Monday, 15 March 2010

Seahawks, Chargers and Broncos- trading out loud? An unlikely yet possible scenario

By Rob Staton
Before I start, I want to qualify this completely by accepting this is unlikely. The kind of suggestion I'm about to make is usually restricted to Madden '10 or the morning coffee break. However, I found this interesting when reading an online mailbag held by the San Diego Union Tribune:


"I think the trade with Seattle might be a very complex and rewarding one for
the Chargers. I think a trade up in the 1st round might be in the works and
could be involved in the Whitehurst deal - if Charlie chooses Seattle."


It's well publicised that the Seahawks have shown interest in San Diego's third choice quarterback Charlie Whitehurst. We're led to believe he's mulling over a decision to sign for Seattle or the Arizona Cardinals. It got me wondering what type of complex trade could be possible as suggested above, so afford me the opportunity to 'think out loud' so to speak and raise this unlikelihood.

Even if Whitehurst agrees to sign for Arizona instead of Seattle and the Cardinals sign an offer sheet - the Chargers have a chance to match it. If a more attractive trade offer is on the table from the Seahawks, they are well within their rights to equal Arizona's offer and keep Whitehurst. Seattle and San Diego would then be free to make a trade involving the quarterback.

The Seahawks own the 6th and 14th overall picks in round one. San Diego owns the 28th overall pick. We'll presume Whitehurst carries a third round value (considering his tender and the possibility Arizona were willing to pay that via the offer sheet). Looking at the trade value chart, Seattle's #14 pick is worth 1100 points. San Diego could package #28 (660 points), Whitehurst (third round value, approximately 200 points) and their own third round pick #91 (136 points) to move up and take Seattle's #14.

This would put the Chargers in position to potentially draft a running back like C.J. Spiller, a cornerback like Joe Haden, a nose tackle like Dan Williams or a pass rusher like Jason Pierre-Paul. They would also be well placed to possibly review the offensive line or even entertain a wide receiver like Dez Bryant. These are all areas of need for San Diego and the extra cost of paying 14 places higher in round one is offset by the release of LaDainian Tomlinson's contract and trade of Antonio Cromartie. It wouldn't be a costly move either - surrendering only a third round pick and your third choice quarterback.

Why would the Seahawks entertain such a move? If they've decided that they simply must have Brandon Marshall and a second round pick won't get it done, they face the prospect of spending the #6 to sign an offer sheet or working out a trade with Denver that involves the 14th overall pick. If Denver would be willing to take the #28 pick (and they may prefer to do so considering the cost of owning two first round picks at #11 and #14) then the Seahawks would essentially still be getting Marshall - only with Whitehurst and a third round pick thrown in for good measure. Seattle currently does not possess a selection in round three.

Meanwhile, the Broncos get the first round pick they cherish and can move on from the Marshall era - clearly something they desperately wish to do despite a number of reports to the contrary recently.

Of course, trades like this are notoriously rare. It's a bit too precise in it's formulation and so much has to happen for it to get off the ground. Is it realistic? In fairness - probably not. However, there's some method behind the madness. I think it's an idea that benefits all parties - there's no absolute winner at this stage but everyone would be satisfied. I'm prepared for news to break seconds after I publish this idea revealing Whitehurst has agreed a deal with Arizona and San Diego will not match his offer. Still, it's an interesting talking point. Let me know your thoughts in the comments section.

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

It would be nice to have a quarterback with such majestic hair.

ChavaC said...

When the hell did Whitehurst become a realistic QB option? I mean, what am I missing here? If we were that desperate to get Marshall, surely we could find someone in the latter picks and trade our first for theirs and a third. I'd rather roll the dice on a Jarret Brown/Tebow/Skelton/Kafka type than a 27 year old who has done nothing.

Rob Staton said...

Chavac - Whitehurst at this stage would be seen as nothing more than a backup. You suggest finding someone later and trade for a first and a third - essentially the suggestion in this article is just that but with Whitehurst thrown in too. The Seahawks need to sign someone to backup Hasselbeck. The proposed deal in this article allows Seattle to do so as a bonus in a potential Marshall trade. It wouldn't affect Seattle's ability to take a QB in the draft - be it Clausen or someone else later on.

Jony-b said...

