Agreed.

 

It is rare because teams typically don't want to trade away in their prime superstars.

Exactly.  It's not "smart" GM'ing to trade away a star player in his prime.  Especially in recent years when you're talking about a player at a position that doesn't necessarily command huge value in trade.  MJD was coming off a season in which he won the rushing title, but he was also a guy who decided to hold out for more money despite the fact that he had 2 years left on his deal, and he was still one of the highest compensated RBs in the league.  No team was going to jump into that mix and offer anything of value in trade knowing they'd have to give him a pay bump. 

 

TMD likes to play GM in hindsight because MJD had the injuries coming off of that season.  Nobody can predict that.  What he likes to do is float trade scenarios for ANY player that is productive because to him, draft picks hold more value than productive players already on the roster.  He prefers unproven to proven. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I argued using your words and what YOU asked for. 

 

Spin all you want, the above sequence I provided shows all. 

 

And Bullseye provided yet a few more to add to the 3 I provided. 

 

You were wrong. Deal with it. 

 

I was wrong by saying it didn't happen all the time? 

 

Even with Bullseye's examples, the sample is so small it's hardly worth noting.  Good GMs don't trade away their star players when they're in their prime.  You're an idiot if you think otherwise.  The fact that it happens so rarely basically proves my point, but you're simply not smart enough to realize it. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

What Rotoworld stated about the 1,2,3, and 4 WRs on the Jaguars recently...

--------------------------

Cecil

Shorts ended up playing 36 preseason snaps, catching one pass for 17 yards. He enters Week 1 as the Jags' No. 1 receiver, but carries injury risk, QB questions and volume concerns as part of the Jags' run-first scheme. A person "high up" in the Jags organization optimistically said the expectation for Shorts is 80 catches if he stays healthy. We've projected him as the 64th WR in our Draft Guide - RotoWorld

-----------------------------

Lee

Lee started and got the majority of work in two-wide sets. It was a step back after he secured all four of his targets last week, including a touchdown. Lee was manhandled on his blocking assignments and took a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty in the second quarter. He has a 7/37/1 line in two preseason starts. Lee is set up to lead the Jaguars in receiving this year, but is going to struggle with consistency. He's a WR4/5 flier - Rotoworld

---------------------

Hurns

Shorts is the X and Lee the Z receiver in two-wide sets. In the three-wides, we suspect Lee will move inside to the slot, with Shorts and Hurns on the outside. Hurns beat out Mike Brown for the No. 3 role, although he will soon be pushed by recovering second-rounder Allen Robinson (hamstring). Despite Hurns' big August, Robinson is by far the superior stash in Dynasty leagues - RotoWorld...

---------------------------------

Robinson
Specifically, Robinson said he'd be ready for a "role" against Philly. That means his snaps will be limited after missing the entire preseason, but Robinson should get up to speed in a hurry. For now, he's the Jags' No. 4 receiver, but he should eventually pass UDFA Allen Hurns.
---------------------------------

 

You would expect that the two 2nd round picks would be starting if they were healthy (unless they failed during preseason), and Cecil hasnt done anything to fall on the depth chart (other than be injured)... heck Hurns went from the bottom of the depth chart to 4th /3rd if Robinson is still injured... he could go further up if he continues to perform the way he did during preseason against the Eagles!

---

I was wrong by saying it didn't happen all the time? 

 

 

 

LOL, you still spin it when your quoted words that I responded to were pointed out to you and re-posted. 

 

Pathetic. 

 

 

I responded to your specific words in the post, proved you wrong and now you are in damage control mode. 

---

LOL, you still spin it when your quoted words that I responded to were pointed out to you and re-posted. 

 

Pathetic. 

 

 

I responded to your specific words in the post, proved you wrong and now you are in damage control mode. 

You mean my exact words where I didn't say it never happens?  Those specific words? 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

In fairness, it should be noted that in many of the examples listed in the links I provided, it's debatable whether they meet the stated conditions of "superstars in their primes."

 

When Welker was traded from Miami to New England, he was not yet considered a superstar though certainly in his prime.

 

When Moss was traded from Oakland to New England, he was certainly a superstar, but arguably past his prime.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

In fairness, it should be noted that in many of the examples listed in the links I provided, it's debatable whether they meet the stated conditions of "superstars in their primes."

 

When Welker was traded from Miami to New England, he was not yet considered a superstar though certainly in his prime.

 

When Moss was traded from Oakland to New England, he was certainly a superstar, but arguably past his prime.

 

There were also trades listed like the Rivers for Manning deal which I wouldn't really qualify since that was a draft day trade that was cooked up in advance. 

