PantyHose&Furs Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 I just looked at the 'Skins schedule and it's possible they could lose all their remaining games. I don't remember what we got in return when we traded Kendall and am wondering how their final record/draft position impacts us? The more they lose the better our draft pick, correct? Next year? 2009? Please help me understand this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSJets Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 I just looked at the 'Skins schedule and it's possible they could lose all their remaining games. I don't remember what we got in return when we traded Kendall and am wondering how their final record/draft position impacts us? The more they lose the better our draft pick, correct? Next year? 2009? Please help me understand this... I believe the draft pick was contingent on his % of playing time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 i thought it was based on Kendall's PT not team record Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 I think he means that the worse Washington is, the better our draft pick is. He's been injured though - that's the better question. Did Kendall have to play 16 games or 14 games or what? If I recall, the deal was (curiously): 5th rounder in 2008 if he didn't meet playing-time incentives 4th rounder in 2009 if he did It was curious/strange because in theory (on paper) these two picks have the identical value so this makes no sense. Unless the papers/media all got it wrong at the time. If anyone remembers, is this the deal or is there another pick I'm not aware of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 I think he means that the worse Washington is, the better our draft pick is. He's been injured though - that's the better question. Did Kendall have to play 16 games or 14 games or what? If I recall, the deal was (curiously): 5th rounder in 2008 if he didn't meet playing-time incentives 4th rounder in 2009 if he did It was curious/strange because in theory (on paper) these two picks have the identical value so this makes no sense. Unless the papers/media all got it wrong at the time. If anyone remembers, is this the deal or is there another pick I'm not aware of? That's the way I remember it and I also found it "curious". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 . Unless the papers/media all got it wrong at the time. that's my guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUM-KNEE Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 I think he means that the worse Washington is, the better our draft pick is. He's been injured though - that's the better question. Did Kendall have to play 16 games or 14 games or what? If I recall, the deal was (curiously): 5th rounder in 2008 if he didn't meet playing-time incentives 4th rounder in 2009 if he did It was curious/strange because in theory (on paper) these two picks have the identical value so this makes no sense. Unless the papers/media all got it wrong at the time. If anyone remembers, is this the deal or is there another pick I'm not aware of? Right-O Sperm, http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AoQlXSiu898bu4MfGz..Qyk5nYcB?slug=ap-redskins-jetstrade&prov=ap&type=lgns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Right-O Sperm, http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AoQlXSiu898bu4MfGz..Qyk5nYcB?slug=ap-redskins-jetstrade&prov=ap&type=lgns yeah, it makes no sense. If Kendall had played say 95% of the snaps or whatever, that theoretically means Washington got a lot of value out of him and should have to give us more. That's what makes these picks "conditional" in the first place. Well he met the condition and our reward is......the same damn thing! I mean I'd rather have the 5th this year; we can trade it for a 2009 4th on our OWN if we don't see good enough value. Not a huge big deal b/c we had painted ourselves into a corner with Kendall. But then, for the same cap # as this year (since we're absorbing an accelerated hit both this year & next year for trading him before his contract was up), we could have had him as our starting LG all year. Once it was obvious that we had no replacement, we should have just paid him. Sticking to your guns is admirable up to the point that you look totally like a foolish amateur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaffneycatch Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 yeah, it makes no sense. If Kendall had played say 95% of the snaps or whatever, that theoretically means Washington got a lot of value out of him and should have to give us more. That's what makes these picks "conditional" in the first place. Well he met the condition and our reward is......the same damn thing! I mean I'd rather have the 5th this year; we can trade it for a 2009 4th on our OWN if we don't see good enough value. Not a huge big deal b/c we had painted ourselves into a corner with Kendall. But then, for the same cap # as this year (since we're absorbing an accelerated hit both this year & next year for trading him before his contract was up), we could have had him as our starting LG all year. Once it was obvious that we had no replacement, we should have just paid him. Sticking to your guns is admirable up to the point that you look totally like a foolish amateur. I remember hearing the same thing about the deal...and I also remember thinking at the time that it was "curious." BUT, just because these two things are supposedly equal ON PAPER accoring to some draft value chart created by who knows who, doesn't mean their neccessarily equal in the eyes of most GMs. In fact, assuming the reports are correct, clearly they are NOT equal in the eyes of MT. It seems that MT and/or the Skins believe the 4th in 2009 is worth more than the 5th next year. And I wouldn't assume that if we get the 5th in 2008 we can neccessarily turn it into a 4th in 2009... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 I remember hearing the same thing about the deal...and I also remember thinking at the time that it was "curious." BUT, just because these two things are supposedly equal ON PAPER accoring to some draft value chart created by who knows who, doesn't mean their neccessarily equal in the eyes of most GMs. In fact, assuming the reports are correct, clearly they are NOT equal in the eyes of MT. It seems that MT and/or the Skins believe the 4th in 2009 is worth more than the 5th next year. And I wouldn't assume that if we get the 5th in 2008 we can neccessarily turn it into a 4th in 2009... If we are going on past track record they want the fifth in '08 so that they can package it to trade for a higher fifth in '08. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.