NFL Player Trades

[rrbauer]

Why aren't there any?

[RaceBookJoe]

They happen from time to time. Usually it is a player for picks ie the Redskins traded Champ Bailey and a 2nd for Clinton Portis. Not sure if it is a salary cap thing or the fact that for the most part 1 player isnt going to turn a team around. When you see a trade in hockey or basketball...1 player can really make a difference. Baseball also because 1 player does a few things, offense and defense or if a pitcher can shut down a team 15-20 times a year. In fooball there are 53 players on a team and they usually play only one side unless they are on special teams. Thats just my take.

[Buddha]

As it was said, there are some trades, just usually not big names, especially in season.

Chris Chambers was traded this year, I think Michael Bennett was traded. Not much is said or heard about football trades when they do happen.

[ghostyapper]

As it was said, there are some trades, just usually not big names, especially in season.

Chris Chambers was traded this year, I think Michael Bennett was traded. Not much is said or heard about football trades when they do happen.

I think rrbauer was referring to player for player trades. Portis for Bailey was the only major one I can think of in the last decade.

[Pace Cap'n]

If trades were made, you would think the Chiefs would be making one, being down to one un-tested running back. But what they said was "We will be checking the waiver wire".

[RaceBookJoe]

I think the NFL trade deadline passed sometime in october, i may be wrong though. NFL is big on free agency and the draft, even the June 1st cuts dont make the splash they did years ago.

[rrbauer]

What I'm sensing here is that it's a talent issue. Teams with talented players aren't interested in letting them go. Teams with marginal talent, that would benefit from better players, don't have anything to offer in return.

Also, isn't there something called "franchise player" that inhibits player movement?

[RaceBookJoe]

What I'm sensing here is that it's a talent issue. Teams with talented players aren't interested in letting them go. Teams with marginal talent, that would benefit from better players, don't have anything to offer in return.

Also, isn't there something called "franchise player" that inhibits player movement?

You are basically correct. Most teams dont want to let go of their limited amount of draft picks, unless you are the Washington Redskins (hopefully they have learned their lessons....yes I am a 'skins fan ). Also, acquiring a top talent costs a lot of money and the salary cap can get away from you if you have too much money tied up in 1 or 2 players. On top of the cap issue there are franchised players and in free agency there are restricted free agents and unrestricted free agents. Unrestricted can sign with anyone, restricted has something to do with if a player is signed, the new team owes the old team a draft pick or something like that. I get confused when I try to understand all of the ins and outs.

[boomman]

If trades were made, you would think the Chiefs would be making one, being down to one un-tested running back. But what they said was "We will be checking the waiver wire".

Being a HUGE KC Chiefs Fan, they sort of got caught with their pants down with the trade of Michael Bennett, which was a good one at the time ( to Tampa Bay for one fairly high draft pick plus a conditional one, as he was going to be an unrestricted free agent at the end of the year) because no one could have predicted that BOTH LJ and Priest would go down immediately after that! It sort of reminds me of a few years ago in the Tampa Bay game when BOTH Priest Holmes and Derrick Blaylock went down leaving only an unheralded kid, Larry Johnson to take over. Let's hope that Kolby Smith can even be a fraction of what LJ turned out to be, as there is little or no help out there, and even if there is, they still have to learn the offense............:ThmbDown:

Boomer