Re: Any speculation on the Monster Colts trade?
posted at 9/20/2013 12:39 PM EDT
In response to pcmIV's comment:
In response to UD6's comment:
Yet the colts get a player without having to pay or account for any bonus money. That makes the deal, financially, significantly better than just a 1st round pick. There are plenty of teams who do not covet first round picks especially because the picks provide no guarantee of success.
I noted what the pats got in 09 for their first round pick. Everyone was raving about the haul of picks they got for it and not a single player stuck on the roster.
The he colts have high expectations for Richardson. Grison said he passed the eye test. I'd say the reigning exec of the year gets that benefit of the doubt.
You need to relax. I didn't say it was a bad trade. The question I was responding to read:
"On draft day, had they traded their 2014 first rounder for Trent Richardson, people would have flipped out at the robbery...but 18 games later and it's not still a steal?"
I gave my perspective as to why this trade and that scenario are not equivalent on paper because I don't think his stock is as high as it was on draft day. Why you're even mentioning the Patriots here is a mystery to me. The fact that you feel the need to aggressively defend your team from any perceived criticism on another team's message board is amusing in it of itself.
Perfectly relaxed. Happy to have amused you. Btw, I wouldn't exactly call your response a ringing endorsement. In fact, if one were to judge it, I think they'd say you were leaning to the side of a bad trade vs a good one for the colts. No one said his stock was as hifh as it was on draft day. No one thinks the pick the colts gave up will be the third pick in the draft, and the colts don't have the financial or cap responsibility of that pick. As smart as you are, you' recognized this, I am sure. So , given the obvious we have to take your response as a negative toward the colts. i gave my 2 cents. Happy Friday.