Seahawk trades

Does anyone else think that we usually get the worst end of the deal when we enter into a trade with another team? Harvin is only the latest blunder (both trading for him and trading him to the Jets) but even during the draft (this years and the Irvin draft come to mind) we seem to get little in return for what we give up. Not t saying we don't ever make a good trade but more bad ones than good. Does anyone else see what I think I see with this?

I agree.

I think teams are afraid to trade with Schneider, so they only do it if it seems like they are getting a low risk deal.

We know JS can trade with the best of them because his trades when he came here were very good. Clemons for Tapp and a 4th? Win. Lynch for a 4th and 5th? Win. Leon Washington for a 5th? Win.

But as the years have gone by and it is reported that he has "won" many of his earlier deals, I think teams are less optimistic about trading with him. The cost has been higher and the returns have been a lot less the last few years.

Yes, we are an easy trade partner. When our front office decides to get rid of a player, they are willing to take less value to close the deal. And when we want a player, the front office is aggressive about getting him. I think the first part of that (getting rid of a player) is a positive, but the second part (being too infatuated, see Harvin and Charlie W.) Is a negative for this front office and leads to mistakes.

Im always saying we are the loser in all trades we do, cosidering what other teams get in their trades for way less than what we always give up for the players we trade for :13:

In general I believe that trades are a terrible idea and that you will typically end up paying more than the player is worth. There are a few exceptions i.e. Beast, but I would assume that the only way teams part with an asset is if the return is greater than what they value the player because they look at the players value as: Player + Time/Training + Pay = More than player is actually worth.

In they end though, we only pay attention to the big names not the smaller trade transactions that have paved the way.
TL;DR = Leon Washington, Chris Clemons, Beast Mode, and future draft capital by trading players like Aaron Curry.

2014 - Percy
2013 - T. Pryor from Oakland for 7th rounder
2013 - Percy
2012 - TJax to Buffalo
2012 - LB Barrett Ruud to New Orleans. Acquired 2013 undisclosed draft pick from New Orleans.
2012 - Traded a 2013 undisclosed conditional draft choice to Tampa Bay for TE Kellen Winslow.
2011 - Traded LB Aaron Curry to Oakland for a 2012 draft choice and 2013 draft choice.
2011 - Traded CB Kelly Jennings to Cincinnati for DT Clifton McDonald
2010 - Traded 2011 undisclosed draft choice to New England for WR Deion Branch (I think this ended up being a 1st)
2010 - Traded two undisclosed draft choices to Buffalo for RB Marshawn Lynch.
2010 - Traded a 2011 undisclosed choice to Philadelphia for T Stacy Andrews.
2010 - Traded DE Lawrence Jackson to Detroit for a 2011 undisclosed draft choice.
2010 - Traded a 2011 undisclosed draft choice to San Francisco for DT Kentwan Balmer.
2010 - Traded fourth round pick (#104) and sixth round pick (#176) to Tennessee for fourth round pick (#111), sixth round pick (#185), DT Kevin Vickerson and RB LenDale White. Traded fifth round pick (#139) to the N.Y. Jets for seventh round pick (#236) and RB Leon Washington.
2010 - Traded G Rob Sims and seventh-round pick to Detroit for DE Robert Henderson and fifth-round pick.
2010 - Traded 2010 second round draft pick and 2011 undisclosed draft pick to San Diego for QB Charlie Whitehurst and 2010 second round draft pick.
2010 - Traded DE Darryl Tapp to Philadelphia for DE Chris Clemons and a 2010 fourth round draft pick.
2010 - Traded QB Seneca Wallace to Cleveland for a 2011 undisclosed draft pick.

I think it has been a pretty even record and you can't really separate trading from player analysis or drafting.

The compensation for somebody like Whitehurst would have been cheap if he had ended up being our franchise QB. In hindsight it is hard to see what they saw in him. Offsetting guys like him is Lynch, who has made the compensation look very cheap. The Lawrence Jackson trade is probably a wash. I believe we drafted Maxwell for the pick we got for him, and while Jackson had a good 2010 season for the Lions he couldn't produce after that and is no longer on a team.

As far as trading down picks, we never get "draft chart" value when we trade down because nobody does. The draft value chart hasn't been true for years but we do fine according to most revised charts.

The Harvin trade is really a category of its own. I think the key breakdown there was overlooking that he couldn't get along with Leslie Frasier, one of the nicest people in the business, because Pete is really good at that locker room stuff and they thought they could manage it. Was it worth taking that chance for a player of his caliber? Most outsiders thought it was as the time.

The direction on that Branch trade is reversed. In 2010 we shipped them Branch for their fourth round pick, we had given them a first round pick for Branch back in 2006.

AgentDib":8nyotv7s said:

I think it has been a pretty even record and you can't really separate trading from player analysis or drafting.

