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

[Long Island Leprechaun]

1 hour ago, CanadaSteve said:

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.

Yup. If the Jets gave back the #20 they would be laughing stocks.

[Sperm Edwards]

12 minutes ago, heymangold said:

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.

If he's perceived as worth a 1st rounder to those who actually have to fork theirs over, then we'll get one. Hopefully we do. But NFL pundits aren't the ones who have to manage other teams.

In contrast, when they interview GMs and other team FO types, they all reportedly say the same thing: would love to have Mo, maybe would even pay what he's looking for, but then ask them if they would trade a 1st rounder for him and that changes everything.

So you are correct. Prefer it's a better deal than this, but if - IF - this is it then this is Mo's trade value.

[jett]

We will have to wait until draft day to see what really happens, but I predict it will piss off most of this fanbase. People are literally expecting a jj watt return and it's just asinine. I remember when some fans here wanted 3 firsts for Revis. People to need be more realistic. 

[Sperm Edwards]

47 minutes ago, SenorGato said:

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. 

Getting a 1 from Tampa for Revis required Revis signing a deal with $0 guaranteed (not happening with Mo), plus a really weak 1st round class in 2013, plus a stupid GM (Dominik). A year later, with no guaranteed money remaining on his existing contract, the GM was fired and TB couldn't even get a conditional 7th rounder for Revis, and boy did they try.

You can lol all you want. Mo has been on the trading block since last year's draft. It is hardly a secret, but you doubt every known thing until the day it officially happens, when you're shown to have been 100% wrong (like your lol'ing that Revis was still demanding $16M/year).

Keeping Mo through the draft doesn't "force teams" to do anything. How silly.

We should keep this up for as long as we can, but in the end pull the trigger on the best deal offered. If this is it, then this is it. But we can't "force" teams to offer more, any more than the Giants "forced" us to outbid them for Vernon. Other teams are not "forced" -- they have the option of saying no and simply walking away.

[JoJoTownsell1]

The problem with trading Mo Wilk to move up to 11 is that there is no guarantee that we couldn't get that same player if we just stayed put at 20. Look at last years draft. Most people would have thought the Jets would have needed to trade up to get Williams. Instead they sat back and he just fell into their lap. 

 

That is why the Jets need to do add a body with this  trade. We can't simpy use Mo Wilk as a trade up in the same round. As someone suggested, perhaps our 2nd and Mo Wilk for the 11th. It's a win/win. We get 2 1st rounders and we avoid taking another bust in the 2nd round. 

[Jetsfan80]

10 minutes ago, jett said:

We will have to wait until draft day to see what really happens, but I predict it will piss off most of this fanbase. People are literally expecting a jj watt return and it's just asinine. I remember when some fans here wanted 3 firsts for Revis. People to need be more realistic. 

There's disappointing trades and then there's just a f*ckin travesty of a trade.  This would be the latter.

I know people barely use the draft points board anymore, but the difference between the 20th pick and the 11th pick is 400 points.  Which equates to a mid-late 2nd rounder (# 50 overall, to be exact).

If people really want to argue that Muhammad Wilkerson, a guy we just franchise tagged and our only elite player under 30 who did NOT commit 4 crimes in one day, is only worth the 50th pick in the draft, bring them to me so I can punch them all in their stupid faces.  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills right now.

[peebag]

It may come down to whatever is the best option - to me it seems as if Mo and his management don't want to stay in NY, otherwise a long term deal would have been done.

[Il Mostro]

1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said:

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. 

With all the system upgrades, you would think Max would have added GFY as a default option on all polls by now. 

This trade idea is asinine. Using your biggest trade chip to move up to 11?  For what?  The Jets are playing it cool and Mo will bring back value -- maybe enough to help maneuver for a QB -- but it is going to happen closer to the draft. 

