there isn't much reason to move up to number four unless Seattle or the teams directly after them will take Sanchez. If the Seahawks don't take Sanchez, I think Washington could trade up to 8 or even 10 to get him, possibly lowering the cost in trade. They may not have to move up at all... as unlikely as that maybe sounds today. If Washington think the Seahawks will take him and need to move up to four, if I was them I'd say... "Go on then, take him." It tests Seattle's resolve to actually commit to that pick. It calls their bluff. Washington can then still negotiate with the Seahawks should they really wish to take him. That's why I still believe to move down, Seattle might have to actually select the guy... or at least have his name on the card before a trade can be made.
Jax is the target trade spot. The compensation is too hefty to get up to #4. Doesn't matter how crazy a GM is perceived, not many teams want to part with 2 first rounders. Ultimately, the Skins lack of a second round pick is going to kill any deals getting into the top 5.
The thing annonymous, we're not talking about any GM or owner here. We're talking about Dan Snyder, and when has he ever been worried about getting value? If he wants someone bad enough, he'll do what it takes.
Do you think there is any possibility Colt Brennan could be added into the equation? I'm biased because I loved watching him play for Hawaii last year (and I really wanted us to draft him last year), but I mean if Redskins are so high on Sanchez and willing to trade up to get him, doesn't that eliminate their need to groom Brennan? If I remember correctly, he played great in Preseason and some fans were even clamoring for him to be the starter over Cambell before the season began. I don't think he could start now, but behind Hass and Wallace, maybe he could be our QB of the future? Maybe add him with a few draft picks and we could give our #4 and a later round?
Interesting thought Patrick, I haven't seen that suggestion yet and personally, I like it. It gives the Seahawks somebody to work with for the future at QB, whilst also accumulating some picks. I'm a fan of Brennan's. I think the hype went a bit OTT in pre-season last year, but he showed some promise. Given a couple of years of further development, he might be worth a shot.
OMG. TAKE IT AND RUN WITH IT!
Moreno would be awesome, but the question is, would you rather have Crabtree than Moreno and a 1st round pick? I mean...Crabtree has the potential to become someone like a Fitzgerald, and that it might be very depressing when Michael Crabtree tears it up with a different team like Oakland or Jacksonville or Cleveland.
The thing that ticks me off is when the people who comment on the articles over at Seahawk Addicts say that if the Redskins draft somewhere in the 20's next year, then we are getting scammed...then they come right back and say that they want to trade with the Eagles this year for their 2 1st rounders.
How does that make sense?!? Lets pretend that the Redskins get the 20th pick next year. THe 12th pick and the 20th pick is WAYYYY better than the 21th pick and the 28th pick. Even if the REdskins WIN the Superbowl, the 12th and 32th pick are still better than the 21th and 28th pick.
TAKE THE DEAL...UNLESS U CAN FIND A BETTER ONE
Washington has officially called Ruskell's hand.
Seattle's call.
Hmm...ROb, would u take this deal?
Seahawks #4 pick overall
for...
REdskin's #13 overall and Jason Campbell
Campbell is still young, so we can develope him into our franchise QB!
I like it!
That deal values Campbell like a first round QB. Not sure I agree with that valuation.
Campbell is 27.... 28 in December. And he's basically a taller Seneca Wallace. No real value there for the Hawks. Brennan on the other hand......
Rob - Scott Pioli is an incredibly smart guy based on his track record. If he catches wind of this potential trade (which I'm sure he has if its being reported widely), what stops him from calling up Washington and saying "I don't care if we have Cassel, we are taking Sanchez and if you want him you have to trade with us?". Basically, I agree with you, this trade only works if Washington waits until after a team like Seattle or KC has already taken Sanchez but then that team loses a lot of bargaining power. I don't see this happening.
jjhsix,
Ruskell has created enough smoke to make other teams (especially impulsive ones like Snyder's Skins) think there might be fire. Pioli on the other hand has almost no credibility in claiming to want Sanchez. No one would buy that. KC could however undercut Seattle and take a similar offer. This would be very bad if Ruskell was indeed targeting Sanchez all along.
Louis - I'd rather have the extra first rounder in 2010 than Jason Campbell. He's not a young guy anymore, and there's a reason why the Skins are showing interest in Sanchez.
This might be a lame excuse, but one thing I noticed in regards to Kansas City trading with Redskins is that they play each other this year. Considering Seattle and Redskins don't, it just seems like we might be better trading partners.
I'm not sure that would deter the teams making a trade, Patrick. The thing is, Washington might think they need to get ahead of Seattle - many reports say the 'Hawks take Sanchez including Rob Rang. In that scenario they may do a deal with Kansas City that under cuts the Seahawks to guarantee their man.
Therefore, for Seattle to get any kind of trade, they would have to hope such a deal isn't completed and then make Washington aware that they are interested in a trade. That's not a great bargaining position and it also makes the 'Skins wary that the Seahawks truly want Sanchez.
