Let's Make a Deal: The Trade Thread

[method man]

I don't think it's a "bad" trade. I think it's roughly even. I think the grade that one ESPN dude gave the Texans was B, and us a B- with a caveat that we would fall if we needed to restructure (a big part of the value here is the existing contract for Tunsil).

That is pretty close to my evaluation, although I would probably put it as even. I think the amount of picks actually does roughly equate to the value of a strong LT. The amount of risk associated with one veteran guy (injury risk, contract issues) that tend to be much less with ONE rookie (much less multiple where injury risk is now mitigated across multiple players), it's quite a lot. Yes, he has not had any injuries, which is why for me the eval is even here.

Here is a blurb from a Texans blog:

I am not so worried about the other comments, but the underlined portion (emphasis mine) is concerning. This trade's value drops in any clean, honest evaluation if that happens here. as soon as next year (contract year). The aggressive guys sit out practice, threaten to sit out the season, etc.

You do this trade acknowledging that you probably have to make him the highest paid tackle after 2025

 

[DogofWar1]

This is not a trade you make and then get unexpectedly hosed later.

Jayden's future costs are known. Tunsil's future costs are known. There are no surprises here.

Either he's playing it out and we bit adieu or we already have earmarked the 30m/year or so he's gonna cost.

 

[Conn]

I don't think it's a "bad" trade. I think it's roughly even. I think the grade that one ESPN dude gave the Texans was B, and us a B- with a caveat that we would fall if we needed to restructure (a big part of the value here is the existing contract for Tunsil).

That is pretty close to my evaluation, although I would probably put it as even. I think the amount of picks actually does roughly equate to the value of a strong LT. The amount of risk associated with one veteran guy (injury risk, contract issues) that tend to be much less with ONE rookie (much less multiple where injury risk is now mitigated across multiple players), it's quite a lot. Yes, he has not had any injuries, which is why for me the eval is even here.

Here is a blurb from a Texans blog:

I am not so worried about the other comments, but the underlined portion (emphasis mine) is concerning. This trade's value drops in any clean, honest evaluation if that happens here. as soon as next year (contract year). The aggressive guys sit out practice, threaten to sit out the season, etc.

I hate to tell you this, but you want him to perform well enough here this year to require a huge extension. Elite foundational players at LT require payment, if he’s worth that here it actually means the trade was even better than we hoped, for the long term. In no circumstances whatsoever do you want him playing out that entire contract and hitting FA at 32 years old, you want to have to pay him to finish his career with Jayden Daniels. That’s the winning outcome.

I don’t really care to “grade” the trade for either side, that’s arbitrary. What isn’t is the the idea that trading down from the 3rd to the 4th this year, and giving up a 2nd and 4th next year, is an extremely reasonable (if not outright low) price to pay for the rarity of a healthy franchise LT.

The only way to lose sight of this is to lose the forest for the trees by fixating on missing a couple mid round picks and thus making the online draft simulators less fun for a year or two.

 

[Neophyte]

I don't think it's a "bad" trade. I think it's roughly even. I think the grade that one ESPN dude gave the Texans was B, and us a B- with a caveat that we would fall if we needed to restructure (a big part of the value here is the existing contract for Tunsil).

That is pretty close to my evaluation, although I would probably put it as even. I think the amount of picks actually does roughly equate to the value of a strong LT. The amount of risk associated with one veteran guy (injury risk, contract issues) that tend to be much less with ONE rookie (much less multiple where injury risk is now mitigated across multiple players), it's quite a lot. Yes, he has not had any injuries, which is why for me the eval is even here.

Here is a blurb from a Texans blog:

I am not so worried about the other comments, but the underlined portion (emphasis mine) is concerning. This trade's value drops in any clean, honest evaluation if that happens here. as soon as next year (contract year). The aggressive guys sit out practice, threaten to sit out the season, etc.

At the risk of overstating things, Tunsil has never been in a locker room with this kind of atmosphere.

Wagner, McLauren, Daniels, and others - different kind of energy and intensity. Tunsil will be expected to step up, by his peers.

Shrugging off the requests of your coaches when you are the big dog in the yard is one thing. Shrugging off the pressure applied by bigger dogs is a harder task.

 

[Bulldog]

The appropriate time to extend Tunsil is next offseason, one year before his current deal expires and once we get to see him on the field for 17 games with our team.

 

[Boone]

And he'll get more expensive with every reassurring snap. Not sure I agree Bulldog. You don't trade what we did for Tunsil if you don't know what you are getting. The only question is how many more years can he play at a top tier level? Other than that, the sooner you re-do and extend his contract, the better the terms will be. He balls out in 2025 (as expected) and now you've got every LT-needy team in the league looking to outbid you.

