Hypothetical. Trading for Andrew Luck. - Page 2

Cardinal96 · 11-06-2012, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TACKLE

The part I don't get is why would the 49ers want to trade Alex Smith?

I like the 49ers. I would want to do that trade as I believe Andrew Luck would be a clear upgrade at the QB position and would make it more likely that my team would win multiple Super Bowls. You put him on a team with that rushing offense, defense and receiving targets and he would have insane production. In Indianapolis, Luck has basically no running game, marginal offensive line protection, one solid receiver in Reggie Wayne and a defense that has managed 3 takeaways in 8 games. He is making TY Hilton and Avery look like decent receivers.

LonghornsLegend · 11-06-2012, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardinal96

I like the 49ers. I would want to do that trade as I believe Andrew Luck would be a clear upgrade at the QB position and would make it more likely that my team would win multiple Super Bowls. You put him on a team with that rushing offense, defense and receiving targets and he would have insane production. In Indianapolis, Luck has basically no running game, marginal offensive line protection, one solid receiver in Reggie Wayne and a defense that has managed 3 takeaways in 8 games. He is making TY Hilton and Avery look like decent receivers.

You didn't need to go into that long of an explanation of why Luck would be an upgrade on San Fran lol.

RagingColt · 11-06-2012, 03:02 PM

Grigson wouldn't trade Luck under any circumstances. They didn't trade him before the draft and can't see any reason to do so now regardless what is offered. You don't trade away premier quarterbacks before they hit their prime let alone half way through their rookie season. Luck's full potential is still several years away as is the Colts entire team. As a fan of the team, it's great to see us winning but keep in mind we've played a weak schedule on the whole thus far. Might be a homer, but i'm realistic as well.

Caulibflower · 11-06-2012, 03:26 PM

Jay Cutler (young and perceived as a franchise QB at the time) and a 5th rounder got traded for Kyle Orton, two firsts and a third. Value for a mediocre starter is probably somewhere around a 3rd-rounder. I'm thinking back to the Charlie Whitehurst trade and how that was supposed to turn out. I imagine the Seahawks were hoping to get something along the lines of a Kyle Orton for that third rounder. So you might say Jay Cutler's trade value was something like two first-round picks and two third-round picks, and that was coming off a Pro Bowl season and he'd been the 11th overall pick just three years earlier. Then again, he'd also put his house up for sale and clearly wanted out of Denver.

So if something ever came up (hypothetically, of course) Luck's value would probably be something like a team's first and second round picks for the next two years, or something. If it was a situation where Luck was going to be moved and there was a bidding war, I'd expect it to be somewhere in there. Something like 4 premium picks. Maybe some team with multiple first round picks would trade two first rounders one year and then a third first-round pick the next. But there would have to be at least two first-round picks involved, and then a number of other players or picks to round it out, unless some other marquee player in this hypothetical universe happened to be available on a team that wanted to trade for Luck, and also happened to be someone the Colts could use. It's kind of like... if you're trading away the guy who makes your team better, his worth is that of a better team; you take Luck, who makes your guys play like first round picks, or you trade Luck and upgrade the rest of the team with the actual first-round picks you get for him.

Ness · 11-06-2012, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardinal96

I like the 49ers. I would want to do that trade as I believe Andrew Luck would be a clear upgrade at the QB position and would make it more likely that my team would win multiple Super Bowls. You put him on a team with that rushing offense, defense and receiving targets and he would have insane production. In Indianapolis, Luck has basically no running game, marginal offensive line protection, one solid receiver in Reggie Wayne and a defense that has managed 3 takeaways in 8 games. He is making TY Hilton and Avery look like decent receivers.

Why stop there? As long as we're doing these Madden trades you might as well go the full distance. Aaron Rodgers for instance.

Cardinal96 · 11-06-2012, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ness

Why stop there? As long as we're doing these Madden trades you might as well go the full distance. Aaron Rodgers for instance.

I was responding to a question as it pertains to this hypothetical. I was really trying to get others' gauge as to the market value of the rights to Andrew Luck. I agree with the earlier poster who noted that he is probably the most valuable player in the NFL from that perspective.

