Grade the Move: Mo & #20 to the Bears for #11

[Sarge4Tide]

If the Jets traded DL Mo Wilkerson and the 20th pick to the Bears for the 11th pick in the 2016 draft, what grade would you give the trade from a Jets perspective?

[Ghost]

An absolute terrible trade. You don't trade one of the best young defenders for 9 spots in the 1st round. 

 

Especially how how I don't see the top QBs being available. That's idiocy in my opinion. 

[hawk]

Who do the Jets get with #11?  

Myles Jack A+

Anyone else F and beyond.  IMO.

[CanadaSteve]

8 minutes ago, Sarge4Tide said:

If the Jets traded DL Mo Wilkerson and the 20th pick to the Bears for the 11th pick in the 2016 draft, what grade would you give the trade from a Jets perspective?

An absolute F.  Trading our first rounder AND Mo to move up 9 spots in the draft is just an awful idea.

NOW.....If they traded us their first rounder and we trade them Mo AND our 2nd rounder.....well, that would be quite palatable.

[JohnnyLV]

F, possibly F-. 9 spots and still out of the Top 10 with only 12-15 true #1 talents in this draft is an especially awful move. Maybe if Chicago throws in this years 2nd and a couple other picks. There is actually equitable value for trading Mo and 20 to Dallas for FOUR. Think about that.

[Jetsfan80]

There was no option for "GFY" so I chose F-

Any deal where we trade Mo and swap firsts with anyone outside the top 5 had better involve us getting a 2017 1st rounder as well. 

[FidelioJet]

Really does depend on who's there.  If the QB you want is there then you do whatever you can to get him.

[Sperm Edwards]

If it's the best offer any team in the league is willing to make for Wilkerson, then it's an A+. 

Any lower grades should equally fall to the other 30 teams that don't see this perceived higher trade value (who don't even have another young pair of DEs like we've got). Hardly anyone wants to fork over a high pick for the privilege of paying Mo's next contract (which could easily be the highest non-QB contract in NFL history).

You can want more in return, but that isn't on Maccagnan. If this was the top deal, and it was made on March 11, then it could garner a lower grade for jumping at an offer too soon. But he's been holding this card for over a month, and there were plenty of teams with a wealth of cap room since the league year began.

If this is the top offer it means there are 30 other teams that offered even less (with most offering nothing at all). 

So if it's the top offer, then A+ is the grade. I'm then happy we didn't just let him go without tagging him in the first place, and Maccagnan gets credit & kudos for gambling and winning.

[SenorGato]

AAA++++

Jets are free of their burden and can get maybe as high as the 11th(!!!) best player in the draft. Not only that, but they're now free to pluck up 3-4+ starters in FA. It's the kind of move that can turn a franchise around. You can WANT more, but remember that the Jets aren't dealing JJ Watt over here. To get a team to be so generous as this, for a burden like that, it's basically too good to be true. You've just been scienced. 

[JoJoTownsell1]

Trading Mo to move up 9 spots isn't a great deal. If we could land an extra 4th rounder then I would be OK with it. 

[Jetsfan80]

So @Sperm Edwards, even if we get fleeced, it's OK as long as its the best trade out there?  In other words, we HAVE to trade Wilkerson for the best possible offer, and have no alternative?

I call bullsh*t.  I'd rather keep Wilkerson for the tagged amount and try to work out a long-term deal if 9 spots in the first is the best value we can get.  We do not HAVE to trade an elite player just because we're up against the cap. 

Hell, even letting him walk in free agency next offseason and getting a compensatory 3rd in 2018 would be better than this piece of sh*t deal. 

[Mainejet]

That would not be a good trade. By trading Mo and the Jets 1st rounder, you are essentially losing TWO players. That trade would absolutely have to involve another pick. I'm thinking like a 3rd or 4th rounder at the least. The trade as you currently suggesting it is crap.

[drdetroit]

F-

[drdetroit]

11 minutes ago, SenorGato said:

AAA++++

Jets are free of their burden and can get maybe as high as the 11th(!!!) best player in the draft. Not only that, but they're now free to pluck up 3-4+ starters in FA. It's the kind of move that can turn a franchise around. You can WANT more, but remember that the Jets aren't dealing JJ Watt over here. To get a team to be so generous as this, for a burden like that, it's basically too good to be true. You've just been scienced. 

2 months ago you were screaming to lock up Mo.  Now you want him gone for table scraps.  Moving up from 20 to 11 is like the Phantom Menace of NFL draft tradeups

[SenorGato]

11 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

So @Sperm Edwards, even if we get fleeced, it's OK as long as its the best trade out there?  

I'm not Sperm, but using science I think this is the case. See - if teams wanted Wilkerson they would be willing to give up more. They know this isn't JJ Watt. Once the Jets come to their senses and see the hole they've dug themselves in, they'll come to and see the light. Do you want one player or do you want 3-5+ starters? Do you want Woody stretched to his limit financially, or do you want him to go for broke to pay someone that is not JJ Watt? 