 

 

[dbatesman]

Putting aside the normal caveats about the draft value chart, moving from 20 to 11 is worth 400 points, which is equivalent to a mid-2nd round pick. Nobody here wants to hear it, but that might be Wilkerson's value. Remember that the Bears (or whoever) aren't just trading for Wilkerson; they're also trading for the $50+ million in guarantees they're going to have to hand him. I guess I'd be disappointed if that's how this shook out, though if we land Wentz or Goff at 11 I'd feel a lot better about it.

[Jolot]

I say until we actually get JJ Watt, that we keep cutting and trading guys who aren't actually JJ Watt....seems like the only logical option here .

[Il Mostro]

26 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

Putting aside the normal caveats about the draft value chart, moving from 20 to 11 is worth 400 points, which is equivalent to a mid-2nd round pick. Nobody here wants to hear it, but that might be Wilkerson's value. Remember that the Bears (or whoever) aren't just trading for Wilkerson; they're also trading for the $50+ million in guarantees they're going to have to hand him. I guess I'd be disappointed if that's how this shook out, though if we land Wentz or Goff at 11 I'd feel a lot better about it.

The contract and long term commitment is what makes the big haul ( multiple 1's or a 1 and a 2,) which some think Mo should bring back, something that is out of the question.  If he brings back a mid-2nd round pick and nothing more, I will be disappointed.  But if it plays out that way I would rather take our pick at 20 plus a pick in the 2nd round, rather than jumping to 11, which is no man's land considering the Jets' needs.  I have a feeling they have a good shot at using Mo as part of a transaction (or part of multiple transactions) to get within range of one of the better QB's -- or another impact player.

[rex-n-effect]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

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

I follow your logic but if the best we've done with one of the best DL players in the league is to accept a dump off trade then it might be the right trade under the circumstances but I still have to grade Mac poorly for allowing those circumstances to manifest. That trade is basically paying CHI to take Mo off our hands. 

[dbatesman]

Just now, Il Mostro said:

The contract and long term commitment is what makes the big haul ( multiple 1's or a 1 and a 2) that some think Mo should bring something that is out of the question.  If he brings back a mid-2nd round pick and nothing more, I will be disappointed.  But if it plays out that way I would rather take our pick at 20 plus a pick in the 2nd round, rather than jumping to 11, which is no man's land considering the Jets' needs.  I have a feeling they have a good shot at using Mo as part of a transaction (or part of multiple transactions) to get within range of one of the better QB's -- or another impact player.

Yeah, it seems like they're letting this play out until draft day. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a handshake deal with the Bears or someone else--if so-and-so is there at 11, we pull the trigger.

[Jolot]

The more I think about it the more I say we do it , this deal looks almost too good to be true , I mean if we don't do it I think Chicago's GM can just decide to take MO from us right ? I mean if we don't agree ?

[Jolot]

1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said:

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

No, no ...I'm with Gato, I say we just give Chicago what they want and go away peacefully ...you don't want to make these real good GMs mad.

[Sperm Edwards]

44 minutes ago, rex-n-effect said:

I follow your logic but if the best we've done with one of the best DL players in the league is to accept a dump off trade then it might be the right trade under the circumstances but I still have to grade Mac poorly for allowing those circumstances to manifest. That trade is basically paying CHI to take Mo off our hands. 

You could then say every good player who hits FA with no trade, and then signs a deal for franchise-tag type money, is a front office failure.

All of these players got more per year than the franchise tag amount: Suh was one of the best DL players in the league as well, got a huge contract from Miami, and Detroit got nothing in return. Olivier Vernon was deemed worthy of the highest non-QB contract in NFL history just a few weeks ago, but his rights didn't garner anything in trade. Denver didn't tag Julius Thomas, who became the NFL's highest paid TE. Buffalo didn't tag Byrd. NE didn't tag Talib.  Pittsburgh didn't tag Mike Wallace. I could go on.

Go look at the list of available FAs every year. Every one of them signed elsewhere, and their prior teams got zero in trade in return. (Then people complain when those same teams "always" get compensatory picks every year). I'm getting the feeling that if we'd done that - if we just let him go with no trade like Snacks, and then saw the ultra-high UFA contract with the bidding truly among everyone, since the pool of interested parties would be higher - that we would have been graded higher for it.

