Quote
dzrams
Quote
zn
Quote
Scottish Ram
Don't forget that the success we have had over the last 2 seasons is also helping to attract FA Vet's like Weddle and Matthews.
The trades have all helped to get us where we are and I am pretty happy where we are right now.
I have a different opinion on this. Where they are right now is that they have 2 players on expensive 1 years while at the same time they are coming up on extending Goff.
They don't even know if they should keep either Fowler or Peters and yet they cost 21+ M combined in 2019.
Signing veteran free agents has nothing to do with that. They obviously did not trade for those veteran FAs, and they don't have to decide on whether to extend them long term. They are proven players and leaders so everyone knows that they bring (as opposed to being uncertain about 2 players which together cost just over 21 M.) Signing vet free agents is something they do well I think. No complaints there. But it's a different thing from trading high picks for short rookie contracts.
...
I'm not Scottish Ram and am risking being wrong by piping up here, but I think you may have missed his point.
I believe it was more that the trades helped them turn their record around from 4-12 to the playoffs one year and then helped propelled them to the SB the next year, and by being a winning team now they are more attractive to free agents.
So to the extent that the trades helped change the attractiveness and perception of the team to agents and future free agents, it was worth it even though it was costly in terms of draft picks. It's a salient point IMO...but that's probably because I share the viewpoint.
Oh, speak up, it's no big deal. Conversation is conversation. Good voices always welcome. Anyway. In response, as I keep saying it's all hypotheticals either way. Even without a superbowl (assuming they would not get there if they had a rookie they drafted instead of Peters...which is hypothetical both ways...) they are a playoff team with a head coach who has a strong rep, and so a team that is attractive to free agents. The kind of team where free agents say this team has a shot, they look good to me.
I think good draft picks would have had the same effect as trading for short rookie contract vets in terms of the way the team looks to outsiders.
So again (as I keep saying) when you walk away from hypotheticals v. hypotheticals, it just gets down to a policy discussion. Which is the better policy. People vote differently on that. From my perspective, given my POV, I can say that in all this discussion, I personally don't hear a clincher that TO ME anyway makes the opposite vote seem better.
...