PDA

View Full Version : Cassel's Trade Value


BradysKnee
02-10-2009, 01:26 PM
Since Matt Cassel (If retained by the pats) is a RFA at the end of next season, and the maximum RFA tender would garner a 1st and 3rd if he signs with another team, does this make his minimum value a 1st and 3rd?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong there. Does the fact the pats would have RFA leverage next off-season raise his trade value at all?

I still think the pats get a 1st and 3rd, or 2nd and next years first from a team.

bored of education
02-10-2009, 01:47 PM
WTF. We have 4 Cassel threads. Stick to those

FlyingElvis
02-10-2009, 01:48 PM
ibtl

:rofl:

Splat
02-10-2009, 01:50 PM
To anwser the question I believe his trade value is more then he is worth don't get me wrong he is a good player but some team is going to give up to much for him.

Babylon
02-10-2009, 01:53 PM
I think a 1st from a Minnesota or a Tampa Bay would be fair for both sides.

The Dynasty
02-10-2009, 01:57 PM
The most I would give is a 2nd Rounder. I dont care how well he did this year. Most NFL QB's could have put up those numbers he did with Randy Moss and Wes Welker and even Jabar Gaffney. So if He came to Minnesota he will probably struggle so I rather have Garcia or someone else for cheaper.

FlyingElvis
02-10-2009, 01:58 PM
Fair value based on the franchise tag, previous deals (Schaub, mostly) and the current QB situation for the team he would go to tell me he's worth the first round pick and either a second rounder (maybe a 2010 conditional) or at least a 1st/3rd.

The following teams would get an upgrade at the position and have a pick the Patriots would like. (the #1 overall Detroit owns is not something NE would even want to have)

18. Bears
19. Buccaneers
20. Lions (f/Cowboys)
22. Vikings

BradysKnee
02-10-2009, 02:24 PM
Forgot about the lions 20. I think that puts them in play for sure.

bored of education
02-10-2009, 02:28 PM
Tony G > Cassel

:D

FlyingElvis
02-10-2009, 02:36 PM
^ I got your Tony the G right here!


Matt Cassel and Pats round 2 (58)

for

Gonzo & KC round 2 (34) & 2010 a conditional 2nd or 1st based on Cassel's performance.

Basileus777
02-10-2009, 02:40 PM
Schaub went for two 2nds and a swap of 1sts and I think Cassel easily has more value than Schaub did.

AntoinCD
02-10-2009, 02:43 PM
Tony G > Cassel

:D

Yea I know but he's playing out of position at TE lol. I'd take Gonzo and a 2nd for Cassel

BradysKnee
02-10-2009, 03:21 PM
Yea I know but he's playing out of position at TE lol. I'd take Gonzo and a 2nd for Cassel

Ditto, He'd be a big impact on the Pats offense, especially with Watson a free agent next year.

bored of education
02-11-2009, 06:06 PM
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2009/02/kiper_likes_cas.html




ESPN draft analyst Mel Kiper is holding a conference call today and the Patriots came up a few times.

Kiper was asked to put himself in the position of the Lions (picks 1, 20, and 33) and Chiefs (picks 3 and 34), assuming they were considering taking quarterbacks Matthew Stafford and Mark Sanchez in the draft.

Given that, would he take Stafford or Sanchez, or would he rather have Matt Cassel in a trade?

"If I were Detroit or Kansas City, I would make that move in a heartbeat. If you’re asking me if I would rather have Matt Cassel or Matthew Stafford or Mark Sanchez, I’d rather have Matt Cassel," Kiper answered.

Menardo75
02-11-2009, 09:06 PM
Rather have Cassell than Cutler huh?

CT Bronco Fan
02-11-2009, 09:12 PM
Rather have Cassell than Cutler huh?

Kiper has been a long time Cutler hater. Ever since he predicted that Leinart and Young would be much better QB's than Cutler.

Boston
02-12-2009, 12:13 AM
I hope the Vikings give anything near a first for him. That would make my day.

AntoinCD
02-12-2009, 09:36 AM
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2009/02/kiper_likes_cas.html




ESPN draft analyst Mel Kiper is holding a conference call today and the Patriots came up a few times.

Kiper was asked to put himself in the position of the Lions (picks 1, 20, and 33) and Chiefs (picks 3 and 34), assuming they were considering taking quarterbacks Matthew Stafford and Mark Sanchez in the draft.