There's still time. Again, hopefully we can do better than this. But if we can't then we can't. You can't force teams to offer up their cheap-dollar first round draft picks for the most expensive non-QB in the game.

[rex-n-effect]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You could then say every good player who hits FA with no trade, and then signs a deal for franchise-tag type money, is a front office failure.

All of these players got more per year than the franchise tag amount: Suh was one of the best DL players in the league as well, got a huge contract from Miami, and Detroit got nothing in return. Olivier Vernon was deemed worthy of the highest non-QB contract in NFL history just a few weeks ago, but his rights didn't garner anything in trade. Denver didn't tag Julius Thomas, who became the NFL's highest paid TE. Buffalo didn't tag Byrd. NE didn't tag Talib.  Pittsburgh didn't tag Mike Wallace. I could go on.

Go look at the list of available FAs every year. Every one of them signed elsewhere, and their prior teams got zero in trade in return. (Then people complain when those same teams "always" get compensatory picks every year). I'm getting the feeling that if we'd done that - if we just let him go with no trade like Snacks, and then saw the ultra-high UFA contract with the bidding truly among everyone, since the pool of interested parties would be higher - that we would have been graded higher for it.

There's still time. Again, hopefully we can do better than this. But if we can't then we can't. You can't force teams to offer up their cheap-dollar first round draft picks for the most expensive non-QB in the game.

Trades and letting players go into FA are not the same thing. If we let Mo go then we would have our #20 pick plus a likely compensatory pick. With this hypothetical trade we have a #11 pick and that's it. Is the comp pick worth moving down nine spots in the first round. I guess it depends on who's available at #11 this year and what we could do with the comp pick next year. I'm not desperate for comp picks but given this draft I'm not sure we gain anything meaningful out of moving to #11, which means we get less from that trade than we would by cutting and taking the comp pick next year. 

[Sperm Edwards]

Just now, rex-n-effect said:

Trades and letting players go into FA are not the same thing. If we let Mo go then we would have our #20 pick plus a likely compensatory pick. With this hypothetical trade we have a #11 pick and that's it. Is the comp pick worth moving down nine spots in the first round. I guess it depends on who's available at #11 this year and what we could do with the comp pick next year. I'm not desperate for comp picks but given this draft I'm not sure we gain anything meaningful out of moving to #11, which means we get less from that trade than we would by cutting and taking the comp pick next year. 

That's precisely my point.

The compensatory pick would be ~pick #96-100 in the 2017 draft (theoretical value of ~pick #135 this year). The value of a trade-up from #20 to #11 this year is much, much higher at #50 overall.

Offering up a pick in the bottom of the 3rd round in next year's draft wouldn't get us close to #11 from #20. It wouldn't even get us to #18.

[varjet]

The Jets, Mo and the Franchise Tag are an interesting combination.  It is there so both the player and team come to a reasonable deal.  The Jets and Mo are not close.  The Broncos let Malik Jackson go, and the Dolphins let Vernon go.  They will get compensatory draft picks.  It appears that the smart teams are not willing to pay the Jets for the right to pay Mo alot of money.  I can see a draft pick switch, plus perhaps an extra mid-round pick, as being the comp a team that wants a guaranteed producer like Mo who is willing to pay his price.   

[Sperm Edwards]

If it was so easy to get 1st round compensation for players who will surely end up with top-line contracts, then no team would ever let their (soon-to-be) high priced player become a FA. There would always be a tag & trade done.

That's why there has been article after article all offseason long, stating how difficult it would be for the Jets to do a tag & trade with Wilkerson. Everyone would prefer a higher pick. I prefer we get into the top 5 for giving up Mo and our #20 pick. But there has to be a team on the other end willing to give that up. If there is, then that's awesome for us. If not, then all we can do is take the top offer presented, and choose between that and losing him for possibly nothing a year later.

We're only in the driver's seat if there are multiple teams eager to cough up their 1st rounder for Mo. I have little doubt that's what Maccagnan wants to get. 

