Price to Falcons

[SECTION 11]

For the #23 pick.

An absolute steal for Atlanta.
Amazing what a grumpy player will do to a negotiating stance. Negotiating from a position of stregnth is right out the window.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

You know you just started "we should've tagged Boston" thread.It does go to show how big of mistake that was.We would be looking at a #2 at very,very least.

 

[Dback Jon]

Originally posted by Cbus cardsfan
You know you just started "we should've tagged Boston" thread.It does go to show how big of mistake that was.We would be looking at a #2 at very,very least.

Yes, in hindsight it looks that way.
Graves must have thought he could resign Boston to a long-term deal. Otherwise, there was no reason not to tag him.

 

[LVCARDFREAK]

That addresses so miuch for that team....They can now alter draft startegy, focus on defense .....I really feel the addition of Price to Atlanta could put them in agreat position to be in next years nfc title game....

yeah and I wont comment on Boston here....its beating a dead horse now!!

 

[Cardinal Bob]

From ESPN's article on this trade...

"Buffalo did not have a pick in the first round of this year's draft, having dealt it to New England last spring for quarterback Drew Bledsoe. The Bills adamantly wanted to recoup that first-round choice and used Price as the bait for doing so.

In fact, part of the reason the Bills assigned the "franchise" marker to their talented young wide receiver, rather than permit him to exit in free agency, was to gain something in return for him via a trade."


So if Buffalo can tag a guy with the intention of getting something in return via trade, why didn't we do the same with Boston?!?

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

i was just going to post the same thing.Didn't Graves,the savior, say that tagging a player to be traded wasn't allowed?Just another bit of moronic spin from our new GM.

 

[RLakin]

Originally posted by Dback Jon
Yes, in hindsight it looks that way.
Graves must have thought he could resign Boston to a long-term deal. Otherwise, there was no reason not to tag him.

You can do both. In fact, that's why the tag exists in the first place.

 

[Dback Jon]

Originally posted by RLakin
You can do both. In fact, that's why the tag exists in the first place.

But, if you tag someone, and then sign him to a long-term deal, don't you lose use of the tag for the duration of the deal?

 

[SECTION 11]

Originally posted by Dback Jon
But, if you tag someone, and then sign him to a long-term deal, don't you lose use of the tag for the duration of the deal?

yep

 

[Russ Smith]

Originally posted by SECTION 11
For the #23 pick.

An absolute steal for Atlanta.
Amazing what a grumpy player will do to a negotiating stance. Negotiating from a position of stregnth is right out the window.

Anybody else think Price is overrated? I think it's a good deal for Atlanta as long as they don't now give him 6-7 million per year but I bet they do.

Take him out of Buffalo with no Bledsoe and no Moulds and I bet his performance slips. Vick is exciting to watch but he's not close to Bledsoe yet as a passer. 94 catches 9 TD's last year I'm betting he's closer to 70 catches this year. Again he's a good player and Atlanta needed someone like him but I don't think they're getting as good a WR as they think they are.

I'm also betting that Josh Reed is going to get something like 60-80 catches this year in Buffalo and do a reasonable job of replacing Price. He's not as fast but he actually averaged more YPC this year as the 3rd WR. Like Price he'll have to get used to seeing more defense since he won't be a #3 WR.

 

[Tangodnzr]

Originally posted by Cardinal Bob
From ESPN's article on this trade...

"Buffalo did not have a pick in the first round of this year's draft, having dealt it to New England last spring for quarterback Drew Bledsoe. The Bills adamantly wanted to recoup that first-round choice and used Price as the bait for doing so.

In fact, part of the reason the Bills assigned the "franchise" marker to their talented young wide receiver, rather than permit him to exit in free agency, was to gain something in return for him via a trade."


So if Buffalo can tag a guy with the intention of getting something in return via trade, why didn't we do the same with Boston?!?

So exactly who was it that made these statements. It surely wasn't a member of the Bill's front office, just some hack from ESPN. That's like saying Bickley is the official mouthpiece for the Cards. C'mon. First of all, even if the Bills did plan to try and trade Price they surely aren't going to make a public statement in violation of the rules. And Who's to say they wanted to lose Price anyway. I know If I was Buffalo management, I'd prefer keeping a proven Price over some lower first round possibility. Certainly any team that has traded away a first round pick would like to recoup that somehow, that's not rocket science.
Also this is Arizona, the Cards, and David Boston...different places, different situations, etc. So comparing them is apples to oranges even if you did know the actual reasoning behind it.

 

[LVCARDFREAK]

Re: Re: Price to Falcons

Originally posted by Russ Smith
Anybody else think Price is overrated? I think it's a good deal for Atlanta as long as they don't now give him 6-7 million per year but I bet they do.

Take him out of Buffalo with no Bledsoe and no Moulds and I bet his performance slips. Vick is exciting to watch but he's not close to Bledsoe yet as a passer. 94 catches 9 TD's last year I'm betting he's closer to 70 catches this year. Again he's a good player and Atlanta needed someone like him but I don't think they're getting as good a WR as they think they are.

I'm also betting that Josh Reed is going to get something like 60-80 catches this year in Buffalo and do a reasonable job of replacing Price. He's not as fast but he actually averaged more YPC this year as the 3rd WR. Like Price he'll have to get used to seeing more defense since he won't be a #3 WR.

Actually Russ, I think the opposite. He has a bigger upside than Moulds does I think and had a great year last year. I think Moulds is the one who may have lost a step or two. I think the only reason Buffalo did this trade was to free cap space in order to sing Spike away from Cincy.

 

[RLakin]

Originally posted by Dback Jon
But, if you tag someone, and then sign him to a long-term deal, don't you lose use of the tag for the duration of the deal?