Given that, would he take Stafford or Sanchez, or would he rather have Matt Cassel in a trade?

"If I were Detroit or Kansas City, I would make that move in a heartbeat. If you’re asking me if I would rather have Matt Cassel or Matthew Stafford or Mark Sanchez, I’d rather have Matt Cassel," Kiper answered.

I can understand that from a viewpoint that Cassel has done it in the NFL. A lot of people seem to forget that Cassel very nearly beat out Matt Leinart at USC and for now Stafford and Sanchez are both raw and untested at this level. Now I wouldn't think for one second that either team would trade #1 or #3 for him but definitely couldn't be described as the worst move if either team took him.
Although one thing I disagree with Kiper on is the fact that he said Cassel is better than Cutler. Cutler is going to be a regular at the probowl and is definitely a step if not two ahead of Cassel.

bored of education
02-12-2009, 09:40 AM
I can understand that from a viewpoint that Cassel has done it in the NFL. A lot of people seem to forget that Cassel very nearly beat out Matt Leinart at USC and for now Stafford and Sanchez are both raw and untested at this level. Now I wouldn't think for one second that either team would trade #1 or #3 for him but definitely couldn't be described as the worst move if either team took him.
Although one thing I disagree with Kiper on is the fact that he said Cassel is better than Cutler. Cutler is going to be a regular at the probowl and is definitely a step if not two ahead of Cassel.

If it wasn't for a great session of spring ball by leinart, cassel would have been the starter and Leinart was also Pete's guy.

FlyingElvis
02-12-2009, 11:09 AM
Kiper has been a long time Cutler hater. Ever since he predicted that Leinart and Young would be much better QB's than Cutler.

But at least he's not bitter. :rolleyes:


I suppose Cassel could eventually be better than Cutler if he continued to play as well as he did last season, but right now I'd take Cutler in a heartbeat.

However, I still think Cassel is a safer move than any rookie draft pick.

Geo
02-15-2009, 10:36 AM
Rather have Cassell than Cutler huh?
Not just Cutler, Aaron Rodgers too. The full quote:

“He came out the same year as those other three (class of 2005) quarterbacks (Alex Smith, Jason Campbell and Aaron Rodgers), and he’s better than those other three, and I’m including (Jay) Cutler (from the class of ’06) in that. I’d rather have Cassel than Cutler. So, to me, I think Cassel is more than worthy of being someone Kansas City or the Detroit Lions goes after.”
I'll give him Alex Smith and maybe Jason Campbell, but Rodgers and Cutler? I nearly burst out laughing when I read that.

Just another reminder why I put no stock into anything Kiper Jr. has to say. He's good for talking up kids on Draft day, for ESPN, but after that it all falls apart.

LonghornsLegend
02-15-2009, 10:44 AM
Kiper has been a long time Cutler hater. Ever since he predicted that Leinart and Young would be much better QB's than Cutler.

Pretty much, which is lame in itself...They could really do alot better then him if they just didn't want to stick with tradition.

gpngc
02-15-2009, 03:28 PM
Didn't want to start a new thread...

This idea popped into my head:

Patriots get Julius Peppers, Panthers get Matt Cassel.

Deal?

Boston
02-15-2009, 03:33 PM
Didn't want to start a new thread...

This idea popped into my head:

Patriots get Julius Peppers, Panthers get Matt Cassel.

Deal?

You should definately keep that in your head.

yourfavestoner
02-15-2009, 03:35 PM
Since Matt Cassel (If retained by the pats) is a RFA at the end of next season, and the maximum RFA tender would garner a 1st and 3rd if he signs with another team, does this make his minimum value a 1st and 3rd?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong there. Does the fact the pats would have RFA leverage next off-season raise his trade value at all?

I still think the pats get a 1st and 3rd, or 2nd and next years first from a team.

Matt Cassell is not going to be a RFA next year. He'll be an UFA.

gpngc
02-15-2009, 03:48 PM
You should definately keep that in your head.

Definately?

What's wrong with the deal though?

+ pick(s) to either side if your problem is with value.

Geo
02-15-2009, 04:27 PM
Matt Cassell is not going to be a RFA next year. He'll be an UFA.
Actually, if there's no new CBA by next offseason, then Cassel will be a RFA. Because if the league reaches 2010 under the current CBA, the uncapped year, then players will have to have accrued 6 years in the league to become unrestricted free agents. Currently, the requirement is 4 years.