[AFCEastFan]

I would like to see Mo traded to NE for Jonathan Cooper and a second round pick. 

[jett]

You guys do realize that we have zero leverage here right? Every team knows we want to shed Wilk, so where again does that leave us? 

[Savage69]

9 minutes ago, AFCEastFan said:

I would like to see Mo traded to NE for Jonathan Cooper and a second round pick. 

Yeah like BB is going to give Mo the money he wants...LOL

[SenorGato]

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You could then say every good player who hits FA with no trade, and then signs a deal for franchise-tag type money, is a front office failure.

Considering that orgs like the Packers, Steelers, and Pats don't lose their elite guys in their primes its closer to a FO failure than not. They may let a Mike Wallace go once in a while, but they consistently keep their elite guys through their peak years.

I think they might have a draft day trade lined up if a certain player is in a certain spot, but also know they can pretty much play this however they want. 

[Beerfish]

6 minutes ago, SenorGato said:

Considering that orgs like the Packers, Steelers, and Pats don't lose their elite guys in their primes its closer to a FO failure than not. They may let a Mike Wallace go once in a while, but they consistently keep their elite guys through their peak years.

I think they might have a draft day trade lined up if a certain player is in a certain spot, but also know they can pretty much play this however they want. 

Chandler Jones.

[SenorGato]

10 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

Chandler Jones.

I don't consider Jones a top shelf player. Limited as far as how he can be used. They'll be keeping Gronk and probably Collins or one of the young DBs instead.

[Beerfish]

4 minutes ago, SenorGato said:

I don't consider Jones a top shelf player. Limited as far as how he can be used. They'll be keeping Gronk and probably Collins or one of the young DBs instead.

You would have been better served by saying, 'well i forgot about him but in most cases my assertions are right' rather than what you just said.

[SenorGato]

20 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

You would have been better served by saying, 'well i forgot about him but in most cases my assertions are right' rather than what you just said.

Nah. He IS valuable as a guy whose 

skillset works best against the pass, but can basically only use him as a 4-3 DE. 

[AFCEastFan]

1 hour ago, Savage69 said:

Yeah like BB is going to give Mo the money he wants...LOL

Agreed, that's why I thought it would be funny -- effectively a Jones-for-Wilkerson trade straight up (using Arizona as the intermediary) that immediately undoes the benefit BB thought he was getting from trading Jones. 

 

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, SenorGato said:

Considering that orgs like the Packers, Steelers, and Pats don't lose their elite guys in their primes its closer to a FO failure than not. They may let a Mike Wallace go once in a while, but they consistently keep their elite guys through their peak years.

I think they might have a draft day trade lined up if a certain player is in a certain spot, but also know they can pretty much play this however they want. 

Wow, how can you person be so wrong about everything you type?

The Steelers have been famous for letting their high priced talent go for a couple of decades. They draft well at those positions in anticipation of those players becoming FAs and sign bargains, which you hate.

The Pats have let go of plenty of their elite guys when the prices got too high, from Lawyer Milloy to Richard Seymour to Mankins to now Chandler Jones, so what are you even talking about? You must read and follow football news like never.

The Packers let multiple receivers go with their great QB right in his prime and comfortable with them, elevating lower-priced "#3" receivers to those starting roles. They didn't "step up to the plate" for Raji at the time and have since been shown they were right. The ones they have no replacements for, like Rodgers and Matthews, are different and are therefore kept. But there were years they lost pretty much all their FAs.

 

The difference in all of this is that they let go of players if they have others to take their places. If not, then they retain the players. This is what the Jets are doing, with a worst-case fallback position of keeping a stud DE for another season.

[CanadaSteve]

1 hour ago, SenorGato said:

I don't consider Jones a top shelf player. Limited as far as how he can be used. They'll be keeping Gronk and probably Collins or one of the young DBs instead.

Brady seems to be in his prime....maybe they would trade him for Mo!