 

[SkinsNumberOne]

And he'll get more expensive with every reassurring snap. Not sure I agree Bulldog. You don't trade what we did for Tunsil if you don't know what you are getting. The only question is how many more years can he play at a top tier level? Other than that, the sooner you re-do and extend his contract, the better the terms will be. He balls out in 2025 (as expected) and now you've got every LT-needy team in the league looking to outbid you.

Definitely can see what you're saying, but chemistry and fit are weird things. Sometimes guys who you think are just going to slot in... things don't work out.
I think you do have to take that risk of leaving his contract alone. I don't think the best GMs can perfectly predict chemistry and fit; mistakes happen all of the time, across the board. Anyway, just my opinion. Another caveat to this is that he has already kind of hinted at being $$$$$. He has made many comments (I have read one personally, but heard secondhand about others) about how he should be recognized as one of the best LTs, he is not getting enough recognition. Most of the time, that indicates some unhappiness with the salary level. I am not sure that gets fixed by a new contract; these days when players feel like they have earned a new contract, they sit out, especially if they are of the kind to make these kinds of quotes.

I am not saying he doesn't perform this year; from the sounds of things, he will. I think almost regardless of what happens though, next offseason could be interesting for the Comms/Tunsil relationship. Obviously just conjecture, reading tea leaves. Maybe I am looking at coffee though...

 

[burgold]

One thing I like (even if I agree with Boone) about Peters is he's willing to make the trade, but not immediately sign an extension. Maybe that's because we've been burned by too many Snyder deals, but I really like the idea of seeing how well the player fits before extending them. I was glad we didn't immediately extend Lattimore. I feel the same way about Tunsil.

I can totally buy into the opposite argument, too. Locking them in and making them happy also can be a good move.

 

[Boone]

Definitely can see what you're saying, but chemistry and fit are weird things. Sometimes guys who you think are just going to slot in... things don't work out.
I think you do have to take that risk of leaving his contract alone. I don't think the best GMs can perfectly predict chemistry and fit; mistakes happen all of the time, across the board. Anyway, just my opinion. Another caveat to this is that he has already kind of hinted at being $$$$$. He has made many comments (I have read one personally, but heard secondhand about others) about how he should be recognized as one of the best LTs, he is not getting enough recognition. Most of the time, that indicates some unhappiness with the salary level. I am not sure that gets fixed by a new contract; these days when players feel like they have earned a new contract, they sit out, especially if they are of the kind to make these kinds of quotes.

I am not saying he doesn't perform this year; from the sounds of things, he will. I think almost regardless of what happens though, next offseason could be interesting for the Comms/Tunsil relationship. Obviously just conjecture, reading tea leaves. Maybe I am looking at coffee though...

I hear you. He has played and excelled for two different franchises (Miami and Houston). Of course new team, new scheme, new coaches, new teammates means question marks, but I doubt there are many serious ones. We gave up a lot for Tunsil if all we're getting is 2 seasons. I get AP's penchant for 1 year 'prove it' deals. But I just don't think it makes sense in this kind of mega-trade scenario. If you aren't sure about Tunsil, you've probably already just made a big mistake. I think they are absolutely sure what they just traded for, and in that scenario, you lock him up and make him happy for the next 4-5 seasons. He will never be more affordable than he is going to be right now.

 

[SkinsFTW]

Yeah the cap is going up quickly. Right now they can maybe get him for something like 27-30M. Next year it might be 35 after Wirfs or someone similar signs another big deal.

 

[heisenberg]

And he'll get more expensive with every reassurring snap. Not sure I agree Bulldog. You don't trade what we did for Tunsil if you don't know what you are getting. The only question is how many more years can he play at a top tier level? Other than that, the sooner you re-do and extend his contract, the better the terms will be. He balls out in 2025 (as expected) and now you've got every LT-needy team in the league looking to outbid you.

It's a gamble either way.
You re sign him now and he suffers a catastrophic injury next season your into Alex Smith and deshaun Watson territory with a guy who's on the wrong side if 30 and likely will never live up to his contract and becomes an anchor for years to come.
You wait and as you said he becomes more and more expensive.

I tend to lean towards waiting and seeing what the future holds for as long as possible before you pull the trigger on a big gamble either way.

 

[burgold]

Yeah the cap is going up quickly. Right now they can maybe get him for something like 27-30M. Next year it might be 35 after Wirfs or someone similar signs another big deal.

I have a feeling the cap is going to take a pause soon or maybe even dip. We’re headed towards a bad recession.

 

[Commander Wraith]

Big IF, but if we traded our first for Hendrickson (and his 18.7 or whatever cap hit) with a 3rd or 4th coming back to us, then let him walk this year and gained a 3rd round comp pick, would you consider it?

 

[Commander Wraith]

It's a gamble either way.
You re sign him now and he suffers a catastrophic injury next season your into Alex Smith and deshaun Watson territory with a guy who's on the wrong side if 30 and likely will never live up to his contract and becomes an anchor for years to come.
You wait and as you said he becomes more and more expensive.

I tend to lean towards waiting and seeing what the future holds for as long as possible before you pull the trigger on a big gamble either way.

To add to this, waiting lets you see what the draft brings. If we land Simmons and he kills it for us once healthy, Tunsil could (however unlikely) be traded or we let him walk and net a comp pick. It’s a risk though with rising costs (as Boone said).

 

[Chris]

If you’re signing players with an eye on gaining possible comp picks later…you’ve got the cart before the horse. As a hedge? Ok, maybe. As a factor in making a trade? Nooooo

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

Big IF, but if we traded our first for Hendrickson (and his 18.7 or whatever cap hit) with a 3rd or 4th coming back to us, then let him walk this year and gained a 3rd round comp pick, would you consider it?

Absolutely not.

If we trade for Hendrickson, I'd only do it if we extend him. We would need 3 years MINIMUM of production to justify a trade of that nature.

Also, don't forget, comp picks are tricky. It's based on the difference of what you lose and what you sign. You can't count on comp picks.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

It's a gamble either way.
You re sign him now and he suffers a catastrophic injury next season your into Alex Smith and deshaun Watson territory with a guy who's on the wrong side if 30 and likely will never live up to his contract and becomes an anchor for years to come.
You wait and as you said he becomes more and more expensive.

I tend to lean towards waiting and seeing what the future holds for as long as possible before you pull the trigger on a big gamble either way.

All Pro LT's tend to play well into their 30's. You can't assume the catastrophic, random injury. Every player is susceptible to that on every snap.

I think the expectation is we will have to extend Tunsil after this season. And assuming he plays the way he has played, that seems fine.

 

[heisenberg]

All Pro LT's tend to play well into their 30's. You can't assume the catastrophic, random injury. Every player is susceptible to that on every snap.

I think the expectation is we will have to extend Tunsil after this season. And assuming he plays the way he has played, that seems fine.

You're absolutely correct you can't assume it just as you can't ignore the possibility, hence the gamble either way.

When you have a player locked up for multiple seasons at a reasonable cost and have avenues to keep them such as franchise tags you can be patient and wait to see what the future holds a little bit.

There's no right or wrong answer, some teams play the long game and some try to get players locked up very early to save a little money each scenario sometimes works out sometimes it doesn't.

I myself lean towards being patient, in my opinion having a guy with a massive cap hit who's useless to you is a much larger burden than having their contract be a little higher due to inflation.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

You're absolutely correct you can't assume it just as you can't ignore the possibility, hence the gamble either way.

When you have a player locked up for multiple seasons at a reasonable cost and have avenues to keep them such as franchise tags you can be patient and wait to see what the future holds a little bit.

There's no right or wrong answer, some teams play the long game and some try to get players locked up very early to save a little money each scenario sometimes works out sometimes it doesn't.

I myself lean towards being patient, in my opinion having a guy with a massive cap hit who's useless to you is a much larger burden than having their contract be a little higher due to inflation.

Ok, but a first round draft pick can tear their ACL on the 3rd play of the season also.

Here's the way I look at injuries: if a player has a history of injuries, the chances are they will get injured again, as injuries tend to compound themselves. If they don't have a history of injuries, then you just assume they'll be fine and subject to the same random quality of injuries as anybody in the NFL.

This is why I wouldn't sign guys who have a history of injuries to large, long contracts. Which, we haven't. So, I'm good with that part of it anyway.

 

[heisenberg]

Ok, but a first round draft pick can tear their ACL on the 3rd play of the season also.

Here's the way I look at injuries: if a player has a history of injuries, the chances are they will get injured again, as injuries tend to compound themselves. If they don't have a history of injuries, then you just assume they'll be fine and subject to the same random quality of injuries as anybody in the NFL.

This is why I wouldn't sign guys who have a history of injuries to large, long contracts. Which, we haven't. So, I'm good with that part of it anyway.

I think we're sort of debating two separate points because I agree with what your saying but the point I'm trying to make is that despite the possible randomness of injuries such as your example of a 3rd round pick tearing their acl on the 3rd play of the season you can factor that into your decision when debating whether to extend someone early.
If someone has multiple years left on a contract and you wait and next year they have a catastrophic injury derailing their career (which happens all the time) you have just saved way more money than you would have saved by signing a player who stays healthy and productive for the duration of their contract.

There's obviously other factors like keeping a player happy and preventing holdouts.

Again a bit of a gamble either way but to me it feels smarter to lean towards waiting rather than signing early, but you also gotta be careful you don't end up the Bengals or cowboys and start alienating your superstars or in the cowboys case end up with a less than elite quarterback having you firmly by the balls.