King Carls 5 Year Plan · 11-06-2012, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornsLegend

I'm pretty sure every team in the league if given the choice would take Luck over no franchise QB and multiple 1st every year.

you, good sir, have not paid close enough attention to the Kansas City Chiefs draft strategy since 1983. do you know how many LSU defensive lineman and WR busts we could take with multiple 1st round picks every year? it is clear that the Chiefs don't need a franchise QB to win. just ask 'em.

xjxdarren · 11-06-2012, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caulibflower

Jay Cutler (young and perceived as a franchise QB at the time) and a 5th rounder got traded for Kyle Orton, two firsts and a third. Value for a mediocre starter is probably somewhere around a 3rd-rounder. I'm thinking back to the Charlie Whitehurst trade and how that was supposed to turn out. I imagine the Seahawks were hoping to get something along the lines of a Kyle Orton for that third rounder. So you might say Jay Cutler's trade value was something like two first-round picks and two third-round picks, and that was coming off a Pro Bowl season and he'd been the 11th overall pick just three years earlier. Then again, he'd also put his house up for sale and clearly wanted out of Denver.

So if something ever came up (hypothetically, of course) Luck's value would probably be something like a team's first and second round picks for the next two years, or something. If it was a situation where Luck was going to be moved and there was a bidding war, I'd expect it to be somewhere in there. Something like 4 premium picks. Maybe some team with multiple first round picks would trade two first rounders one year and then a third first-round pick the next. But there would have to be at least two first-round picks involved, and then a number of other players or picks to round it out, unless some other marquee player in this hypothetical universe happened to be available on a team that wanted to trade for Luck, and also happened to be someone the Colts could use. It's kind of like... if you're trading away the guy who makes your team better, his worth is that of a better team; you take Luck, who makes your guys play like first round picks, or you trade Luck and upgrade the rest of the team with the actual first-round picks you get for him.

Pardon my absolute lack of manner, but you're absolutely, utterly, irretrievably crazy.

Bringing Jay Frickin' Cutler into a comparison of trade values with Andrew Luck is nuts. Have you gotten any slightest clue as to what transpired before this year's draft? Do you know what RG3 was worth? Everybody and his dog knew that if the right for Luck was ever traded, it would take at least twice as much as what Washington gave up. And that's only for that certain point prior to the draft. Right now, I would venture to say that even the entire Manchester United squad plus Sir Alex Ferguson plus Lionel Messi and plus Cristiano Ronaldo are not enough to trade for Andrew Luck. Saying Jay Cutler ever, ever had the prospect or valuation as a quarterback that Luck has now, and frankly has been having since all the way back to the point when he got his finger injured before facing the Sooners for the Sun Bowl in 2010, is ludicrously delusional.

Don't get me wrong, even though I had never been a fan of Jay Cutler in the past, overall I genuinely admire what he has done for the Bears this year when he definitely had to. But comparing his trade in the past to what Andrew's potential trade cost can be is a shamelessly insult to Luck, and frankly anybody who's a fan of sports, not just football.

2 first rounders and 2 second rounders for Luck?! You might as well bring a hundred bucks and go into a Bugatti Veyron Showcase and try your luck.

Caulibflower · 11-06-2012, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjxdarren

Pardon my absolute lack of manner, but you're absolutely, utterly, irretrievably crazy.

Bringing Jay Frickin' Cutler into a comparison of trade values with Andrew Luck is nuts. Have you gotten any slightest clue as to what transpired before this year's draft? Do you know what RG3 was worth? Everybody and his dog knew that if the right for Luck was ever traded, it would take at least twice as much as what Washington gave up. And that's only for that certain point prior to the draft. Right now, I would venture to say that even the entire Manchester United squad plus Sir Alex Ferguson plus Lionel Messi and plus Cristiano Ronaldo are not enough to trade for Andrew Luck. Saying Jay Cutler ever, ever had the prospect or valuation as a quarterback that Luck has now, and frankly has been having since all the way back to the point when he got his finger injured before facing the Sooners for the Sun Bowl in 2010, is ludicrously delusional.

Don't get me wrong, even though I had never been a fan of Jay Cutler in the past, overall I genuinely admire what he has done for the Bears this year when he definitely had to. But comparing his trade in the past to what Andrew's potential trade cost can be is a shamelessly insult to Luck, and frankly anybody who's a fan of sports, not just football.

2 first rounders and 2 second rounders for Luck?! You might as well bring a hundred bucks and go into a Bugatti Veyron Showcase and try your luck.