[SenorGato]

33 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Wow, how can you person be so wrong about everything you type?

The Steelers have been famous for letting their high priced talent go for a couple of decades. They draft well at those positions in anticipation of those players becoming FAs and sign bargains, which you hate.

The Pats have let go of plenty of their elite guys when the prices got too high, from Lawyer Milloy to Richard Seymour to Mankins to now Chandler Jones, so what are you even talking about? You must read and follow football news like never.

The Packers let multiple receivers go with their great QB right in his prime and comfortable with them, elevating lower-priced "#3" receivers no those starting roles. They didn't "step up to the plate" for Raji at the time and have since been shown they were right. The ones they have no replacements for, like Rodgers and Matthews, are different and are therefore kept. But there were years they lost pretty much all their FAs.

 

The difference in all of this is that they let go of players if they have others to take their places. If not, then they retain the players. This is what the Jets are doing, with a worst-case fallback position of keeping a stud DE for another season.

- The easy answer is that I'm not wrong. 

- Zero of those players you named left in their primes. Seymour hit his early 30s and had a couple years left, but Mankins and Milloy were more or less wrecked physically. The Steelers are famous for moving guys AFTER their physical primes - particularly LBs like Porter and Woodley. The Packers let James Jones go, keep Nelson and (the awesome) Cobb. Who is the best FA they've lost? Casey Hayward or Raji? Those aren't top players or even all that close. 

I'll get to the rest later but that was both predictable and predictably wrong. Those franchises all keep their top players, let mediocrities like the suddenly awesome BJ Raji (I mean, really?), older stars with maybe one or two more runs, and second tier starters on their roster go. 

[BklynJetsFan85]

should be mo str8 up for the 11th pick... if they have to trade the 20th pick as well then they should get a 3rd rounder as well in return

[Sperm Edwards]

2 minutes ago, SenorGato said:

- The easy answer is that I'm not wrong. 

- Zero of those players you named left in their primes. Seymour hit his early 30s and had a couple years left, but Mankins and Milloy were more or less wrecked physically. The Steelers are famous for moving guys AFTER their physical primes - particularly LBs like Porter and Woodley. The Packers let James Jones go, keep Nelson and (the awesome) Cobb. Who is the best FA they've lost? Casey Hayward or Raji? Those aren't top players or even really all that close. 

I'll get to the rest later but that was both predictable and predictably wrong.

No, you are wrong. Seymour had multiple pro bowl seasons left in him and you are exaggerating his age (I expect nothing less). Seymour and any of these players not signed to big money deals were players these teams liked. They were all money decisions.

Show me all the non-QB contracts those teams paid out when they already had above-average replacements on rookie deals.

Then show me the long list of NFL teams rumored to be pushing each other out of the way to win the Wilkerson Sweepstakes for the bargain price of a first round pick. 

He's simply not worth it for the Jets, just like he's not worth it to most teams, which is why it's been so hard to trade him.

[SenorGato]

11 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

No, you are wrong. Seymour had multiple pro bowl seasons left in him and you are exaggerating his age (I expect nothing less). Seymour and any of these players not signed to big money deals were players these teams liked. They were all money decisions.

Show me all the non-QB contracts those teams paid out when they already had above-average replacements on rookie deals.

Then show me the long list of NFL teams rumored to be pushing each other out of the way to win the Wilkerson Sweepstakes for the bargain price of a first round pick. 

He's simply not worth it for the Jets, just like he's not worth it to most teams, which is why it's been so hard to trade him.

By multiple you mean literally two seasons for Seymour before missing half a season then retiring at 33 (traded at age 30). No different than what happens to everyone great from Montana to Tomlinson. After that literally no one you listed did anything of note, and most of those guys aren't in the tier of a Richard Seymour or Mo Wilkerson. 

Of course he's worth it to the Jets - hence the tag being used at all and a complete lack of the desperation to make a move in all this time. If he wasn't he'd have been allowed to hit FA like those second and third tier guys Vernon and Jackson, cashing in on a year or two of higher end production like those guys got to.