2009 being Cassel's 5th year in the league.

Since Matt Cassel (If retained by the pats) is a RFA at the end of next season, and the maximum RFA tender would garner a 1st and 3rd if he signs with another team, does this make his minimum value a 1st and 3rd?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong there. Does the fact the pats would have RFA leverage next off-season raise his trade value at all?

I still think the pats get a 1st and 3rd, or 2nd and next years first from a team.
Actually, to tender a restricted free agent, a team must pay the greater of the two choices:

1. the specific RFA contract offer, the standard business of varying levels of compensation proportional to cost.

2. 110% of the previous year's salary.

Normally #2 doesn't come into play at all, because in the current capped system, guys who become RFAs do so having played on rookie contracts. There isn't more money for those guys, compared to even the lowest RFA contract offer, in 110% of their previous season's salary.

In the case of Cassel though, it now does come into play. If he becomes a RFA next year, which will happen if there is no new CBA come next offseason and whatever team he's with doesn't sign him to a long-term deal ... the RFA tender cost will be 110% of this year's franchise tag ($14.65M), so that would be $16.115M.

GET LOOSE
02-15-2009, 04:31 PM
I would give up a 1st rounder or maybe two 2nds. Hes a good QB I like him and I never like any Patriot. Doubt my Jets trade for him but I wouldnt mind giving our 1st for him mostly because we are built to win now and getting him would put us right up there with the best.

Geo
02-15-2009, 04:35 PM
Minnesota trading for Cassel makes sense imo, because they are essentially a quarterback away. And they don't have anyone on the roster right now who is close to good enough.

If I was Minny though, I'd seriously consider trying to sign Kurt Warner once free agency hits.

Granted a guy like Jeff Garcia might be a much better fit, because of his great experience in the West Coast offense, but if you're going to give it your best shot with a vet, I'd try Warner first.

BradysKnee
02-15-2009, 06:09 PM
I would give up a 1st rounder or maybe two 2nds. Hes a good QB I like him and I never like any Patriot. Doubt my Jets trade for him but I wouldnt mind giving our 1st for him mostly because we are built to win now and getting him would put us right up there with the best.

To trade him to the Jets I'd think they'd want something more in the neighborhood of 2 1sts and a 2nd. :)

CashmoneyDrew
02-15-2009, 06:16 PM
To trade him to the Jets I'd think they'd want something more in the neighborhood of 2 1sts and a 2nd. :)

Exaclty. They're not gonna hand over Cassel to a division rival for anything less than a king's ransom.

FlyingElvis
02-16-2009, 09:35 AM
^ I think it would be flat out refusal to let him go to the Jets. Hell, there might even be a "Favresque" clause where the team that takes Cassel has to give up 3 1st rounders if they trade him to NYJ.


Talking with my brothers yesterday and they both seem to think the Pats are better off keeping Cassel. Does anybody agree with that?

Personally, I say get the value now while it's sky high. Who knows what happens if he has to play again in 09 and craps out gets hurt . . .

O'Connell is a 3rd round pick. If Brady isn't 100% lets see what KO has to offer.

Bucs_Rule
02-16-2009, 10:02 AM
Whoever trades for Cassel would sign him to a big contract extension. Shipping him off straight to NY would cause a huge cap hit.

Can't see NE trading him to anyone in the AFC, especially when their more options in the NFC for a young QB.

gramage
02-16-2009, 10:08 AM
If I were the Lions I'd offer the 20th pick for Cassel, and consider a LT with the first pick to keep him standing (better to trade down, but I don't think anyone will want to move into the 1st pick.)

Bigburt63
02-16-2009, 10:19 AM
It doesnt make sense financially to keep Cassell, unless they know Brady isn't going to be ready for much of next year (which I doubt).

FlyingElvis
02-16-2009, 10:26 AM
^ I agree with both of you.

Brady going down in game one means he has way more time to recover than previous QBs with the same surgery. Carson was week 1 of the playoffs and McNabb was week 6 or so, iirc. Even with setbacks he should be fine for week 1.

Cassel will be far to expensive a backup. Give that job to KO.