Take what you can get for Wilkerson, it's the only way. Once the Jets are free they're going to be like....so good. Then they can repeat this with Richardson next year.

[Sperm Edwards]

Just now, Jetsfan80 said:

So @Sperm Edwards, even if we get fleeced, it's OK as long as its the best trade out there?  In other words, we HAVE to trade Wilkerson for the best possible offer, and have no alternative?

I call bullsh*t.  I'd rather keep Wilkerson for the tagged amount and try to work out a long-term deal if 9 spots in the first is the best value we can get.  We do not HAVE to trade an elite player just because we're up against the cap. 

Then call bullsh*t. We have been trying to work out a long term deal for 2 years, with 2 GMs. No one else offered anything too amazing last year either, as it was well known we were willing to trade him. You can see it as keep Mo or get "fleeced" in trading him. I see it as: get the best we can get or get nothing. If we were SB contenders this year, and those possibilities disappear without Mo, that would be different.

If it ends up being the top deal, why weren't 30 other teams pushing each other out of the way to one-up Chicago? You think Maccagnan wouldn't call every GM to tell them this is the current top offer and we're about to pull the trigger?

I prefer to get better than this in return. I am still hopeful that we can. The fact remains that most teams get nothing for their premiere, high-priced FAs, who simply become UFAs. Being valued players doesn't mean they also have high trade value. 

If this is the top deal we can get, then this is his trade value after shopping him for 2 consecutive offseasons.

[SenorGato]

3 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I prefer to get better than this in return. I am still hopeful that we can. The fact remains that most teams get nothing for their premiere, high-priced FAs, who simply become UFAs. Being valued players doesn't mean they also have high trade value.

The Jets have done this twice in the past decade, probably more than most or maybe any team, and walked away with a first each time. 

I did like the cover technique of making sure to state it's an A+ if this is the best they can do. Very slick, but I would have gone even higher.

[chirorob]

47 minutes ago, hawk said:

Who do the Jets get with #11?  

Myles Jack A+

Anyone else F and beyond.  IMO.

That's what I was thinking.   Who are you really moving up to get that would be a really impactful deal.

[slats]

2 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Then call bullsh*t. We have been trying to work out a long term deal for 2 years, with 2 GMs. No one else offered anything too amazing last year either, as it was well known we were willing to trade him. You can see it as keep Mo or get "fleeced" in trading him. I see it as: get the best we can get or get nothing. If we were SB contenders this year, and those possibilities disappear without Mo, that would be different.

If it ends up being the top deal, why weren't 30 other teams pushing each other out of the way to one-up Chicago? You think Maccagnan wouldn't call every GM to tell them this is the current top offer and we're about to pull the trigger?

I prefer to get better than this in return. I am still hopeful that we can. The fact remains that most teams get nothing for their premiere, high-priced FAs, who simply become UFAs. Being valued players doesn't mean they also have high trade value. 

If this is the top deal we can get, then this is his trade value after shopping him for 2 consecutive offseasons.

I understand what you're saying about trade value, but that still doesn't mean that a low ball trade like this proposal should get an A+. It would obviously be a compromise. A resignation. Exhausting all possibilities, and settling for something rather than nothing at all. You could call that a fair deal, maybe, but it's no great deal. I'll reserve the A+'s for when Mac gets more back in a trade than I was expecting, not less. 

[Jetsfan80]

A bad trade is a bad trade.  Just because it seems unlikely we'll be able to work out a new contract doesn't mean you take pennies on the dollar because its the "best you can do", and it doesn't come close to warrant an A+ grade.  At best it would deserve something like a C or D.  Acquiescing to what the rest of the NFL values him does not mean Macc would have done a great job.

A lot can happen in a year to impact Wilkerson's trade value and/or willingness to sign in either direction.  And most notably we'll have a lot more cap space next offseason to work with. 

[Dcat]

50 minutes ago, hawk said:

Who do the Jets get with #11?  

Myles Jack A+

Anyone else F and beyond.  IMO.

Jack will not be there at 11.

[SenorGato]

15 minutes ago, drdetroit said:

2 months ago you were screaming to lock up Mo.  Now you want him gone for table scraps.  Moving up from 20 to 11 is like the Phantom Menace of NFL draft tradeups

If you will recall, my argument was based around how Wilkerson is JJ Watt. Scientists have proven this to not be the case. Rather, he's a ******* burden. The Jets have an old reliable in Sheldon and drafted Wilkerson's replacement last year in Williams. It's not just having the gift of the 11th overall pick, one of the 11 highest picks in the draft mind you, but think of the cap space and flexibility! Jets can now move with a freedom they've never had before in FA. Cap space can now be used to make move after move in FA, loading up not just for next year but also The Future rather than tying the Jets and poor Woody to some guy who isn't JJ Watt.