The compensation for somebody like Whitehurst would have been cheap if he had ended up being our franchise QB. In hindsight it is hard to see what they saw in him. Offsetting guys like him is Lynch, who has made the compensation look very cheap. The Lawrence Jackson trade is probably a wash. I believe we drafted Maxwell for the pick we got for him, and while Jackson had a good 2010 season for the Lions he couldn't produce after that and is no longer on a team.

As far as trading down picks, we never get "draft chart" value when we trade down because nobody does. The draft value chart hasn't been true for years but we do fine according to most revised charts.

The Harvin trade is really a category of its own. I think the key breakdown there was overlooking that he couldn't get along with Leslie Frasier, one of the nicest people in the business, because Pete is really good at that locker room stuff and they thought they could manage it. A lot of that is on Harvin as well, I can understand why they wanted to take a chance on somebody of his talent.

Click to expand...

I disagree that "nobody" gets chart value when trading down. How'd the Rams do when they traded down so the Skins could take RG3? Another is Cleveland trading with the Falcons so Atlanta could take Julio Jones. Want a Hawk trade? Hawks trade 2nd rounder to Donkies for following years 1st rounder which was ET3. I know this isn't a trade down but you get the point.

Time value of money, those are examples of deferring to later years and needing higher compensation as a result (like an interest rate). Trading down within the same year is at a much lower rate than the traditional draft value chart.

JS swings for the fences. Trouble with that is sometimes you strike out. Alternative is we bunt every time like Ruskell did.

I'm totally happy with the decision making from this FO. In PCJS I still trust. They've earned that.

AgentDib":2b8hevd0 said:

The direction on that Branch trade is reversed. In 2010 we shipped them Branch for their fourth round pick, we had given them a first round pick for Branch back in 2006.

Click to expand...

Timmmmmaaaaaay!

We kill Ruskell for giving up a 1st round pick for Branch, who had two productive years, but give Carroll/Sneider a pass for giving up a 1st, 3rd, and 7 round picks for Harvin, who had only two productive games for us and only played 8 games. Goes to show how much slack winning a Super Bowl as opposed to just making a Super Bowl gives a GM.

CalgaryHawk":33w0u1mt said:

We kill Ruskell for giving up a 1st round pick for Branch, who had two productive years, but give Carroll/Sneider a pass for giving up a 1st, 3rd, and 7 round picks for Harvin, who had only two productive games for us and only played 8 games. Goes to show how much slack winning a Super Bowl as opposed to just making a Super Bowl gives a GM.

Click to expand...

I am actually not giving them a pass at all for the Harvin trade. With his behavior history it was a huge gamble that blew up in their face and MAY hurt this team for several years to come. I haven't had a lot to say in any of the Harvin threads because it sounds like hindsight being 20/20. But, I smelled it coming when he went to his own Doc to get a 2nd opinion and all that shit last year. The trade was a fail of huge proportions.

hawksfansinceday1":254c4iib said:

AgentDib":254c4iib said:

The direction on that Branch trade is reversed. In 2010 we shipped them Branch for their fourth round pick, we had given them a first round pick for Branch back in 2006.

Click to expand...

Timmmmmaaaaaay!

Click to expand...

That and Hutch for sure, although I think Holmgren probably was pushing hard for Branch behind the scenes. On the radio this week they were asking him about '14 Hawks fixes and he thinks the highest priority is to trade for a big WR, while acknowledging that he is an offensive guy who likes passing.

hawksfansinceday1":l43qa3ip said:

CalgaryHawk":l43qa3ip said:

We kill Ruskell for giving up a 1st round pick for Branch, who had two productive years, but give Carroll/Sneider a pass for giving up a 1st, 3rd, and 7 round picks for Harvin, who had only two productive games for us and only played 8 games. Goes to show how much slack winning a Super Bowl as opposed to just making a Super Bowl gives a GM.

Click to expand...

I am actually not giving them a pass at all for the Harvin trade. With his behavior history it was a huge gamble that blew up in their face and MAY hurt this team for several years to come. I haven't had a lot to say in any of the Harvin threads because it sounds like hindsight being 20/20. But, I smelled it coming when he went to his own Doc to get a 2nd opinion and all that shit last year. The trade was a fail of huge proportions.

Click to expand...

Totally agree. One of the worst NFL trades in the past ten years and winning a Super Bowl does not make it all "oh, that's just Pete and John, you take the good with the bad."

I think fans have a bit of a baseball/FF take on trades. In fact, it is harder to bring a player in at mid-season and actually have them produce in football than in other sports. In baseball, a 2d baseman is a 2d baseman and can pretty much move to another team and produce immediately, assuming he can handle the pitching (the NL/AL differences, etc.) In football, a RB has many different jobs which can vary immensely from team to team, let alone learning whole new languages in the new system.

That's why trades for draft picks are so prevalent in the NFL, and why trades for players tend to have rather low success rates, especially mid-season. FF doesn't help much. Tate was very "productive" for the Seahawks, but as far as stats go, he was always going to be an average WR in FF, whereas in Detroit he's a much more valuable FF player to have.

We seem to suck most at trades for WR and QBs, which kind of makes sense. They might be the hardest positions to get someone who fits the team.