Splat
02-16-2009, 10:28 AM
If I were the Lions I'd offer the 20th pick for Cassel, and consider a LT with the first pick to keep him standing (better to trade down, but I don't think anyone will want to move into the 1st pick.)

That would not be a bad move.

MetSox17
02-16-2009, 10:34 AM
That would not be a bad move.

I think when you look at the market the Patriots will be having for Cassel, it is a bit of a reach. Not many teams are gonna be willing to throw a first rounder at them, so why should Detroit? They will have the opportunity to take a LT there at 20, or maybe even move up a few picks for one of the big four, so if they're into Stafford, pick him at 1 and deal with the rest later.

HellonEarth84
02-17-2009, 02:27 PM
First and a Third rounder.

Something like that.

Babylon
02-17-2009, 02:51 PM
If I were the Lions I'd offer the 20th pick for Cassel, and consider a LT with the first pick to keep him standing (better to trade down, but I don't think anyone will want to move into the 1st pick.)


If the Lions were actually decent that move might make perfect sense but by the time they're any good Cassel will be in his 30s. Also this year you arguably(and i'll take some hits for saying this) can get an OT at 20 that is pretty close to what you would get at the top of the draft for that position.

gramage
02-17-2009, 04:19 PM
If the Lions were actually decent that move might make perfect sense but by the time they're any good Cassel will be in his 30s. Also this year you arguably(and i'll take some hits for saying this) can get an OT at 20 that is pretty close to what you would get at the top of the draft for that position.

I think Atlanta/Miami are proof that it doesn't have to take a long time to turn a team around if you get the right guys. The top LT's are grouped together fairly close so I see what your saying there, so maybe you take a defender like Curry instead (a reach as the first pick, but take what you need.)

I don't like Stafford so that affects my opinion a lot. If they think he's a future top QB no way that trade happens obviously.

FlyingElvis
02-18-2009, 08:48 AM
^ Exactly. A team like Detroit has more options available b/c they have the # 1 pick and can take Stafford. The other teams (Bucs, Vikes, Bears?) don't have that luxury. Their decision would be based on whether they can get a better value than Cassel with their 1st round pick. Sanchez? Doubt it, but he probably won't be there by 20 anyway, and only one team can take him.

Next time you look over someone's mock consider this: does Matt Cassel help the the Vikings/Bucs/Bears more than the 1st round player drafted in the mock?

That's the answer to Cassel's value, plain and simple. And there really can be no discussion of Cassel as a "one year wonder" b/c at least he has proven he can be a wonder at least once, which is more than you can say for the draft pick.

Geo
02-18-2009, 09:12 AM
That's the answer to Cassel's value, plain and simple. And there really can be no discussion of Cassel as a "one year wonder" b/c at least he has proven he can be a wonder at least once, which is more than you can say for the draft pick.
Except he was successful with Bill Belichick, Randy Moss, Wes Welker, and the rest of the Patriots offense. Hardly a situation another team - especially the ones looking for a QB - that can be recreated.

FlyingElvis
02-18-2009, 09:23 AM
So every other team should just admit their inferiority and inability to put together a talented roster?


Or maybe they should NOT take a QB at all because they don't have good enough WRs and coaches to allow that QB to succeed?


What exactly is the logic behind that tired argument, anyway? I don't understand it at all.

bored of education
02-18-2009, 09:28 AM
So every other team should just admit their inferiority and inability to put together a talented roster?


Or maybe they should NOT take a QB at all because they don't have good enough WRs and coaches to allow that QB to succeed?


What exactly is the logic behind that tired argument, anyway? I don't understand it at all.

The way I see it, a team should not sacrfice the chance of drafting other players to fill other immediate needs to get Cassel. Teams not rebuilding can do whatever they like and spend wahtever they want to get Cassel. Do I think Cassel is a franchise signal caller, maybe..maybe not. He has not proven anything to me this past year, other than he is a solid QB. Take that how you want.

Geo
02-18-2009, 09:32 AM
The argument is that he's not as proven as you'd quaintly like to believe.

Dan Orlovsky would look a hell of a lot better playing for Bill Belichick, and playing with the Patriots offense, than he would for the '08 Detroit Lions.

Ask any team that was burned signing a free agent who looked good with a good team, in their system, but didn't look as good afterwards with their new team.

Maybe that's why the argument is "tired" then? Because it's happened before and will happen again.

