Mario Trade Idea

[cadams]

multiple pcis for mario would be awesome, but i don't see anyone giving up more than one pick for him this year.

[Nconroe]

I'm still for keeping Mario if he will sign a cap friendly extension.

Team does have a lot of tough FA decisions to make.

[popanot]

Originally Posted by cadams

multiple pcis for mario would be awesome, but i don't see anyone giving up more than one pick for him this year.

I think this is relative to the trading partner and where they pick. For example, I'd give up Marios for a high-to-mid #1 if a guy we want is there, but I'd still try to do a pick swap in the latter rounds. For example, if we're trading with CAR and can't get additional picks, try to get their #1 and swap #2's or #3's. That way we get to pick earlier in the respective round.

With that being said, I would not give up Mario for only a low #1 (say, to GB or NE) without additional picks or a high (#1 or #2) 2013 pick. Mario was a #1 overall pick, young, is proven, and will probably have a pretty cap friendly deal (for the first few years at least) once he renegotiates. Obviously a player/pick trade would work too. He does have player value to us so we can't afford to just give him away.

[HPF Bob]

Mario's worth more than a low first (besides, we already have a low first). But a mid-to-high first plus future picks or a player that meets a need (WR or secondary, principally) and I think it's a win/win.

Besides, if we get back someone like Landry who was himself a high first, that offsets some of the cost to the new team for Mario's contract which means we should be getting back a premium player, not a fringe or washed-up player.

Any team that gets Mario is getting a Pro Bowler in the prime of his career. His knees and ankles are sound and he is still a mismatch freak. They OUGHT to be paying a high price for him, just as they would a top QB, DT or LT. That means two #1s or some equivalent (look at what Denver got for Jay Cutler who was drafted in the same draft at #11).

And if you consider we are offering a proven product while saving a team the expense of paying an unproven #1 draft choice and a premium player, it can make economic sense for a club that lacks a pass rush and desperately wants one.

Also remember that Mario was not a senior when we drafted him. He wasn't the child that Okoye was but he was still younger than your typical draft pick so he ought to be in his prime right now.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

Mario's worth more than a low first (besides, we already have a low first). But a mid-to-high first plus future picks or a player that meets a need (WR or secondary, principally) and I think it's a win/win.

Besides, if we get back someone like Landry who was himself a high first, that offsets some of the cost to the new team for Mario's contract which means we should be getting back a premium player, not a fringe or washed-up player.

Any team that gets Mario is getting a Pro Bowler in the prime of his career. His knees and ankles are sound and he is still a mismatch freak. They OUGHT to be paying a high price for him, just as they would a top QB, DT or LT. That means two #1s or some equivalent (look at what Denver got for Jay Cutler who was drafted in the same draft at #11).

And if you consider we are offering a proven product while saving a team the expense of paying an unproven #1 draft choice and a premium player, it can make economic sense for a club that lacks a pass rush and desperately wants one.

Also remember that Mario was not a senior when we drafted him. He wasn't the child that Okoye was but he was still younger than your typical draft pick so he ought to be in his prime right now.

That is a compelling case.

Now what if somebody else had a great but not game changing DE who was approaching 30 and had a history of injury concerns and wanted your next two #1 picks?

[cadams]

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

Mario's worth more than a low first (besides, we already have a low first). But a mid-to-high first plus future picks or a player that meets a need (WR or secondary, principally) and I think it's a win/win.

Besides, if we get back someone like Landry who was himself a high first, that offsets some of the cost to the new team for Mario's contract which means we should be getting back a premium player, not a fringe or washed-up player.

Any team that gets Mario is getting a Pro Bowler in the prime of his career. His knees and ankles are sound and he is still a mismatch freak. They OUGHT to be paying a high price for him, just as they would a top QB, DT or LT. That means two #1s or some equivalent (look at what Denver got for Jay Cutler who was drafted in the same draft at #11).

And if you consider we are offering a proven product while saving a team the expense of paying an unproven #1 draft choice and a premium player, it can make economic sense for a club that lacks a pass rush and desperately wants one.

Also remember that Mario was not a senior when we drafted him. He wasn't the child that Okoye was but he was still younger than your typical draft pick so he ought to be in his prime right now.

1. a pro bowler in the prime of his career that has been placed on IR both of the last two years with season ending injuries.

2. unproven rookies will cost A LOT less than mario under the new salary cap system.

3. resigning mario will likely mean they have to put the restricted tag on foster (after smith told him last year they would get him a new contract if he had another good year) and could lead to a holdout. (foster is way more valuable than mario)

4. denver got that for cutler because quarterbacks are more valuable than any other position.

i hope i am wrong (because pass rushing ends are very valuable) and they can get a couple of picks for him, anything is possible (see palmer deal this year.), but i think that unless mario is willing to have a VERY reasonable contract he won't be back. they are too close to the cap and signing myers and foster have to be priorities. if the texans can even get a 1st round pick between 15 and 25 i would take it. that would allow them to get a receiver and cb in the first round, and them pick up a speed rusher at OLB with a later pick.

and while snyder has done some odd things, so anything is possible, i don't think there is any way they give up the #6 pick AND landry for mario.

[HPF Bob]

Mario turns 27 later this month. And many sack leaders were effective well into their 30s.

Turns out Landry is approaching free agency himself:

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...laron-landry/1

He was IR'd with an achilles injury.

[barrett]

That really is younger than I thought and changes the game some.

But for fun...what if somebody else had a great but not game changing DE who was 27, would require a huge extension after the trade, and had a history of injury concerns, and they wanted your next two #1 picks? What do you say?

Just because we can create a scenario where we think he is worth this does not mean it will happen. When was the last time a DL was traded for two first round picks or something comparable? Richard Seymour was two years older, without the health concerns, and every bit the impact player and he only got one 1st round pick, and the raiders had to be involved for that to happen.

[chuck]

All I know is I certainly am glad that Charley Casserly will have nothing to do with this.

[WMH]

You can never really buy too much in what coaches say, but Kubiak sure didn't sound like someone who did not want Mario back on his radio show today. He said something to the effect of, "man, I can't wait to see what he could do with a whole season in this system."

Facts are facts, the cap is what it is, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to see them legitimately try to work a deal out.