[Sperm Edwards]

Just now, SenorGato said:

The Jets have done this twice in the past decade, probably more than most or maybe any team, and walked away with a first each time. 

Different players, different situations, different times. You can't force teams to fork over what they refuse to fork over.

I take for granted that if there is a better offer we'll take it. I still think there is a decent chance we can get better, and I'd rather that be what happens. But if we make this trade it means that 2 years of shopping him have said this is the top offer anyone is willing to pay. 

It doesn't mean I only want the value of the #50 pick. It means I want the best offer we can get. If this is it, then this is it. I prefer that trade to paying/playing him for one more non-SB season at $16M, and then losing him for nothing a year after that. 

[Jetsfan80]

Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

Different players, different situations, different times. You can't force teams to fork over what they refuse to fork over.

You also can say "No" when they refuse to fork over close to what you want.  That is also an option. 

[drdetroit]

4 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

A bad trade is a bad trade.  Just because it seems unlikely we'll be able to work out a new contract doesn't mean you take pennies on the dollar because its the "best you can do", and it doesn't come close to warrant an A+ grade.  At best it would deserve something like a C or D.  Acquiescing to what the rest of the NFL values him does not mean Macc would have done a great job.

A lot can happen in a year to impact Wilkerson's trade value and/or willingness to sign in either direction.  And most notably we'll have a lot more cap space next offseason to work with. 

Yeah we might as well keep Mo at this point

[Sperm Edwards]

5 minutes ago, slats said:

I understand what you're saying about trade value, but that still doesn't mean that a low ball trade like this proposal should get an A+. It would obviously be a compromise. A resignation. Exhausting all possibilities, and settling for something rather than nothing at all. You could call that a fair deal, maybe, but it's no great deal. I'll reserve the A+'s for when Mac gets more back in a trade than I was expecting, not less. 

Any fan's expectations aside, fans (and Maccagnan) can't force teams to fork over what they refuse to fork over.

I didn't say it was a great deal. I said it is an A+ if was the best deal to be had and he got a good amount more than we'd have ended up with than simply letting him go to FA without the tag.

[SenorGato]

5 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Different players, different situations, different times. You can't force teams to fork over what they refuse to fork over.

Yeah, totally different times and situations - Revis coming off a blown out knee three years ago is basically ancient history by now. 

Lol @ 2 years of shopping him. You sure it's not more? This guy's been weighing them down for a long time now. 

BTW, one way to force teams to fork over what they refuse to fork over is by refusing to fork over what they want you to. 

[SenorGato]

7 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

You also can say "No" when they refuse to fork over close to what you want.  That is also an option. 

OKAY buddy, you try and say no to a real GM. Those guys can be preeeeettty hard to say no to, especially when they hold all the power. 

[heymangold]

i don't think we should need to swap 1sts in a trade involving Mo.  he's worth a 1st rounder IMO, as well as some of the opinions of the NFL pundits.

 

that being said, he needs to be moved for something instead of playing out the franchise tag here and leaving for nothing after the season.

[hawk]

20 minutes ago, Dcat said:

Jack will not be there at 11.

Hence the A+.  You are a quick one aren't ya?

 

[Beerfish]

D, if they make that deal they need something else as well.

[slats]

23 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Any fan's expectations aside, fans (and Maccagnan) can't force teams to fork over what they refuse to fork over.

I didn't say it was a great deal. I said it is an A+ if was the best deal to be had and he got a good amount more than we'd have ended up with than simply letting him go to FA without the tag.

Fine. You can give him an A+ for effort then, but it's not an A+ in terms of results. 

[Sperm Edwards]

2 minutes ago, drdetroit said:

Yeah we might as well keep Mo at this point

And then do what?

I am proceeding under what has been leaked: there is no locking him up long-term. They've been trying to for 2 years and the 2 sides are still far apart. You want to sign him long-term, then don't sign Revis to $17M and don't draft another 3-4 DE with the 6th overall pick, and draft for need instead of value.

Turning down the top offer - whatever the top offer is - means trading the offered pick away to rent a 3rd DE (at $16M) for one more non-SB season, followed by getting nothing in return a year later. 

No one is advocating to trade him for less than we can get, and I think there's still a good chance we get more than this move-up alone. 

Probably every team would want Mo outright. A lot would still want him at top dollar as a FA. Very few - if any - are willing to fork over a 1st rounder, though. If we take this deal, after trying for 2 offseasons, it simply means no one was willing to fork one over.

Hopefully we get better and it doesn't come to this being the top offer. Dallas and Tennessee are allegedly both open/willing to trading their picks, and would far rather see that as the trade. But if this is the deal, then like it or not it would mean this IS Wilkerson's trade value because of his upcoming contract.

[RutgersJetFan]

I like this concept. For Episode 2 of Grade the Move, let's talk about if Burkina Faso invaded India. 

[Integrity28]

The Jets should get more back in the trade. I outlined this last week somewhere.

It's conceivable that we send them Mo + our 2nd rounder for #11, and we keep #20.