Given that the OP and everyone else in the thread agrees that Luck won't be traded, the hypothetical aspect kicks in. If Luck was to be traded, something had to have changed; there has to be some additional reason for Luck to me moved out of Indy aside from what another team is offering. I was using the example of another young franchise QB who happened to be disgruntled and whose team was just looking to get some value out of a player who wasn't planning to be around anymore. If some team really had their heart set on prying Luck away from Indy, you're right - they'd have to give up everything, and even then there's just not really any benefit for Indy in trading the guy you think might be the best player in the league for the next ten years. "Hypothetical" is in the title. So no one's surprised you wouldn't take four premium picks for him, but in the (extremely) unlikely case that he's on the move, considering there'd have to be some extenuating circumstances, you can still go back and find some historical precedents. Also, even with his antics, I'm sure we can all remember how much **** Denver got for trading away Cutler. At least half of the talking heads were saying exactly what you are - you simply do not trade away a young franchise quarterback. But it happened, and there was an exchange of resources, and nobody's indignation about the trade happening in the first place had anything to do with what Denver ultimately got out of their guy.

xjxdarren · 11-06-2012, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caulibflower

Given that the OP and everyone else in the thread agrees that Luck won't be traded, the hypothetical aspect kicks in. If Luck was to be traded, something had to have changed; there has to be some additional reason for Luck to me moved out of Indy aside from what another team is offering. I was using the example of another young franchise QB who happened to be disgruntled and whose team was just looking to get some value out of a player who wasn't planning to be around anymore. If some team really had their heart set on prying Luck away from Indy, you're right - they'd have to give up everything, and even then there's just not really any benefit for Indy in trading the guy you think might be the best player in the league for the next ten years. "Hypothetical" is in the title. So no one's surprised you wouldn't take four premium picks for him, but in the (extremely) unlikely case that he's on the move, considering there'd have to be some extenuating circumstances, you can still go back and find some historical precedents. Also, even with his antics, I'm sure we can all remember how much **** Denver got for trading away Cutler. At least half of the talking heads were saying exactly what you are - you simply do not trade away a young franchise quarterback. But it happened, and there was an exchange of resources, and nobody's indignation about the trade happening in the first place had anything to do with what Denver ultimately got out of their guy.

I now understand your provisional scenario better. But still I can't agree with your deduction at all. To begin with, if you really know enough about Luck not just as a football player but as a person, you would know that even if the team he's playing for is the Charlotte Bobcats he still would not come close to being as "disgruntled" as Jay Cutler was. Secondly, in the world of sports, wanting to leave a club does not always constitute a reason or impetus for the club to sell cheaply. Cristiano Ronaldo's headstrong desire to play for Real Madrid was known to 6 billion minus 0.35 biliion of the earth's entire population since he was kid. United knew there was no chance he would sign a contract extension. How much were they able to get from his transfer? 80 million British pound that shattered and obliterated the previous world record.

Caulibflower · 11-07-2012, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjxdarren

I now understand your provisional scenario better. But still I can't agree with your deduction at all. To begin with, if you really know enough about Luck not just as a football player but as a person, you would know that even if the team he's playing for is the Charlotte Bobcats he still would not come close to being as "disgruntled" as Jay Cutler was. Secondly, in the world of sports, wanting to leave a club does not always constitute a reason or impetus for the club to sell cheaply. Cristiano Ronaldo's headstrong desire to play for Real Madrid was known to 6 billion minus 0.35 biliion of the earth's entire population since he was kid. United knew there was no chance he would sign a contract extension. How much were they able to get from his transfer? 80 million British pound that shattered and obliterated the previous world record.

I know Luck's not going to get traded.

nobodyinparticular · 11-07-2012, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ness

If I'm the Colts, and I even did want to entertain this trade, I'd be thinking how does losing Andrew Luck help me. Honestly I'd have to get a franchise quarterback in return. Probably someone that was a little older plus a few picks/players.

You mean something like:
Rivers/Merriman/Kaeding for Manning?

Franchise qb for franchise qb + difference maker on defense.

And yet somehow the Giants come out with the Lombardis.

killxswitch · 11-07-2012, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caulibflower

Given that the OP and everyone else in the thread agrees that Luck won't be traded, the hypothetical aspect kicks in. If Luck was to be traded, something had to have changed; there has to be some additional reason for Luck to me moved out of Indy aside from what another team is offering. I was using the example of another young franchise QB who happened to be disgruntled and whose team was just looking to get some value out of a player who wasn't planning to be around anymore. If some team really had their heart set on prying Luck away from Indy, you're right - they'd have to give up everything, and even then there's just not really any benefit for Indy in trading the guy you think might be the best player in the league for the next ten years. "Hypothetical" is in the title. So no one's surprised you wouldn't take four premium picks for him, but in the (extremely) unlikely case that he's on the move, considering there'd have to be some extenuating circumstances, you can still go back and find some historical precedents. Also, even with his antics, I'm sure we can all remember how much **** Denver got for trading away Cutler. At least half of the talking heads were saying exactly what you are - you simply do not trade away a young franchise quarterback. But it happened, and there was an exchange of resources, and nobody's indignation about the trade happening in the first place had anything to do with what Denver ultimately got out of their guy.