Matthew Jones
02-18-2009, 09:44 AM
The argument is that he's not as proven as you'd quaintly like to believe.

Dan Orlovsky would look a hell of a lot better playing for Bill Belichick, and playing with the Patriots offense, than he would for the '08 Detroit Lions.

Ask any team that was burned signing a free agent who looked good with a good team, in their system, but didn't look as good afterwards with their new team.

Maybe that's why the argument is "tired" then? Because it's happened before and will happen again.

One solid season in the NFL under any circumstances (and by solid I mean he was more deserving of that Pro Bowl spot than Kerry Collins with his 12 TDs) is still more proven than either Stafford or Sanchez. The financial commitment for a quarterback is huge early in the draft and even then if you play the odds only one of Stafford/Sanchez will even be a great player anyways. If I was a team like Minnesota, I would absolutely trade that first, and if I was Detroit, I'd strongly consider #20 and say $40 million or so for Cassel rather than $70 million or more for Stafford.

FlyingElvis
02-18-2009, 09:48 AM
It's tired because the same applies to Stafford, Sanchez, Freeman and any other QB that could land on some team's roster. None of them played with Moss & Welker, nor were they coached by Belichick, but it's completely irrelevant because there is no way to compare any of them since they've all been in different systems with different players around them.

Do we know that a QB a team might draft at #20-24 would be more successful than Cassel was with NE? The only thing we seem to know for sure is that Cassel is the only QB out there that has had success in the NFL. How is that less valuable than the "potential" of a guy like Freeman for a team like Tampa, Minne, etc.?

The only thing I've said Cassel has proven is that
at least he has proven he can be a wonder at least once, which is more than you can say for the draft pick.
(which was said in a poorly structured grammaticalistical way, I now notice :))

So I'm not sure what you mean in discussing what I "quaintly like to believe." Do you disagree that Cassel has proven he can be a wonder at least once?

Yes, teams that took the FA have had him bust, but so have teams that drafted a player instead of taking the FA.

bored of education
02-18-2009, 10:10 AM
Yes, teams that took the FA have had him bust, but so have teams that drafted a player instead of taking the FA.

That proves that I would not spend more than one pick and sacrificing the future on someone like Cassel. The way I see it wouldKC swap 1sts with the Lions, trade a 3rd and future 3rd for Stafford? I wouldn't do it just like I wouldn't trade 2-3 picks for Cassel.

Both players have a 50-50 chance of booming or busting even if Cassel was successful last year.


But that is just me I am not a GM :D

FlyingElvis
02-18-2009, 10:28 AM
^ I completely understand that, but KC is also in position to get Stafford or Sanchez. Minn or TBay won't have those 2 available (most likely, anyway) so have to consider the value of Cassel vs. Freeman or someone else.

On top of that, any deal for Cassel could have conditional picks to reduce the damage were he to bust.

I find the 'talent around him' argument to be worthless. It is a cop out. It can be applied to draftees as well, therefore it has no merit. Apples & oranges, as it were.

bored of education
02-18-2009, 10:34 AM
^ I completely understand that, but KC is also in position to get Stafford or Sanchez. Minn or TBay won't have those 2 available (most likely, anyway) so have to consider the value of Cassel vs. Freeman or someone else.

On top of that, any deal for Cassel could have conditional picks to reduce the damage were he to bust.

I find the 'talent around him' argument to be worthless. It is a cop out. It can be applied to draftees as well, therefore it has no merit. Apples & oranges, as it were.


I understand your thoughts on the talent around him. Which is why I say hold on to the picks to get talent around whoever you have as QB.

The talent around him is just going to be used as their argument IF he does bust. people can say told you so. lol

nepg
02-19-2009, 06:29 PM
I think the Pats would be happy with a mid-late first or early second and a conditional 2010 3rd or 4th that can become a 1st. And I think it's more than fair for teams potentially involved.
________
AVANDIA SETTLEMENTS (http://classactionsettlements.org/)

Splat
02-21-2009, 09:03 AM
http://draftheadquarters.com/blog/?p=475

"The Lions are currently seriously considering dealing for Patriots quarterback Matt Cassel. According to my source, New England is “actively looking to deal him.”

FYI this was posted from another board and I don't know any thing about the site the link is from so just putting it out there.