 

The point remains, it rarely happens that star players (as MJD was for this team at the time) rarely are traded at the peak of their careers.  Has it happened?  Yes.  Has it happened very often?  Not at all. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

How about when we trade Gabbert in his prime to the 9ers for that 6th?

 

That worked out great for us.

---

How about when we trade Gabbert in his prime to the 9ers for that 6th?

 

That worked out great for us.

 

Getting anything for Gabbert would have worked out great for us. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Getting anything for Gabbert would have worked out great for us. 

 

getting nothing for Gabbert would have worked great for us

 

---

getting nothing for Gabbert would have worked great for us

 

Yeah, as long as we still got Bortles w/ our pick. Could you imagine this season with Henne and Stanzi (or Morris)

 

oh em gee.

---

getting nothing for Gabbert would have worked great for us

 

Getting rid of Gabbert was a good move.  Getting something for him, especially a player who may wind up starting for the team?  That's the cherry on top. 

 

There was no way Gabbert was going to remain here as it was common knowledge the team was drafting a QB.  He was gone no matter what.  Caldwell did a great job of finding a suitor interested in trading something, even if it seemed pretty insignificant at the time. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Getting rid of Gabbert was a good move.  Getting something for him, especially a player who may wind up starting for the team?  That's the cherry on top. 

 

There was no way Gabbert was going to remain here as it was common knowledge the team was drafting a QB.  He was gone no matter what.  Caldwell did a great job of finding a suitor interested in trading something, even if it seemed pretty insignificant at the time. 

 

I guess that's the lesson when it comes to trading players for picks.

 

At the time, sometimes we wish we could have gotten more for a player (i.e. Eugene Monroe), but those extra mid to late round picks can turn into players.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I guess that's the lesson when it comes to trading players for picks.

 

At the time, sometimes we wish we could have gotten more for a player (i.e. Eugene Monroe), but those extra mid to late round picks can turn into players.

If you have a good front office making smart decisions, you're absolutely right.  I believe Caldwell is proving his value with these late round picks.  If Joeckel and Bortles pan out, and there's little reason to think they won't, this team could become extremely good, and very deep in a pretty short period of time. 

 

When Gene Smith preached a 3-4 year process, we tried to be patient and allow it to play out, but by the third year it was clear we weren't anywhere close to where we needed to be. 

 

When Caldwell preaches 3 years to BUILD this franchise, based on what we've seen so far, you've got to say things are progressing as he anticipated all along. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

How about when we trade Gabbert in his prime to the 9ers for that 6th?

 

That worked out great for us.

I thought it was a 7th round pick, a 6th lol even better!

---

I was wrong by saying it didn't happen all the time? 

 

Even with Bullseye's examples, the sample is so small it's hardly worth noting.  Good GMs don't trade away their star players when they're in their prime.  You're an idiot if you think otherwise.  The fact that it happens so rarely basically proves my point, but you're simply not smart enough to realize it. 

You're directly contradicting your sig.

---

Getting rid of Gabbert was a good move. Getting something for him, especially a player who may wind up starting for the team? That's the cherry on top.


There was no way Gabbert was going to remain here as it was common knowledge the team was drafting a QB. He was gone no matter what. Caldwell did a great job of finding a suitor interested in trading something, even if it seemed pretty insignificant at the time.

But he looks great in practice....

---

 

 

TMD likes to play GM in hindsight because MJD had the injuries coming off of that season.  Nobody can predict that.  What he likes to do is float trade scenarios for ANY player that is productive because to him, draft picks hold more value than productive players already on the roster.  He prefers unproven to proven. 

 

Saying I prefer unproven to proven is a bit of a broad brush. 

 

I wasn't suggesting to deal MoJo in 2008, when he was proven, but still had significant tread left on the tires. I was suggesting to deal MoJo by 2011 when it was getting to the point that the decline was on the horizon and the value would never be higher. Add to that the Jags weren't a winning team at that point WITH MoJo, so there really was little reason not to explore trade possibilities and recoup a valuable draft choice to help for the future. 

 

In almost every trade scenario I make there is reason behind it. Its not just blindly trading arbitrary players for picks, just because. 

---

I thought it was a 7th round pick, a 6th lol even better!

We essentially traded Gabbert for Bowanko

---

Bah! What has shorts done this year to warrant being automatically placed as the #1?

 

Should be Hurns, Lee, Shorts, Robinson, Brown

 

Really?

 

What has Lee done to surpass a guy with 1750 receiving yards over the past two years on this dismal team?

---