You either misunderstood or didn't like the original intent of this thread, which was to ask what it would take to get the Colts to trade Luck. It was never "if the Colts interested in trading Luck", it was "What would it take for the Colts, who clearly aren't even thinking about thinking about the possibility of thinking about trading Luck, to let him go?" It's a silly topic, sure.

indyfan1985 · 11-07-2012, 07:44 PM

Im liking this! Having a young stud at QB who could very well be the best QB in the league in 2-3 years is never a bad thing.

That being said, obviously the Colts would never trade him if he continues his success.

Hypothetically though, it would take another franchise type QB along with a top young defensive player in the league along with a 1st rounder or two. I wouldnt mind a JJ Watt on the Colts except playing Luck in the division would suck.

Ness · 11-07-2012, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nobodyinparticular

You mean something like:
Rivers/Merriman/Kaeding for Manning?

Franchise qb for franchise qb + difference maker on defense.

And yet somehow the Giants come out with the Lombardis.

I think it depends on the context. I'm assuming you are referring to the Manning trade. It worked out well for San Diego in terms of value, but this is before those two quarterbacks played a down and before folks knew what Merriman and Kaeding would be. The pick had to be used to get Merriman also.

For this scenario, we've already seen a sample of who the variables are, and what they have done.

Eazy Picks · 11-08-2012, 12:15 PM

yea basically a buttload

of course it wouldnt make any sense for the niners to trade for Andrew Luck, but yea it would have to be a package including Kaepernick (probly more likely than Alex Smith, why would the 49ers want 2 young QBs), and a some of their great young defenders. heres a bold prediction: Kaepernick is gonna end up being even better than Luck, and I think Luck is going to be great.

in the case of a team that it would actually make some kind of sense to make a move for Luck (Chiefs, Raiders, Jets, etc), i would point to the package the Skins gave to the Rams for RGIII. And even tho RG3 is as good as anyone in WAS could have hoped, I still dont think its gonna work out because of how far the skins have set themselves back in terms of draft picks and they will not be able to develop enough young talent to build a winning team around Griffin.

y.f.s. · 11-08-2012, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TACKLE

The part I don't get is why would the 49ers want to trade Alex Smith?

+1 (10 char)

Shane P. Hallam · 11-08-2012, 01:20 PM

The deal would require Aaron Rodgers to be in it IMO

Mufasa · 11-08-2012, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shane P. Hallam

The deal would require Aaron Rodgers to be in it IMO

No way would I trade Aaron Rodgers straight up for Luck. Sure, Luck could someday be the best QB in the NFL, but Aaron Rodgers already is. It's not like Rodgers is in his mid 30's like Peyton was, he's only 5 years older than Luck. It'll probably take Luck at least 3 years to break into the elite level, if he ever gets there (though it does look more likely than not he will). So that's a net of 2 years, not worth it.

descendency · 11-08-2012, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mufasa

No way would I trade Aaron Rodgers straight up for Luck. Sure, Luck could someday be the best QB in the NFL, but Aaron Rodgers already is. It's not like Rodgers is in his mid 30's like Peyton was, he's only 5 years older than Luck. It'll probably take Luck at least 3 years to break into the elite level, if he ever gets there (though it does look more likely than not he will). So that's a net of 2 years, not worth it.

I hate to tell you, but the Colts would want something in addition to Rodgers. They think he'll be the best QB in the NFL in 2-3 years.

WCH · 11-08-2012, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by descendency

I hate to tell you, but the Colts would want something in addition to Rodgers. They think he'll be the best QB in the NFL in 2-3 years.

I agree with you on the value, from the Colts perspective. Luck is younger than Rodgers, and I don't think he has the same worrisome concussion history.

It would never happen anyway, because Ted Thompson is expected to retire after his current contract expires. He has no incentive to trade Rodgers for Luck straight up, and certainly not Rodgers plus players/picks.

killxswitch · 11-08-2012, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mufasa

No way would I trade Aaron Rodgers straight up for Luck. Sure, Luck could someday be the best QB in the NFL, but Aaron Rodgers already is. It's not like Rodgers is in his mid 30's like Peyton was, he's only 5 years older than Luck. It'll probably take Luck at least 3 years to break into the elite level, if he ever gets there (though it does look more likely than not he will). So that's a net of 2 years, not worth it.

But how much more money is Rogers making per year than Luck? That has to be taken into account in this ridiculous scenario that will never happen or even be thought about by anyone in the NFL.