Splat
02-23-2009, 08:37 AM
Trading Patriots' Cassel not as easy as it looks (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=tradingpatriotscasselnot&prov=tsn&type=lgns)

vikes_28
02-23-2009, 08:41 AM
I do not want Cassel in Minnesota. The end.

MetSox17
02-23-2009, 10:16 AM
Trading Patriots' Cassel not as easy as it looks (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=tradingpatriotscasselnot&prov=tsn&type=lgns)

That story doesn't say anything we as fans don't already know. Yes, we understand that the trading team will have to pay up. All this story is saying is that there's rough patches between the Patriots FO and other teams'. Whoop-dee-do, that's a surprise.

Ultimately, New England will lower their demands (whatever those may be right now) so they won't have to sink 30 million dollars of cap space into the QB position. They could use that money to improve on defense.

Bigburt63
02-23-2009, 11:32 AM
That story doesn't say anything we as fans don't already know. Yes, we understand that the trading team will have to pay up. All this story is saying is that there's rough patches between the Patriots FO and other teams'. Whoop-dee-do, that's a surprise.

Ultimately, New England will lower their demands (whatever those may be right now) so they won't have to sink 30 million dollars of cap space into the QB position. They could use that money to improve on defense.

The only way that won't happen is if two teams are seriosuly interested in getting Cassel. If that happens then the Patriots could play one team against the other and drive up the price, or even bring it back to their original demands, whatever those are.

nepg
02-23-2009, 06:54 PM
The Lions would be making the smart move if they opted for Cassel over Stafford... Getting a proven commodity to throw to Calvin Johnson and a franchise LT at #1 is a much better course of action. And it won't cost them much at all.

You put Cassel with CJ and the potential LT, and acquiring good free agents is no longer the problem it is now.

I think Backus would make a good LG, or could just be cut. Despite having 3 years left on that awful contract, they still might save money by cutting him (only $15.5m was guaranteed).

But I don't know that Detroit goes this route...which would create problems for the Pats.

*The Jets are obviously a non-option.

*The Bears might be happier with Orton if he had weapons to throw to.

*I doubt Tampa Bay wants to or can invest the resources required to get Cassel.

*See above for the Lions

*Minnesota just made a deal for Sage Rosenfels, so they're out.

*St. Louis is a possibility, but they really don't have any cap space.

*KC retained Chan Gailey, making another look at Tyler Thigpen most likely for them.

*San Fran probably doesn't want to invest in Cassel with Shaun Hill there and the possibility of Mark Sanchez at #10.
________
Glass Bong (http://glassbongs.org/)

Smokey Joe
02-23-2009, 11:04 PM
I think the only somewhat possible scenario's are the Lions, Bucs, and 49ers. I think the Bucs are most likely as they need a legit starting QB, and they are too low in the draft to get either of the top 2 QB's.

gpngc
02-23-2009, 11:09 PM
What about the Panthers?

Smokey Joe
02-23-2009, 11:10 PM
What about the Panthers?
they got no money. And I don't see a Peppers for Cassel swap happening.

MetSox17
02-24-2009, 10:12 AM
they got no money. And I don't see a Peppers for Cassel swap happening.

That would actually make SOME sense, if the Patriots were to throw in a little extra on top. I'm sure releasing Delhomme would create a nice little amount of cap room on top of getting rid of Peppers' ridiculous salary.

nepg
02-24-2009, 10:24 AM
Tampa's the only one that makes much sense. They have money and the right picks. #50 and a conditional 2010 pick - maybe one or two late 2009 picks gets it done.
________
Laguna Bay II Condo (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

kiranadwaney
02-24-2009, 07:00 PM
i think cassel's value should be similar to what atlanta got for shaub a few years back. so maybe swapping the 20th and the 23rd pick and then the lions also giving their 2nd round.

Nalej
02-25-2009, 04:17 PM
^^^ That makes sense. That'd be smart to do.

BradysKnee
02-25-2009, 07:19 PM
i think cassel's value should be similar to what atlanta got for shaub a few years back. so maybe swapping the 20th and the 23rd pick and then the lions also giving their 2nd round.

I'd be happy with that as a Pats fan.

Addict
02-26-2009, 05:37 AM
i think cassel's value should be similar to what atlanta got for shaub a few years back. so maybe swapping the 20th and the 23rd pick and then the lions also giving their 2nd round.

we're not gonna trade for Matt ******* Cassel.