So it comes back down to this for me - the only way a trade could happen is if Seattle actually takes Sanchez, or they at the very least have his name on the card. KC won't take Sanchez, they can't afford to risk not trading him and having two expensive QB's on the roster (Cassel is still on the franchise tender for now). They're also in a bigger rebuild than the Hawks right now, switching to a new defensive 3-4 scheme and installing a new QB. If the Skins don't make a trade at number three, Sanchez is on the board at four. If he gets passed Seattle he likely doesn't go till 8, 10 or 12. So if Seattle want to do any deal, they might have to take the guy and then deal with Washington. As I said in my article earlier last week, they won't be reckless enough to take a guy purely on the off chance a trade materialises. They'd need to be sold on keeping him if such a deal can't be made.
So it goes to show the complicated nature of this potential deal. I don't think we'll hear anything concrete until the Chiefs are on the clock on April 25th.
Rob - If Mayock is correct that every single team in the top 10 has tried to trade out I am trying to come up with a reason why KC (or St.Louis for that matter) doesn't go to Washington and say - if we take Sanchez you guarantee to make such and such a trade with us. I guess you can say Washington will call there bluff but I don't imagine they will offer more to get pick 3 than pick 4 so why wouldn't they want to get as high as possible?
I still hope we can get Denver's 2 1st round picks. That would be ideal.
It's a good point JJhsix, I think St Louis and Kansas City would ignore any trade value chart and simply accept any deal that Washington would offer to Seattle. Therefore, they put themselves in the highest position possible. Having said that, the finances could play a part. If Matt Stafford gets $40m guaranteed to go first overall, Sanchez could ask for something very similar to go second or third overall. If he goes fourth overall, then he might get a deal closer to the $34.75m guaranteed to Matt Ryan. Ok, it's only $6m (a small amount in context) but with the Skins likely tight against the cap, that could make a difference.
I still think a trade at this stage is wishful thinking on Seattle's behalf and essentially, this rumour has only come about because of one report by Jason La Canfora. However, with increased speculation that the Seahawks will take Mark Sanchez at number four, it'll add a bit of extra interest in the last seven days and give us all something different to discuss.
Rob,
disagree with your general premise, that showing any interest in a trade tips off the Skins into trading down into a lower pick. I would say Seattle is playing it thusly: "We like Sanchez, he would make a nice replacement for our guy with the bad back. But we don't like him so much that we wouldn't accept a trade for him."
I don't see Ruskell drafting him to trade.... I can't remember too many trades that have gone down like that. Once you pick him, other teams would play hardball..... "Ok, go ahead, keep him"
Very valid points, annonymous. I've always stressed that if Seattle draft Sanchez, it won't be purely under the objective to trade him - they wouldn't be that reckless. They'd need to be sold on Sanchez being their guy at four and any trade offers would merely become a bonus alternative.
The problem I have with saying to Washington, "We like him, but..." is that instantly gives off a signal to the Skins that the Seahawks aren't 100% sold here. If they were, they wouldn't be talking about a trade. If Washington wanted to play hard ball in negotiations, they would have a slight advantage there. The skills of Seattle's front office will be tested to the max during the next 7 days if Washington really do want to trade into the top five - it could be crucial if the Seahawks are determined not only move down, but get a good deal.
Rob,
if we were talking about excessive compensation I would be totally with you. If the Hawks were asking a Cutler-type price (2 1sts, a 3rd and a player) then they would be bargaining from a position of weakness like you say. Looking at it strictly from a trade value chart perspective, even given the variables of where Washington might draft in '10, it's a pretty fair deal. That's the part that makes me feel like it might actually have some legs.
One of the reasons they are starting the discussion at two first rounders is because it shows the teams interested that the Hawks are serious about taking Sanchez. If they weren't asking for a kings ransom then teams would be weary.
By saying we will give him to you, but we want two firsts it is saying if you really like this guy come and get him from us, but don't expect him to get past #4 if you don't.
It forces the other team to make the decision with out tipping our hand.
And as for the player throw ins, I doubt the Hawks are interested in Campbell or Brennan. They are not looking for another backup QB, they have Wallace. ALso, Campbell is a free agent next year and both Hasselbeck and Wallace are signed through 10', so you aren't going to pay Campbell next year.
The deal is two firsts if you want the Sanchez.... take it or leave it. Call the bluff and hope no one else takes our offer.
I wonder if Jason Campbell could become part of this deal. He's a free agent after 2009, but is an interest WCO type of QB. Perhaps paired with an extension it would make sense, and be a Hasselbeck like ascension to the starting job, as the former nears the end of his nfl career.
I think if washington tries to trade over Seattle for Sanchez that also plays into Seattles hands as that might drop Curry into Seattles lap and could drop Smith into Seattle's lap.. as far as Campbell is concerned it makes no since for Seattle to want him as the Reason Zorn wants Sanchez is probably because campbell isn't getting thew job done.. why would Seattle even concider campbell.. they would be better off drafting Sanchez...
It cannot really have success, I suppose so.
Thank you for this post, really worthwhile info.
Post a Comment