Not necessarily. You have a week from the time of the designation to work out a long term deal. This year the deadline was Feb 28th, or when free agency began. After that and until July 15th the team and player have to agree to the tender offer (average salary of top 5 players at that position)
Then after July 15th the team can renegotiate an extension which wouldn't cause you to lose the tag for the duration of the deal.
In essence, the only time that you can lose the tag (in the future) is between Feb. 28th and July 15th. And nobody is stupid enough to sign a long term deal during that time.

 

[BW52]

Originally posted by Cbus cardsfan
i was just going to post the same thing.Didn't Graves,the savior, say that tagging a player to be traded wasn't allowed?Just another bit of moronic spin from our new GM.

I think we all know how you feel CBus.

 

[Cardinal Bob]

Tango - it was Bills GM Tom Donohoe who made those statements.

 

[Cardinal Bob]

I somewhat agree with you Russ. I think Moulds being lined up opposite Price gave Price more opportunities to make plays. As a #1 guy now, I think his numbers may suffer a bit. But he is a pretty good WR in his own right.

And I also think Josh Reed will put up great numbers for Buffalo this year.

 

[RLakin]

Originally posted by Tangodnzr
So exactly who was it that made these statements. It surely wasn't a member of the Bill's front office, just some hack from ESPN. That's like saying Bickley is the official mouthpiece for the Cards. C'mon. First of all, even if the Bills did plan to try and trade Price they surely aren't going to make a public statement in violation of the rules. And Who's to say they wanted to lose Price anyway. I know If I was Buffalo management, I'd prefer keeping a proven Price over some lower first round possibility. Certainly any team that has traded away a first round pick would like to recoup that somehow, that's not rocket science.
Also this is Arizona, the Cards, and David Boston...different places, different situations, etc. So comparing them is apples to oranges even if you did know the actual reasoning behind it.

The Bills weren't going to pay 2 wide receivers #1 receiver money. Last year they signed #1 wide receiver Eric Moulds to a 6 year $60 million deal. They weren't going to do the same w/ Price, especially since the had a 2nd round pick Josh Reed, waiting in the wings. So yes the Bills did tag Price with every intention of trading him and probably to Atlanta. Price lives in Atlanta and the Falcons needed a #1 receiver.

The situation is a little different than Arizona's but the basic concept is the same. That concept is getting compensation for your investments. The Bills drafted and developed Peerless Price, so why shouldn't they get a draft pick in return for his taking those talents to another team. Same should have applied for Boston, even for just a 2nd round pick.

And comparing Len Pasquarelli to Dan Bickley is apples to oranges.

 

[Russ Smith]

Originally posted by Cbus cardsfan
i was just going to post the same thing.Didn't Graves,the savior, say that tagging a player to be traded wasn't allowed?Just another bit of moronic spin from our new GM.

He said it violated the intent of the rule and they didn't want to do that.

One thing I'm gathering about Graves, he's the guy in the fast lane doing 65 with everyone swerving around him honking and flipping him off because the rest of the traffic is doing 75!

I think it's a clear case of us following the letter of the rule to our own detriment.

 

[green machine]

Go

Who's to say we would have gotten a trade for Boston? Boston had his off-field issues, I haven't heard anything like that with Price. I imagine Graves explored the trade options and didn't have anything.

adam
________
Lovely Wendie

 

[Russ Smith]

Re: Re: Re: Price to Falcons

Originally posted by LVCARDFREAK
Actually Russ, I think the opposite. He has a bigger upside than Moulds does I think and had a great year last year. I think Moulds is the one who may have lost a step or two. I think the only reason Buffalo did this trade was to free cap space in order to sing Spike away from Cincy.

Moulds may well have lost a step but he's a more complete player than Price he's stronger and he can catch the ball in traffic more.

Most teams keyed on Moulds not Price(New England doubled Moulds virtually the entire game both times). Price is younger so in that sense his future is brighter, but I think Price benefitted more from Moulds than the other way around. Price's emergence certainly helped Moulds but he was a great player before Price got there.

 

[Cardinal Bob]

Originally posted by Russ Smith
One thing I'm gathering about Graves, he's the guy in the fast lane doing 65 with everyone swerving around him honking and flipping him off because the rest of the traffic is doing 75!

LMAO! Good one!

 

[RedStorm]

Originally posted by Cardinal Bob
LMAO! Good one!

I Double that!!!!

 

[LVCARDFREAK]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Price to Falcons

Originally posted by Russ Smith
Moulds may well have lost a step but he's a more complete player than Price he's stronger and he can catch the ball in traffic more.

Most teams keyed on Moulds not Price(New England doubled Moulds virtually the entire game both times). Price is younger so in that sense his future is brighter, but I think Price benefitted more from Moulds than the other way around. Price's emergence certainly helped Moulds but he was a great player before Price got there.

Oh dont get me wrong I like Moulds but if I am a GM staring across the table at these two (barring the fact they signed Moulds already to a huge deal last year) and both needed to be resigned I think I would go with the Price/Reed combo before Moulds/Reed combo. I just think Price is younger, quicker and hasnt reached his full potential. With Moulds, this is his prime and this is probably as good as he gets (granted thats still pretty damn good) I guess I look at it more from a youth prespective.

Either way, I think Finneran and Reed will both probably have good years for their respective teams with the way this has played out.

Atlanta is definatly a team on the rise and their potential is unlimited with Vick and Price now.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

adam, do you really no one would trade ANYTHING for boston? if you do, you're mentally challenged. the chargers just gave a buttload of cash to him. i'm pretty sure you could have gotten a 2nd, maybe even a first for him. and to assume that graves looked into it is assuming just too much. i suppose you'd like me assume that the cardinals have been good also. bananas and grapefuits baby, bananas and grapefruits!

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEE!