02-16-2018, 02:39 AM
(02-16-2018, 12:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I have a question.
What are the minimum number of teams required to make an NFL trade?
An easy, and equally simplified counter to that would be:
What trade value/compensation is greater or is more valueable than zero? (A: Any)
Sure, one can argue that it is indeed as simple as saying it takes two to tango. That you can't fault them for something out of their control, if it's just a matter of no teams having interest, or teams offering little to nothing. And that's fair, if he true.
Looking at it reasonably though, I think most would agree that him not being traded had nothing to do with a lack of interest or value. That doesn't have to necessarily mean that it has to be the Bengals fault. Just simply that he has/had trade value, and that it's easily proven and argued that teams (plural) had both the need and means to offer something for him.
Did they play their hand wrong? I don't know, nor really care enough to argue one way or another. I just know the result, getting nothing outside of a comp pic, is less than ideal. They could have got somehing more, but for whatever reason it didn't work that way. I can accept the argument of the importance of the backup position and the merits of hanging on to him, I just can't get on board with the idea that the reason could potentially be that no one wanted to deal for him. There were certainly teams who wanted him and would have gladly offered more than what we ultimately will receive. I feel pretty confident in representing that statement as a fact.
They could have traded him numerous times, and chose not to. It is what it is. I just thinking pointing to lack of interest or an unwillingness to deal from our NFL peers seems silly. They either chose not to trade him, or set their asking price higher than what the market ultimately dictated. Right or wrong, that's up to you.