I don't understand why we would be giving them an extra 100 points on the value chart. giving them 200 point worth for Whitehurst? I would rather take the 1st 2nd and third for number 14. This is almost identicle across the board as #14 is worth 1100. #28 (660) + #60 (300) + #91 (136) = 1096. this would still be fair if not exceptional for both teams because the chargers still get third round value out of Whitehurst it just comes in the form of keeping there own third round pick.
I am not saying you are wrong Im just saying lets ask for more and see what we would get first. Something like this would excite me but it is extremely difficult to accomplish.
I still think that if the hawks go with Marshal we can end up with him for less than a first round even at #28, though he would be a great pick up with that pick and Denver does get what they want, a first rounder.
Also, If we sign Marshal we need to trade back with our #6 overall because we will be spending to huge pots of money on players, Marshal and whoever we pick at six. What do you think.

ChavaC said...

My bad, misread the article.

Ralphy said...

Can someone explain to me why Whitehurst is worth a third rounder and Seneca a seventh?

Donald Duck said...

Do you think the old NFL value chart is still valid?

I remember hearing remarks that it values the early picks too high because they command very high salaries for unproven talent.

If so, maybe losing 100 points on an out-of-date NFL value chart is not so bad.

Does anyone know of a better NFL value chart that fits 2010.

Does anyone want to construct one?

Mr. Chriss said...

Goodbye Deon Grant...

Mays/Berry now much more likely?

Jony-b said...

Donald Duck
The value chart is still used actually pretty closely. Last year the Jets traded up from like 16 to get Sanches at Five. They gave up the first, and 2nd rounders and like three or four players because they needed to make up for some of the difference in points.
Also the Number fourteen is still a high pick but is not what the source that you brought up was talking about. I read an article talking about that and it was specifically talking about #1-4 as there is like 400 points difference between each of them on the chart.

Kip Earlywine said...

Rosterbation may be looked down upon by some, but I personally think stuff like this is fun. Thanks for posting this Rob. It certainly nice to think about. The beauty of it is that its a win-win-win for all 3 teams. Unless we are afraid of Denver deciding to be jackasses, we could probably approach them about this arrangement and do it honorably with no tricks or collusion. They are holding out for a 1st round pick- this gets them one.

I'm not the biggest fan of Whitehurst, but at the same time, we'd be getting THREE players for one pick in this deal, one of them being a top NFL WR. We should probably be looking at trading down at #14 anyway, so this is a pretty good arrangement as we get the extra talent a trade down would provide while still getting Marshall.

The deal is a bargain for the Chargers. My only worry is the Broncos may protest as a division rival profits from this arrangement.

The Seahawks would still have their #6 meaning a potential chance for a QB or DT. And the added 3rd could be turned into a starting capable safety or RB. Or, they could package the 2nd and 3rd to grab Brown late in the 1st.

Jony-b said...

Ill give you an example that article may have been talking about.

Say the Seahawks wanted to trade up to #1. We would give up our #6 and #14, but according to the chart we would have to also give up more, maybe trade the #40 pick for the #65 and it is finally about even. That is just ridiculous.
#1 + #65 = 3,250 about
#6 + 14 + 40 = 3,200 plus a player

See what I am saying, This is much more lopsided than Giving up 28 and 60 and a third string QB for #14. Late first and late second would be worth moving up to #14 in my opinion.
Two top 15 picks for the first overall is not.

Jon said...

with Deion Grant cut, what's the over/under on Mel Kiper mocking Eric Berry to the Hawks? I say 20 hours, take the under.

Anonymous said...

I second that Ralphy. Why is a 3rd string qb worth a 3rd when we got a 7 for a 2nd string qb with lots of game experience as opposed to Whitehurst who has very little.

Quinn went for a 7(?).

What makes this guy special?

Anonymous said...

It seems clear that both Seattle and Arizona rate Charlie Whitehurst higher than Derek Anderson. The rumors in the blogosphere are that once Whitehurst decides on a team, then Anderson will go with the other team. Both Pete Carroll and Ken Whisenhunt, two pretty good coaches, seem to think highly of Whitehurst, despite the fact that he has been buried behind Phillip Rivers and has not played a down in a real NFL game. What are these coaches basing their opinions on? Certainly not a few downs in a preseason game with 4th string OLs and WRs. If you go to You Tube and pull up Whitehurst's Clemson highlights, you might be as shocked as I was to see a tall, very fast QB with a power arm and electric release. His highlights certainly are far superior to Jimmy Clausen's highlights. I don't know how Whitehurst has stayed hidden for so long, but I can certainly see why Seattle and Arizon believe he will be a hidden gem. To pick up Brandon Marshall and Charlie Whitehurst for the #14 pick would be a world-class coup!

Nick said...

An ideal scenario absolutely. But are there other teams we would be willing to trade with as well? If we are indeed trying to shop around one if not two of our draft picks, there certainly must be some other buyers. I think we should continue our approach and explore every opportunity to get the best deal possible. This years draft is a very fragile situation and we can not afford to make any mistakes.

Donald Duck said...

I found this draft pick value chart at http://www.bigcatcountry.com/2010/2/18/1315177/big-cat-country-2010-trade-value
“The only trade value charts available to fans have been online and they are all very similar, if not identical. With changes in the NFL over the last few years, specifically in the rookie salaries and depth of rookie classes, this generic chart has become outdated. A good example of this was a trade between the Colts and Dolphins in the 2009 Draft. The Colts traded up to the 56th spot and gave the Dolphins their 61st and 165th spots. According to the generic value chart on the internet, the Colts acquired 340 value points with the 56th pick and gave up 292 for the 61st pick. To compensate for the 48 point difference, they added the 165th pick; however, that pick is only worth 25.4 in the old chart. Why would the Colts offer that pick and why would the Dolphins accept when the Colts had the 127th pick worth 47 points available for trading?
In fact, according to the old chart the teams trading up won their trades 7 out of the first 8 times in the draft. This obviously indicates that the higher picks have been devalued in recent years.
What I set out to do was create a chart that more closely represented the values of the picks according to the general managers. I took draft day trades and adjusted the chart values to make the lopsided trades such as the Colts/Dolphins trade more even. So here is the Big Cat Country 2010 Trade Value Chart and what I undoubtedly consider to be the most accurate chart available to fans:
1 2500
2 2250
3 2050
4 1850
5 1650
6 1500
7 1350
8 1250
9 1175
10 1100
11 1050
12 1000
13 960
14 920
15 890
16 860
17 810
18 790
19 770
20 750
21 730
22 710
23 690
24 670
25 655
26 640
27 625
28 610
29 595
30 580
31 565
32 550
33 535
34 520
35 505
36 490
37 475
38 460
39 445
40 430
41 420
42 410
43 400
44 390
45 380
46 370
47 360
48 350
49 344
50 338
51 332
52 326
53 320
54 315
55 310
56 305
57 300
58 295
59 290
60 285
61 280
62 275
63 270
64 265
65 260
66 255
67 250
68 245
69 240
70 235
71 230
72 225
73 220
74 215
75 210
76 205
77 200
78 195
79 190
80 185
81 180
82 175
83 170
84 165
85 160
86 155
87 150
88 145
89 140
90 136
91 132
92 128
93 124
94 120
95 116
96 112
97 110
98 108
99 106
100 104
101 102
102 100
103 98
104 96
105 94
106 92
107 90
108 88
109 86
110 84
111 82
112 80
113 78
114 76
115 74
116 72
117 70
118 68
119 66
120 64
121 62
122 60
123 58
124 56
125 54
126 52
127 50
128 48
129 47
130 46
131 45
132 44
133 43
134 42
135 41
136 40
137 39
138 38.5
139 38
140 37.5
141 37
142 36.5
143 36
144 35.5
145 35
146 34.5
147 34
148 33.5
149 33
150 32.5
151 32
152 31.5
153 31
154 30.5
155 30
156 29.5
157 29
158 28.5
159 28
160 27.6
161 27.2
162 26.8
163 26.4
164 26.2
165 25.8
166 25.4
167 25
168 24.6
169 24.2
170 23.8
171 23.4
172 23
173 22.6
174 22.2
175 21.8
176 21.4
177 21
178 20.6
179 20.2
180 19.8
181 19.4
182 19
183 18.7
184 18.4
185 18.1
186 17.8
187 17.5
188 17.2
189 16.9
190 16.6
191 16.3
192 16
193 15.7
194 15.4
195 15.1
196 14.8
197 14.5
198 14.2
199 13.9
200 13.6
201 13.3
202 13
203 12.8
204 12.6
205 12.4
206 12.2
207 12
208 11.8
209 11.6
210 11.4
211 11.2
212 11
213 10.8
214 10.6
215 10.4
216 10.2
217 10
218 9.9
219 9.8
220 9.7
221 9.6
222 9.5
223 9.4
224 9.3

What do you think of this chart?

ChavaC said...

Admittedly it makes some sense, but I think Kip hit it on the button that the AFC West problem would probably keep it from happening (at least if you tried to do it as a 3-way trade). SD would be helping Denver solve the Brandon Marshall dilemma for a first round pick, and Denver would watch themselves lose a big playmaker while the Chargers potentially get Spiller.

Interestingly, if Brown were to fall to GB it would take about about 120 points to trade up with the Pats (who love their 2nd/3rd rounders) and snatch him. The Chargers 3rd rounder is worth... 136.

Matthew Baldwin said...

I don't get the Whitehurst love. He's a 3rd string clipboard holder who can't beat out Volek for the number 2. I'd be up for signing him as a #2 if it just meant $1.5m, but a 3rd rounder (that we don't have) or swaping 1st round picks? It seems absolutely absurd.

I'd rather see Clausen wearing the headset in 2010 than Whitehurst.

Going on the record:

6th. Jimmy Clausen, QB
14th. Charles Brown, LT
40th. Demayious Thomas, WR
101st. Ben Tate, RB

(TOP will help our D more than any rookie. We were 32nd in the league.)

Anonymous said...

Just say no to Whitehurst. He will be 28 before the season starts and has never thrown a pass in a regular season game. I wouldn't give anything more than a 7th in the 2011 draft.

I am fully pulling for a trade down and acquire scenario but giving up a mid round pick for Whitehurst is just plain dumb.

Jony-b said...

Donald Duck. I don't really think that is all that much more accurate. It actually throws the most recent big time first round trade by the Browns and Jets last year farther off that the one that is most common for viewers.
Last year remember
Jets trade up to #5
Your value says
Browns #5 1650
Jets #17 810 and #52 326
This makes a difference of over 500 point value.

Common value says
Browns #5 1700
Jets #17 950 and #52 380.
This is more like 350 points difference.

When you are talking about 20 or thirty points it is like splitting hairs and I doubt teams get that picky. The thing about the trade that you presented is that the team trading back only moved five spaces in the late second round and picked up another player. 5 spaces in the late second is quite a bit different than stepping up 14 spaces from late 1st to early first.

Remember it is the values of the first three that are so crazy because of the 400 point difference. 3000, 2600, 2200, 1800.
Maybe it should go something like this 2400, 2200, 2000, 1800, 1700 and go on with the old chart at this point.

JohnnyB said...

The Seahawks traded away one of the best backup QBs in the NFL and are trying to get Whitehurst because they are doing just what I said they should do: Getting prospective young QBs as possible long term solutions for the franchise. Whitehurst has genuine potential to be a great QB, and he's young, compared to Wallace.

At least now you guys should be able to see that what I've been saying is true about the availability of QBs in the NFL. If Whitehurst doesn't pan out, there will be plenty more available. No need to make desperation moves.

Matthew Baldwin said...

Whitehurst is 27 and Wallace is 29. This isn't a case of getting a young prospect.

JohnnyB said...

Wallace is 5'11" and Whitehurst is 6'4". Wallace is a known quantity with plenty of NFL playing time and unlikely to be much more than the best he has shown so far, Whitehurst has a bigger upside. Wallace is an extremely stable backup who gives you something pretty solid as a backup, Whitehurst is a wildcard. The Seahawks are after Whitehurst who they have to give something up for, instead of Anderson who they could have gotten for free if all they wanted was a veteran backup.

I'm not sure how it could be any more obvious that Whitehurst isn't being sought as merely a backup.

akki said...

Look up Whitehurst's history at Clemson and you'll swear you're reading about Jevan Snead. Whitehurst was thought of as a possible 1st round pick and Heisman candidate after his sophomore year where he had 21 tds, 13 ints, and 3500+ yards on 62% completions for a 9-4 team. He followed that up with 7 tds, 17 ints, and 2000+ yards on 51% completions, for a 6-5 team where he had trouble making good decisions under increased pressure. Unlike Snead, Whitehurst did stay for his senior year and showed some signs of getting his mojo back, even if he didn't reach previous heights.

With Snead, you know that there's still a gem hidden inside the rock, but you don't know if it can be extracted. We prescribe that Snead needs to go to a good organization and sit for a few years without pressure, and he might overcome his weaknesses. That seems to be exactly what Whitehurst has done. Whether he's ready now, well we don't know, but obviously there are some NFL personnel who have been paying attention to him and think he's almost there. And I'm sure there are others who won't touch him.

Rob Staton said...

Matthew - the point of the suggested trade isn't to expect anything from Whitehurst. Essentially, it's saying that if Seattle are prepared to spend the #14 on Brandon Marshall anyway, moving down to #28 allows them to accumulate Whitehurst and a third round pick for free whilst still trading for Marshall.

It's not really about giving up anything for Whitehurst, rather than sweetening a deal for Marshall.

Steve in Spain said...

Part of the value of Whitehurst is that he's spent the last two years with Norv Turner, who's one of the best in the business, both by track record and reputation, at developing young QBs. I assume that San Diego's unloading him simply because he's blocked by Rivers and Voleck.

As for Seneca, the skills he brings to the QB position decline much quicker than those of a traditional pocket passer like Whitehurst. At age 29, I think Seneca's career is close to done.

Vince Mulcahy said...

Kip is right by stating division rivals wont help each other out. But the more intricate trades are the less likely they are to. Just ask Bronco's head coach McDaniels how three way trades work out! :D

Who knows maybe we end up with Marshall and Ryan Clady with the way Denver likes to trade.

CLanterman said...

"Look up Whitehurst's history at Clemson and you'll swear you're reading about Jevan Snead. Whitehurst was thought of as a possible 1st round pick and Heisman candidate after his sophomore year where he had 21 tds, 13 ints, and 3500+ yards on 62% completions for a 9-4 team. He followed that up with 7 tds, 17 ints, and 2000+ yards on 51% completions, for a 6-5 team where he had trouble making good decisions under increased pressure. Unlike Snead, Whitehurst did stay for his senior year and showed some signs of getting his mojo back, even if he didn't reach previous heights."

Yes, but why trade a 3rd for Whitehurst then? He hasn't done anything.
Why not just draft Snead in the 5th or 6th round of this year's draft?

akki said...

You may be willing to pay more for Whitehurst over Snead because you've determined that since Whitehurst was coached up by Turner and held a clipboard for a few years, he is ready to be the #2 QB immediately while Snead will take 1-2 more years. Actually I personally think a 3rd is high for Whitehurst too, since the only positive word on him is by mouth other than any film I can see.

Why are we assuming that Whitehurst's going to cost a 3rd rounder? Marshall was tendered for a 1st rounder and we're hoping to get him for a 2nd rounder plus change. It could be that say Seattle and Arizona are both offering 5th rounders to San Diego, right?

Same goes to those who say great trade if we turn the #14 pick into Marshall, Whitehurst, and a 3rd rounder. Well, that assumes that Whitehurst costs a 3rd rounder, or 150 trade chart points, or whatever. If he isn't, then it isn't that much of a coup.

JohnnyB said...

"Yes, but why trade a 3rd for Whitehurst then? He hasn't done anything.
Why not just draft Snead in the 5th or 6th round of this year's draft?"

Because Whitehurst didn't fall in a hole when left college, he has played in the NFL preseason, he has played in practice, he has shown something since then and there are NFL people who know about it. Someone in Seahawk management obviously knows plenty about this something.

Seahawk fans should know about how this works better than anyone, after seeing us acquire Hasselbeck similarly.

CLanterman said...

The points you made are true, but I don't see anyone offering a first for Leinart, and I didn't see anyone offer much for Quinn.

Anonymous said...

I have another idea for you. Chargers sign Marshall, so they have to give their first draft pick to Denver (660 points). They trade them to Seahawks for their own first pick (1600 points). But, and this is important, Chargers also give their second (300 points) and third (132) draft pick and Witehurst. So we have: Seahawks giving 1600 points in terme of draft value, and Chargers loosing an equivalent of 1132 for a differential gain of 468, a lot more than what they could get for a single 3rd round pick. And the Seahawks receive Marshall, Withehurst, a second and a third round pick.
-Remi

Anonymous said...

Mistake on my last one.
Seahawks giving their no 14 pick (1100 points) and Chargers give Marshall, Witehurst and only their second round pick, so they lose 966points and receive 1100, the differential being 134, about what they would receive from Arizona.
-Remi

Anonymous said...

Sorry, mistake...
Seahawks give their pick no 14 (1100) points. Chargers gives their first round pick for Marshall (660). Then exchange Marshall and second round pick (300) to Seahawks. So, Chargers lose 960 points), receiving 1100, a diferential of +140, about the amount of what they could receive from Arizona. But more, they dont have Marshall in their division anymore. And Seahawks lose their no 14 pick, but gain a secon pick, Witehurst and Marshall.
-Remi